<\/p>\n
\nAccording to the ruling issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union, temporary and permanent workers must be compensated in the same way.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The CJEU addresses the question raised from the point of view of the legality of direct discrimination of temporary workers with respect to permanent workers.<\/p>\n
The case that has led to this decision is that of an employee who worked as a secretary for seven years in the Ministry of Defense, chaining several interim contracts until the reinstatement of the owner. After her dismissal, the worker filed a lawsuit alleging that the interim contracts through which she was hired were entered into in fraud of the law and that her employment relationship was indefinite, therefore the termination of such relationship implied the payment of compensation. The claim was dismissed by the Social Court, for which reason he appealed to the Madrid Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
The TSJ of Madrid observes, on the one hand, that the hiring of the worker through an interim contract meets the requirements demanded by the national regulations in force, and, on the other, that the termination of said employment contract is based on a reason objective.<\/p>\n
However, the TSJ Madrid submits a question for a preliminary ruling to the CJUE, considering that the worker could have the right to claim compensation in the absence of objective reasons that justify the difference in treatment between workers with a fixed-term contract and workers with employment contracts. indefinite duration, in accordance with the provisions of clause 4, paragraph 1 of the annex to Council Directive 1999\/70\/EC (Framework Agreement of the ETUC, UNICE and the POC on fixed-term work) which establishes the following :<\/p>\n
\u201cPrinciple of non-discrimination: With regard to working conditions, workers with a fixed-term contract may not be treated less favorably than comparable permanent workers simply because they have a fixed-term contract. , unless different treatment is justified for objective reasons.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nThis equal treatment would conflict with the provisions of article 49.1.c) of the ET, which provides that at the end of the contract, except in the cases of interim contracts and training contracts, the worker will be entitled to receive compensation of an amount equivalent to the proportional part of the amount that would result from paying twelve days of salary for each year of service.<\/p>\n
This article establishes a difference in treatment in working conditions between permanent workers and workers with a fixed-term contract. This inequality is even more evident with regard to workers with an interim contract, to whom the national regulations do not recognize any compensation when said contract ends in accordance with the regulations.<\/p>\n
\nThis ruling affects both interim contracts and fixed-term contracts<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The CJEU's response to the question referred for a preliminary ruling establishes that clause 4, section 1, of the Framework Agreement must be interpreted as follows:<\/p>\n
The concept of "working conditions" includes the compensation that an employer is obliged to pay to a worker due to the termination of his fixed-term employment contract.<\/p>\n
This clause is opposed to a national regulation, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which denies any compensation for termination of contract to the worker with an interim contract, while allowing the granting of such compensation, in particular, to comparable permanent workers. The mere fact that this worker has provided his services by virtue of an interim contract cannot constitute an objective reason that allows justifying the refusal that said worker has the right to the aforementioned compensation.<\/p>\n
The decision of the Court of Justice, which has the nature of res judicata, and is therefore binding not only for the national court that referred the matter for a preliminary ruling, but also for all other national courts of the Member States, establishes not only the illegality of the difference in treatment with respect to interim employees, but goes further, arguing that discrimination applies to any eventual contract.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
According to the ruling issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union, equal compensation is required for temporary and permanent workers. The CJEU addresses the issue raised from the perspective of the legality of direct discrimination between temporary workers and permanent workers. [\u2026]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":59631,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-59630","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-noticias"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aseryde.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59630","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aseryde.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aseryde.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aseryde.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aseryde.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=59630"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/aseryde.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59630\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aseryde.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/59631"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aseryde.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59630"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aseryde.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59630"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aseryde.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59630"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}