Susana Rodríguez Escanciano, Professor of Labor Law and Social Security at the University of León, establishes, the use of this contractual modality has reached high figures in some strategic public sectors such as health, education or social services, where employees Workers accumulate long periods in a precarious situation, either due to the lengthening of the ties for several years, or due to the reiteration in their use, either objectively (on the same job), or through subjective chaining (with identical employer). Within this framework, the Supreme Court understood that in cases of termination of interim contracts due to amortization of vacancy, the procedures established for collective or objective dismissals with compensation of 20 days per year should be followed.
While if the contract ended due to the incorporation of the owner of the place and completion of the reservation of the holder of the place would not have provided any compensation. In this sense, the judgment of the whatsapp mobile number list High Court of European Justice of September 14, 2016, the matter of De Diego Porras, resolves an incidental issue promoted by the High Court of Justice of Madrid, is key. The matter has its origin in the relationship of Ms. De Diego Porras who served since February 2003 as a secretary in various sub-directors of the Ministry of Defense under various interim contracts.
The last interim contract, entered into on August 17, 2005, was intended to replace a worker, in a situation of exemption from labor obligations linked to her union status. The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid observes, on the one hand, that the hiring of Ms. Diego Porras through an interim contract meets the requirements of the national regulations in force, and, on the other, that the termination of said contract of work is based on an objective reason. The European Court in this sentence points out that the mere fact that this worker has provided his services under an interim contract cannot constitute an objective reason that allows justifying the refusal to grant said worker the right to the aforementioned compensation.