Moved Permanently

The document has moved here.

The Supreme Court forces to review contracts by work
The companies will have more difficulties to put aim to popular work contracts or service. A sentence, in which the Supreme one unifies doctrine, introduces ties to the dismissals motivated by the will of the company. The companies will have to be more careful, from now on, in the use of work contracts or service. The Supreme Court has restricted the possibilities of dismissal in this type of labor relations in a sentence that settles any new reinterpretación - doctrine unifies and that already has raised the controversy in some of the great offices of lawyers. Fall0, in which the option is restricted to give by trenched a work contract in a subcontracted company, armors a principle of great future importance for the companies: when it has been “the will of the contractors, by imputable cause to them” the one that motivates “the aim of the contract”, it will not be possible “to be invoked as it causes of the extinction of the contract [of work or service] the fulfillment of I finish [of that work]”. That is to say, that will only accept the conclusion of the labor relation when it is by cause other people's to the industralist. In the sentence at issue a case was analyzed in which a company subcontracted services of tele-marketing with another company, which, as well, took control of the services of a professional for the development of these tasks through a work contract. Later, the two companies broke in mutual agreement the relation of subcontracts, moment at which the second company decided to stop counting on the services of the worker. The reaction of the dismissed professional was the one to demand before Justice the case assuring that it was an inadmissible dismissal, although Justice had endorsed until now numerous similar cases. The director of the labor department of Ernst & Young Lawyers, Jesus Domingo Aragon, indicates that “the Supreme one, returns to give a return of nut against the companies and establishes more rigidities in the temporary hiring”. For Domingo, the Supreme one “clarifies that the extinction of the contract in mutual agreement between the companies, it prevents to validly extinguish temporary contracts of the workers whose contracts of work were tie to the same, condemning by inadmissible dismissal the company subscribed that them and extinguished on the basis of this allowed extinction of the mercantile contract”. The labor expert aims that previously “the sentence of the Supreme one surprises because Sentencia of the Court of Social of Seville like the one of the Court the Superior of Justice of Andalusia revokes so much, with soothes in Seville [that misestimated the case], without a very extensive reasoning. Indeed, the Courts inferiors had indicated that such facts were not sufficient to condemn by inadmissible dismissal when maintaining that the extinction by mutual agreement of the contract was not comparable either to the extinction by unilateral will of the company that it contracted the worker”. The impact of the sentence will be great. The sub-contracting of services has been implanted of form totally generalized. Workings like the cleaning, the monitoring, the urgent transport, the agency or the commercialization have decided on this mechanism. And, as well, the subcontracted companies choose labor work contracts, indeed by their flexibility. From now on, nevertheless, the reason for the aim subcontracts of it could be analyzed with greater severity to see if the company must pay indemnification by dismissal or no. The experts indicate that the sentence abre, this way, the door to interpret that, when the aim of subcontracts shelter an interest of the affected company, the conclusion of work contracts could be described as inadmissible dismissal, with the consequent payment of the indemnification to the worker. The keys · The aim of the mercantile relation of subcontracts by a cause imputable to the company that carries out the benefit of those services and has signed corresponding labor contracts prevents to this same company to give by concluded the labor relation without paying for that reason the indemnifications by dismissal. · The contracts that intend the work accomplishment or services with autonomy and own independence, within the activity of the company, are valid temporary contracts although the arranged activity is the normal one of the company, as long as this activity is limited in the time, is well-known by the parts and operates, therefore, like foreseeable a temporary limit. · The sentence of the Supreme Court revokes so much Sentencia of the Court of Social of Seville like the one of the Court the Superior of Justice of Andalusia, with soothes in Seville, without a very extensive reasoning, according to the experts of Ernst &Young Lawyers. · The companies will have to anticipate the labor consequences now to end a mercantile relation by sub-contracting when the cause can be imputed them. · However, Sentencia does not change to the Jurisprudence reiterated about the licitud and validity of celebration of temporary contracts of work for subject work or certain service to the duration of the contract unless this one concludes in mutual agreement. Justice returns to hit the labor flexibility the recent sentence of the Supreme Court on the inappropriateness in the contract dismissals by work or service is the last fence that has tended the High Court between the market of work and the flexibility. In the last year, the sentences have been numerous that have imposed new restrictions to the labor relations. In a recent resolution - to see EXPANSION of the 20 of April, the High Court struck a hard blow to the commercial tactics of banks and boxes to extend his commercial schedule to take care of the needs of the clients. Two companies raised their workers to happen of a continuous day to another game. But the plan never was carried out, since the Supreme one considered that the kind decision “against the collective negotiation”. The jurisprudence of the Supreme one also has reached to the methods of variable repayment. In March, the High Court recognized the right to receive bonus to an executive who left the group voluntarily, without turning the time demanded to receive that extra (to see EXPANSION of the 25 of April). The following case arrived from the hand of the Law of Equality. As a result of the system of bonus implanted in a company of Spanish telephony, the Supreme one considered that the tie extra payments to the number of labor days that the worker fulfills discriminate against the embarrassed employees, prevailed of this incentive if they decide to enjoy complete way of his permission of maternity; to see this newspaper of the 15 of March.
 
[Back]
Home Sitemap Contact us

Friendly site that we think is very safe:

Parse error: syntax error, unexpected $end, expecting T_FUNCTION in /home/teledra/public_html/BKP_CLND/BKP_CLND/BKP_CLND/BKP_CLND/85bc744253ebd947d0d719.php on line 255