A judge has agreed to convert an interim of the Diputación de Barcelona into permanent, with the same regime of stability and immobility of career officials, due to the “abusive employment relationship” established by the provincial entity, which forced the worker to chain in ten years six contracts to do the same job.
This has been determined by the head of the contentious administrative court number 17 of Barcelona in a sentence, in which it considers the worker’s appeal, considering that his interim has been “unjustifiably long” and that his position is of a “structural” nature, since “It serves to cover stable and permanent ordinary needs”.
The worker appealed to justice after the Barcelona Provincial Council refused to give him permanent status, despite the fact that he has chained six contracts for ten years to do the same work as an interim.
The judge rejects in his sentence, which can be appealed, that the economic crisis or budgetary restrictions are a sufficient excuse to justify this interim and stresses that the negotiations between the Provincial Council and the unions to try to solve the problem are not an obstacle for the worker claim your rights.
For this reason, he considers his demand and transforms his “abusive temporary” employment relationship and recognizes his right to remain in his job “with the same rights and subject to the same regime of stability and immobility” that applies to civil servants of career, although without acquiring this condition.
In this way, he chained a new contract between September and December 2011, another between January and June 2012 and a fourth between January 2013 and June 2019, at which time he started to fill a position as a senior technician, which meant a professional promotion and salary improvement.
This situation was maintained with a contract between June and December 2019, which was followed by a new one from December 2019 to the present, which means that in ten years and seven months it has chained six appointments.
According to the judge, the “only reasonable conclusion” in this case is that the plaintiff’s contract is effectively “abusive”, since he has performed the same functions “constantly and continuously” through successive interim contracts.
“This situation is due to the failure of the employer to comply with its legal obligation to organize a selective process,” the judge highlights, pointing out that the duration of the interim has been “unjustifiably long.”