De Diego Porras Case
Is it still advantageous for companies in Spain to enter into temporary employment contracts after the ECJ judgment in the De Diego Porras Case?
The De Diego Porras case following the ECJ’s ruling has developed increased resonance in the general public as well as throughout all the media grounds based on its social character as well as its possible implications on the legal system in Spain (InfoCuria, 2016). Viewing back over the recent employment laws developments in the states nation of Spain, it is clear that very little has transformed. Writers who offer corporate governance law assignment help at Edudorm essay writing service notes that the legislation in Spain establishes the general right to for a comparable compensation to unfixed employees. Temporary contracts as well as the training contracts exclusion from the general entitlement to the termination of contract compensation holds zero objective reasoning justification from the perspective of the community according to Luxembourg court (InfoCuria, 2016). It is clear that after the case De Diego Porras ruling by the ECJ it is no longer advantageous for corporations to practice temporary employment.
Based on the case law of the settled case, the nondiscrimination principle necessitates comparable scenarios not to be treated in a distinct manner at all and distinct scenarios must not be treated in similar nature unlike the treatment is justified in an objective nature (InfoCuria, 2016). The De Diego Porras case judgment directly holds implications on the labor legislation in Spain. This is mainly because the legislation system in Spain denies the provision of any kind of compensation to employees after the termination of an employment contract while permitting for such types of compensation to be given inter alia for all the comparable fixed employees (InfoCuria, 2016). The obvious fact that the employee has accomplished his daily basis tasks of the non-fixed replacement work contract holds no constitute of an objective basis justification of the refusal to give such form of compensation to the employee.
Background of the De Diego Porras Case
On 14th September the year 2016 the ECJ delivered its ruling on the De Diego Porras case making the declaration of the legislation of Spain on compensation for non-fixed or rather the temporary worker’s replacement contracts to be illegal (InfoCuria, 2016). Experts who offer competition and consumer law assignment help at Edudorm essay writing service indicates that the ECJ ruled that compensation of non-fixed employees after the termination of a replacement contract is not legal because it is a breach of the directive council rule in regard to the agreement framework on the fixed employment term. The ECJ established that the legislation of Spain practiced discrimination against those employees that are not employed on fixed terms. The Spanish legislation was found to be discriminating against non-fixed replacement employees by continuously failing to give the workers any kind of working compensation after the contract has been terminated while the fixed employees are granted compensation pays (InfoCuria, 2016).
The claimant in the De Diego Porras case was a worker of the defense ministry in Spain who was under numerous fixed duration replacement contracts that existed amid the year 2003 and the year 2012 in a replacement of a colleague on the mandate of a trade union (InfoCuria, 2016). After the replacement, employment contract had been terminated by the institution in order to permit the reinstatement of the employee who had been replaced the claimant placed a challenge for the termination condition as well as its legality. The labor law had rejected her claim and thus she made an appeal to follow up at the high court level (InfoCuria, 2016). Through this system of justice, it was noted that under the requirement of fixed employment contract of replacement the claimant contract fully satisfied the necessities under the legislation of labor in Spain and thus the termination was in line with the law meaning that the dismissal was legal.
Under the worker’s statute in Spain workers, termination that is grounded on objective basis holds a compensation pay of full twenty days for each year that the employee provided service. On the other hand, fixed employment termination entails the pay of twelve days in every year of serviced. The reinstatement termination is however not entitled to any kind of compensation at any circumstance. With the uncertainty of the legal national provision in regard to the particular case, the high court in Madrid referred De Diego Porras’s case to ECJ for a ruling in regard to the right of compensation for the claimant after her employment contract was terminated (InfoCuria, 2016).
Impact of the Diego Porras Case
Since the ruling of De Diego Porras’s Case, there have been a lot of discussions on the credibility of the ruling and the way forward in Spain. The high court which later referred the case to the ECJ made a judgment issuance that stated that the claimant employment contract satisfied the requirements of permanent employment and the termination was in adjustment to the Spanish legal law (InfoCuria, 2016). However, the court stated that the employee was entitled to compensation similar to the permanent employees. It can be argued that fixed and temporary employees are beneficial to the corporation but their treatment should be different in regard to the amount of compensation.
In Spain, more than four million employees work under temporary contract and the ruling of the De Diego Porras case will hold a direct impact on most organizations. Tutors who offer constitutional law assignment help at Edudorm essay writing service acknowledges that this, therefore, makes the suggestion that employees will have to consider the major differences that exists amid fixed and full-time employees while providing employment. Most corporations are more likely to start practicing fixed employment in order to avoid the tendency of paying huge amount while compensating nonfixed workers after the expiry of their agreement. From the ruling, more workers are bound to claim their compensation from the corporations if they generally doubt the legality of their dismissal (InfoCuria, 2016).
The circumstances under which the temporary employees attain their contract are varies and thus most corporations feel that the compensation should also be different. The ruling will lower the rate of employment since corporations in Spain are more unlikely to hire employees on non-fixed replacement terms based on the involved compensation (InfoCuria, 2016). This, therefore, means that the rate of those without employment in Spain is more likely to rise. The employment conditions and requirement will be raised as the general compensation that is being required for terminating employment agreement is similarly high for the corporations. More conflict can be expected in general since the principles of compensation for the both kinds of workers have not been identified and illustrated in details as required (InfoCuria, 2016).
The ruling of ECJ on the De Diego Porras case holds important effects in Spain. However, it is more unlikely that other European nations are likely to face major effects such as UK, Germany as well as France. This is because the states hold no distinct terms in regard to possible compensation application to indefinite and permanent contracts (Ana De La Peña, 2016). The application of unfair rights of dismissal begins after the second year of employment which applies to all forms of contracts and the only thing that qualifies one to attaining compensation is their service length and not the form of contract that they work under. Under this, the ECJ ruling will directly affect Spain. This is because the labor laws that are held in Spain are very specific in regard to contracts replacement. They are not based on the provision of compensation of non-fixed employees based on their service duration but the type of employment that they are under. Thus the decision by ECJ will possibly affect the labor legislation in Spain in the context of replacement contracts (InfoCuria, 2016).
Situation after De Diego Porras Case
With the ruling, it is obvious that it is disadvantageous for corporations that are based in Spain to practice temporary employment. Temporary employees are now entitled to compensation as an equal treatment for accomplishing the given tasks which make it expensive for corporations currently. The practice of temporary employment by corporations in Spain is rather expensive after the cases ruling as it holds no advantageous (Ana De La Peña, 2016). Authors who offer contract law assignment help at Edudorm essay writing service points that it is thus more advantageous for the companies to work more on fixed employment since it is associated with more flexibility and less cost. Previously the corporations would hire workers on a temporary basis in order to escape huge compensation for fixed working. However, with the ruling this means that hiring temporary employees for the corporation will require more finances. Entering into temporary employment in Spain for any corporation is thus a disadvantage. Corporation should aim at retaining employees to ensure that they save more cost and also retain skills as well as a good reputation in regard to the legislation law (Ana De La Peña, 2016).
The ruling by the ECJ does not provide justification for the ruling principles and thus there is unclear precedent in regard to the termination of non-fixed and fixed employment. It is very obvious that the ruling has generated a situation where there is a rise of increased litigation and conflicts in the context of Spain as a state (Ana De La Peña, 2016). With the existence of the different cases, there are growing queries on whether the corporations in Spain should directly rise the amount of compensation in the scenario where a fixed working contract has expired or whether the corporation should directly implement a dismissal based on the existing grounds that are objective.
Conclusion
After the ruling of the ECJ on the De Diego Porras case, it is clear that there is a growing need for the labor legislation to develop more clear principles. This is in regard to compensating non-fixed as well as fixed workers after an agreement has expired or terminated. Mentors who offer commercial law assignment help at Edudorm essay writing service recognizes that there is too much confusion that was developed by the ruling of the De Diego Porras case since it is now very challenging for the corporations and employees to understand their rights. Employees are rising to challenge their agreement termination and this has created a situation where more and more cases are being brought to the court with compensation claims. The labor law is thus being challenged by the ruling of the court which in turn necessitates more changes.
References
Ana De La Peña. (2016). The judicial equalization of permanent and temporary workers in Spain.
InfoCuria. (2016). Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber), 14 September 2016 on Ana de Diego Porras Vs Ministerio de Defensa.
