Supreme Court changes doctrine on subcontracting and rejects temporary limitation of contracts for specific work or service
The Social Chamber of the Supreme Court changed its doctrine and rejected the temporary limitation of employment contracts with regard to commercial contracts of companies.
Since the end of the 1990s, case law has admitted that the contract for a specific job or service can adapt its duration to that of the contract.
This criterion is abandoned by the sentence, of which Judge M Lourdes Arastey Sahn was the rapporteur, adopted unanimously by the plenary session of the Chamber on December 15.
The Chamber underlines that those who offer services to third parties exercise their essential activity by entering into contracts with them and, therefore, it is illogical to consider that the essential of this activity has the exceptional character which must be respected by the employment contract. or service. The judgment specifies that it is difficult to continue to maintain that the company can sustain the essence of its activity in a workforce subject to the indeterminate labor relations regime.
The sentence adds that the automation of this temporary rental, by the simple mechanism of the type of activity, can lead to situations where the guarantees sought by European Union law are endangered.
Finally, let us recall that the legislator has designed other instruments to respond to the variability of business needs and to take decisions on the size of the workforce.