The Superior Court of Xustiza de Galicia (TSXG) rejected the compensation requested from Xunta de Galicia for permanent and non-fixed social assistance after taking up this position as a public employee.
Specifically, he rejected the idea that the Autonomous Management shoudl compensate 32,000 euros to a social worker who in 2016 obtained, with a sentence and after remaining on an interim basis since 2007, permanent non-fixed-term status for fraud and abuse of fixed-term employment or, in subsidiary, with 10,000 euros for having ceased the position held by you as a non-permanent permanent employee and having resumed this position in 2023 as a permanent public employee after having passed the convened selection procedure.
Refusal of compensation
The High Court of Galicia thus confirmed the sentence of the social Court n. 1 of Ourense, which had also rejected the applicant’s request, “considering that the fact that she continues to provide services after having passed a selective process with the status of public employee and has, consequently, stabilized her relationship with the Administration defendant, does not allow us to believe that she is entitled to any of the compensation requested by her”.
the TSXG explains in the resolution, regarding compensation as a sanction for fraud or abuse of fixed-term employment, that jurisprudence “has deemed that the transformation of the employment relationship into one of indefinite and non-fixed term was a valid measure to address abuse and fraud in fixed-term employment”.
Moreover, it underlines that, even though “non-permanent permanent workers are entitled to an allowance of twenty days per year in the event of depreciation of the position or even in the event of termination due to regulatory coverage of the vacant position occupied”, it underlines that the jurisprudence “has also indicated that there is no valid dismissal of a non-permanent permanent worker for regulatory coverage of the occupied position, if the occupied position concerns public employees”.
In this case, according to the General Section of the Social Chamber, “the peculiarity is added that the person who ultimately held the office of official was the applicant herself”. Therefore, he concludes that “In no case will compensation be applicable of 20 days per year worked with a maximum of 12 months’ pay”, as it indicates that this compensation “is provided for by jurisprudence for the dismissal of a permanent worker who is not fixed by the regulatory coverage of the position, which is not that case”.
In the ruling, reported by the TSXG, the magistrates also They refuse the compensation requested for leaving office.as they believe that the loss of the status of non-permanent permanent agent, having passed the selection and holding the status of public employee, “does not cause any damage, given that one has moved to a more favorable situation, since he now maintains a stable relationship with the ‘Administration”.
To which he adds that “this loss of the status of non-permanent permanent employee cannot be classified as voluntary, since it was the applicant who voluntarily underwent the selection and voluntarily assumed the position of public employee”.
“it cannot in any way be drawn that the CJEU recognizes the right to compensation for the simple consideration of the fraudulence of the fixed-term contract and without there having previously been a termination of the employment relationship, a termination which, evidently, is what which causes the damage that must be compensated, as is clear from the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court”, warns the TSXG, while underlining that, in this case, it is not “a case of contractual termination, since the plaintiff continues to work for the accused.”
Furthermore, he points out that “no other specific damage was proven personal, family, professional or economic deriving from previous employment of the position of non-permanent permanent staff”.
the General Section of the Social Chamber underlines that “the right to financial compensation for temporary staff when contractual fraud is detected arises when the provision of services ceases, since the damage caused to the compensation derives from the termination itself and the loss of job, not from the pre-existing fraud situation.”
The sentence, which is not final becuase it can be appealed, has six magistrates voting against it, who maintain that the requested compensation must be granted in relation to the abusive nature of the fixed-term employment.
What are the legal implications of transitioning from interim to permanent employment in the public sector?
Interview Between Time.news Editor adn Legal Expert on Recent TSXG Ruling
Time.news Editor (TNE): welcome to Time.news! Today, we’re exploring a recent ruling from the Superior Court of Xustiza de Galicia that has stirred quiet a conversation around employment rights and public sector laws. Joining us is Dr. Elena Martinez, a labor law expert. Thank you for being here, Dr. Martinez.
Dr. Elena Martinez (EM): Thank you for having me! It’s a pleasure to discuss this critically important topic.
TNE: Let’s dive right into it.The court recently rejected a compensation claim from a social worker, who sought 32,000 euros for her permanent non-fixed social assistance after transitioning to a public employee status.What dose this ruling signify in the realm of public employment law?
EM: This ruling is notable as it highlights the complexities of employment status within the public sector, particularly concerning fixed-term and permanent positions. The court’s decision underscores that transitioning to permanent status through a proper selection process mitigates claims for compensation based on previous interim roles.
TNE: The worker in question had been in an interim role since 2007 and only obtained her permanent position after a selection process in 2023.How common is it for public employees to experience this transition, and what are the implications for their rights?
EM: It’s quite common in many public sectors, especially where workforce needs frequently shift. However,it creates a gray area concerning job security. In this case, the court’s ruling indicates that once an employee stabilizes their status through a competitive selection process, prior claims related to interim employment may be dismissed.This sets a precedent ensuring that employees must be vigilant about their employment transitions and rights.
TNE: The court also mentioned that merely continuing to provide services under a permanent position doesn’t justify compensation for earlier roles. How does this stance impact the morale of public workers who may feel underappreciated for their long service?
EM: It can considerably impact morale. Many public workers invest years in their positions, frequently enough without certainty about their long-term employment status. While this ruling emphasizes legality and procedure, it may led to feelings of undervaluation among employees who perceive their contributions as being overlooked. It’s crucial for administrations to recognize their working history to foster a more supportive work habitat.
TNE: In denying the claim, the court confirmed the previous ruling by the social Court in Ourense. Could you explain the importance of judicial consistency in employment cases?
EM: Judicial consistency is vital in employment law. It ensures that similar cases are treated alike, which builds trust in the legal system among employees and employers alike. When courts uphold similar decisions, it promotes clarity on legal expectations and minimizes the uncertainty that can arise from differing interpretations. this stability is essential for maintaining fair and equitable treatment in employment matters.
TNE: Some might argue that this case reflects broader trends in public sector employment practices. Do you think this ruling could influence future cases or labor policies in Galicia or beyond?
EM: absolutely. This ruling could set a precedent that influences how claims are handled for fixed-term employees across the region. It may encourage public administrations to review their employment policies and practices, particularly regarding the management of interim positions and the rights of employees transitioning to permanent roles. Ultimately, this could lead to legislative reforms to better protect public workers.
TNE: Thank you, Dr. Martinez, for shedding light on this complex issue. It’s essential for our readers to understand how such rulings can affect not just one worker but also the broader workforce landscape.
EM: Thank you for having me.It’s been a pleasure discussing these crucial topics regarding labor rights and public employment.
TNE: And thank you to our audience for tuning in. We hope this discussion provided you with valuable insights into the implications of this ruling. Stay informed with Time.news as we continue to monitor developments in labor law and employment rights.