Fixed-term contracts are like the phrase from the popular game of the goose: "from goose to goose and I roll because it's my turn", since the chaining and succession of temporary contracts is a very common practice in companies in our country, causing abuse and fraudulent use of them.
Article 15.5 of the Workers' Statute establishes a mechanism to combat the abuse of temporary contracts. According to the current wording of article 15.5 ET: the chaining of contracts job seekers database with the same worker implies the conversion of the contract into an indefinite one . Limits are established in certain cases to avoid abuse or excessive temporary contracts. However, the current regulations do not penalize when the same job is occupied by different workers.
We must differentiate between article 15.3 ET and article 15.5 ET. Both provisions lead to the same result: conversion of the contract into an indefinite one, but they apply to different cases.
Article 15.3 will apply in cases of fraud of law and Article 15.5 ET when the illegality occurs due to chaining (it being sufficient to prove that the contract has been entered into by various contracts exceeding the legal deadlines).
The requirements that must be met in order to speak of abuse in the succession of contracts are:
Celebration of two or more contracts.
Its duration must be greater than 24 months between the linked contracts. This period must be computed within a period of 30 months.
They must be carried out with the same worker in the same or different job position, whether for the same company or groups of companies.
Contracts with Temporary Employment Agencies are also included.
Fraud of law in successive contracts (art.15.3 ET)
Article 15.3 ET regulates fraud in temporary contracts and can be incorporated into cases of chained contracts. Thus, two situations may arise: in chained contracts there may be one or more that suffer from fraud and the fraud may be found in the set of contracts formalized.
When a chain of contracts occurs and one or more of them prove to be irregular, regardless of whether successive contracts are in accordance with the law, the relationship becomes indefinite. The doctrine of the Supreme Court determines that the fraud of law committed in one of the chained contracts cannot be repaired by another that meets all the requirements.