Yes, he sees it justified if the offer to change the contract is based on "objective" business reasons.

SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA, September 27 (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Superior Court of Xustiza of Galicia (TSXG) has determined that the refusal of a worker to accept the conversion of his continuous fixed contract to a discontinuous fixed contract is a valid reason for his dismissal.

Así him sentencing the magistrates of the Gallegian high court in a failure in which, on the other hand, they disregarded the appeal of petition presented by an example of a Pontevedra company, to which they accused of dismissing him for refusing to accept the conversion of his contract .

The TSXG's rejection of the worker's appeal is based on the fact that the dismissal is justified as it is behind the business offer to change the terms of the contract for reasons of an organizational or economic nature.

In this way, and despite the fact that, in this case, the court understands that the dismissal did not occur due to the worker's refusal to accept that his contract became permanent and discontinuous, the magistrates establish that this refusal cannot be a valid reason. to legally terminate an employee.

This is the first time that the Social Chamber of the TSXG has ruled on the conversion of a continuous fixed contract into a discontinuous fixed contract, a reason that, according to the plaintiff, was behind his dismissal, but which the company justified for reasons loss of workload.

In a resolution provided by the TSXG, the judges establish that hiring as a discontinuous permanent contract is an "atypical" formula and that, therefore, "certain guarantees associated with the principle of voluntariness must be established, aimed at preventing this hiring from being imposed by the company".

They point out that "neither before nor after" the 2021 labor reform do these guarantees exist in article 16 of the Workers' Statute, which regulates discontinuous permanent contracts.

However, the judges understand that European Union Law considers this type of contract as part-time, so it is within this legal prism that the employee's voluntariness to accept changes in their employment status must be framed.

"The refusal of a worker to be transferred from a full-time job to a part-time job, or vice versa, should not in itself constitute a valid reason for dismissal," the Chamber emphasizes in its ruling, in which it adds that The dismissal of workers who refuse to accept their transition to discontinuous permanent status "cuts off any possibility of a claim" against the company's "unilateral" and "illegitimate" decision.

Therefore, it determines that the employee is thus left unprotected "against reprisals that such a claim would enjoy," which is why it rules that the conversion "can only be carried out by individual agreement, and cannot be imposed by collective agreement, much less by unilateral decision of the company, not even through a procedure for substantial modification of working conditions".

Thus, he emphasizes that the worker cannot be dismissed for refusing to accept the conversion, so his termination would be "illegitimate", which is equivalent to 'not appropriate' in law, but that, as the judges clarify in the ruling, It is not clarified between "inadmissible or void" in the community standard.

However, the Court does consider the dismissal of the plaintiff justified in this case, since the business offer to convert his contract is based on "economic, technical, organizational or production" reasons.

The company alleged a decrease in the workload to propose the change to a group of workers, among whom was the claimant, whose dismissal it does understand to be in accordance with the law.