Overview of the Supreme Court ruling on counting prior service for fixed-discontinuous workers
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court clarified how prior employment time should be counted for workers who hold fixed-discontinuous positions within public administration. The ruling confirms that every moment of the employment relationship must be considered, not just periods with active work, when determining seniority and related entitlements.
On March 6, a contentious court session addressed an appeal brought by the tax agency against a Madrid High Court ruling from October 2022. The Madrid court had sided with a worker, and the Supreme Court ultimately rejected the Hacienda appeal, leaving the prior verdict intact.
The Madrid court previously recognized that a public administration employee earned seniority for the time spent in a prior employment relationship before becoming a public official. This included years counted for economic recognition of triennial pay and for professional advancement, even during gaps between calls where no actual duties were performed.
The Supreme Court has now clarified whether, in public administration, prior service can be credited when it was provided under a fixed-discontinuous contract, or whether only the periods with active service should be counted. The court concluded that the law refers to “effective” services, meaning periods lacking this characteristic do not automatically count as prior administrative service, though there are nuances to consider.
First, no Spanish norm may be interpreted in a way that contradicts European law, which recognizes fixed-discontinuous workers as having all time spent in the work relationship as prior service. If there is a conflict, European jurisprudence prevails and supports full-time discontinuous workers for the entire duration of their employment period.
Moreover, a given past period does not lose or gain the status of prior service simply because the person now seeks full-time or fixed-term work. The interpretation respects the broader equality principle rather than creating a hidden bias against other types of employment.
Even ignoring European legislation, when someone who worked full time for the administration and later becomes a public official, the recognition of prior service covers the entire duration of that relationship. This includes times with no real work, such as vacations or illness-related absences.
It is not permissible to apply a stricter interpretation that counts only the days actually worked, nor is it acceptable to argue that doing so would disproportionately impact full-time employees. The Supreme Court has previously stated that fixed-discontinuous workers should have their entire work period considered for economic rights and professional advancement, not just the moments of active service.
The ruling notes that its decision does not affect personnel who work sporadically or those on a labor pool roster. Ultimately, the court reinforced the principle that the entire duration of the employment relationship should count toward the recognition of prior service in the public administration, ensuring consistency with European standards and broader workers’ rights.
In summary, the Supreme Court supports a comprehensive view of prior service for fixed-discontinuous workers, aligning national practice with European law. This ensures that employees who move from temporary or interim roles into public service receive full recognition for their earlier time with the administration, including periods without active duties, and it clarifies how this applies across different employment arrangements. [Citation: Supreme Court ruling on fixed-discontinuous workers; Madrid High Court decision, October 2022; European law on employment time]