1. Appropriate circumstances, pursuant to art. 2, L. No 18/6/62 230, to justify the extension of a fixed-term contract of employment shall be contingent and unpredictable than at the time of award of contract. (Court of Milan 02.26.2007, Outside Di Leo, L & D in 2007, with Alberto Vescovini No, "always current issues regarding the contract term creep, the applicability of Article. 1419, 1 subparagraph, Civil Code, tacit resolution, 715)
2. Under Article. 2 of Law No 230 of 1962, the circumstances likely to justify the extension of fixed-term employment contract (the burden of proof imposed under Article. 3 of the Act, the employer) must be ontologically different from those which motivated the original placing of the term and must be timely contingency and unpredictability, keeping in mind with regard to the latter (to be sure the same manner as the criterion of average caution observable by the entrepreneur), which must be considered predictable in any situation where the contractor can - even by way of mere chance - is a further development according to the 'id quod plerumque accidit. (In this case, the utterance in the light principle, the SC confirmed the contested decision with which it was declared invalid for attaching the end of the term contract extension with the subsequent processing of this agreement into a contract of indefinite duration, on the assumption of the adequacy and reasonableness of the reasons which had been examined the results of the proceedings, from which emerged clearly was not the supposed connection of the autumn events indicated by the employer with 'increase in the specific work activity of the company, appreciating also the insignificance of the facts alleged in the oral, whose determination would not have resulted in the demonstration of the unpredictability of events able to justify the extension). (Ap rejects Rome, November 3, 2003). (Cass. 21/11/2006 No 24655, Est Pres Sciarelli Vidiri, in Dir and prat. lav. 2007, 1799 and Lav. the jury. 2007, 516)
3. It violates the rule in art. 4 of Legislative Decree no. 368/2001 - which prohibits more than one extension - as well as the rule in art. 5, paragraph 3, the same decree, the employer who enters with the work already taken forward a subsequent fixed-term contract in the constancy of the previous report, even if the second contract has an effect on the date after the cessation of the first report that also formally meet the minimum time that must elapse between a contract and the next. (Court of Milan 30/6/2006, East Frattini, Lav. The jury. 2007, 93)
4. The "objective reasons" that, pursuant to art. 4 Leg. 06/09/2001 No 368, justifying the extension of a contract term must be understood in the sense of supervening circumstances than at the time of the original agreement was made. Must be considered as an extension motivated by anything already present ab initio, resulting in conversion of the relationship of indefinite duration (in this case the duration of the relationship was initially determined at less expectation of mandatory maternity worker replaced and, at the end The contract was extended with the mere continuation of the reasons for absence). (Court of Milan 31.03.2006, East Ravazzoni, D & L in 2006, 454)
5. The extension of fixed-term employment contract, pursuant to art. 2 of Law No 230 of 1962, is legitimate if - in addition to the uniqueness and durability - two competing conditions, related issues, made the identity of the work than to which the contract was signed (in the sense in the objective dimension refers to the destination business of work and not reducible to the worker's duties) and the occurrence of unpredictable and contingent needs, ontologically different from those which were the reason for the original contract, which do not integrate a situation that at the time of conclusion of the contract term, 'entrepreneur can, even in the process of mere probability, represented with the 'id quod plerumque accidit "as development of the situation. Consequently, assuming the arrival of a new order of production, the extension is legitimate only if the condition is not a normal entrepreneur's perspective and is objectively attributable to the business for which the contract was concluded. (According to that principle, the Court of Cassation upheld the ruling on the merits that, in relation to fixed-term contract with a construction company truck and on the production of 180 buses, had rejected the legitimacy of the extension, justified by the company with a new order of 250 vehicles for extra-path "short range"). (No 10140 Court of Cassation, 16/5/2005, Pres Rel Mercury Cook, in Lav. And prev. Today, 2005, 1462)
6. The unpredictable and contingent requirements under Article. 2, paragraph 2, L. No 18/4/62 230 justify the extension of fixed-term contract, may also be the revival also quantitatively different to that initial requirement, but if they are hiring out to make up for absence for holidays during the summer season, the legitimacy of the extension can not be derived from the mere prolonged absences on holiday, having to prove that such a protraction resulted in an "uncomfortable qualified organizations." In the case of unlawful extension of the contract term, the worker is entitled to pay increases provided for in art. 2 L No 18/4/62 230 for the periods indicated therein (twenty or thirty days after the original deadline) and the relationship is considered permanent after the expiry of these terms. (Court of Appeal 3/11/2003 Florence, Pres Drago East Amato, D & L 2004, 321, with note by Andrea Danilo Conte, "Extension of a contract term consequences of the illegality of the extension)
7. The extension of the contract period must follow the formal rules laid down for the application of the term, and therefore must be notified in writing. (Court of Milan 27.09.2001, East Porcelli, D & L in 2002, 99)
8. The institution of the extended contract term, provided for by. 2, LN 230/62, does not apply in the case of fixed-term contract signed for "seasonal peaks," which is necessary for the extension of the contract, the authorization by the administrative authority (Trib Frosinone 05/07/2000 , ext. Fraulini in Dir lav. 2001, p. 31., with a note of Pizzuti, On the extension of the contract term for "seasonal peaks")
9. E 'rules - with the result that the employment relationship must be regarded as arising from the very beginning for an indefinite period - the extension of the deadline the contract of employment under Article. 23 of L. No 28/2/87 56 in the absence of quotas and unpredictable demands that the warrant under Article. 2 L No 18/4/62 230 (Court of Milan, 5 May 2000, ext. Muntoni, L & D in 2000, 731)
10. The rules applicable to the extension of the term applied to the employment contract in the cases determined by the parties pursuant to art collective. 23 L. 56/87 is that under Article. 2 L 230/62 (10.06.1996 Pret. Milan, ext. Vitali, D & L in 1997, 98)
0 comments:
Post a Comment