The Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia has introduced a new rule that could allow compensation of up to 10,000 euros for every three‑year span in which a public‑sector worker endures abusive temporary contracts. The measure targets a pattern of short‑term hiring that has long been criticized by unions and employee advocates, and it signals a shift toward greater financial redress for affected staff.

The rule also reflects recent jurisprudence from the European Court of Justice and the Spanish Supreme Court, which require effective remedies against successive temporary contracts.

New benchmark for abuse claims

Two recent decisions by the Sala de lo Social awarded the maximum amount for moral damage to employees who spent more than fifteen and twenty‑two years, respectively, in precarious employment. Both cases resulted in a single payment of that sum because it matched the amount requested by the claimants. The judgments emphasized that the emotional toll of prolonged uncertainty can be as damaging as financial loss.

The rulings clarify that the amount is not capped by the length of the abuse; rather, the court used a reference framework based on the Ley sobre Infracciones y Sanciones en el Orden Social (LISOS). The guidance ties each complete three‑year interval to a fresh entitlement, subject to adjustment for the specifics of each case. By anchoring compensation to a statutory provision, the tribunal created a predictable calculation method that lawyers can now rely on when drafting pleadings.

The Tribunal also instructed the Labor Inspection to forward testimony for possible sanction proceedings against the administrations involved, reinforcing the economic pressure on entities that maintain abusive hiring practices.

These changes mark a decisive move toward quantifying moral injury.

How the three‑year interval is calculated

Article 70.1 of the Estatuto Básico del Empleado Público (EBEP) serves as the legal anchor for the three‑year benchmark. In the examined matters, the workers accumulated five and seven full periods, respectively, which would theoretically permit multiple payments. The statute defines each period as a continuous stretch of temporary contracts without a permanent appointment, ensuring that fragmented employment histories are still counted.

Legal commentators from Unive Abogados underline that linking the duration to a fixed unit resolves the longstanding challenge of translating prolonged abuse into a monetary figure, offering courts an objective parameter for assessment.

Despite the theoretical ceiling, the court limited each award to the amount pleaded, invoking the principle of procedural congruence. The judgments note that a higher sum could have been justified given the duration of the abusive situation, but the parties’ requests set the upper bound for the final figure.

Stability after the fact does not erase the right to compensation for the earlier misuse of temporary contracts. The courts may consider a subsequent permanent posting when assessing moral damage, but it does not automatically extinguish the claim. This nuance preserves the ability of workers who later obtain tenure to seek redress for past mistreatment.

Legal practitioners must now calculate entitlements carefully.

Practitioners will need to evaluate each three‑year block in light of the employee’s uninterrupted temporary contracts, noting any intervening periods of stability that could affect the continuity requirement while still respecting the statutory reference.

Potential ripple effects

Legal scholars see the decision as a turning point for future lawsuits. By linking the length of the abusive period to a concrete monetary unit, the tribunal offers a clearer metric for quantifying long‑term exploitation. Researchers anticipate that the precedent will inform similar actions in other autonomous communities.

The framework aligns with moves to protect against precarious work, signalling metrics may be adopted elsewhere.

Many cases await resolution.

The decision therefore compels public bodies to reconsider reliance on successive temporary appointments, as the financial exposure associated with the new benchmark may outweigh the perceived flexibility of short‑term hiring.

In practice, the rule could raise the stakes for numerous pending claims. If a worker can demonstrate ten years of continuous temporary status, the calculation would suggest up to 20,000 euros in compensation, assuming a pair of full three‑year blocks and a proportional assessment. This potential payout could encourage employees to gather detailed contract histories and present them in court.