Use this link to cite:
https://hdl.handle.net/2183/47410 ¿Ha cambiado la jurisprudencia en orden a la responsabilidad por recargo de prestaciones de la empresa principal en el marco de una contrata de servicios?
Loading...
Identifiers
Publication date
Advisors
Other responsabilities
Journal Title
Bibliographic citation
LOUSADA AROCHENA, J. F. ¿Ha cambiado la jurisprudencia en orden a la responsabilidad por recargo de prestaciones de la empresa principal en el marco de una contrata de servicios?. Revista de Jurisprudencia Laboral (RJL), 2025, n. 2, p. 1-7. ISSN: 2659-787X https://doi.org/10.55104/RJL_00617
Type of academic work
Academic degree
Abstract
[Resumen]: La Sentencia comentada exime a la empresa principal de la responsabilidad por recargo de prestaciones a consecuencia de incumplimientos causantes de accidentes de trabajo a personas trabajadoras empleadas por la contratista y en el marco de la contrata. Con esta solución, se han levantado las alarmas acerca de si la Sentencia comentada ha supuesto un cambio de criterio respecto a una jurisprudencia que arranca desde hace más de tres décadas, o solo es una matización que sería coherente con esa jurisprudencia
[Abstract]: The commented judgment exempts the main company from liability as a result of breaches causing work accidents to workers employed by the contractor and within the framework of outsourcing. With this solution, alarms have been raised about whether the commented judgment has meant a change of criteria with respect to a jurisprudence that dates back more than three decades, or is only a nuance that would be consistent with that jurisprudence.
[Abstract]: The commented judgment exempts the main company from liability as a result of breaches causing work accidents to workers employed by the contractor and within the framework of outsourcing. With this solution, alarms have been raised about whether the commented judgment has meant a change of criteria with respect to a jurisprudence that dates back more than three decades, or is only a nuance that would be consistent with that jurisprudence.
Description
Editor version
Rights
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International







