An employee on successive fixed term contracts was found to have continuous service exceeding four years and was therefore entitled to a contract of indefinite duration.

The Complainant had been employed on fixed-term contracts with the Respondent from November 2019. He said his duties on each contract overlapped and reflected a continuing need, not a short-term role. His line manager stayed the same. Work under his third fixed-term contract (FTC 3) continued the project work under his second (FTC 2). He stated that he had been told when to “resign” between contracts so there would be no break in service. He contended that his employment was continuous, exceeded four years, and that he was entitled to a contract of indefinite duration.

The Respondent accepted that the Complainant had worked under three fixed-term contracts but argued that each related to a separate, time-limited research project with distinct funding. It stated that FTC 1 and FTC 3 were Technician Grade 1 roles, while FTC 2 was a Technologist Grade 1 post, requiring a higher qualification and different duties and pay. Each position was advertised, and the Complainant competed through interview. The Respondent maintained there had been no renewal of any contract. Further, that service was broken by resignations between roles, and that funding dependency and public-sector staffing limits justified using fixed-term contracts.

The Adjudicating Officer first considered whether the Complainant had been employed on “two or more continuous fixed-term contracts” within s.9(2) of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003. Applying the Minimum Notice Acts, she found that the resignations were not truly voluntary but were initiated and timed by the Respondent (using an online link, to avoid payroll gaps) while the Complainant moved straight into the next role. His service therefore remained continuous from November 2019 to September 2024, exceeding the four-year threshold.

 The Officer then examined whether s.9(4) could save the Respondent on objective justification grounds. She held that the wording in the contracts, referring only to funding dependency and project duration. The later reliance on public-sector staffing limits and redundancy constraints did not constitute “precise and concrete” reasons as required by caselaw. Research activity formed a core and permanent part of the Respondent’s mission and was supported by many concurrent projects and temporary staff. The repeated use of fixed-term contracts to cover that need was therefore not proportionate or necessary.

 Accordingly, she found that FTC 2 had transmuted into a contract of indefinite duration from its commencement in October 2022. The only term severed was the fixed-end clause; all other conditions, remained. The Respondent was required to restore the Complainant to the appropriate technologist point and pay all arrears arising.

 Practical Guidance for Employers:

• Employers relying on fixed-term contracts needed to recognise that the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 imposed limits and that, once four years’ aggregate service was reached, any renewal risks automatic conversion to an indefinite contract. Service records had to be monitored, including moves between projects or grades, and managers should seek advice before requiring employees to resign and re-engage for administrative reasons.  
  
• Note, objective justification also had to be handled carefully. Funding dependency, budget uncertainty, staffing caps or an aversion to redundancy are rarely sufficient alone. Employers need records showing concrete reasons why a role was temporary or project-specific, and why a fixed-term contract was appropriate and necessary. Generic wording lifted from templates are unlikely to withstand scrutiny.  
  
• Finally, organisations whose core work depends on recurring projects should plan on the basis that certain professional functions are a permanent need. This means identifying roles that ought to be filled on indefinite contracts, with fixed-term staff used only for time-limited tasks. Training managers on s.9 and the cost of arrears and grade restoration is a good policy.     
  

The full case can be found here.