Employer not legally required to offer continued employment under new terms; indefinite contract may change conditions.

The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's cassation appeal against a labor court ruling that upheld an employer's right to propose new employment terms. The plaintiff argued that changing the contract type from indefinite to fixed-term violated specific administrative law provisions, while the employer contended the law allowed flexible restructuring of duties and remuneration. The court ruled that the statutory phrase 'for a further period' permits alternative arrangements for work conditions, duration, and location without mandating the preservation of the original contract type.