The ruling of the Supreme Court clarifies that the supplements linked to the hardship of shift work are paid in full, also applying gender equality criteria.

The ruling analyzes which supplements are affected by a reduction in working hours for legal guardianship.

It is resolved appeal for unification of doctrine filed by the company against ruling 1027/2023, of the TSJ of Madrid, issued on November 22, 2023, formulated against the ruling of JS no. 17 of Madrid (orders 322/2024).

Marisol was serving as a qualified officer and in 2019, she applied 50% reduction in working hours for childcare. Since May of that year, it began to provide services in the morning shift from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and in the afternoon shift from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., maintaining the system of rotating morning and afternoon shifts.

The company, by applying the reduction in working hours, proportionally reduced all remuneration concepts, including the overall shift bonus and hired another person to replace Marisol during her period of reduced hours.

Marisol filed a lawsuit for claim of amount maintaining that the shift bonus should be paid in full, since its reduction affected only the time worked, maintaining rotating shifts.

The Social Court No. 17 of Madrid partially upheld the claim. It ruled out the procedural exceptions raised by the company (substantial variation and defects in the way the claim was proposed), appreciated the partial prescription, and ordered the company to pay the unpaid amounts for the claimed period (according to a clarification order of April 14, 2023, the sentence was set at €9,566.92, extending the claimable period until January 2023).

The TSJ of Madrid rejected the appeal filed by the company and fully confirmed the lower court resolution, reiterating that the shift bonus compensates for the hardship of shift rotation, regardless of the reduction in hours within the same shifts.

The company filed an appeal for unification of doctrine, alleging infringement of arts. 9.3 CE, 218 LEC, 97.2 LRJS and 37.6 ET, invoking as contrasting jurisprudence the STS TSJ Madrid September 16, 2020 (Rec. 209/2020), which had considered appropriate the proportional application of the salary, including the shift bonus, in cases of reduction in working hours. The Prosecutor's Office considered the appeal inadmissible.

The question to be resolved: determine whether a worker with a reduction in hours due to caring for a child under twelve years of age has the right to receive the shift bonus in full or only in proportion to the time actually worked.

The Supreme Court verified the existence of the contradiction between the appealed sentence and the contrast one, and reviewed the doctrine and jurisprudence consolidated:

• Complements that are reduced proportionally: linked to the length of the day, such as driving bonuses (STS 499/2024).
• Complements that are paid in full: not linked to time worked, such as bonuses for attendance, punctuality, absenteeism and shift work (SSTS 623/2019; 795/2022; 1028/2024).

SSTS 4/2025, 303/2025 and 588/2025: They confirmed that the shift bonus must be paid in full to workers of the defendant company, who reduce their hours due to legal guardianship to care for a child under 12 years of age, but continue to provide services in rotating shifts and applying a gender perspective.

The Supreme Court concludes that the extra time compensates for the hardship that a worker has to provide services in morning, afternoon or night shifts.  Although Marisol provided services with a 50% reduction in working hours, she continued to work the same rotating shifts within each shift, with the inherent disruptions to her circadian rhythm.It was a salary supplement that was not linked to the length of the day but to the provision of services in shifts., so it had to be paid in full.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court explains that the gender perspective reinforces the decision, since the reduction in working hours due to legal guardianship mainly affects women and does not justify the reduction in the extra shifts (arts. 4 and 15 Organic Law 3/2007).

For all this,The company's appeal is dismissed and the ruling of the TSJ of Madrid is confirmed and declared final. No. 1027/2023 of November 22 (Rec. 642/2023).