We are faced with a ruling from the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid, dated September 15, 2023 with appeal number 74/2023, in which the worker requests a reduction in working hours by one third with a specific working day of five hours and twenty minutes a day from Monday to Friday in fixed morning shifts from 8:30 a.m. to 1:50 p.m. to care for her mother-in-law, a 74-year-old woman who is unable to take care of herself and for whom no other family member can currently care.
The worker made the request to the company's HR manager, but it was denied because the documentation provided did not fit the situation that would be protected. The company alleges that the person for whom this reduction in working hours is requested does not have recognition as a dependent person. The Social Court no.
The company disagrees with the judicial resolution issued by the lower court and files an appeal requesting the review of the lower court ruling for several reasons, but what the TSJ takes into account is that the ruling contains an inconsistency.extra petitum, In the worker's petition she did not indicate the length of time she requested this reduction in working hours and the Labor Court upheld her claims for a minimum period of 2 years.
The TSJ of Madrid rules that the company cannot claim that, when it comes to recognizing the right of the worker, whether that of 34.8 or 37.6 ET, it begins to analyze how he or she organizes the care of the child or family member with his or her spouse or partner, or, where appropriate, with other people in the family (grandparents). It would allow the company, as has been pointed out by authoritative judicial doctrine, to interfere in the private lives of married couples and couples, turning it into a kind of guardian of co-responsibility (nor, by implication, should the Social Courts be allowed to do so). Which does not - obviously - prevent the difficulties of the other parent in reconciling terms compatible with the job of the applicant worker from being alleged by the latter to justify the reason for their right.
Failed:It is necessary to uphold the appeal in part for the sole and exclusive purposes of deleting from the ruling of the appealed sentence the phrase "and for at least two years", confirming the rest of its pronouncements.
