The daughter's unforeseen illness and hospitalization justify the leaves; the company sanctioned for unequal treatment.

The appeal No. 396/2025 (orders No. 1004/2024) is resolved with the intervention of the Public Prosecutor's Office in matters of rights to reconcile personal, family and work life.

The worker provides services as operational manufacturing and maintenance personnel with a permanent contract and seniority from September 2022. Their workday is Monday to Friday, from 7:00 a.m. to 2:45 p.m. She has a daughter born in 2020 and was absent on several occasions for medical reasons and to care for her daughter, specifically on days November 22 and 23, 2023, from February 21 to 27, 2024, and the May 31, 2024. 

What were the reasons for your absences?

She accompanied her daughter to the health center on November 22, 2023 (11:48–1:44 p.m.) and May 31, 2024 (12:30 - 1:19 p.m.). In addition, her daughter underwent surgery on February 21, 2024, requiring home rest for 7 days.

What was the conflict with the company?

The company did not grant him the requested paid leave, indicating that he could only be absent by making up the hours. The conflict centered on:

1. Determine if November 22, 2023 and May 31, 2024 corresponded to paid leave due to force majeure.
2. Recognize February 27, 2024 as paid leave for her daughter's hospitalization (she had been absent for 7 calendar days since the surgery).
3. Analyze whether the company's refusal violated the right to equality and non-discrimination (art. 14 EC), causing moral damage.

The Social Court No. 47 of Madrid partially upheld the claim. It recognized the worker's right to paid leave (art. 37.3 of the ET) only for February 27, 2024. The company was absolved of the rest of the claims.

The worker filed an appeal before the TSJ of Madrid alleging that the lower court ruling was incongruent, because it included dates that were not in his claim (November 23, 2023 and February 21, 2024).

The TSJ of Madrid clarified that the annulment of the sentence cannot be declared only due to discrepancies or confusion in dates, but rather it is necessary that the infraction produces real defenselessness. Furthermore, the motivation of the ruling does not require detailing point by point all the arguments of the parties; it is sufficient for the reason for the decision to be clearly explained.

The Court analyzed the requirements to recognize compensation due to force majeure(art. 37.9 ET) which are:

• Urgent family reason. That the immediate presence of the worker is necessary.
• Situation of illness or accident of the family member that requires the assistance of the worker
• Indispensability of the worker's presence. That there is no reasonable alternative for family care.

In this case, the daughter's illness and the need for immediate care met these requirements, so November 22, 2023 and May 31, 2024 should be considered paid leave due to force majeure.

Regarding the paid leave for hospitalization of 5 days of art. 37.3b ET,  The Court maintains that the hospitalization of a family member generates the right to leave, regardless of the exact time of admission or work hours.  The permit is generated from the day of entry, although the receipt is issued minutes after the end of the day.

The contested ruling maintained that the actor was not entitled to paid leave for hospitalization, arguing that his daughter was admitted to the hospital to undergo surgery on February 21, 2024 at 2:55 p.m., while her workday ended at 2:45 p.m.

On the other hand, the hospitalization of a minor requires a finalist interpretation of the permit. The fact that the minor was only 3 years old reinforces the need to recognize the right to leave from the beginning of the day since the minor could not go to the hospital alone and the worker had to go to the hospital to carry out procedures before the scheduled time for hospital admission.

In this case, the hospitalization of the minor on February 21, 2024 and the home rest justify that February 27, 2024 be recognized as paid leave for hospitalization, considering that the leave is taken for work days (from February 21 to 23 and from February 26 to 27).

The Court ruled on the violation of the right to equality and non-discrimination(art. 14 CE). The company denied the permits, although there was a final ruling from a collective dispute that recognized similar rights for other company workers. This constitutes unjustified unequal treatment, generating moral damage to the worker.Compensation for moral damage was set at 3,500 euros, taking into account the seriousness of the damage and the circumstances of the case.

The TSJ of Madrid partially upheld the worker's appeal.