The ruling establishes that permits only make sense if they are projected over a period of time in which there is an obligation to work, since otherwise it would make no sense for their main effect to be "absent from work."

Four unions partially challenge the article 30.1 (letters b and d) of the III State Agreement of the Contact Center Sector,(BOE on 06/09/2023), for violating art.37 of the Workers' Statute(ET) and the European Union Directive 2019/1158.

The conflict arose because The agreement qualified the permits as calendar days, which could reduce their effective enjoyment compared to the legal minimum, especially when the causing event occurred near weekends or holidays.

Discussed permissions of article 30 of the Contact Center Collective Agreement:

b) Hospitalization, serious illness, intervention with home rest for 3 calendar days (continuous, within 10 days).        

d) Family death up to 2nd degree of 2 calendar days extendable by 2 more days if there is displacement.                         

The unions requested the nullity  of the interpretative agreement of the Joint Commission of 07/12/2023), which maintained that the calculation had to be by calendar days.

What did the National Court decide? (July 25, 2024).

The AN partially upheld the claim and declared invalid the calculation in calendar days of sections b) and d) of the Agreement. Interpreting the enjoyment of 5 working days (letter b) and 2 working days (letter d) except for trips of more than 200 km, in which calendar days are allowed.

The Association of companies in the sector appealed in an ordinary cassation alleging that the legislator's intention is not that the permits of art. 37.3 ET were workdays. If ET does not establish the nature of the calculation, the agreement may establish natural values. Furthermore, they consider that the agreement does not violate minimum necessary law standards.

The allegations of the unions and the position of the Public Prosecutor's Office coincide in that:

• The permits must be work permits, in accordance with consolidated jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.
• The Workers' Statute constitutes a minimum starting point also when it improves the Directive.
• Interpretation in accordance with the Directive: art. 6 requires 5 business days for caregivers.
• The calculation as natural worsens the right (reduces effective days of absence and delays the start of the same) and must be declared null.

The Supreme Court confirms its consolidated doctrine  on paid leave and the doctrine of the CJEU (FETICO, C-588/18):

• Paid leave only makes sense when there is an obligation to work.
• Its purpose is to be absent from work to attend to an unexpected event.

And it reasons that, if the causative event occurs on a non-working day, the leave begins on the next working day. Permits must be projected on actual work time, not on breaks or holidays. The conventional regulations are only valid if the minimum ET improves.

The art. 37.3 of the ET  establishes that workers have the right to paid leave, without specifying whether the days are calendar or working days. For its part,the art. 6 of EU Directive 2019/1158 guarantees 5 working days of annual leave for carers, allowing Member States to regulate the details of its application and distribution according to national legislation or usage.

The TS concludes that,"although it is true Article 37.3 b) and b bis of the ET indicate nothing about the natural or business nature of the days of hospitalization leave or death leave, the truth is that, as has been maintained by this Chamber IV, the leave is only conceivable if it is projected over a period of time in which there is an obligation to work, since otherwise it would make no sense for its main effect to be "absence from work." Therefore, it is normal for permits to refer to working days and that is the interpretation that must be made by the ET, in accordance with art. 6 of the Directive, which expressly establishes this, the agreement does not respect the legal minimum of art. 37.3 ET, the reference to “calendar days” is void.”

The Supreme Court highlights that this interpretation aligns with the doctrine of the CJEU(ruling of June 4, 2020), which establishes that paid leave They cannot be enjoyed during weekly rest periods or annual vacations, as there is no obligation to work on such days.

Failed:

HE dismisses the appeal filed by the Association of companies in the sector against the ruling of the National Court 9/2024, of January 25, (accumulated procedures of several unions).It is confirmed and declared firm to the ruling of the National Court, declaring null the reference to calendar days for hospitalization and death permits.