The Supreme Court establishes that the right to leave persists after hospital discharge as long as the need for care persists, but it is extinguished if the family member is discharged from hospital, once the cause that justifies its granting disappears.

The ruling resolves the appeal no. 104/2023, filed by the defendant company against the ruling issued on December 13, 2022 by the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia, in procedure no. 45/2022, initiated by several unions through a collective dispute lawsuit.

The subject of the litigation was to determine whether workers have the right to fully enjoy the five-day paid leave due to hospitalization or serious illness of a family member (up to the second degree), even if the family member is discharged before said period elapses, it being sufficient to justify the hospitalization at the beginning of the enjoyment.

According to the applicable collective agreement, in its article 73.1.c), a paid leave of five calendar days is recognized for hospitalization or serious illness of the spouse or family members up to the second degree, allowing its continuous or fractional enjoyment.

On July 11, 2019, in the joint committee of the agreement, a disagreement arose between the union representation and the company. The unions defended that the five days should be granted in full, regardless of whether the hospitalization continues or not. The company, on the other hand, maintained that five days are a maximum and that its duration must be adjusted to the actual duration of the hospitalization, requiring hospital discharge and discharge as justification.

Given the disagreement, a conciliation act was held on December 2, 2021 without success. The conflict led to a class action lawsuit.The Social Chamber of the TSJ of Catalonia upheld the union demand, declaring the right of workers to fully enjoy the five-day leave for hospitalization or serious illness, even if hospital admission is not maintained throughout the entire period, as long as hospitalization is justified at the beginning.

The company appealed the ruling in cassation before the Supreme Court, allegingthat said permit could be terminated before its maximum term due to the patient's medical discharge. The Public Prosecutor's Office issued a report requesting the dismissal of the appeal.The plaintiff presented a written challenge to the appeal in which he requested confirmation of the appealed sentence.

Article 37.3.b) of the Workers' Statute, in its current wording on the date of the claim(December 21, 2021), recognized the right to:

"Two days for death, accident or serious illness, hospitalization or surgical intervention without hospitalization that requires home rest, of relatives up to the second degree of consanguinity or affinity (...)".

Currently, art. 37.3.b)After the reform, the permit is extended to five days, also including de facto couples and other cohabitants who require effective care.

The TS analyzes established doctrine of several collective agreements and establishes the following :

• Distinction between hospital discharge and medical discharge: hospital discharge does not automatically imply the end of the need for care, since medical care can continue at home. Only the medical discharge proves that the reason for the leave has disappeared.

• Purpose of the permit: It is not limited to physically accompanying the family member during hospitalization, but also includes attention, care and management derived from the disease.
• Fair use of permission: The permission cannot be used for spurious purposes, such as resting without justification if the family member is already recovered or working. The subsistence of the permit depends on the real persistence of the need for care.

These considerations had already been outlined in previous rulings, such as STS 191/2025, of March 12 (rec. 5/2023), and STS of March 5, 2012 (rec. 57/2011).

In this case, to Although the collective agreement does not require that hospitalization last five days, the Supreme Court admits a broad and guaranteeing interpretation, which allows you to enjoy the leave beyond hospital discharge only if the situation of need persists. It is rejected that hospital discharge alone extinguishes the right to leave, forcing the company to apply this criterion in future similar situations.

Failed:In view of the arguments and the report of the Prosecutor's Office, the Court upholds the appeal, dismisses and partially annuls the previous ruling. declare that The permit may be terminated before the maximum period of five days has expired., if the family member's medical discharge has been issued.