Extending the permit to non-dependent people generates abusive use at the employer's expense.

On June 30, 2021, the Collective Conflict demand before the Social Chamber of the National Court (orders no. 204/2021) in which it was requested that "(...) the right of workers to enjoy 35 hours of accompanying the father or mother's doctor is declared, without it being necessary for them to be in charge of the worker, or be dependent, and consequently with the above, the company is condemned to be and go through this declaration."

On October 21, 2021, the National Court issued a ruling rejecting the claim made by the union CCOO, to which the unions adhered ELA, FI-USO, UGT and CSIF, absolving the defendant company of the claims made.

The company is governed by the Contact Center agreement and in article 28.2 of the agreement, it is established that: “ The staff will have the right to use up to 35 paid hours per year to attend consultations with Social Security doctors, and must give as much notice as possible and must present the appropriate justification. However, affected people will try to adapt, when possible, their hours of medical visits to their rest times."

In addition, the company had negotiated an equality plan that contains the following measure: "The 35-hour annual package of paid medical assistance from the Social Security referred to in article 28.3 of the Contact Center CC will be extended to all company personnel, extending its use to dependents in charge of the worker, as well as to the spouse or common-law partner in the event that they need accompaniment to a duly justified medical test (...)".

The company is not allowing the use of the 35 hours of accompaniment of the father or mother of workers if they are not dependent.

In the appeal formalized by FS-CCOO, several reasons were stated, on the one hand, section c) of art. 207 of the LRJS for breach of the essential forms of the trial due to violation of rules regulating the sentence or procedural acts; and on the other hand, the violation of art. 218.2 LRC, due to lack of motivation for the appealed sentence, with no defense.

In the appeal formalized by CSIF, infringement of the rules of the legal system or jurisprudence applicable to resolve the issues under debate was alleged. (art. 207 e) of the LRJS).

And in the appeal formalized by USO, on the one hand, the violation of section c) of art. 207 of the LRJS for violation of the essential forms of the trial (...) and art. 218 LEC and art 120.3 CE, arguing that the sentence lacks motivation; and finally, the violation of rules of the legal system and jurisprudence applicable to resolve the issues under debate (art.3.1. in relation 1281, both of the Civil Code, article 4 of the Organic Law 3/2007 of March 22 for effective equality of men and women, as well as interpretation of jurisprudence of the TS of May 3, 2018 (140/2017) among others. (…)

The Fiscal Ministry, issued a report in which it ruled that the three appeals should be dismissed.

The debate to resolve, consisted of determining whether the workers of the defendant company assigned to both regulations can make use of the right to enjoy 35 hours of accompaniment to the doctor of the father or mother, without being in charge of the worker, nor being dependent.

The National Court dismissed the claim, arguing that, if the will of the parties is to recognize paid leave when it is necessary to reconcile personal and family life, it is not understood when it comes to accompaniment that is not necessary because they are people who lead a completely independent life, whether or not they are in charge of the worker.

The Supreme Court rejected the criteria proposed by the appellant, considering that accepting the use of the leave for non-dependent fathers and mothers would generate an abusive use of it, since it is a paid leave and, therefore, at the expense of the employer. Furthermore, the Court added that the sentence was sufficiently reasoned.

The Chamber argued that it is the power of the Courts of Instance to interpret the clauses of agreements and collective agreements, combining the rules of interpretation of the norms. It resolved by applying doctrine of the Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of Collective Agreements, summarized in STS number 534/2023 of July 19 (rec. 16/2021).

The Supreme, after the interpretation of the equality plan,considered that paid leave for accompaniment to customized assistance from the Contact Center only applies when it comes to accompanying sons, daughters, fathers, mothers and dependents dependent on the worker.. With respect to the contrast doctrine formulated by the appellant, it turns out that neither sentence contains the solution to the case, since the only similarity deals with conciliation measures.