The plaintiff's request lacks sufficient grounds to justify the adaptation of the day; being a father does not constitute, in itself, a sufficient justification to create an automatic right to conciliation.

The ruling resolves the appeal (no. 935/2024) against a previous ruling by the Social Court No. 3 of Granollers, which had already dismissed the lawsuit, including claims for protection of fundamental rights and a claim for 6,250 euros for moral damages.

The worker, an administrative officer in the "logistics processes" subsection of a textile company, works under a rotating shift system of morning, afternoon and night. In July 2023, after the birth of her son, she requested a fixed schedule from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The company, on July 20, rejected the request citing organizational reasons. As specified, his area has only nine workers who perform specific functions, of which three already have working hours adaptations. Furthermore, employees in this subsection cannot be replaced by personnel from other areas, which limits organizational flexibility.

In his appeal, the worker arguedthat the refusal violated his fundamental rights, pointing out that his partner, a primary school teacher, also works in the morning. However, the Court considered that the request did not respond to a specific need to care for the minor, but rather to the desire to coincide with his partner during rest hours, a reason that falls outside the scope of work and family conciliation.

The TSJ of Catalonia recalled that, article 34.8 of the Workers' Statute allows employees to request adaptations to their working hours to reconcile their work and family life, but these must be reasonable and proportionate, taking into account both the needs of the applicant and the organizational and productive needs of the company.Although the rule requires a negotiation process between the parties, it does not grant an automatic right to grant these requests.

The ET establishes that collective bargaining must regulate the terms for the exercise of the right to conciliation, guaranteeing that there is no discrimination, whether direct or indirect, between workers of either sex. If collective bargaining does not regulate this right, the company, upon request to adapt the working day, must open a negotiation process with the worker for a maximum period of thirty days. Once this is completed, the company will communicate its decision in writing, either accepting the request, proposing an alternative that enables the worker's conciliation needs, or expressing its refusal. In the latter case, the objective reasons supporting the decision will be indicated.

The right to conciliation is personal and must be balanced with the organizational needs of the company. The plaintiff justified his request based on his partner's morning shift schedule, arguing that they could both share rest time. However, in reality, the appellant's claim responds to a desire to share common rest time with the mother during the afternoons and evenings, a need unrelated to the reconciliation of family and work life aimed at shared care of the minor child.

In this case, the Court concluded that the worker had not provided sufficient reasons to justify the need to modify his schedule. The fact that the company has recognized three subsection workers with the adapted working day does not imply the necessary recognition of the rest. template. So,After weighing the needs of the appellant and the organizational/productive needs of the company, he endorsed that the company acted in accordance with the law. by prioritizing their own organizational limitations over the employee's request, confirming the court ruling and dismissing the appeal filed.