Labor Newsletter. June 2026

How is the taking of paid leave to be calculated for employees working on-call shifts?
Supreme Court Judgment, Labour Chamber, No. 513/2026, 27 May 2026, appeal no. 123/2025

This collective dispute concerns staff working 12-to-24-hour on-call shifts in the ambulance-based patient transport sector in Catalonia. The companies calculated paid leave under the collective bargaining agreement as if it always amounted to eight hours, such that, where the leave coincided with a longer shift, the excess was treated as unpaid or had to be made up. The employees' representatives claimed that such leave should be taken in accordance with the actual shift scheduled for that day, except for discretionary leave days, where the collective bargaining agreement itself expressly limited leave to eight hours.

The Supreme Court confirms that, in the absence of a contrary provision in the collective bargaining agreement, where an employee is entitled to paid leave for hospitalisation, serious illness, bereavement or any other event provided for in the agreement, the employee must be permitted to be absent for the entirety of the shift assigned to them, even where that shift is 12 or 24 hours long, since otherwise the leave would cease to be fully paid and would fail to fulfil its purpose.

Practical note: as a general rule, absences arising from such leave cover the entirety of the scheduled shift, unless the applicable provision expressly limits this.

Must the company also take action where the psychosocial risk concerns the person against whom the complaint was filed?
Judgment of the High Court of Justice of the Basque Country, Labour Chamber, No. 1089/2026, 5 May 2026, appeal no. 2791/2025

In this case, the claim was brought by an employee who, after being accused by a patient of alleged sexual abuse during a medical examination, developed post-traumatic stress and anxiety, which was ultimately classified as an occupational accident and resulted in total permanent incapacity for his usual occupation. Specifically, the employee claimed damages for breach of the employer's preventive obligations. The company argued that the harm stemmed from the conduct of a third party, that it had triggered its internal investigation, and that the employee had not sought support or reported his psychological condition during the year following the incident.

The Chamber finds that the company knew, or ought to have known, of the psychosocial risk created for the employee by that complaint (which was closed internally), and that its conduct was excessively passive in failing to proactively offer psychological or legal support to the accused employee. It reiterates that occupational risk prevention requires proactive action, particularly in the face of psychosocial risks, and orders the company to pay damages to the employee for breach of its duty to protect occupational health.

Practical note: in the context of a complaint, occupational risk prevention should not focus solely on the complainant; consideration must also be given to the impact that the situation may have on the accused employee, particularly as regards their professional reputation, psychological health, and ability to continue performing their duties.

Is the company entitled to find out the cause of an employee's sick leave?
Judgment of the High Court of Justice of the Region of Murcia, Labour Chamber, No. 226/2026, 12 March 2026, appeal no. 874/2025

The company decided to dismiss on disciplinary grounds an employee who was on sick leave for work-related stress and depression. To this end, on the understanding that the employee was carrying out activities incompatible with the leave, it relied on a private investigator's report. However, before proceeding with the dismissal, it summoned the employee to an "informational" meeting, at which it asked him about the duration and the cause of his temporary incapacity.

The High Court of Justice of Murcia holds that this conduct on the part of the company breached fundamental rights, in particular the employee's dignity and privacy, by inquiring into specially protected health data at a meeting that should not have been convened, given that the employee's contract was suspended due to sick leave. As a result, it declares the dismissal null and void and orders the company to pay damages of EUR 7,501 for non-pecuniary harm.

Practical note: legitimate mechanisms exist for monitoring absenteeism (medical service checks, withdrawal of allowances, even the use of private investigators...), but particular caution must be exercised to avoid any unlawful intrusion into the sphere of fundamental rights, especially the rights to privacy and dignity.

Must an attendance bonus be paid to an employee on sick leave? And to one taking paid leave?
Judgment of the Supreme Court, Labour Chamber, Plenary Session, No. 516/2026, 28 May 2026, appeal no. 155/2025

In this case, the company did not pay the attendance bonus provided for in its collective bargaining agreement to employees who were absent, whether on account of taking paid and justified leave or due to temporary incapacity. The company's reasoning: the bonus was linked to actual attendance and was paid as a legitimate measure to combat absenteeism.

The Supreme Court has ruled by drawing a distinction between two situations: temporary incapacity, which suspends the contract and exempts both parties from the obligation to work and to pay, and statutory paid leave or permits, in which the absence is justified but ordinary pay must continue to be paid. That is, the attendance bonus does not accrue during temporary incapacity, whereas it must be paid where the employee is taking leave or a permit that is provided for by law as paid leave.

Practical note: for companies operating this type of bonus, withholding payment is justified where there is a suspension of the contract (sick leave), but not where leave is legally structured as paid leave.

Can a flexible remote-working arrangement displace the presumption that an accident is work-related?
Supreme Court Judgment No. 444/2026, 23 April 2026, Labour Chamber, appeal no. 2505/2024

The judgment examines the death from a heart attack of an employee who was working remotely from home under a flexible schedule. The autopsy placed the time of death at around 3:00 p.m., within the employee's working hours, and there was no evidence that she had eaten, rested, or finished her working day.

The Supreme Court applies the presumption that an accident is work-related under Article 156.3 of the General Social Security Act and holds that, even where services are rendered under a remote-working arrangement, this constitutes an occupational accident, given that the injury occurred during working time and at the place of work, and no evidence to the contrary was produced (for example, a time-recording log showing that the employee was off-duty or on a break). The Supreme Court concludes that any doubt must not be held against the employee or her successors.

Practical note: in remote working, flexibility as to working hours should not entail a lack of monitoring of the hours worked or the breaks taken by the employee. It is particularly important to have in place a reliable recording system, a remote-working agreement, and a system for recording working time that, while compatible with flexibility, is designed so as to allow the working day to be reconstructed, particularly when the unexpected occurs.