Judgments of interest in the labor field

Parental leave: clarifications

A company required that the eight-week parental leave per year be taken in minimum periods of one week and denied the accrual of vacation during its enjoyment. The unions challenged these measures and the courts [TS 26-01-2026] have concluded the following:

• The rule sets the duration in weeks, so it is correct to interpret that the discontinuous enjoyment must be articulated in complete weeks, without fractioning into days, as required by the company.
• On the contrary, parental leave, although it is a contractual suspension, must be interpreted in accordance with European law, reconciliation, and equality. Excluding the accrual of vacation during this period would have a dissuasive effect on the enjoyment of the leave and, therefore, it must count as effective work for the purposes of such accrual.

Calculation of overtime

The Supreme Court [TS 18-02-2026] has established that, at a minimum, each hour of overtime must be paid at the same value as an ordinary hour. The law prohibits the overtime hour from having an amount lower than that of the normal hour.

To calculate that value when the agreement sets the salary on an annual basis, the total annual salary (including applicable supplements) must be divided by the effective annual working hours of the worker. It is not valid to calculate it by dividing the annual salary by 360 days and then by 8 hours, because that method assumes working practically the whole year without breaks or vacations and artificially lowers the real price of the hour.

If the agreement or salary tables set an overtime price below the value obtained by dividing annual salary/annual working hours, it is contrary to law, and the differences may be claimed by those affected.

Failure to pay contributions

The failure to pay contributions to Social Security, even when the contribution documentation has been correctly submitted, constitutes a serious infringement according to the LISOS. The Supreme Court [TS 17-02-2026] has confirmed that this infringement occurs due to mere non-payment, without the need to demonstrate intent or intention to breach.

According to the court, moreover, the economic difficulties arising from COVID-19 cannot be considered force majeure, so they do not exempt from responsibility.

In the analyzed case, the company was fined 185,721.19 euros for unpaid contributions between 2018 and 2024. It requested the annulment of the sanction or, subsidiarily, its reduction due to lack of intent and for economic difficulties and prescription of part of the debt, but the Court rejected these arguments.