Supreme Court Rules Against Penalizing Sick Leave: What Employers Need to Know
A recent ruling by Spain’s Supreme Court establishes that collective bargaining agreements cannot completely eliminate attendance bonuses for employees who take more than three days of sick leave for common illnesses. This decision underscores the importance of prioritizing employee health and prevents companies from automatically penalizing legitimate medical absences.
The Ruling and Its Legal Basis
The Supreme Court’s decision, formalized in sentence 23/2026 (resource STS 207/2026, accessible here), overturned an appeal from an ambulance company association in Catalonia. The court affirmed that health is a legally protected factor against discrimination. This stance is rooted in Law 15/2022, which prohibits discriminatory treatment based on illness or health condition regarding employment terms, including compensation.
The Case in Catalonia
The dispute originated in the healthcare transport sector of Catalonia. The collective bargaining agreement included a “Complemento de asistencia y puntualidad” (Attendance and Punctuality Bonus) that was entirely forfeited if an employee took more than three days of sick leave within a month. The agreement explicitly stated that the bonus would not be paid for absences exceeding three days due to common illness.
The employer’s association, ACEA, argued the rule was valid because the collective agreement offered benefits exceeding legal requirements for temporary disability. However, both the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia and now the Supreme Court rejected this argument. The court determined the bonus was not tied to time worked or hours completed, but solely to the obligation to attend work – an obligation legally suspended during approved sick leave.
Implications of the Decision
The Supreme Court clarified that because the employee is not failing to fulfill their work obligations during a legally recognized sick leave, the loss of the bonus constitutes a “reduction of rights due to health status.”
The ruling suggests that similar penalty clauses in other collective bargaining agreements are likely to be challenged, and invalidated. Companies will need to demonstrate a “objective and reasonable justification” – supported by evidence – for any measures that negatively impact employees due to their health. Without such justification, the rules are considered null and void.
What Could Happen Next
It is likely that unions will begin reviewing collective bargaining agreements across various sectors to identify and challenge similar clauses that penalize sick leave. Employers may need to revise their attendance incentive programs to ensure they do not discriminate against employees based on health. A possible next step could be increased litigation as employees and unions seek to enforce this new legal interpretation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this ruling mean for employees?
This ruling means that employees in Spain should not automatically lose attendance bonuses or other financial incentives simply for taking legitimate sick leave for common illnesses.
What was the specific issue in the Catalan case?
The issue was a collective bargaining agreement that completely eliminated an attendance bonus if an employee was on sick leave for more than three days in a month.
What is required for an employer to justify a penalty for absence?
An employer must provide an “objective and reasonable justification, sufficiently proven” for any measure that affects a collective based on their health status.
How might this ruling impact workplace policies regarding employee health and attendance?