November 2025
Gemma Fabregat, Of Counsel at Sagardoy, analyses three recent court rulings addressing significant issues in labour law.
Case 1: Non-remunerative nature of parental leave under Article 48 BIS ET
I. Background of the dispute: facts and procedural treatment
The dispute arises at a time of full redefinition of the regulatory framework regarding co-responsibility and work-life balance. Four trade unions —UGT, SEMAF, CCOO and ALFERRO— filed separate collective dispute claims against the Renfe Group, seeking a declaration that the parental leave provided for in Article 48 bis of the Workers’ Statute, introduced by Royal Decree-Law 5/2023 of 28 June, should be classified as paid leave.
The unions’ argument was based on a dual interpretative approach. On the one hand, they argued that this leave should receive the same treatment as the paid leaves provided for in Article 37.3 ET, as it is a measure intended to promote work-life balance. On the other, they invoked the direct effect of Article 8 of Directive (EU) 2019/1158, which grants workers the right to receive remuneration or a financial benefit for at least two months of parental leave. They claimed that, since the transposition period had expired without the Spanish legislature regulating this economic aspect, workers could directly invoke the right derived from EU law.
The Renfe Group opposed the claim with a strictly legal argument: parental leave constitutes a cause for suspension of the employment contract (Article 45.1 o) ET), which, under Article 45.2, entails mutual exemption from the obligations to work and to pay remuneration. It further argued that Directive 2019/1158 does not have direct horizontal effect and that Royal Decree-Law 9/2025 of 29 July completed its transposition by extending public benefits in cases of suspension of the contract for the birth or care of a child, thereby satisfying EU requirements.
There were no disputed facts: the Renfe Group does not pay wages during the parental leave period, and the measure affects its entire workforce. The dispute was therefore purely legal, centred on the interpretation of the Directive and its reflection in domestic law.
Case 2: Attendance incentive and reduced working hours for legal guardianship
I. Background of the dispute: facts and procedural treatment
This case concerns the debate over the remuneration scope of attendance-related pay supplements in the context of reduced working hours for legal guardianship. The Public Services Federation of UGT —later joined by CCOO, USO and CSPA— brought a collective dispute against AENA S.M.E., AENA SCAIRM S.A. and ENAIRE, seeking a declaration that the attendance incentive provided for in the AENA Group’s collective agreement should be paid in full to workers with reduced working hours for legal guardianship, without applying proportionality.
The unions argued that the disputed incentive remunerates effective attendance and absence of absenteeism, not the number of hours worked, and that reducing it would constitute indirect sex discrimination, since the measure predominantly affects women.
The defendant companies argued that the incentive was of a wage-based nature and should therefore be affected by the principle of proportionality applicable to reduced working hours, invoking various provisions of the Workers’ Statute, the AENA collective agreement, Royal Decree 902/2020, and Article 14 of the Spanish Constitution, denying any discrimination.
The National High Court judgment of 10 July 2023 upheld the claim, recognising the right to receive the full incentive. The companies lodged an appeal in cassation against this decision.
Case 3: Social benefits for Endesa’s retired employees: collective nature and res judicata
I. Background of the dispute: facts and procedural treatment
The dispute concerns whether a pre-retired Endesa employee is entitled to continue receiving the electricity tariff benefits historically granted to retired employees of the group, after the expiry of the Fourth Framework Agreement.
The employee had signed an individual pre-retirement agreement in 2010 under ERE 58/2000, referring to the Sevillana de Electricidad 1997–2002 collective agreement and the related pre-retirement agreements. After the Framework Agreement expired, Endesa discontinued these benefits for retired and pre-retired staff.
The claimant argued that the right derived from his individual agreement, not from the collective agreement. The Labour Court No. 1 of Córdoba dismissed the claim (1 October 2021), and the Andalusian High Court of Justice (Seville), in a judgment of 25 October 2023, upheld the decision, finding that the matter was res judicata under Supreme Court judgment 761/2021 of 7 July.
The worker filed an appeal in cassation for the unification of doctrine, alleging a breach of Article 160.5 of the LRJS and citing as a contradictory decision the judgment of the Andalusian High Court of Justice (Granada) of 20 October 2022. The Public Prosecutor’s Office issued a favourable opinion for the appeal.
