The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of a collective agreement provision establishing a proportional reduction of variable remuneration (bonus) based on the duration of a situation of temporary disability due to common contingencies. This decision represents a significant shift from previous case law, as it dismisses the view that such proportional reduction constitutes discriminatory treatment.
The ruling concludes that the reduction of the variable bonus according to the effective period of service is based on an objective and legitimate criterion, linked to the nature of the remuneration component and its incentive purpose, and therefore cannot be considered discriminatory on the grounds of illness or health status. However, the Supreme Court does amend a specific provision of the collective agreement concerning the requirement to remain in active employment for at least three months in order to generate entitlement to the bonus. In this regard, the Court holds that even in cases where the employee has provided services for a period of less than three months, the rule of proportionality must still apply, thus recognizing the right to receive the corresponding pro rata amount.
This ruling is particularly relevant in the current context of increasing workplace absenteeism, as it opens a legally valid avenue for variable remuneration schemes to be structured on the basis of actual time worked. The decision therefore provides companies with a legitimate—albeit limited—tool to address one of the most serious issues currently affecting work organization and productivity.
The company was represented by Sagardoy.
This judgment strengthens legal certainty regarding variable remuneration systems linked to effective working time and constitutes a highly relevant precedent for collective bargaining and the design of corporate compensation policies.
