The recent ruling of the Social Chamber of the Supreme Court of June 16, 2026 (ruling no. 547/2026, Appeal 97/2025), addresses the attendance bonuses that can be established in collective agreements, and whether, in light of certain absences, they accrue or not.
The ruling responds to a collective bargaining dispute filed by CCOO, which was heard by the Social Chamber of the National Court, in which the plaintiff requested that the following situations not affect the accrual of the continuity bonus regulated in the agreement:
- Paid leave under Article 37.3 of the Workers' Statute and paid leave under Article 36 of the agreement.
- Absences due to force majeure under art. 37.9 ET
- The suspensions of contract from numbers 4 to 8 of art. 48 ET.
- Parental permission of art. 48 bis ET.
- And situations of IT (temporary incapacity).
The award established in the agreement provides additional days of rest for workers who had uninterrupted attendance during each semester, considering that, to be eligible for this benefit, the days worked, vacations and rest periods were taken into account.
The National Court's ruling partially upholds the claim, declaring that the following situations do not affect the accrual of the continuity bonus and, therefore, it must continue to be paid:
- Paid leave under Article 37.3 of the Workers' Statute and paid leave under Article 36 of the Agreement, except for marriage leave and leave for moving house or for the death of a family member or relative.
- Absences due to force majeure under article 37.9 ET.
- Contract suspensions under numbers 4 to 8 of article 48 ET; Parental leave under article 48 bis ET
While the company argued that the purpose of the benefit was to combat absenteeism, the plaintiff understood that the reward penalized the exercise of recognized rights.
The Supreme Court understands that collective bargaining cannot agree to this type of incentive if it generates discriminatory consequences or penalizes the exercise of fundamental or specially protected rights.
Not every absence, even if justified, should count as work for the purpose of being entitled to the prize or benefit, but neither can every absence be automatically excluded.
Thus, the following must be taken into account: leave for accident, serious illness, hospitalization or surgery of family members or cohabitants, absence due to force majeure regulated in art. 37.9 ET and parental leave, as this would have an unfavorable consequence directly linked to work-life balance and care rights.
Other types of leave should also be taken into account, such as union leave, leave for childbirth preparation and prenatal examinations, leave related to adoption and foster care, and accumulated breastfeeding leave.
And in relation to IT (temporary incapacity), the TS, by application of Law 15/2022, comprehensive for equal treatment and non-discrimination, concludes that denying this benefit to a worker because he is in a situation of IT is discriminatory, and that during this situation the worker is not failing to fulfill his obligation to work, but rather the employment relationship is suspended.
According to the Supreme Court, the following would prevent the accrual of the award: leave for death, for attending exams, for moving house, for exercising an unavoidable public duty, and for marriage or civil partnership.
In short, the company can establish attendance bonuses, but access to them cannot entail the non-exercise of certain rights by the workers.
Since the Supreme Court's arguments leave no room for doubt, it certainly leads us to a reflection that has long been present in our labor relations: how can absenteeism be combated?
Santiago Blanes Mompó
Partner of the labor department
