Public holidays that fall on a Saturday cannot be absorbed within the weekly rest day

Judgment No. 88/2026 of the National Labour Court, dated 19 May, resolves a national collective dispute in the call centre sector, raised by various unions against the business organization CEX, concerning a widespread practice: not compensating public holidays (national, regional or local) when they coincided with the weekly rest day of Saturday for workers with a working week from Monday to Friday or from Monday to Saturday. The issue was whether the public holiday could be considered as 'enjoyed' because it coincided with a day that was already a holiday or whether, on the contrary, an additional day of rest should be granted. The Chamber's response is clear: the holiday cannot be absorbed within the weekly rest day.

The Supreme Court starts from a basic but decisive distinction: the weekly rest day of Article 37.1 of the Workers' Statute and the public holidays of Article 37.2 of the Workers' Statute are different rights, with different purposes and natures. The weekly rest day guarantees a minimum periodic break linked to recovery; the public holidays are paid days off that cannot be taken as compensatory holidays and have their own purpose. If both coincide, it cannot be considered that the whole has been enjoyed: in practice, one is effectively annulled.

Before addressing the substance of the case, the Chamber rejects the procedural objections of the company:

• dismisses the lack of active legitimacy of USO, given the support of other unions with active legitimacy that have taken on the claims;
• rejects the allegation of lack of cause of the complaint, having noted a real, current and specific controversy in the sector; and
• rejects the allegation of procedural inadequacy, as the objective was not to amend the collective agreement, but to challenge a generalized business practice. The National Superior Court considers that there is a uniform and intra-business practice that has even been debated in the Joint Committee, which justifies the collective conflict and the active legitimacy of CEX to be sued.

Regarding the substance, the ruling follows the recent line of Supreme Court cases on the overlap between public holidays and rest days (cases such as Atento, Sitel Ibérica, Espasa Calpe and Zara), reaffirming that the weekly rest days cannot coincide with public holidays without the corresponding compensation. The employers' association tried to distinguish these precedents by arguing that they involved (as it claimed) variable shifts or the provision of services from Monday to Sunday, but the National Superior Court does not share this view: what is decisive is not the shift system, but the nature of the rights that overlap. If Saturday is a weekly rest day and, moreover, a holiday, the worker does not really enjoy both; the holiday is consumed by a day of rest that had a different cause.

The Chamber links this conclusion with the third national sectoral collective agreement (maximum annual working hours of 1,764, 39 hours of effective work per week, the work calendar and the premiums for public holidays and Sundays), but states that these provisions do not allow for public holidays to be absorbed simply because they coincide with the weekly rest day. It also rejects the idea that recognizing compensation entails altering the annual calculation or modifying the collective agreement regime: the number of annual hours is one thing, and the correct distribution of working days, rest days, and public holidays is another. Compensating for an unutilized public holiday requires that the calendar be organized so that each right fulfills its own function.

The National Superior Court rules in favor of the claimants and declares that the practice of not compensating public holidays that fall on a Saturday when that day is a weekly rest day is not in accordance with the law. It recognizes the right that public holidays are not to be absorbed or neutralized, and declares the employer's obligation to grant an additional day of rest in case of coincidence. It adds two clarifications:

• the compensation must be taken within a period not exceeding fourteen days; and
• companies must provide compensation with retroactive effect from the period not subject to the statute of limitations.

The ruling is not final and is subject to appeal before the Supreme Court, but aligns with a legal doctrine that reinforces the idea that public holidays must be enjoyed as such and cannot be lost simply because they coincide with a weekly rest day. For the contact sector, this requires a review of calendars and internal compensation criteria, with possible organizational and management implications due to the retroactive nature of the ruling and the fourteen-day limit for enjoying the compensation.

Article from the Labour Law Department of ECIJA Madrid.