Public holidays that fall on days designated as holidays do not entitle employees to an additional day off
The National Court has concluded that public holidays falling within a holiday period calculated in calendar days do not entitle employees to an additional day off. The collective agreement for the contact centre sector provides for 32 calendar days’ holiday, a period which includes public holidays and exceeds the minimum requirements laid down by Spanish, international and European Union legislation.
The ruling settles the collective dispute brought by FeSMC-UGT against the Association of Customer Experience Companies, which was joined by the other trade union organisations involved in the proceedings. The dispute concerned workers covered by the Third National Collective Agreement for the contact centre sector and centred on the company’s practice of treating public holidays falling within the annual leave period as having been used up, without granting any compensation.
The trade union sought a declaration that this practice was unlawful and that an additional day off should be granted where, had the holiday not fallen during the annual leave period, the public holiday would have been effectively available for take-up in accordance with the employee’s work calendar, rota or working hours schedule. It based its claim on the autonomy and distinct purpose of annual leave and public holidays, drawing on case law that prevents public holidays from overlapping with weekly rest days.
The National High Court bases its ruling on Article 29 of the sectoral collective agreement, which recognises 32 calendar days of annual leave, permits these to be split into continuous periods and authorises the taking of four separate days on working days. Applying the interpretative criteria for collective agreements, the Chamber attaches particular importance to the literal wording of the provision: calendar days include both those on which there is an obligation to work and weekends and public holidays. Furthermore, when the negotiators wished to refer to working days, they did so expressly, which confirms that the general holiday period includes all days falling within it.
The ruling distinguishes this scenario from those in which the employer counts public holidays immediately following the agreed end date of the holiday period as part of the holiday entitlement. In such cases, the public holiday falls outside the agreed holiday period and cannot be unilaterally added to the period taken. By contrast, in the case under consideration, the public holiday falls within a holiday period validly set in calendar days.
The Court also rules out the possibility that the compensation claimed could be derived from national or supranational legislation. Article 38(1) of the Workers’ Statute (ET) establishes a minimum of 30 calendar days, which the collective agreement improves upon by providing for 32. Furthermore, the three working weeks provided for in International Labour Organisation Convention No. 132 and the four weeks required by Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC are complied with.
In particular, Article 6 of ILO Convention No. 132, according to which public holidays are not counted towards the minimum annual leave entitlement, does not imply that any overlap gives rise to additional time off. In the Chamber’s view, it merely ensures that public holidays do not reduce the minimum period of three working weeks established by that Convention. Furthermore, Directive 2003/88/EC does not regulate rest on public holidays; consequently, any overlap with annual leave falls outside the scope of EU law.
The National High Court considers that the legal principle regarding the autonomy between weekly rest and public holidays cannot be automatically applied to annual leave agreed in calendar days. It adds that the consensual setting of the holiday period justifies any differences that may arise between those who have one or more public holidays falling within their holiday period and those who do not experience such an overlap. Consequently, it dismisses the claim in its entirety and acquits the employers’ association, without prejudice to the possibility of lodging an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court.