The High Court of Justice of Extremadura upholds collective compensation awards for breaches of the right to weekly rest
Judgment of the High Court of Justice of Extremadura of 31 July 2026 (STSJ No. 541/2026, Appeal No. 532/2026).
The judgement analyses a business practice consisting of organising the working week in such a way that the one-and-a-half-day weekly rest period was absorbed into or overlapped with the minimum daily rest period, thereby depriving workers of a genuine and effective period of weekly rest. The dispute concerned employees at various hospitals who ultimately accepted the obligation to rectify this organisation of working time.
The appeal proceedings focused exclusively on the order for compensation imposed on the companies. The companies argued that a claim for damages could not be dealt with through collective dispute proceedings and that, in any event, the compensation awarded lacked the necessary individualisation.
The Chamber rejected both arguments and reiterated the established case-law of the Supreme Court, according to which collective dispute proceedings may be used when the dispute arises from a uniform business practice affecting an identifiable group of workers. The fact that the collective ruling subsequently has individual effects does not alter the collective nature of the dispute, provided that there is a common interest and a uniform course of action by the employer, the legality of which must be assessed.
On this basis, the Court considers that the claim for compensation was admissible because the affected workers were clearly identified and the claim was based on the same employer conduct: the repeated deprivation of legally guaranteed rest periods. The ruling emphasises that the aim was not to recognise separate damages for each worker on the basis of individual circumstances, but rather to provide redress for the consequences arising from a common breach of the rest period regime.
As regards the quantification of damages, the judgement provides a particularly relevant analysis. The High Court of Justice refers to the recent case law of the Supreme Court, which permits the use of the guiding criteria set out in the Law on Offences and Sanctions in the Social Order (LISOS) to set reasonable compensation for non-pecuniary damage where it is particularly difficult to provide individualised and precise evidence of the harm suffered.
The Chamber considers it to be established that the continued deprivation of weekly rest causes harm that goes beyond mere organisational failure, affecting workers’ rest, health and personal and family life. From this perspective, it considers it reasonable to award a standard compensation of 1,500 euros to each affected person, an amount situated at the upper limit of the minimum level of serious penalties provided for by the LISOS.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court takes into account both the significance of the right infringed and certain mitigating circumstances, including the fact that the defendant companies had taken over the service whilst the irregular practice was already taking place and that, furthermore, they accepted the main claim by acknowledging the need to adapt the work rota.
The ruling thus strengthens judicial protection against employers’ breaches of working time regulations and confirms that the systematic violation of statutory rest periods may give rise not only to an obligation to cease the infringing conduct, but also to a duty to compensate the affected workers for the damage caused.