The National High Court recognises that leave to sit official examinations is paid leave
The ruling affects around 1,800 workers and is of particular interest as it clarifies an issue that had previously given rise to differing interpretations.
The controversy arose because the companies within the group had been recognising workers’ right to take time off to sit official examinations, but considered that such leave should not be paid, as there was no express provision for remuneration either in Article 23 of the Workers’ Statute or in the applicable collective agreement.
The National High Court rejects this interpretation and carries out an exhaustive analysis of the criteria for legal interpretation. Firstly, it emphasises that Article 23.1.a) of the Workers’ Statute defines this right as genuine ‘leave’, without at any point excluding its paid nature. Based on a systematic interpretation of the Workers’ Statute, the Chamber points out that leave traditionally constitutes a situation of justified absence from work with continued pay, whilst where the legislator intends to exclude remuneration, this is expressly stated.
The judgement also attaches importance to the historical development of the provision. It emphasises that the right to attend examinations already existed prior to the inclusion in Article 23 of the Workers’ Statute of the twenty hours’ paid leave per year for vocational training, introduced in 2012. It therefore considers that both rights are compatible and serve different purposes, and that the existence of the latter does not allow the conclusion that the former lacks economic substance.
The National High Court’s reasoning, based on the purpose of the law, is of particular significance. The Chamber links Article 23 of the Workers’ Statute (ET) to the constitutional mandate to promote vocational training set out in Article 40.2 of the Constitution and emphasises that the attainment of academic and professional qualifications constitutes an essential means of workers’ personal and professional development. It also points out that when such studies form part of formal education, they are linked to the fundamental right to education, which requires an interpretation favourable to the effective exercise of that right.
Having established that Article 23.1.a) of the Workers’ Statute (ET) recognises paid leave, the National High Court concludes that the company’s collective agreement cannot establish less favourable provisions. On the contrary, it interprets the reference in the collective agreement to ‘statutory leave necessary for sitting official examinations’ as meaning the same as the statutory provision.
This ruling is of particular practical significance for companies and workers, as it reinforces the protective nature of rights relating to vocational training and professional development. Consequently, the National High Court affirms the right of the workers concerned to take paid leave to sit official examinations, thereby consolidating an interpretation that favours effective access to formal training without financial detriment to those who combine it with their work.