A few weeks ago, the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands allowed nearly 10,000 workers in a food chain to compensate for holidays that coincide with their weekly rest dates. The magistrates weighed two interests: the employee’s necessary rest and the employer’s right to enforce the work calendar. The ruling invalidated “the business practice of not compensating for overlap.” This is a new ruling that confirms the courts’ endorsement of the power of compensation if holidays and breaks coincide. However, this power is not absolute. In some cases, judges have annulled business decisions when factors such as rotating shifts, flexible hours or part-time contracts, among other cases, influence them. Therefore, there is no valid solution for all cases. In this framework, it is important to clarify the criteria of the only judicial body that creates jurisprudence at the national level, the Supreme Court, especially after a ruling from April 2025. Then, it ruled in favor of the workers of a large textile chain who provided services from Monday to Sunday, with work off during the week. The High Court’s resolution, however, has opened a debate: what happens when the calendar marks a Saturday or Sunday in red for the majority of staff, with a day from Monday to Friday and rest at the end of the week. The legal key to resolving the controversy is found in article 37 of the Workers’ Statute, which recognizes the minimum weekly rest and limits work holidays to a maximum of 14 per year. For Álvaro San Martín, partner responsible for labor at Casadeley, the precept does not imply a right to compensate all cases: “What it guarantees is not working on a holiday.” The lawyer recalls that “the majority of employed people enjoy their weekly rest on Sunday, and the rule was intended for this group when it was developed.” A different case, he clarifies, is the one resolved by the High Court: its ruling only affects employees who provide services on Sundays and, therefore, they do enjoy the “special right to compensate or transfer this holiday to another day.” When comparing the prerogatives of the two groups, one might wonder if the minority group (who works on weekends) enjoys the same right as the majority. “The answer is yes, obviously,” says San Martín. José Margarit, legal director of BDO Abogados, expresses himself along the same lines: the Supreme Court’s ruling validates a right to compensate, but only “in certain cases.” The criterion applies especially “to those who ordinarily rest between Monday and Friday.” Margarit, accustomed to litigation in sectors such as retail and hospitality, defends that, in these cases, “weekly rest and holidays are autonomous rights and cannot overlap”: if both coincide, “the worker would lose a right, so it must be compensated.” The lawyer introduces an interesting factor: how the organization of work is changing in sectors that operate seven days a week. This is a trend “that the legislator did not foresee when he designed the traditional system of 14 annual holidays.” For this reason, and given that the ruling does not resolve all the practical nuances, “the debate is still alive,” he concludes. The issue is not peaceful. Some voices maintain that the Supreme Court openly recognizes additional rest regardless of the agreed day. Among them, two prominent labor inspectors: Ana Ercoreca, president of the Federation of Associations of the State Civil Administration Bodies, and Jesús María Prieto, spokesperson for the Union of Labor and Social Security Inspectors. They are based on a series of rulings from the Supreme Court itself, from 2024 and 2025: in these resolutions, the magistrates determined that «those who see their predetermined weekly rest overlap with a work holiday have the right to enjoy one more day of rest to compensate for the loss caused by such overlap.» The inspectors point out that their approach is based on article 40.2 of the Constitution (which obliges public powers to ensure safety and hygiene at work, guarantee rest and limiting the working day), the Workers’ Statute itself and European regulations. This legal framework explains “the reason for the interpretation of the Supreme Court”, so that “the guarantee of rest would take precedence over the obligation to work.” Ercoreca and Prieto are categorical: there is an “automatic right” not to violate the rights of safety, hygiene and rest, and proof of this is that “the maximum annual day is counted with the 14 days of existing holidays,” they recall. Another jurist shares this interpretation. Bernardo García, lawyer and confederal coordinator of UGT legal services, believes that the Supreme Court’s ruling of April 2025 does not necessarily associate compensation with the specific period of the affected person’s weekly rest. On the contrary, he maintains, «it seems an evolution of the jurisprudential doctrine that is being collected by the higher courts of justice.» As an example, he cites the litigation won by his union in the Canary Islands. This ruling “clearly applies the obligation to compensate for holidays that coincide with weekly breaks,” García emphasizes. The discrepancies, for now, will continue to be resolved in court. The same UGT has promoted a collective dispute against a vehicle rental company from which it demands compensation for coincident breaks on holiday Saturdays. The National Court will rule on May 6 in a ruling that, due to its impact on a national scale, will set an important precedent.
The overlap
For labor inspectors Ana Ercoreca and Jesús Prieto, supporters of the interpretation of the automatic right to compensation, it is no coincidence that the Supreme Court analyzes the holiday-rest coincidence in terms of overlap. The concept makes it evident that “two rest rights should not overlap.” Otherwise, they say, “it would clearly violate a right as protective as labor rights regarding the protection of workers.” Ultimately, this overlap must necessarily be compensated for by another day of rest. Furthermore, in this area, the in dubio pro operator principle prevails, that is, “the judge, when faced with legitimate doubt about the meaning of a labor rule, prefers that interpretation that is most favorable to the worker,” they defend.
