De facto couples are not entitled to paid leave for marriage

A ruling of the Supreme Court considers that the paid leave provided in the collective agreement for marriages cannot be extended to de facto couples or other models of continued family life.

Justice dictates that the paid leave regulated in the collective agreement for marriages cannot be extended to de facto couples, as well as other models of continued family living. This is established by a recent ruling of the Supreme Court, which understands that this difference in treatment does not violate the principle of equality since it is a question of different and non-equivalent realities.

The high court has ratified a previous ruling of the National Court in which it resolved a collective dispute that arose in a company, following the permission granted by matrimonial bond, contained in the agreement. This is clear: “Paid leave of fifteen calendar days in the case of marriage whose enjoyment may begin in the period between the five days before the wedding date or in full after it.”

However, the company did not understand this concession for all types of links, excluding de facto couples and other kinds of unions. Therefore, the workers’ representatives went to the judges of the National Court, first, and of the Supreme Court, then, in search of answers.

Both courts have proved the company right. For this they look at several key points, such as “not only does it speak of marriage permission, but also sets the date of the wedding as a temporary element to establish the exact period of the days of enjoyment,” says the Supreme Court ruling. Therefore, he understands that “it is evident that if the precept had wanted to extend the permit to other unions than the matrimonial, it would have been enough to express it.”

On the other hand, the opinion adds, “neither does the willingness of the negotiating parties to extend the right to enjoy the permit to the couples be appreciated.” In this regard, he explains that, despite the request that the union representation presented to the joint commission of the collective agreement to express itself in this regard, it did not obtain any response.

The court addresses one last issue and it is if it sees that there has been an unequal treatment between some couple models and others. He does not see it this way and is blunt: “According to the constitutional doctrine, the difference in treatment between persons united in marriage and those who live together in fact is perfectly compatible with the principle of equality (article 14 of the Spanish Constitution) since they are different and non-equivalent realities. “

In this way, justice understands that the marriage permit cannot be extended to any model of permanent family life.