An adjustment of working hours for work-life balance requires the employer to negotiate genuinely, and the five-day paid leave for a relative’s illness or hospitalisation cannot be made subject to extra documentary requirements. That is the message of two recent rulings: judgment 5291/2026 of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia, of 13 October, and judgment 687/2026 of the Spanish Supreme Court, of 9 September.
Reconciling work and family life remains one of the most problematic issues in employment relations. Managing paid leave and requests to adjust working hours requires employers to strike a balance between their organisational needs and the exercise of the rights the law grants to workers.
The two rulings approach the issue from different angles. The first declares it unlawful for an employer to demand that the exact days of a relative’s rest be specified in order to grant the five-day paid leave. The second reinforces the employer’s duty to negotiate genuinely on requests to adjust working hours.
Both follow the case law applied until now, but they illustrate clearly the consequences of failing to respect the legal safeguards.
Can an employer demand a certificate stating the exact days of rest?
No. That is what the High Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJ) held in relation to the five-day paid leave in Article 37.3.b) of the Workers’ Statute, which covers serious accident or illness, hospitalisation, or surgery without hospitalisation requiring home rest, of relatives and people living with the worker.
The ruling examines the usual practice at Zara, which required workers to provide medical certificates specifying the exact days of rest needed by the relative or cohabitant requiring care. The matter reached the courts through a collective dispute.
The employer was acting, we understand, in good faith: it considered that it could check that the circumstances justifying the leave persisted throughout its duration, and thereby prevent fraudulent use. But the court takes the opposite view. It holds that this requirement imposes an additional condition not provided for by law and that, for medical documentation to be accepted, it is enough for it to show a situation that gives rise to the right.
The ruling also draws a very interesting distinction between hospital discharge and medical discharge. The end of hospitalisation does not necessarily mean care is no longer needed, so the leave continues for as long as home rest persists.
It is here that the ruling reaches its most significant point. The court makes clear that its approach does not remove the employer’s powers of control: the employer may verify that the legal requirements are met and act against fraudulent situations. What it prohibits is presuming misuse of the leave merely because the certificate does not specify the exact length of the rest.
The ruling is not final, but it is particularly relevant for employers that use standardised models for justifying absences or that make recognition of this leave conditional on additional medical documentation.
Adjustment of working hours for work-life balance: must the employer negotiate?
Yes, and genuinely. The Supreme Court confirms this in its judgment 687/2026 on requests to adjust working hours under Article 34.8 of the Workers’ Statute, with an approach that is very useful for day-to-day management of these situations.
The case arose from a request by a worker at Orovalle Minerals, who asked to change his schedule from 8:00 to 17:00 to a continuous working day from 7:00 to 15:00 in order to meet the care needs of his child under twelve.
The employer rejected the request, citing organisational and production reasons linked to the worker’s responsibilities, without carrying out a genuine negotiation process or proposing alternatives.
The Supreme Court, although it does not add new doctrine, confirms that negotiation is an effective legal obligation and not a mere formality. It is not enough to ask the worker for information and then communicate a negative answer, even a reasoned one.
Article 34.8 provides that, in the absence of specific regulation in collective bargaining, the employer must open a negotiation process lasting a maximum of fifteen days, weighing the work-life balance needs and the organisational or production circumstances involved.
The employer keeps the option of refusing the adjustment where there are sufficient objective reasons, but it must justify its decision and consider possible alternatives during the process. If it fails to meet this obligation, the court may grant the adjustment requested, unless it is manifestly unreasonable or disproportionate.
In the case analysed, the Supreme Court dismissed the employer’s appeal and upheld the judgment of the Asturias High Court, which had awarded €7,501 for moral damages and breach of fundamental rights.
The practical conclusion is clear: the employer does not comply by communicating a reasoned refusal. It must be able to show that it carried out a genuine negotiation process, and for that, making proposals and counter-proposals is essential. Otherwise, bad faith in the negotiation may be found.
What do both rulings have in common?
Although they concern different rights, they share a relevant principle: the employer’s powers of organisation and control must be exercised in line with the safeguards the law sets out to facilitate work-life balance.
Mishandling these rights can lead to individual claims, collective disputes, court-ordered adjustments of working hours and, where the requirements are met, liability for damages. These are matters linked to fundamental rights at work which, if not handled well, end up in employment litigation in Spain.
What employers should review
On paid leave, employers should review the documentary requirements they impose and avoid internal procedures that add conditions making it unjustifiably harder to exercise the right. Checking is not the same as presuming fraud.
On requests to adjust working hours, it is essential to document the negotiation process, analyse each request individually, and justify decisions with objective and sufficiently evidenced reasons.
HR protocols should also be reviewed, team managers trained, and decisions kept consistent with employment legislation and the applicable case law. All of this forms part of employment compliance for companies.
At Suárez de Vivero we advise employers on reviewing their leave and working-hours adjustment protocols, and on handling work-life balance requests and any disputes that may arise.
Frequently asked questions about leave and working-hours adjustments for work-life balance
Can an employer demand a certificate stating the exact days of a relative’s rest?
No. According to the Catalan High Court, it is enough for the medical documentation to show a situation that gives rise to the right to leave. Requiring that the exact days of rest be specified is an additional requirement not provided for by law.
Does the five-day leave end on hospital discharge?
Not necessarily. The ruling distinguishes between hospital discharge and medical discharge: the end of hospitalisation does not mean care is no longer needed, and the leave continues for as long as home rest persists.
Can an employer check for fraudulent use of the leave?
Yes. The employer may verify that the legal requirements are met and act against fraudulent situations. What it cannot do is presume misuse simply because the certificate does not state the exact length of the rest.
Is the employer obliged to negotiate a request to adjust working hours?
Yes. According to the Supreme Court, negotiation is an effective legal obligation and not a formality. It is not enough to ask for information and then communicate a negative answer, even a reasoned one.
How long does the negotiation last?
Unless the collective agreement provides otherwise, the employer must open a negotiation process lasting a maximum of fifteen days (Article 34.8 of the Workers’ Statute).
What happens if the employer refuses the adjustment without negotiating?
The court may grant the adjustment requested, unless it is manifestly unreasonable or disproportionate, and award compensation for moral damages. In the case analysed by the Supreme Court, this was €7,501.
