Supreme Court Ruling on Paid Leave for Medical Accompaniment

Paid leave for attending medical appointments does not extend to accompanying non-dependent family members.

The Supreme Court has confirmed the position of the National Court, affirming that paid leave for accompanying family members to medical appointments does not extend to non-dependent family members.

The recent Supreme Court ruling (Social), sec. 1ª, dated March 20, 2024, no. 496/2024, rec. 79/2022, resolves a collective dispute filed by FS-CCOO regarding the interpretation of Article 28.2 of the Contact Center collective agreement, which regulates workers' paid leave for attending medical appointments. The ruling synthesizes the criteria that should be used to interpret the clauses of collective agreements.

On June 30, 2021, the FS-CCOO union filed a collective dispute before the Social Chamber of the National Court, supported by the unions ELA, FI-USO, UGT, and CSIF. They requested that "(...) the right of workers to enjoy the 35 hours for accompanying a parent to the doctor be recognized, without the need for the parents to be dependent on the worker or to be dependent persons.”

The controversial Article 28.2 of the Contact Center agreement states that: "Employees will have the right to use up to 35 paid hours per year to attend Social Security medical appointments, provided they give as much advance notice as possible and submit appropriate justification. However, those affected will try to schedule their medical appointments during their rest periods whenever possible."

Additionally, within the framework of the defendant company, an equality plan had been negotiated, which includes the following measure: "The 35 annual paid hours for attending Social Security medical appointments, referred to in Article 28.2 of the Contact Center collective agreement, will be extended to all Servinform personnel, extending its use to accompany children, parents, and dependent persons under the worker's care to Social Security medical appointments, as well as the spouse or common-law partner if they need to be accompanied to a medical test that is duly justified."

The crux of the controversy lay in determining whether the workers covered by the collective dispute had the right to enjoy the 35 hours to accompany a parent to the doctor, without the parents needing to be dependent on the worker or to be dependent persons.

The National Court, in judgment no. 220/20221, dated 21/10/2021, dismissed the union's claim, reasoning that “the parties’ intent is to recognize paid leave hours at the employer’s expense when the worker has a need to reconcile their work and family life, considering that this was an agreement reached within the framework of the equality plan” and that “the need for reconciliation becomes evident when there is a dependency relationship between the person requiring medical assistance and the worker. Therefore, when the agreement refers to dependent persons under the worker’s care, this requirement must be met by all first-degree relatives of the worker: children and parents who go to the doctor.” Based on this, the court concluded that the interpretation proposed by the claimant, suggesting that paid leave for accompanying family members to medical appointments should be granted without the family members needing to be dependent on the worker or dependent persons, “would abusively extend, without reasonable cause, the use of this leave, which is paid by the employer.”

In response to the National Court's dismissive ruling, the unions filed appeals before the Social Chamber of the Supreme Court, which, through its ruling of March 20, 2024, no. 496/2024, rec. 79/2023, dismissed the appeals. The Supreme Court referenced and applied the relevant doctrine regarding the interpretation of collective agreements, summarizing the position already established in Supreme Court judgment no. 534/2023, of July 19, Rec. 16/2021 (EDJ 2023/634162). The court argued that, given the mixed nature of collective agreements—being contracts with normative effects and norms of contractual origin—their interpretation must be guided by the following criteria:

1. Literal interpretation, adhering to the literal meaning of the clauses, unless they contradict the evident intent of the parties (arts. 3.1 and 1281 CC).
2. Systematic interpretation, attributing the meaning that results from the entirety of all clauses to ambiguous clauses (arts. 3.1 and 1285 CC).
3. Historical interpretation, considering the historical background and actions of the negotiating parties (arts. 3.1 and 1282 CC).
4. Teleological interpretation, taking into account the intent of the negotiating parties (arts. 3.1, 1281, and 1283 CC).

The Supreme Court further noted that it is not permissible to apply an analogous interpretation to fill gaps in the applicable collective agreement or to engage in “cherry-picking,” stressing that agreements must be interpreted as a whole.

The High Court emphasized that "in matters of interpreting collective agreement clauses, where both the rules of interpreting laws and contracts are combined, a wide margin of discretion should be granted to the lower courts, before whom the evidence regarding the parties' intent and relevant facts was presented.” Therefore, in these cases, the Supreme Court's role is to verify that the interpretation of the collective agreement provision by the lower court aligns with the interpretation rules derived from articles 3 and 1281 and following of the Civil Code.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court, based on its position regarding the review of lower court judgments interpreting collective agreement clauses, determined that the meaning of the controversial provision corresponds with that determined in judgment no. 220/20221, issued by the Social Chamber of the National Court on 21/10/2021, and dismissed the appeals, confirming the National Court's ruling.

Baker Tilly remains at your disposal to provide further information or to address any questions related to this article.