The Workers’ Statute says the following about authorizations due to death: “The worker, with notice and justification, may be absent from work and be entitled to remuneration for the days due to the death of his spouse, hecho couple or relatives up to the second degree of consanguinity or affinity.” These days – extendable to four if travel is necessary – without a last name, are not specified whether they are natural, qualified or work-related. The reform agreed by the Ministry of Labor and the UGT and CC OO unions, the final text of which has made its way through the country, only specifies the nature of these days, with the idea of protecting them by law: to make the reform prosper, these days will be feasible. That is to say, the authorization could end the day after the employee works, if the decision is taken during rest days.
This is the situation which, in practice, is rigid with two days being able to be extended to four. But this is due to the doctrine of the Supreme Court, which in 2020 established a position: corresponding to working days, according to the High Court, because “the authorization only has meaning if it is projected over a period of time in which there is an obligation to work, otherwise it would lack meaning and its main effect would be to be absent from work”. The Supreme Court has recently insisted on the same interpretation, applying it to other reciprocal authorizations.
Today, the world of work and unions are seeking to protect by law the laborious nature of days of authorization due to death. This objective better explains the statements of the CC OO negotiator this month, once we know the pact. Asked about the changes introduced in the text initially planned by Work, Javier Pacheco said that these were “technical aspects” so that “we can put an end to some confusion that could have arisen following the first draft”. In this first project, which only modified the respect agreed by the centers and the ministers, both the 15-day allowance for palliative care and the allowance in the event of death were called “skillful”. The text finally agreed to define them as “laborable”.
“We ended up incorporating improvements to the text, above all to make life easier for the judicial system of this country, which is very user-friendly to establish in a manner sui generis lots of interpretations. We believe that what we are working on at the table can simplify this interpretive vocation that often concerns the doctrine of our country,” Pacheco said this month, a reflection with which the representative of the UGT, Patricia Ruiz, coincided.
The unions’ interpretation is that the term “laborables” is more precise than “hábiles”, given that the first concerns the employee’s career and the second concerns administrative availability. Ruiz believes that with the term “workable”, the interpretation is clearer, in accordance with “majority case law”. “To avoid disputes, the need to specify it helps avoid conflicts of interpretation. The duration of work is clearer and in line with legal doctrine. This means that people will benefit from not having to go to work if they have to do so”, adds the ugetista. The worker can share these days as taken into account more than 28 days later.
For the union establishment and the ministry to prosper, the project needs parliamentary approval. The last modification of the Statute that the ministry proposed to Congress was the reduction of working hours to 37 hours on average, rejected by PP, Vox and Ensemble. Workers and unions hope that the success of this regulation will be different, which, given the sensitivity of the issue, will only find the support of parliamentarians. However, PP and Junts reject government agreements that do not have the approval of employers’ organizations, as is the case with the reform of authorizations due to death.
About The Author
