A recent ruling by the Supreme Court has set a crucial precedent that will modify shift organization in numerous companies and strengthen workers' rights. This resolution addresses the issue of insufficient rest, a situation affecting many employees, including those in the Canary Islands, which can lead to physical exhaustion and decreased performance.
The high court has been emphatic in stating that companies cannot merge or overlap the minimum rest periods stipulated by law. Specifically, the mandatory 12 hours between one workday and the next must be added to the weekly rest, and not be part of it, as was common practice in many cases. This interpretation directly affects thousands of people, especially those working shifts or on weekends, and requires companies to reorganize their work schedules to ensure effective rest for their staff.
The high court has made it very clear that companies cannot mix or overlap the minimum rest periods established by law. Specifically, it states that 12 mandatory hours between one workday and the next must be added to the weekly rest, and not included within it, as was happening in many cases.
The essence of this ruling lies in the clear distinction between two fundamental rights: on the one hand, the worker's right to a minimum of 12 hours of rest between the end of one workday and the beginning of the next; and on the other, a minimum weekly rest of 36 consecutive hours. Previously, many companies interpreted that both rest periods could overlap, thereby reducing the actual time off. The Supreme Court has rejected this practice, emphasizing that these are autonomous rights and must be enjoyed independently.
A common example was that of workers who finished their workday on a Friday night and returned to work on Monday morning. Companies considered that this period covered both types of rest. However, by including the mandatory 12 hours within this period, the effective rest was reduced. With this new interpretation, this practice is no longer valid, meaning workers will enjoy more actual hours of continuous rest.
In practice, this means that the 36-hour weekly rest must be fully observed, and the 12 hours between shifts must be added to this period, potentially exceeding 48 hours of actual rest in total. The Supreme Court has identified situations where the rest between weeks barely reached 43 hours, when the sum of both rights should have amounted to approximately 60 hours.
This legal change obliges many companies to review their work schedules, especially in sectors with rotating shifts, night work, or weekend activity. Non-compliance with this regulation could constitute a violation of a basic worker's right, exposing the company to potential sanctions from the Labor Inspectorate if employees file complaints. If a worker detects non-compliance, it is recommended to communicate it to the company in writing and, if not corrected, file a complaint with the Labor Inspectorate.
