Ane Moreno
LABOUR AND SOCIAL SECURITY DIVISION
Supreme Court Judgment of 2 July 2025 (No. 715/2025)
In the field of employment relations, employers have the autonomy to grant voluntary improvements to workers. These are benefits that may go beyond what is established in law or in the collective bargaining agreement, introduced as incentive measures or human-resources policy tools. However, withdrawing or limiting these improvements often generates significant legal disputes, particularly concerning the doctrine of “more beneficial conditions,” potential violations of the principle of equality, and the prohibition on establishing dual pay scales.
The Supreme Court Ruling of 2 July 2025 (No. 715/2025) analyzes a case of this nature. The case began in 2017, when a company, unilaterally, decided to grant its workforce a package of conditions superior to those provided in the collective agreement. Among them, a notable improvement was the supplement to temporary incapacity benefits, raising them to 100% of salary from the first day of sick leave and for a
maximum of 18 months.
However, in March 2023 the company changed its policy and stopped applying this supplement to new hires, limiting itself to what was agreed in the collective agreement. As a result, employees hired from that date onward were not granted the supplement, which remained in place only for those who had already consolidated it. Employee representatives challenged the decision, arguing that it created discrimination and, in practice, established a dual pay scale.
On the one hand, the Supreme Court recalls that a more beneficial condition applies to the group of employees who acquired it, and therefore does not have to be recognized for newly hired personnel. On the other hand, the Court emphasizes that Article 14 of the Spanish Constitution does not impose absolute equality of treatment in employment relations. The autonomy afforded to private parties allows employers, through agreement or unilateral decision, to freely determine the worker’s compensation. The Court therefore holds that deciding not to extend the temporary incapacity supplement to employees hired later—provided no additional discriminatory or dignity-related circumstances exist—cannot be deemed a
dual pay scale that violates the principle of equality.
The Court links this interpretation with its case law on seniority supplements. In those cases, to prevent dual pay scales based on hiring date, the Court reiterates that the right must be structured in a static, not dynamic, manner. This means that the conditions already enjoyed by the group that acquired them are consolidated and preserved, but there is no obligation to extend them indefinitely to workers hired in the future. This framework aims to preserve what has already been granted, without violating the equality principle in respect to those who never had such benefits.
The Supreme Court applies this doctrine, explaining that the case concerns preserving consolidated rights for a specific group of workers, structured in a static manner, relating to a voluntary improvement granted outside the collective agreement and expressly recognized as a more beneficial condition. Thus, the Court allows the consolidation of a temporary incapacity supplement exceeding the collective agreement
provisions for employees hired before a specific date, while simultaneously setting a limit to prevent its indefinite extension to future hires.
This configuration strengthens legal certainty for companies by establishing criteria that define the scope of voluntary improvements—linked to employers’ freedom of decision—and prevent them from turning into perpetual obligations that would be difficult to sustain in the long term.
