LABOUR AND SOCIAL SECURITY DIVISION
The coincidence of a public holiday with an employee’s weekly rest day has, for many years, been one of the most controversial issues in relation to working time. While many employers took the view that a public holiday was deemed to have been taken where it coincided with the employee’s weekly rest day, case law has progressively developed a doctrine that distinguishes between these two rights and rejects the idea that one may replace the other.
The recent Judgment No. 88/2026 of the National Court (Audiencia Nacional), dated 19 May, represents a further step in this development. It declares unlawful the practice, in the Contact Centre sector, of considering a public holiday to have been “taken” simply because it coincides with the employee’s weekly rest day. The judgment does not create an entirely new right; rather, it applies and develops the doctrine that the Spanish Supreme Court has been progressively shaping in recent years.
The issue is based on a simple idea: weekly rest and public holidays serve different purposes. Weekly rest is intended to guarantee the employee’s physical and mental recovery following the performance of work, whereas public holidays are intended to ensure the effective enjoyment of certain celebrations recognised by law or collective agreement. For that very reason, the fact that the two coincide on the same day does not necessarily mean that both rights have been satisfied.
This interpretation began to become established through several Supreme Court decisions, particularly Supreme Court Judgment No. 570/2022 of 22 June, concerning the Contact Centre sector, and was subsequently reinforced by Supreme Court Judgment No. 372/2025 of 30 April, in the Zara case. These decisions progressively established that an employee should not lose a public holiday simply because it coincides with a previously allocated rest day. However, the practical application of this doctrine continued to give rise to significant disagreement where the weekly rest day was fixed, particularly in companies operating Monday-to-Friday or Monday-to-Saturday working schedules.
It is precisely in this respect that the National Court makes its principal contribution, by extending this reasoning to employees working Monday to Friday or Monday to Saturday whose weekly rest day coincides with a public holiday.
The judgment holds that, in such cases, it cannot be considered that the employee has already enjoyed the public holiday simply because it coincides with their weekly rest day. The National Court emphasises that the two rights are independent and that taking the opposite view would deprive the right to the effective enjoyment of public holidays, recognised in Article 37.2 of the Workers’ Statute, of its substance.
The Court also rejects the employer’s argument that it is sufficient to comply with the annual calculation of working hours. In other words, the fact that the total number of hours worked during the year is correct is not, in itself, sufficient to establish that the employee’s right to enjoy public holidays has been respected.
The National Court considers that, where a public holiday coincides with the weekly rest day, compensation must be provided to ensure that the public holiday can be effectively enjoyed. In the case examined, that compensation must take the form of an additional day of rest to be granted within the following fourteen days.
Although the judgment was issued in the context of the interpretation of the National Collective Agreement for the Contact Centre sector, its reasoning is clearly of interest to other sectors, since it is based on general principles concerning the distinct nature of weekly rest and public holidays. For this reason, many companies are currently reviewing their working calendars and working-time arrangements in anticipation of the possible consolidation of this line of case law.
Nevertheless, caution is advisable. The National Court’s judgment does not automatically mean that all collective agreements must apply an identical solution, since collective bargaining provisions governing working time may contain significant particularities. It will most likely be the Supreme Court that ultimately defines the general scope of this doctrine and determines the extent to which it can be extended to other sectors of activity.
In any event, the trend in the case law appears clear. The courts are increasingly reinforcing a more protective interpretation of the right to rest, giving priority to the effective enjoyment of rest periods.
In conclusion, the National Court’s judgment represents a further step in the development of case law concerning the coincidence of public holidays and weekly rest days. Rather than creating a new right, it consolidates a trend initiated by the Supreme Court: weekly rest and public holidays are autonomous rights with different purposes, and their coincidence should not, in the absence of an express legal or regulatory provision, result in the loss of the right to enjoy the public holiday.
From an employer’s perspective, this judgment makes it advisable to review the applicable collective bargaining provisions and the criteria used when preparing working calendars, particularly in organisations where employees have fixed rest days under Monday-to-Friday or Monday-to-Saturday working patterns. Although the doctrine may still evolve, taking this criterion into account may help prevent future collective disputes and individual claims.
