The National Court guarantees that the 5 -day permission for family care does not always end with the hospital discharge

The National court It has failed in favor of a five -day wage permit for persons who have been severely accident or disease, hospital admission or surgical intervention, which requires rest in favor of a five -day pay permit, it requires rest It does not end immediately when providing the hospital discharge. The sentence advanced on Monday Newspaper The person who has already approached the newspaper can enjoy five days in the event of a hospital eviction and establishs the rest of the patient’s relaxation. The resolution is not yet sure, and can be used before the Supreme Court.

In 2024 Labor Commissions (CCOO) filed a request for a company in the food industry Whether it was recommended for home retirement, the agreement was established in whose agreement was that the permit would only last when the person was admitted to the hospital. The union understood that if the exit was provided, the days were exhausted and the patient was not recommended to rest, the union understood that you could experience five days of full permit, and as a result, the restriction of his contract was contrary to the law.

UGD then Joining CCOO’s request, argued it The company’s description is contrary to the principle of true equality and established the gender work gap. The reason is that the union pointed out that this explanation is traditionally taken care of, reducing the rights of the co -operatives of family fees.

The move was introduced by the government in 2023 with parents’ permission, expansion of other permits and other compromise and adaptation. In particular, the article of the stated standard 37.3b) establishes a five -day permit ” Serious accident or illness, requiring surgical intervention without being hospitalized Until the second degree of life companion, real pair or relatives, including a real couple’s compatible family, as well as its useful care, including any person other than the previous person who lives with the working person at the same address. “

In its argument, the National Court echoes the judiciary of the Supreme Court, which has already been revealed in the previous judgment The hospital does not “not determine” the license for being admitted to the hospital. This understands the High Court, as the workers’ law equals the views of continuous assistance and home relaxation “for the purpose of experiencing the relevant permit”.

The cause of the permit establishes the peak theory that the family does not have to be solved in personal, physical and direct care because the disease or income may be needed “Another type of dedication to directly associated with personal attention”. Similarly, the judicial department points out that if the home rest is useful, the patient is “with the third party, the worker (family), in this case.”