Spain Press Editorial Team
An unusual labour law case is currently sparking debate in Spain: a long-serving employee of a steel company in Logroño was dismissed for consistently refusing to take the 15-minute break (“descanso del bocadillo”) to which he was legally and contractually entitled during his shift. This decision was recently upheld by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de La Rioja (TSJ) and classified as a lawful dismissal (“despido procedente”).
Background of the case
The employee in question had over 20 years of service and worked in the local steel industry. In 2023, he informed his employer that he intended to complete his regular working hours from 07:00 to 15:00 — without taking the additional fifteen minutes that normally cover the designated break period. In Spain, this 15-minute pause is commonly known as the “descanso del bocadillo,” a legally mandated rest period for employees whose working day exceeds six continuous hours.
In fact, Article 34.4 of the Estatuto de los Trabajadores stipulates that for working hours exceeding six hours, a rest period of at least 15 minutes must be provided — with this period being counted as working time or not, depending on the terms of the company agreement.
In this specific case, there was a company agreement from 2008 stipulating that this break does not count as working time and therefore is not included in the hours for which employees are paid. Accordingly, employees are required to “make up” these 15 minutes at the end of their shift.
Conflict and legal dispute
Although this agreement had been practised for years and supported by employee representatives, the worker in question repeatedly refused to take the break and announced that he would no longer observe it in the future. His argument extended to demanding that this time be retrospectively counted as working hours — a provision that is covered neither by his current contract nor by existing labour law.
The steel company treated this refusal as a repeated breach of duty and issued a dismissal, which was ultimately upheld by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de La Rioja. The court argued that the employee’s behaviour not only violated the company agreement but also contravened fundamental provisions regarding the prevention of occupational hazards, which are designed to protect the designated break period and, in turn, the safety and health of staff.
Legal consequences
For employees and employers, the distinction between a lawful (procedente) and an unlawful (improcedente) dismissal is of great importance:
-
A lawful dismissal results in a lower severance payment, in this case 20 days’ pay per year of service, up to a maximum of 12 months’ salary.
-
Had the court ruled the dismissal as unlawful, the severance would have amounted to 33 days’ pay per year of service, with a maximum of 24 months’ salary.
A precedent for the labour market
The case highlights that even seemingly minor aspects of the working day — such as a short meal break — can be legally binding if they are regulated by law, collective agreement, or company policy. The ruling of the TSJ La Rioja makes it clear that the repeated and unjustified disregard of such rules by employees can justify disciplinary measures, including dismissal.
Employers and employees are therefore equally urged to be fully aware of both their rights and their obligations — including everyday aspects such as a short break — as established within the framework of legal regulations.
