Due to its nature of paid leave, the use of trade union credit requires prior notice and justification, even if it is generic (for example: assembly, meeting, training, congress, etc.), so as not to infringe on freedom of association.
Article 68.e) of the Workers’ Statute grants workers’ representatives a credit of paid monthly hours to exercise their representation functions, in accordance with the following scale, which may be improved by applicable collective agreement:
- Up to 100 employees, 15 hours.
- From 101 to 250 employees, 20 hours.
- From 251 to 500 employees, 30 hours.
- From 501 to 750 employees, 35 hours.
- From 751 employees onwards, 40 hours.
Representatives can use this credit to, for example, answer staff queries, prepare and attend meetings with the company, participate in negotiation committees, carry out information and consultation tasks, or receive training related to their representative activity, among many other activities.
These hours have the nature of a paid leave to satisfy collective needs, rather than individual needs, in accordance with the provisions of article 37.3.e) of the Workers’ Statute (“to carry out trade union or staff representation functions”). For this reason, it has traditionally been required to give prior notice and justification for its use, although the interpretation of its scope has been flexible so as not to infringe on the right to freedom of association of the representative who utilizes it.
However, in accordance with the latest doctrine of the Supreme Court (judgments of 11 June 2024 and 18 September 2025), it does not infringe such freedom of association if the company asks the workers’ representative requesting the use of the trade union credit to indicate the task or work to be carried out in a generic manner (for example, assembly, meeting, training, congress, etc.), without demanding full proof of the specific activities carried out during the hours used.
The Supreme Court understands that it is a valid requirement for all cases of leave, including others that also involve the exercise of rights (or duties) of constitutional scope, and even so they must be justified, which is why it is also applicable to trade union credit.
The Court clarifies that a justification that is limited to stating that the trade union credit is “for the exercise of the functions as a staff delegate under the protection of the right to freedom of association” is not sufficient, since it only reiterates the content of the right that is already recognized in the Workers’ Statute. And it highlights in its 2025 ruling that requiring a justification could entail an interference in the right to freedom of association if it were “rigorous and exhaustive use of the trade union time credit that, in some way, curtailed the freedom of the trade union when exercising its trade union functions”.
Likewise, in the case analyzed in 2024 for its doctrinal unification, the Court endorses the possibility that the company stops paying the salary for the time that the representative does not justify in the generic way required, “although without adopting sanctioning measures or preventing its enjoyment”.
Therefore, although we are dealing with a right and guarantee of workers’ representatives, based on the latest interpretation of the Supreme Court, the generic justification of its use, in the terms indicated, acquires a relevant role.
Ángela Trigo
