A grandmother will have right to adapt your work day to take care of your granddaughterwith whom he lives. The mother The one-year-old girl is undergoing training and the case has ended up in court. Now one judgment emphasizes that this is recognized by the Workers’ Statute.
The ruling of the Social Court number 2 of Santander, announced this Monday by the Unión Sindical Obrera (USO) union, upholds the lawsuit filed by a worker from the Telyco company who requested adapt your working day to be able to take care of her granddaughter who is under one year old.
The reason is that her daughter and granddaughter are a single-parent family and the former is taking a middle-grade training cycle that begins at six in the afternoon, so the worker asks change from your usual schedule to, in short, work fewer hours in the afternoons.
What did the company say to refuse?
The company replied that this it was not possible due to the conditions of the work center, located in a shopping center that opens until ten at night, and argued that there were already three people with reduction of working hours due to legal guardianship and the care of first-degree relatives had to prevail.
The judge denies this response and explains that article 34.8 of the Workers’ Statute establishes the right to modify the day to make effective the right to reconcile family and work lifeboth for the care of children and for other dependent people if they live at the same address, and that the only exception is that “it is excessively burdensome for the organization of the company.”
Remember that in view of this right, the company has to open a negotiation process after which it will accept the worker’s request, or deny it or propose an alternative, in both cases giving reasons.
And the judge concludes that, “taking into account the nature of the right at stake”, the organizational reasons given by the company “are not sufficient”, since “its refusal cannot be supported by the increase or modification of the colleagues’ shifts. of the plaintiff with a full day, because such an effect is normally inherent to the adaptation of the discussed day and would systematically lead to her impediment”.
He emphasizes that the fact that the plaintiff asks to adapt his day to care for his granddaughter, with whom he lives, is a case provided for in the aforementioned norm, which cites “relatives by consanguinity up to the second degree of the worker”, and in which “no preference or priority is established (.. .) regarding the care of a child under 12 years of age”.
It also highlights that the company has not provided proposals to somehow facilitate the adaptation of the worker’s day, in a more “flexible” way. The ruling, against which there is no appeal, nevertheless rejects the additional compensation of 1,250 euros requested by the plaintiff.