The origin of this litigation dates back to collective disputes initially filed in several labor courts in Las Palmas. Various entities within the Riu Group, owners or managers of such iconic resorts in the southern tourist area of Gran Canaria as the Hotel Riu Palace Maspalomas, the Hotel Riu Palace Oasis, the Hotel Riu Gran Canaria, the Hotel Riu Palmeras, the Hotel Riu Vistamar, and the Riu Papayas and Flamingo complex, reached a direct agreement with the UGT union representatives. This agreement was ratified by the courts with the intention of settling disputes regarding rest periods for hospitality staff, establishing a specific framework for situations where the mandatory 12-hour rest period between the end of one shift and the beginning of the next was not respected, explicitly requesting that "the right of workers to enjoy a minimum of twelve hours of rest between shifts" be declared.
The content of the annulled agreement allowed for "rest periods between shifts, as established by Royal Decree 1561/95," to be "up to a minimum of 10 hours." However, the most contentious point, and the one that prompted court intervention, lay in the formula chosen to compensate for this loss of free time. The agreement stipulated that if the company could not make up this rest time with alternative days off "whenever possible, taking into account customer service needs," the reduction would be compensated directly in the workers' monthly paychecks under the specific designation of "12-Hour Rest."
The financial amounts established in that agreement increased progressively over the years, starting at 85 or 95 euros gross per month in 2024 for certain salary levels, and gradually climbing to projected amounts of 132 euros in 2026, 143 euros in 2027, 154 euros in 2028, 165 euros in 2029, and automatic annual reviews from 2030 onwards. For the plaintiff union, this alternative commodified a fundamental and inalienable right, turning the organizational saturation of hotel chains into a system of systematic buying and selling of the rest of kitchen, housekeeping, reception, and maintenance staff.
The High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands bases its decision on the flagrant violation of Royal Decree 1561 of 1995 on special working hours, recalling that the regulatory text is unequivocal in stipulating that "the enjoyment of compensatory rest periods provided for in this Royal Decree may not be substituted by financial compensation." The ruling emphasizes that the occupational health and physical integrity of staff in tourist destinations cannot be subject to a simple monthly financial transaction motivated by a lack of foresight or high occupancy rates in hotels.
Furthermore, the court ruling criticizes the complete lack of clarity regarding the reference periods established in the annulled agreement. The text drafted by the parties left the decision to postpone the alternative rest period to the company's discretion under the ambiguous pretext of "customer service needs," without establishing precise reference periods and creating a situation of clear legal uncertainty and lack of protection for the workers. The judges emphasize that the law requires specific timeframes and effective guarantees of the actual enjoyment of the rest period, requirements that were conspicuously absent from the agreement reached between the hotel group and the union.
This court ruling represents a legal setback for extra-statutory agreements that seek to make working hours more flexible through financial compensation in a region as labor-stressed as southern Gran Canaria. Large hotel chains now face the obligation to reorganize their work schedules and shifts, strictly adhering to the legal limits of rest periods between shifts, thus protecting staff rights against monetization methods that the courts have just declared illegal and null and void.
Yurena Vega
