{"id":19627,"date":"2026-06-08T11:21:36","date_gmt":"2026-06-08T09:21:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/martilawyers.com\/?p=19627"},"modified":"2026-06-08T11:21:36","modified_gmt":"2026-06-08T09:21:36","slug":"public-holidays-falling-on-saturdays-and-weekly-rest-a-right-to-compensation-or-media-confusion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/martilawyers.com\/en\/public-holidays-falling-on-saturdays-and-weekly-rest-a-right-to-compensation-or-media-confusion\/","title":{"rendered":"Public holidays falling on Saturdays and weekly rest: a right to compensation or media confusion?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In recent days, National Court Judgment no. 88\/2026, dated 19 May, has generated considerable discussion in the employment law field, particularly following its coverage in the media and on professional social networks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And this is precisely where the first issue arises: the information we now receive through different channels can be very useful, but it can also have the opposite effect, creating confusion for both companies and employees. In employment law, a striking headline may give the impression that a new general and immediate right has been recognised, when in fact the scope of any judgment must be assessed in light of its context, the sector concerned, the applicable collective agreement and the specific working time arrangement in place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The National Court\u2019s ruling was issued in the context of a collective dispute in the Contact Center sector. The dispute concerned an employer practice consisting of not compensating national, regional or local public holidays that fell on a Saturday, where that Saturday was already a regular weekly rest day for employees working from Monday to Friday, or from Monday to Saturday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The underlying legal question is easy to formulate, although not always easy to apply: can a public holiday be considered to have been effectively enjoyed if it coincides with a day on which the employee was already resting as part of their ordinary weekly rest?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The National Court\u2019s answer is no.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s reasoning is based on an essential point: weekly rest and public holidays have a different nature and purpose. Weekly rest is linked to the ordinary right to recover within the usual organisation of working time, whereas public holidays are paid and non-recoverable days, recognised by law for their own specific purpose. Therefore, where both rights coincide on the same day, the public holiday is deprived of its substance unless the employee is allowed to enjoy it effectively at another time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following previous Supreme Court case law, the judgment considers that public holidays which coincide with weekly rest days must be treated as not having been enjoyed and must therefore be compensated. Such compensation must be recognised without prejudice to compliance with the applicable annual working time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This last point is particularly important. One of the most common questions is whether granting a compensatory rest day entails reducing the annual working time agreed under the applicable collective agreement. The National Court rejects this approach. According to the Court, recognising this rest day does not necessarily involve a reduction in annual working time, but rather requires proper planning and distribution of the working calendar from the beginning of the year, taking into account any public holidays that may coincide with weekly rest days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other words, the employer is not released from the obligation to organise working time properly simply because a public holiday falls on a Saturday that is already a regular rest day. If the public holiday calendar is known, it must be taken into account when preparing the annual distribution of working time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That said, overly broad or automatic interpretations should also be avoided. The judgment relates to a specific collective dispute within the Contact Center sector and examines the general practice existing in that sector. Although the National Court applies Supreme Court case law and the criterion may have a broader impact, it should not be assumed, without further analysis, that every public holiday falling on a Saturday automatically gives rise to an additional rest day in all sectors and for all types of working time arrangements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Each case will need to be assessed individually, taking into account the applicable collective agreement, annual working time, the system for distributing working time, whether rest days are fixed or rotating, the approved working calendar and, where applicable, any specific rules on the compensation of public holidays.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the case examined, the National Court declares that the practice of not compensating public holidays falling on a Saturday that is also a weekly rest day is not compliant with the law and recognises the right to an additional day of effective rest. The judgment also provides that such compensation should be taken within a period not exceeding 14 days, and that uncompensated public holidays may be claimed within the applicable limitation period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ruling is not yet final, and it will therefore be necessary to monitor its development, particularly whether the Supreme Court confirms this criterion in the same terms. Nevertheless, the judgment is based on a line of case law that has been reinforcing the idea that rest rights cannot be neutralised by a mere formal coincidence in the calendar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In conclusion, this judgment should not be read merely as recognising \u201cone more day of rest\u201d, nor as an automatic rule applicable without nuance. Its true significance lies in reminding us that working calendars cannot be prepared as a simple calculation of annual hours but must ensure the effective enjoyment of all rest rights recognised by law and by collective agreements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For companies, this doctrine reinforces the need to review annual working time planning with particular care, especially public holidays coinciding with weekly rest days and the way in which such overlaps are compensated, where applicable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For employees, it provides an additional safeguard against practices which, although they may appear neutral from an organisational perspective, may ultimately deprive distinct employment rights of their substance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, rather than an isolated development, this judgment is a further reminder of the importance of interpreting and applying employment rights in accordance with the principle of effectiveness: it is not enough for rights to be recognised on paper; employees must be able to enjoy them in practice.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In recent days, National Court Judgment no. 88\/2026, dated 19 May, has generated considerable discussion in the employment law field, particularly following its coverage in the media and on professional social networks. And this is precisely where the first issue arises: the information we now receive through different channels can be very useful, but it […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":19628,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[113],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19627","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-laboral-en"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/martilawyers.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/pexels-bertellifotografia-29509514-scaled.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/martilawyers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19627","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/martilawyers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/martilawyers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/martilawyers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/martilawyers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19627"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/martilawyers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19627\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19635,"href":"https:\/\/martilawyers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19627\/revisions\/19635"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/martilawyers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/19628"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/martilawyers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19627"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/martilawyers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19627"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/martilawyers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19627"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}