Spanish Supreme Court Confirms Record Compensation for Overtime Mispayment. The Spanish Supreme Court has ordered a company from the port of Santander to pay a mechanic over 116,000 euros for the incorrect payment of overtime. The court ruled that a 'bonus for attendance' cannot substitute for proper overtime pay.
In Spain, judicial practice on labor disputes continues to develop based on real cases that affect not only individual companies but the entire wage system. One such case concluded with a Supreme Court decision ordering an employer to pay significant compensation to a mechanic from the port of Santander for years of incorrect overtime payment.
The essence of the dispute was that the employer tried to compensate for the employee’s overtime by means of a so-called 'attendance bonus.' This approach allowed the company to avoid accounting for the actual number of overtime hours worked, substituting them with a fixed supplement. However, the worker, who had served as a mechanic on a sea tug since 2006, disagreed with this arrangement and took the case to court.
Arguments of the parties
The employee insisted that his schedule required him to be almost constantly available for work: for weeks at a time he stayed on board the vessel, and at other times he was obliged to be on call for emergencies. Nevertheless, the company limited itself to paying the 'attendance bonus,' refusing to recognize overtime as a distinct type of work that required special compensation.
The employer insisted that the attendance bonus partially covered overtime, but courts at all levels consistently rejected this argument. The key point was the Supreme Court’s clarification: the attendance bonus and overtime pay are fundamentally different types of compensation and cannot be used interchangeably.
Court decisions
The first ruling was issued by Social Court No. 4 of Santander, which recognized the employment relationship as terminated at the worker’s initiative and awarded compensation of €74,016.08. After an appeal to the High Court of Cantabria, the amount was increased to €116,950.32. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the cassation appeal, confirmed that the “attendance bonus” cannot offset overtime, and ordered the company to pay not only the compensation, but also all outstanding amounts for overtime hours.
The court’s decision emphasizes: constant availability by the employee is not the same as actual overtime work, and therefore must be compensated separately. This approach protects the rights of employees whose workload involves irregular hours and a high level of commitment.
Significance for the labor market
This case has become illustrative for many workers and employers in Spain, especially in sectors with flexible schedules and the need for constant readiness. The Supreme Court’s decision sets clear boundaries: any attempts to replace overtime pay with other bonuses are not compliant with labor legislation.
The importance of proper wage payments is also emphasized in other aspects of labor market regulation. For example, the discussion of new rules for withholding taxes from the minimum wage, which was recently covered in the article about upcoming changes in the SMI withholding system, is also related to issues of transparency and fairness in wage payments.
Court conclusions
The Supreme Court made it clear: the existence of an 'attendance bonus' does not exempt the employer from the obligation to pay for overtime at separate rates. Being available and actually working overtime are different concepts, and mixing them infringes on employee rights. The company is now required to pay the mechanic not only compensation for termination of employment but also all overtime payments that were not properly compensated.
This precedent may serve as a benchmark for other employees who encounter employers attempting to circumvent legal wage requirements. As Talent24h notes, the court’s decision confirms that protecting labor rights in Spain remains a priority for the judicial system.
