A Supreme Court ruling issued last September analyzes what happens when the lunch break does not allow for a real disconnection for the worker.
The Supreme Court does not establish a general rule for all cases, but it does identify the elements that can turn that period into effective working time, with a direct impact on the organization of the workday and remuneration.
The Supreme Court examines whether during the break there is availability, interruptions, calls, work communications, or restrictions to leave the post.
When these situations prevent a real disconnection, the break loses its nature of rest and can be considered effective work.
According to Ana Lahuerta, partner in Labor Law of the Tax & Legal area at RSM, "the Ruling does not open a new legal front, but it does provide a very interesting analysis of the remuneration for the lunch break during the workday and, therefore, of its consideration or not as effective working time, distinguishing between presence time and periods of real disconnection".
The labor law expert emphasizes that, in case of serious breaches, "companies could risk corresponding economic sanctions," and warns that the lack of real breaks "could lead to higher employee turnover or an increase in absenteeism due to work-related stress."
The ruling, in relation to the provisions of Article 34 of the Workers' Statute, highlights the relevance of attending to the provisions of the **Collective Agreement** applicable to the company.
As a reference standard, the specific agreement may establish that the lunch break is effective working time, with the economic implications that this entails.
When the above does not apply correctly, financial claims may arise. As Ana Lahuerta explains, "the company could risk legal action being filed, claiming payment of the corresponding amounts".
The Supreme Court also recalls that modifying the duration, treatment, or calculation of the break may constitute a substantial modification of working conditions, which requires following the procedure regulated in Article 41 of the Workers' Statute. Unilateral changes can be challenged
Faced with this scenario, the RSM expert insists on the need to review internal policies to ensure that the break allows for real physical, mental, and digital disconnection.
In her final assessment, Ana Lahuerta states: "the issues analyzed in the ruling invite companies to **analyze their human resources policy regarding rest periods** and to adopt corrective measures if workers' disconnection during their rest periods is not being respected."
In a context where the line between work and rest is increasingly blurred, the ruling recalls that the break must be an effective and verifiable rest, not disguised availability.
