Many workers think that productivity incentives or variable complements depend exclusively on being active in their workplace, but this is not the case. Under this logic, many companies deduct from the calculation of these bonuses the days that the employee is on leave due to temporary disability or due to conciliation to care for a family member. Now, the Supreme Court has established doctrine on this practice and explains that remuneration systems cannot punish legally justified absences due to health or work-life balance.
The Social Chamber explains that combating work absenteeism is a completely legal objective for any company. The Supreme Court details that companies can reward attendance but not at the cost of violating fundamental rights or ignoring the recent Law 15/2022 for equal treatment (consultable in this BOE). If the money received on the payroll at the end of the month decreases proportionally to the number of days you have been on medical leave, direct discrimination occurs due to illness.
In other words, the objective of a productivity bonus is to encourage performance and reward work well done, but it cannot become a penalizing tool for personal misfortunes. That is why the company can deduct your incentive if you miss work without justification, but it is not obliged or authorized to cut your variable remuneration for having suffered an illness or for exercising your paid leave.
The difference between combating absenteeism and discriminating
If we look at the legal basis, the key lies in the reasons for the absence. The Supreme Court distinguishes between unjustified absences and those motivated by caring for family members or one’s own health. Given the company’s justification that it only intended to reward presence, the Court is categorical and indicates that “absenteeism must be combated without violating the Constitution” and always respecting equality laws.
In summary, the Supreme Court warns of the danger of indirect discrimination. If women were forced to comply with a strict number of productive days, discounting leave for hospitalization of relatives, women would be seriously harmed.
Statistics show that they mostly assume family care tasks. As the ruling explains verbatim, applying a reduction in the bonus for using these permits “places men at a disadvantage compared to the accrual of the salary supplement.”
Ruling on the withdrawal of salary supplements for being on sick leave
This argument comes as a result of the ruling STS 35/2026 (consultable at this link of the Judiciary) originated by a collective dispute against the company Ayesa Ibermática. The UGT and CCOO unions sued the company because its variable remuneration system required 741 technical employees to complete a certain number of productive days. The problem was that the company refused to count as productive the days of temporary disability or paid leave of its workers.
First, the National Court agreed with the workers’ representatives by considering this practice null and void. The company subsequently appealed, alleging that a temporary leave is not the same as a long-term disability and that its measure only sought to encourage attendance.
The Supreme Court has corrected the business approach and dismissed the lawsuit, confirming that the employee’s health cannot be punished. The ruling is clear in illustrating the unfairness of the system, indicating that “a worker with 24 hours or more of absence in a month due to having been on medical leave would be entitled to 0% of the amount” corresponding to his center. In this way, it is consolidated that, during medical leave or care leave, the worker must keep intact his right to variable supplements.