The Supreme Court, in its ruling 68/2026, has established unified doctrine by which it establishes that, for an employee to become part-time retired, it is necessary for the company to give its approval, unless the applicable collective agreement explicitly imposes this obligation to accept it. In this way, it clarifies the doubt about whether early partial retirement was an automatic right upon reaching the age and years of contributions required by law.
The Supreme Court explains that companies are not obliged to accept workers’ requests for early partial retirement, even if employees meet all the requirements required by Social Security. It will always be necessary for there to be an agreement between the parties to transform the contract.
However, the ruling clarifies that only in the event that a collective agreement imposes on the company the obligation to accept the request or sign a new replacement contract, can workers then unilaterally demand their right to early partial retirement.
The conflict between “encourage” and “oblige” in agreements
The high court resolves an employee’s lawsuit against a railway company that denied him early partial retirement. The collective agreement established that workers who wanted to access this situation had to submit to the company the work life report and the application with one month’s notice so that it could organize the workforce and sign a new replacement contract. The affected party pointed out that a collectively negotiated measure could not be left to the mere will of the company.
The Supreme Court’s ruling, dated January 27, analyzes various previous similar rulings to unify doctrine. The court points out that, although the Workers’ Statute indicates in its article 12 that in collective bargaining measures may be established to promote the conclusion of replacement contracts, “partial retirement cannot be imposed on the worker either by the company… or through collective bargaining.”
The Chamber adds that “it is also not possible to understand that the change of a full-time contract to a part-time job can be imposed on the company for the purposes of access to partial retirement, although the company must agree to this, to the extent possible, and justify its possible denial.” The Supreme Court clarifies that “promoting the conclusion of replacement contracts” refers to “encouraging, stimulating or promoting”, but not to force workers to retire early, but rather to facilitate the process for them.
“From the regulation contained in the labor and Social Security regulations, it can be concluded that the company is not legally obliged to accept the worker’s partial retirement proposal, nor to formalize a replacement contract, nor can the company impose this formula for renewing its workforce,” recalls the ruling. Only when the agreement imposes a business duty to accept the request will it be understood that a direct right exists.
Therefore, the ruling concludes that when the collective agreement provides that the interested parties must present the certificate of working life and their writing without further details, “it cannot be understood that we are dealing with a true and perfect right that is enforceable, an agreement between the parties to the employment contract being necessary.” To avoid the need for this mutual agreement, future agreements must establish this imposition unequivocally.