The Supreme Court has clarified how meal and coffee breaks can be treated in the workplace, but only when there is an explicit preexisting agreement that covers them. In practice, this means that a break may count as effective working time — that is, paid and borne by the employer — if there is a prior written understanding that makes the break part of the official work schedule. It also establishes that an employee who arrives up to fifteen minutes after the scheduled start of the day is considered to have arrived on time, provided this is in line with the agreed terms.
This judicial decision is narrowly tailored to cases where there is a prior agreement and does not automatically apply to every worker. Legal sources consulted note that an employee cannot simply rely on this ruling to demand that the company pay for snack breaks or mid-shift meals if there was no written or longstanding written-turned-practical agreement. However, if a practice existed for a long period, even without a formal written clause, and was known and accepted by the employer, this could be argued as a more favorable condition for employees. In legal terms, these are known as “more favorable conditions.”
The ruling stems from a dispute between CaixaBank and the union representatives representing its employees. The case was brought by the national federation of unions CCOO and later joined by UGT and Secb, with the court’s decision binding CaixaBank to honor two favorable conditions that existed under an agreement signed in 1991 and still in force. The judgment requires the lender to respect those conditions as part of its employment terms with staff.
It is important to note that the Supreme Court has not always ruled in favor of union claims in the past. Earlier decisions indicated that stepping out for a cigarette break or to drink coffee could not be counted as active work time, requiring employees to clock out and back in for those moments. Those rulings effectively forced workers to make up for the time by staying late to meet the total hours specified in their contracts.
In this latest case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of CaixaBank employees and validated the conditions recognized in the current agreement. Specifically, employees are entitled to take a twenty-minute break from their duties each day for breakfast. This twenty-minute window falls within the hours the employee is expected to work and counts as part of the daily schedule under the applicable agreement.
Overall, the decision highlights the importance of clear, written agreements in defining what counts as paid working time and how routine breaks are treated. It also underlines the idea that longstanding, practical practices may acquire a form of protection if they have been consistently observed and accepted by both sides, even if they were not originally codified in writing. The CaixaBank case serves as a reminder for employers and workers alike to review existing arrangements and ensure they reflect current practice and mutual understanding, reducing disputes over time compensation and break policies. Citations to the ruling indicate that the outcome aligns with the specific terms of an agreement that remains in force and governs daily work life for many staff members. See the official court resolution and union commentary for more context on how these provisions are applied in daily operations and what this means for similar agreements elsewhere.