The general assembly of the Social Chamber of the Supreme Court reviews a case concerning unemployment benefits tied to a temporary layoff by the employer. The court notes that the period during which benefits were received because of a suspension of the employment contract does not count as time worked and may be postponed as a result of Covid-related force majeure circumstances formally declared during the pandemic.
In its ruling, the Fourth Chamber explains that the special Covid-19 regulations created by royal decree in 2020 do not establish a new rule that increases the level of unemployment benefits beyond what is normally expected. Instead, these provisions are seen as wage compensation for unemployment, while also enabling the possibility of a new benefit period to begin later.
In other words, the court emphasizes that the special law does not intend to create a broader or different right than that provided by the General Social Security Law (LGSS). Rather, it aims to protect the same legal status granted to workers under ordinary regulations. Although there is no employer contribution during the Covid unemployment benefit period, the court stresses that the annotation is consistent with existing frameworks.
The decision also states that periods of unemployment arising from purely contributory reasons may occur even if the worker is not actively performing a paid job. The text notes that such exceptional cases should be clearly addressed in the law, but the decree regulating Covid-19 scenarios did not cover them.
Gender violence only
Because this particular entitlement is not included in the special Covid regulations, the department maintains that the general rule under the Social Security Law remains valid. The only clear exception involves social benefits recognized through a suspension of the employment relationship due to gender violence.
Within this framework, the court interprets the law to mean that contributions calculated to recognize a previous entitlement cannot be used to determine a future unemployment benefit. This applies regardless of actions taken by the managing body or by the employer during the benefit payment period.
Consequently, the department rejected a unification doctrine claim brought by a hotel employee whose suspension fell under the ERTE regime during the pandemic. After termination, the employee filed suit against the State Public Employment Service (SPEE) for not honoring days previously granted for unemployment collection.
SEPE concluded that the 660 days allowed were correct because periods in ERTE status cannot be counted toward a future benefit. The case was approved by Social Court No. 6 of Madrid and by the High Court of Justice of Madrid, and the Fourth Chamber of the Supreme Court has now upheld that administrative stance.