The High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands recognises that paid leave to go to the doctor can be justified with a private certificate

The Social Chamber of the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands, based in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, has upheld the collective conflict claim brought by the State Coordinator of the Handling and Air Sector (CESHA) against Atlántica de Handling SLU, and declares the right of the workforce to justify paid leave for medical appointments with a certificate from a medical professional, whether belonging to the Canary Islands Health Service or practising in the private sector. The judgment, of 22 October 2026 and with Judge Gloria Poyatos Matas as rapporteur, affects some 500 people working for the company in the Islands.

The dispute centred on article 53.13 of the company's IV collective agreement, published in the BOC on 2 April 2025, which regulates leave to go to the doctor. Under that provision, the worker must give notice "with the greatest possible advance notice" and provide proof "stating the date of issue of the proof, the start and end time of the medical appointment", with a leave duration of "two hours, or the effective time certified by the physician". The company maintained that the leave only covered appointments in the public health system, because admitting private medicine "could be used abusively". The CCOO and UGT unions, also defendants, acceded to the claimant union's request.

Current interest: the conflict was still alive

Before entering into the merits, the Chamber rejected the objection of lack of current interest raised by the company. The company argued that the only prior conflict was a 2013 judgment of a social court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife, which ordered it to pay 47.99 euros to a worker whose absence time was deducted after he justified an appointment with a private doctor. The court replies that this right was not only denied then, but "is also denied for the same reasons at the present time", as shown by the company's own reply to the claim, so that there is "a real, direct and current interest" of the workforce.

The merits: "doctor" and "physician" do not mean "public"

On the merits, the judgment interprets the article with several cumulative criteria. From the literal wording, the agreement speaks of "medical proof", "doctor" or "physician", terms which, "without prejudice to the reproach that may be made for the absence of inclusive language", do not expressly require the professional to belong to the public healthcare system. After consulting the Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy, the Chamber concludes that "no express condition is prescribed in its literal regulation", so that "any medical practitioner whether from the public or the private sector" is included.

From the purpose, the court underlines that those who negotiated the agreement wanted to regulate paid leave to attend an appointment for health reasons, a right protected by article 43 of the Constitution. In its view, "the fact of not providing services in the public health system does not affect the professional capacities of the medical practitioner", who can equally "attend, diagnose, prescribe medication or, where appropriate, treatment", so the purpose of the leave "is equally fulfilled with a public or private medical practitioner. There is no practical difference".

The gender perspective as an imperative mandate

The judgment expressly incorporates the gender perspective as a criterion of interpretation. With data from the Spanish Health Survey 2023, of the INE and the Ministry of Health, the Chamber finds that women attend medical appointments more than men: 31.3 percent of them as against 23.6 percent of them in the period analysed, with a difference rising to 10 points in the 35 to 44 age bracket. Female workers also bear a wage gap of 16.07 percent in 2024, according to the INE. Given that "greater impact" on the female population, the court states that it must "heighten interpretative caution by integrating the gender perspective".

The resolution recalls that this perspective "is not an option for the one who judges, but an imperative legal mandate", as the case law of the Constitutional Court confirms, and "an obligatory methodology of resolution" in conflicts involving asymmetric relationships or stereotypical gender patterns, "even when the parties do not expressly request it". The Chamber supports that mandate in the Constitution, the Organic Law of the Judiciary, the Organic Law for the effective equality of women and men, the CEDAW Convention and Law 15/2022, for equal treatment and non-discrimination. From this follows "necessarily a flexible and pro persona interpretation": admitting any medical certificate, public or private, because the opposite option "would harmfully affect the right to enjoy this paid leave, with the eventual increase, where appropriate, of the wage gap affecting female workers".

A plain-language reasoning addressed to the workforce

Another particularity of the judgment is that one of its legal grounds is devoted to summarising it in plain language, in application of Organic Law 5/2024, of 11 November, on the Right of Defence, and "given the social impact of this resolution". In that section, written "in simple and understandable language", the Chamber explains directly to the persons affected that "the judgment recognises that paid leave to attend a medical appointment can be justified with a certificate from either public or private healthcare", that a medical practitioner "is any person legally authorised to practise medicine" and that, "whether public or private, they have the same professional capacity to attend, diagnose or prescribe a treatment". The summary also reflects the gender dimension of the case and concludes that "the company must accept, without distinction, medical appointment certificates issued by public or private healthcare professionals".

A practical doctrine for negotiation and labour litigation

The judgment offers a replicable pattern of collective-agreement interpretation: when the negotiated text uses general terms - "medical proof", "physician" - unwritten restrictions to the detriment of the workforce will not be admitted, and the gender perspective will operate as a reinforced canon even if no party invokes it. For human resources departments, the practical conclusion is immediate: internal policies limiting certificates to public healthcare must be reviewed. And for employment lawyers, the collective conflict route once again shows its usefulness for setting general interpretations of company agreements.

You can also read our piece on the confirmed sanction for forcing waitresses to wear a head covering, the analysis of reinstatement and business succession in the Supreme Court and the coverage of the new CUME benefit under Royal Decree 957/2026.

Sources

• Poder Judicial, press release of the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands: "The TSJ of the Canary Islands recognises that paid leave to go to the doctor can be justified with a private certificate"