RIU Hotels fined over rest periods under 12 hours between shifts

The High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias, TSJ Canary Islands) has dismissed the appeal lodged by Hotel RIU, S.A. and upheld the order to pay €1,463.82 to a pool attendant at the Hotel Riu Palace Oasis for 139 specific hours during which the company failed to respect the minimum rest of 12 hours between shifts. The ruling is STSJ ICAN 556/2026, of 12 March 2026 (rapporteur Mas Carrillo), and it declares void the verbal pact that had existed at the hotel since 1995, under which days with reduced rest were compensated with about €2.42 per day — roughly €72.60 per month worked under those conditions.

The interest of the ruling lies mainly in the legal reasoning. The court recalls that article 2.2 of Royal Decree 1561/1995 prohibits substituting compensatory rest with financial compensation, and that renders void any pact, verbal or written, that reduces the rest between shifts and trades it for money.

What was happening at the Hotel Riu Palace Oasis

The claimant had worked as a pool attendant at the Hotel Riu Palace Oasis since 7 November 2022, with a prorated salary of €1,876.19. According to the proven facts, his ordinary hourly rate was €11.98 in 2022, €12.28 in 2023 and €12.59 in 2024. Filing under the excess-working-time provisions, he was claiming the 139 hours of rest between shifts that fell below the 12-hour minimum set by article 24.3 of the Las Palmas province hospitality sector collective agreement.

In response, the company invoked a verbal pact in force at that hotel since at least 1995: whenever a worker linked two shifts with less than 12 hours of rest between them, they were paid €72.60 per month — €2.42 for each of those days if they worked them all. RIU argued that this was the compensation channel historically applied at the site, and pointed to the existence of analogous written agreements with the works councils of other hotels in the group — Riu Adeje, Riu Calypso, Riu Ventura and Riu Palace Jandía.

Social Court No. 7 of Las Palmas partially upheld the claim on 28 June 2024 and ordered RIU to pay the full 139 hours at the ordinary hourly rate, with a total award of €1,463.82 plus late-payment interest under article 29.3 of the Workers’ Statute. The judge found the verbal pact to be contrary to article 3.5 of the Workers’ Statute, because it affected a non-waivable right and offered compensation that was disproportionate and disconnected from any real alternative rest. The amount claimed was below the €3,000 threshold, which led the court to initially deny the appeal; RIU had to open the door to the second instance via the complaint appeal (recurso de queja), which was granted by order of the same chamber on 26 September 2024 after finding that the disputed collective pact had general impact.

The argument the Canary Islands TSJ considers decisive

The chamber dismisses the three procedural grounds raised by RIU — territorial jurisdiction, consistency and reasoning — and moves on to the substance. The legal reasoning brings together three rules:

• Article 24.3 of the Las Palmas province hospitality sector collective agreement sets a minimum of 12 hours of rest between shifts and expressly refers to the terms of Royal Decree 1561/1995 to regulate any reduction.
• Royal Decree 1561/1995, on special working hours, allows that rest to be reduced in hospitality down to a minimum of 10 hours, but its article 2.2 is categorical: “The enjoyment of the compensatory rest periods provided for in this Royal Decree cannot be substituted by financial compensation, save in the case of termination of the employment relationship for reasons other than those arising from the duration of the contract.”
• Article 3.5 of the Workers’ Statute (Estatuto de los Trabajadores) prevents the worker from validly waiving rights recognised as non-waivable by collective agreement or by mandatory law.

The compensation the regulation requires when rest between shifts is reduced is alternative rest, within the reference periods that Royal Decree 1561/1995 itself sets for hospitality. Replacing that rest with a fixed monthly amount breaks the logic of the provision and disregards the non-waivable nature of the right.

The chamber relies on its own ruling of 9 January 2026, issued in proceedings 26/2024, where it had already voided an agreement between the same RIU Hotels and the FESMC-UGT trade union (Federación de Servicios para la Movilidad y el Consumo) reached in a judicial settlement. That agreement, which set 10 hours as the minimum between shifts and provided for subsidiary financial compensation on the payslip when no alternative rest was possible, was likewise declared void for the same reason: Royal Decree 1561/1995 does not allow financial compensation for reduced rest. That line connects with the fine confirmed by the same court in the STSJ ICAN 629/2026 on TIPEX in SUFI’s time tracking record and with the collective MSCT voided at CIRCET, also from the Social Chamber of Las Palmas.

The TSJ transfers that reasoning directly to the verbal pact at the Riu Palace Oasis. It adds a point that matters in evidentiary terms: the company also failed to demonstrate that the worker had enjoyed additional weekly rest hours capable of giving material cover to the pact, or that the time tracking record reflected a shorter working day in compensation. In practice, the pact operated as a flat payment for reducing the rest, with no real alternative rest behind it.

Why this case connects directly with time tracking

The matter is resolved without time tracking being the centre of the debate, yet it underpins the entire factual discussion. The court accepted as proven 139 specific hours of unenjoyed rest between shifts. Those hours are ultimately established by cross-checking the end-of-shift time and the start-of-shift time of the following day, day by day, throughout the claim period. Without a reliable record, that detailed accounting is very hard to establish and to challenge.

There is a second layer that also depends on the record: the alternative rest. Royal Decree 1561/1995 does not prohibit reducing the rest between shifts in hospitality; it requires the reduction to be compensated with real rest within certain reference periods. To prove that compensatory rest, the company needs to be able to show on which days the worker put in fewer hours or had additional rest. That traceability can only stand if the time tracking record captures real clock-in and clock-out times and aggregates the daily totals per worker.

The draft Royal Decree on Digital Time Tracking, recently put out for public consultation by the Spanish Government, reinforces this very requirement: digital records, accessible, with daily and monthly totals and traceability of any change. Once it enters into force, cases like the Riu Palace Oasis one will be much easier to argue in court, in both directions.

For a hospitality company with rotating shifts, split workdays or night services, the combination of art. 24.3 of the hospitality collective agreement + Royal Decree 1561/1995 + art. 3.5 of the Workers’ Statute sets three clear operational lines after this case:

• Maintain 12 hours of rest between shifts as the general rule.
• If it is reduced — down to a minimum of 10 hours — always do so with alternative rest that is identifiable in the calendar and traceable in the time tracking record, not with an amount on the payslip.
• Do not sign or maintain verbal pacts that involve financial compensation for reduced rest, even where they are decades old and accepted by the works council.

Real cost of the case for RIU

Beyond the €1,463.82 owed to the worker, the judgment carries late-payment interest under article 29.3 of the Workers’ Statute from the accrual date and, on appeal, €800 in legal fees for the opposing party’s counsel as costs, on top of the loss of the deposit and the security lodged to appeal. The TSJ notes that an appeal in cassation for the unification of doctrine is available, but the chamber relies on its own prior doctrine of January 2026, which makes it predictable that any new individual claim against the same verbal pact will be resolved along the same lines.

The scope reaches beyond the claimant. The September 2024 complaint-appeal order already found the pact to have general impact, which opens the door to individual claims from the rest of the Riu Palace Oasis workforce in categories with rotating shifts. Through the Las Palmas hospitality collective agreement, the reading of article 2.2 of Royal Decree 1561/1995 also extends to the rest of the sector in the province, which multiplies the aggregate potential cost of the model the court has just voided.

Three checks for hotel chains with rotating shifts

This ruling forces three reviews at any hospitality company with shifts — and especially in the Canary Islands, where the TSJ has now voided the same compensation model twice.

The first is to check whether any hotel, restaurant or chain in the group has pacts — written or not — that compensate rest periods of less than 12 hours between shifts with money. The second is to confirm that the time tracking record makes it possible to identify, day by day, the shifts where that rest fell below the minimum. The third, and probably the most operationally delicate, is to check that the shift roster leaves real room to grant the alternative rest: in high-occupancy hotels with tight staffing, this can conflict with service coverage and force a direct rethink of headcount or shift distribution. The new line of the Canary Islands TSJ leaves no shortcuts on this last point.

Cleverfy records clock-in and clock-out times accurately per worker and lets you review the real rest between shifts day by day. If you are reviewing hospitality shifts ahead of the new Royal Decree coming into force, you can see a demo or check the plans.

---

This article is general information about a specific judicial decision and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult an employment lawyer.

Sources:

• STSJ ICAN 556/2026 — CENDOJ
• Royal Decree 1561/1995, on special working hours
• Workers’ Statute — arts. 3.5, 24, 29.3, 34