When a dog or cat leaves, not only does a pet die: a routine is broken, a presence that filled silences is extinguished, and the heart is disordered. Those who have felt that emptiness know that it is not just “an animal”, but one more member of the family. However, labor law does not yet recognize this. In Spain, if a worker needs to be absent from work due to the loss of his furry companion, he does so without legal protection, even risking sanctions.
More and more voices—among them, jurists and animal rights groups—claim that the time has come to adapt the laws to an emotional and social reality that is already here. To find out how the legal situation currently stands and what changes would be possible, we spoke with Alicia Morán, lawyer at Morán & Lobato Abogados, and specialized in labor law.
Read also
Do you think it would be viable to include it in the framework of the Workers’ Statute or would it require a more profound reform?
In the Workers’ Statute, paid leave is regulated in article 37, and is limited exclusively to situations linked to family relationships: death, accident, marriage, birth of a child, among others. Therefore, to include a case such as the death or illness of a pet, it would be necessary to modify that article, because in its current wording it does not allow an extensive interpretation or to include new situations.
In fact, it is a numerus clausus regulation, that is, it only contemplates the cases expressly provided for by law. So, if you wanted to add a new permit that would cover the death or serious illness of a pet, a specific legal reform would have to be carried out in the Workers’ Statute, defining aspects such as the duration of the permit and the conditions.
Pet at the vet
From a legal point of view, what would be the main arguments for and against recognizing this type of leave as a labor right?
We understand that, as a first step, it would be necessary to define what is considered a companion animal or pet, because in Catalonia there is a legal definition, but it is very broad and could generate some controversy. For example, it would be necessary to determine which animals would be included: whether only dogs and cats, or also fish, birds or exotic animals. Another important challenge would be that of accreditation. When a family member dies, there is a death certificate; or in case of illness, a medical report. But how would the illness or death of a pet be accredited? Clear mechanisms should be established to avoid any type of fraud.
The new generations, especially in cities like Barcelona, live with more animals and have fewer children, and that changes the ties and needs
Table of Contents
- The new generations, especially in cities like Barcelona, live with more animals and have fewer children, and that changes the ties and needs
- ‘Hairy in the city’
- We know that, in certain more powerful sectors or that are at the forefront in other areas – such as startups – absences due to bereavement have been allowed.
- If a person is absent for this reason, it is considered that there is no justified cause and, therefore, the absence could fit within the sanctions provided for in article 54.2 of the Workers’ Statute.
And so far, how have workers reacted when a situation of this type arises and there is no permit?
In reality, we understand that at a social level this permission would open a necessary debate because it is already something that is happening. Nowadays, when a person has a problem with their pet—because it is sick or has died—they often stop going to work anyway, even if there is no permit to protect them, and then they face the consequences of that decision. That is why we believe that it is a debate that society must address. There will be those who think, from the other extreme, that including these types of assumptions in labor legislation means trivializing labor law, as if it were going too far.
Do you think that this debate also reflects a generational change in the way of understanding family and bonds?
Without a doubt, from our office, we also see it as a generational issue. The new generations—especially in cities like Barcelona—live with more animals and have fewer children, and that changes ties and needs. The classic family leave schemes may be becoming obsolete, and therein lies the real challenge: adapting labor law to the current emotional reality.
animal stories
‘Hairy in the city’
At La Vanguardia we want to capture your story with your pet in the city. Have you encountered difficulties when carrying out your daily life with your animal in the city? Have you had to migrate from your home and has your dog or cat helped you adapt? Are you a street artist or do you practice yoga and together with your furry companion do you form an unbreakable tandem? You can send us your experience to peludos@lavanguardia.es.
Would it be possible to protect a permit of this type under the concept of “unavoidable personal duties” or “situations of force majeure” that the Workers’ Statute already contemplates?
No, because you have to comply with inexcusable duties of a public or personal nature, in very specific situations, such as being a witness in a trial or being part of a polling station. They are obligations linked to the law or administrative procedures, that is, situations that you cannot avoid because the law imposes it on you. Then there is another concept that could even be more appropriate: force majeure. But, seeing how this concept develops, it would also be excluded. It is regulated in article 30, not in 37, and refers to events that you cannot avoid or foresee: an accident, a failure in the train that you must use to go to work… On the other hand, if your pet dies or has an illness, it would not meet this requirement of inevitability.
What scope do companies or collective agreements currently have to include this type of permits voluntarily or negotiated?
Companies here still have a lot of room to travel. The Workers’ Statute sets minimum standards that must be complied with, but collective agreements or individual contracts can expand these rights. In fact, this already happens in many areas. For example, the collective agreement of the pharmaceutical industry recognizes improvements in leave for birth or childcare that are not contemplated in the Workers’ Statute. There are also conciliation policies, aid for daycare centers or even personal well-being days. In short, the range of rights is expanded to make each sector more attractive, and that is why we believe that leave for the death of a pet could fit perfectly into these agreements. Nobody prevents these rights from being improved, although, yes, it would always be a voluntary improvement.
We know that, in certain more powerful sectors or that are at the forefront in other areas – such as startups – absences due to bereavement have been allowed.
Are there any known cases of Spanish companies that have allowed justified absences? How have they been managed legally?
We know that, in certain more powerful sectors or that are at the forefront in other areas – such as startups – absences due to bereavement have been allowed, precisely to make it easier for the worker to regain some normality after a loss. For example, in companies like Glovo, one or two days off have been granted in case of death. How do they articulate it? They do it by pure business concession, that is, the company grants it because it wants, without the worker having the right to demand it. It is, in reality, an individual agreement between the worker and the company: there is no right, but the company grants it. The difference with a legally established right is that, when that right is regulated by law or by agreement, the worker can demand it and the company is obliged to guarantee it.
What risks or labor conflicts could a company face if it sanctions a worker who is absent for this reason without specific legal coverage?
In this case we would be facing the same disciplinary offenses that a worker faces when he does not comply with the regulations. If a person is absent for this reason, it is considered that there is no justified cause and, therefore, the absence could fit within the sanctions provided for in article 54.2 of the Workers’ Statute. This could lead to a suspension of employment and pay or, if the conduct is repeated or causes serious harm, even a disciplinary dismissal, always depending on the circumstances. In short, they would be the typical offenses that are applied for an unjustified absence.
It will also depend on the empathy and proportionality that the company decides to apply in each specific case. If the matter goes to trial, factors such as whether the worker gave notice, whether it was an emergency or whether he was granted any margin will be assessed. But, ultimately, today, these types of absences have no legal support.
Could this type of leave be considered more as a measure of work-life balance and well-being than as a strictly remunerative right?
It would make more sense to understand it as a conciliation measure than as a paid right in the strict sense, because the objective is not to pay or monetize the grief, but to allow the worker to have a space to face this emotional situation. In the end, at a time like this, you shouldn’t be under the stress of thinking whether you are going to suffer sanctions or not. It is becoming a more palpable reality. We know that in Barcelona, for example, 55% of households have at least one pet, so it is evident that pets are part of the family structure. However, the Law advances more slowly than society. It already happened with de facto couples, with equal marriage or with paternity leave: it took a while, but finally the norm was adapted to social reality.
If a person is absent for this reason, it is considered that there is no justified cause and, therefore, the absence could fit within the sanctions provided for in article 54.2 of the Workers’ Statute.
Are there countries or business models that already provide for leave for pet bereavement or illness?
In the United Kingdom there is a concept called Pet Bereavement Leave, whereby one or two days of paid leave are granted to workers, although it is not a legal regulation. It is a fairly widespread practice among companies, but it is not legally established. In the United States it is also common to have days of mourning for the loss of a pet, and in countries such as Argentina or Chile, bills have already been presented to include these permits. Although they have not yet been approved, we are very attentive to their evolution to analyze if something similar could be applied in Spain.
Pet
Finally, what steps do you think should be taken—both at a legislative and business level—to move towards a more humane recognition of the bond between workers and their pets?
It is important that article 37 be reformulated, since an analogy could be established with the permits that already exist. As for companies, the change would be even simpler: it would be enough to recognize and give visibility to the bond that a worker maintains with their pets. We believe that companies that adopt these types of measures will be one step ahead, both in social responsibility and in attracting talent. It could even become a differentiating feature compared to the competition, if we look at it from an economic perspective.
Read also
Are companies likely to be the ones driving this change before it is regulated by law?
We always think that it is more likely that these advances will arise first within the corporate or business environment, and that they will subsequently end up permeating legislation. In fact, this has happened in many other cases, later being consolidated as recognized rights. We could also find a point of support in the Civil Code, where animals are already recognized as “sentient beings.” This recognition gives them the ability to feel and a certain protection in cases of family or inheritance conflict, especially to determine what happens to the pet when its owner dies. However, this regulation is limited to the civil sphere; in labor law it has not yet been incorporated
