A court recognizes a father's lactation permit even though his wife is unemployed

It is clear that the laws are interpretable and that when there are doubts, that's what the judges are for, to sentence what the law or the rules mean, and although on many occasions it seems that they are not in favor of the "weak", but of the companies , there are times that yes, that justice works.

This is what happened in Huelva, where the Social Court number 1 has recognized the right to a parent's lactation permit, to be absent from work and feed your baby, even though the baby's mother is unemployed.

The court, skipping the agreement

Apparently, as explained in ABC, everything comes from a complaint lodged by the Federation of Industry and Agricultural Workers (Fitag-UGT) against article 59 of the collective agreement of CEPSA, which says that workers will be entitled to one hour absence of work due to breastfeeding until the baby reaches nine months. That permission may be enjoyed interchangeably by the mother or father and is assigned in case the two are working.

The court, on the other hand, considers that the nursing license is an individual right and that the practice should not matter if one of the two parents is not working. Come on, they consider it unfair for a worker to be deprived of the possibility of enjoying his individual right to feed the baby because his partner is not developing an activity for someone else. I would only deny such right in the event that the couple is already enjoying that permission, that is, they affirm that both the father or the mother can take the lactation permit, work or not the couple, but they can't catch it both at the same time.

The ruling skips the norm of the CEPSA agreement, which says very clearly that "it can be enjoyed interchangeably by the mother or the father in case the two are working." Now, the agreement is probably a bit old since last year the government decided it was so, that the parents could have such permission regardless of the mother's situation.

And the maternity and paternity leave?

It seems perfect to me that the judge fails in favor of the worker, obviously, but I ask myself: and the low by birth, shouldn't it also be an individual right? When my children were born I worked, but my wife was unemployed. She could not benefit from any maternity leave and, not having her, neither could I (the father can enjoy paternity leave until 16 weeks of the baby if the mother rejects her). I got to make the consultation, since I would have liked to be with my children until almost four months of life, especially when the second and third were born, that my presence would have been great to help out at home. But they told me no, that I did not touch because my wife was not working.

Who knows, maybe soon consider the 16-week leave as a right of the mother or father and that the fact that the mother does not work does not make the father can not enjoy it on his part. Can you imagine?