Possibility of granting a reduction in childcare hours to an official who occupies a job with continuous public attention (APC)

The issue raised concerns the possibility of granting a reduction in childcare hours to a civil servant who occupies a position of continuous care (APC).

In the first place, the legal framework for implementation must be analysed. Article 48.h) of Royal Legislative Decree 5/2015, of 30 October, approving the consolidated text of the Law on the Basic Status of Public Employees. (hereinafter, TREBEP), provides that “For reasons of legal guardianship, when the official has the direct care of a person under 12 years of age (…), he/she will be entitled to a reduction in his/her working day, with the corresponding reduction in his/her remuneration.”

The second paragraph of the fourth final provision of the EBEP provides that until the Civil Service Laws and the development regulations are enacted, the current regulations on the management, planning and management of human resources shall remain in force in each Public Administration as long as they do not conflict with the provisions of this Statute.

Therefore, it must be understood that it continues in force, as long as it does not contravene the provisions of the EBEP, article 30.1.g) of Law 30/1984, of 2 August, on Measures for the Reform of the Public Service, as well as Royal Decree 2670/1998, of 11 December, which develops article 30.1.f) of Law 30/1984, of 2 August, on Measures for the Reform of the Public Service.

The single article of Royal Decree 2670/1998, of December 11, provides that:

“1. An official who, for reasons of legal guardianship, has a minor under six years of age in his direct care, an elderly person requiring special dedication or a mentally, physically or sensory handicap who does not perform a paid activity, shall be entitled to a reduction of up to one half of the working day, with a proportional reduction in remuneration.

2. The calculation of the hourly value applicable to such reduction shall be based on the totality of the monthly full remuneration received by the official divided by the number of calendar days of the corresponding month and, in turn, this result by the number of hours that the official has an obligation to meet, on average, each day.

3. Where the organisation of the work of the unit so permits, the staff member shall be granted the part of the working day that suits his or her personal interests.”

In view of the above, the issue raised focuses on the possibility of recognizing the reduction of working hours for staff occupying a job with attention to the continuous public.

From the provisions of Article 48(h) of the TREBEP and other implementing regulations, it is difficult to deduce that there is a limitation of application to personnel in specific positions of the right to receive a certain permit, in this case, for reasons of legal custody.

In this context, it should be recalled that the Public Administrations are competent to establish the organization of the working time of the staff in their service, in accordance with the provisions of articles 47 and 51 of the TREBEP.

Thus, in the area of the General State Administration, the Resolution of 14 April 2026 of the Secretariat of State for the Civil Service is applicable, which provides instructions on the working hours and working hours of the personnel in the service of the General State Administration and its public bodies.

The current Working Time and Hours Resolution does not expressly recognize the incompatibility between the performance of a position of continuous attention to the public and the enjoyment of a reduction of working time, although its concession and the way of articulation will have to be adapted in any case to the organizational and service needs.

Therefore, public employees who occupy a job with continuous public attention (APC) are entitled to a reduction in working hours for child care.

However, the legal system includes instruments that make it possible to balance the right of public officials with the general interest derived from the needs to provide the service.

Thus, the single article of Royal Decree 2670/1998, of December 11, specifically states that the official will be granted the part of the day that suits his interests if the organization of work allows it.

Thus, the staff member may, in principle, choose the part of the working day in which he or she will benefit from the reduction in accordance with his or her personal interests, but the Administration is empowered to modify that choice of the staff member if the organizational needs of the unit in which he or she works so require.

In the same sense, the Third Legal Basis of the Judgment of the Third Section of the Administrative Litigation Chamber of the High Court of Justice of Madrid, Judgment number 842/2007, of 7 December, which establishes in relation to Royal Decree 2670/1998, of 11 December, that:

“This rule determines the choice by the official of the part of the working day that suits his interests, to be permitted by the organization of the work of the unit, which means that the granting of the reduction of the working day is obligated for the Administration, without any margin for discretionary assessment, if the budgets of facts set forth in Article 30.1(g) are met, that is, that an official for reasons of legal custody has in his direct care a minor of twelve years, but that nevertheless the choice by the official concerned of the part of the working day in which the hourly reduction is to be carried out that suits his personal interests, is conditional on the organization of the work or other words.”

Therefore, the performance of a position of attention to the continuous public and the enjoyment of a reduction of time is compatible, although its concession and the way of articulation will have to be adapted in any case to the organizational and service needs.

All of the foregoing is without prejudice to recalling that, according to the regime of competences of this management center, the answers to queries issued by this general directorate are merely informative and, consequently, are not of a binding criterion, nor do they give rise to rights or expectations of law, nor imply any link with the type of procedures to which they refer. Furthermore, in the absence of a mandatory or binding nature, the bodies receiving such replies may, where appropriate, finally take a decision that does not correspond to the opinion contained therein.

The responses to queries contained in this bulletin address the issues raised in the light of the regulations in force at the time of their issuance, so that such responses may be affected by subsequent legislative changes or judicial decisions.