Application of the time bag and inexcusable duty.

The consultation is on the application of the time book provided for in paragraph 8.8 of the Resolution of 14 April 2026 of the Secretariat of State for the Civil Service, which provides instructions on the working hours and working hours of the staff in the service of the General Administration of the State and its public bodies, and, in particular, on whether the available hours can be accumulated in full working hours and on whether the time book is compatible with the working time on a special schedule and with the flexible working hours of the fixed working time.

Likewise, clarification is requested on the assumptions that could benefit from the figure of the time bag versus the permit for inexcusable duty.

The measure for the reconciliation of family and working life relating to the exchange of hours is regulated in paragraph 8.8 of the Resolution of 14 April 2026, the first paragraph of which determines that:

“8.8 Public employees may have a pocket of hours of up to 5% of the annual working day of each employee, for cases of care of minor children and minors subject to guardianship or fostering; and for the care of elderly persons and persons with disabilities up to the first degree of consanguinity or affinity.”

Three notes can be deduced, in general, from the figure that is created:

(i) The measure has been configured from the maximum flexibility, being therefore its regulation oriented to facilitate, enhance and allow the use of the same in the most agile and flexible way for the care of children under age and minors subject to guardianship or fostering; and for the care of elderly people and people with disabilities up to the first degree of consanguinity or affinity.

(ii) The time bag has been configured as an additional hourly flexibility measure to those already existing, and in no case does it nullify or replace the permits or the licenses already regulated.

(iii) The specific measure is structured according to a mixed model, which allows the enjoyment of part of the time bag in a timely manner for the required time per hour; and part also consecutively and accumulated in full days.

The fifth and sixth paragraphs of paragraph 8.8 of the working time instructions state the following:

“The hours may be accumulated in full days provided there is a justified reason for it, considering the peculiarities of the provision of public service.

The work schedules may establish the limits and conditions of accumulation of these hours without reaching full days provided that it is compatible with the organization of work, as well as the adaptations that may be necessary for the peculiarities of certain areas or groups.”

In this way, the pocket of hours for conciliation essentially consists of a measure of hourly flexibility, which allows the provision of loose hours, later recovered, to better adapt the working hours to the care of minors or care of elderly people with disabilities.

Reference should also be made to the Agreement of the Higher Personnel Commission on the criteria for the application of the hourly flexibility measure “time bag” provided for in paragraph 8.8 of the Resolution of 14 April 2026 of the Secretary of State for the Civil Service, which provides instructions on working hours and hours of staff in the service of the General Administration of the State and its public agencies.

The aforementioned Agreement indicates the characteristics of the pocket of hours and, specifically, in its point 1.2 determines that this figure “It consists of an additional hourly flexibility measure to those already existing, and in no case does it nullify or replace the permits or licenses already regulated. That is, it is a measure with its own identity and differentiated with respect to other permits and conciliation measures provided for in the current legislation; it should not be assimilated de facto and in practice to days of free disposition, but it is a measure of hourly flexibility for the best conciliation in the cases provided in the instructions on working hours and hours.”

In this sense, it must be taken into account that the time bag is articulated according to a mixed model, in which the enjoyment of part of the time bag is allowed in a timely manner for the indispensable time; and part also consecutively and accumulated in full days.

Thus, the ordinary form of application of the time bag will be the arrangement of loose hours, later recovered. Together with this ordinary form of provision, two forms of application are also envisaged, with an extraordinary and justified character: the accumulation of several hours without representing a full day; and the accumulation of several hours in a full day; in both cases with its subsequent and subsequent compensation.

The application of the pocket of hours must be carried out by means of an appropriate weighting: between the worker’s interest in the use of this conciliation measure and his disposition in the way that best serves him for the care of the family referred to in paragraph 8.8 of the Instructions on working hours and hours; and the interest of the unit where he carries out his duties, and the needs and peculiarities of the service to be covered.

Thus, as can be seen from the wording of the fifth subparagraph of paragraph 8.8, cumulation in full working hours must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, on the basis of the specific justification for its appropriateness and suitability for the peculiarities of the provision of the public service. In any case, the provisions of section 1.2 of the Agreement of the Higher Personnel Commission referred to above must be taken into account.

With regard to whether the conciliation measure relating to the exchange of hours is compatible with the working week, it should be noted that the exchange of hours is not restricted in terms of the specific regime of dedication of the staff; thus, the first paragraph of paragraph 8.8 refers to the purpose of the measure, which may be “up to 5% of the annual working day of each employee”, referring, therefore, to 5% of the specific working day of each employee. It is therefore compatible with the system of special dedication and is calculated with respect to the annual working day of each official, a total on which the calculation of 5% will have to be applied, on a case-by-case basis.

As to whether the time slot is compatible with fixed time flexibility, it should be noted that no provision is made in this regard for the impossibility of its application coinciding with other flexibility measures. It must be taken into account, in any case, that the figure of the stock exchange has a nature and identity of its own and differentiated with respect to other permits and conciliation measures provided for in the current legislation that could also be applied in the case subject to consultation (days for private matters, leave without pay, hourly flexibilities, etc. ); so that its purpose should be able to be differentiated from that of other flexibility measures and only applied to meet those situations for which the remaining measures or permits are not applicable.

With regard to the last of the issues, that is, the delimitation of the pocket of hours with respect to the permit for inexcusable duty, the following can be reported:

The regulation of this permit is found in article 48.j) of the consolidated text of the Law of the Basic Statute of the Public Employee, approved by Royal Legislative Decree 5/2015, of October 30 (TRLEBEP), which regulates it in the following terms: “Public officials shall have the following permits: […] j) For a time indispensable for the fulfillment of an inexcusable duty of a public or personal nature and for duties related to the reconciliation of family and working life.”

The “inexcusable duty”, configured as an indeterminate legal concept, has been defined, as contemplated in the Manual of Procedures of Human Resources Management, published by Resolution of December 14, 1992 of the Secretariat of State for Public Administration, as that obligation incumbent on a person whose breach generates a civil, criminal or administrative responsibility; definition that has been accepted by the Courts of Justice (among others, Judgment 272/2016, of April 27, of the Litigation Chamber of the High Court of Justice of Galicia).

Therefore, and while its nature as an indeterminate legal concept prevents it, it is not possible to carry out, in advance and in general scope, a specific and valued enumeration of the cases in which its application could be applied automatically. In this regard, the aforementioned Agreement of the Higher Personnel Commission, which regulates in its point 2 the coexistence of the pocket of hours with the permit for inexcusable duty in the following terms:

“Without prejudice to the fact that the factual assumptions that cover both the pocket of hours and the permit by inexcusable duty can share some of the notes presented above, it can be said that some of them are given with greater intensity depending on the measure or permit to which we refer, as follows:

With regard to permission for inexcusable duty for reasons of conciliation regulated in Article 48(j) of the TRLEBEP and Article 75(f) of the IV CUAGE:

2.1. In principle and in general, it can be said that it has as a defining element that the factual assumptions are of obvious gravity, so that they are obligations whose non-compliance generates a direct and personal responsibility to the interested party of a civil, criminal or administrative nature.

2.2. It is a residual permit, of subsidiary application, in the sense that it is applied only when there are no other permits or measures to cover the situation that is intended to be protected through it.

2.3. It must therefore be limited to specific and unforeseeable situations, which do not extend over time, and exceptional ones, which are not repeated; otherwise, it would seem advisable to apply other measures of conciliation or flexibilization of the working day, permits and surpluses enjoyed by officials, whose concession, conditioned to the needs of the service, will be authorized or denied on a reasoned basis by the hierarchical superior.

Regarding the hourly flexibility through the Time Bag:

2.4. According to paragraph 8.8 of the working time instructions, it can only be applied for cases of care of minor children and minors subject to guardianship or fostering; and for the care of elderly people and people with disabilities up to the first degree of consanguinity or affinity.

2.5. It does not share the note of the residual character that is preached of the permit for inexcusable duty, and by comparison with this it has as a defining element that the assumptions in fact are of a lesser gravity.

2.6. Like the permit for inexcusable duty, the bag of hours can attend to unforeseeable situations, usually accompanied by situations with an obvious emergency that arise, which demand the presence of the interested party; but, unlike the permit for inexcusable duty, it can be applied to more predictable or even repeated situations in time, provided that it is compatible with the organization of work, and provided that its application is not assimilated de facto and in practice to that of days of free disposition.”

The points indicated should serve as a guide for the competent human resources units to resolve the matter, taking into account the circumstances that exist in each specific case.

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.