Requirements of the relief contract

The Supreme Court [TS 21-10-2025] has reiterated the requirements for the validity of the relief contract in partial retirements. The reliever's contribution base must be equal to or greater than 65% of the average contribution bases of the last six months of the worker who accesses partial retirement, without this percentage depending on the working hours (full-time or part-time) performed by the reliever.

The debate arose as to whether this 65% should be adjusted to the working hours (for example, if the reliever only covered 50% of the retiree's working hours), but it has been made clear that this is not the case:

• The percentage is applied to the contribution base of the retiree working full-time and is not reduced according to the reliever's working hours.

• This criterion ensures that, regardless of the reliever's working hours or salary, their minimum contribution base does not decrease.

Exclusion of those over 55

The National Court [AN 15-10-2025] has analyzed whether in a collective dismissal, workers over 55 years old can be excluded from the impact without this implying age discrimination. In the specific case:

• The collective dismissal was carried out for productive and organizational reasons, and the final agreement included several measures, such as the exclusion of personnel over 55 years old or reinforced compensations for vulnerable groups.

• Therefore, a union challenged the dismissal alleging, among other reasons, discrimination due to the exclusion of workers over 55 years old.

Well, the Court concludes that there is no discrimination: a measure taken to protect this group, especially vulnerable and with greater difficulty in re-employment, is considered proportionate and legitimate. In addition, the Court also validates the reinforced compensations.

Her partner is in jail

A worker who had a child while her partner (the baby's father) was in prison applied for the birth and child care benefit. And, although the INSS recognized it, it did not accept that the weeks that would have corresponded to her as a single-parent family "added up". Therefore, the worker filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination, but the courts [TC 17-11-2025] did not rule in her favor:

• The woman asked to apply the doctrine on single-parent families, according to which the leave of the other parent should be added to the mother's leave.

• However, the Court has rejected her claim: hers is a two-parent family because there are two parents, and the lack of enjoyment of the leave by the father due to being in prison does not turn the case into single parenthood. In addition, the law shapes the right as individual and conditioned to personal requirements of registration and contribution.