Publications

REGULATIONS

Public consultation and urgent procedure regarding the registration of working hours.

• In view of the difficulties approving the bill to reduce working hours, the Ministry of Labor opened a public consultation that took place between September 12 and 26, 2025, on the regulatory development of the Labour Act regarding the registration of working hours. The purpose of this initiative, according to the Ministry of Labor itself, is to reinforce the existing regulation, to make up for the shortcomings that make it difficult for the Labor and Social Security Inspectorate to control working time and guarantee minimum rest periods, to ensure that the records are objective, reliable, traceable and accessible. Among the main proposals are (i) the implementation of electronic systems with personal identification and time stamps, (ii) the clear differentiation of effective working time and overtime, (iii) union participation in the modifications, (iv) telematic access to the records and (v) the development of the right to digital disconnection. In this context, last September 30, the Council of Ministers authorized the urgent administrative processing of the draft Royal Decree, so it is foreseeable that its approval will take place in the short term.

Proposed Law for the promotion of the labor inclusion of people with disabilities through the employment reserve quota in companies.

• The Bill was published in the Official Gazette of the Spanish Parliament on August 29, 2025, and is currently in the process of being amended. This Bill seeks to reinforce compliance with the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in line with the recent reform of Article 49 of the Spanish Constitution, which recognizes employment as an essential point for social and labor inclusion. In order to overcome the barriers that hinder access to the labor market, especially the obligation to reserve positions for people with disabilities in companies with 50 or more employees, the regulation proposes to amend Royal Legislative Decree 5/2000 to classify non-compliance with this obligation as “very serious”, which would imply a substantial increase in the fines imposed by the Labor Inspectorate on non-compliant companies. Additionally, the General Law on Subsidies would be amended to exclude from public aid those who are sanctioned for this infraction. Finally, the Proposed Law provides that the Labor Inspection will carry out, during the next three years (renewable for equal periods), specific campaigns aimed at verifying the compliance of companies with the employment reserve quota for people with disabilities.

September 2. Royal Decree 770/2025, Changes in the regulations for the hiring of qualified professionals in industrial safety.

• The provision of industrial safety services in Spain is regulated by several regulations that require companies to be qualified and have qualified professionals. Royal Decree 298/2021 introduced the obligation to have at least one full-time qualified professional on staff, with the aim of improving the effectiveness of the Administration in its supervisory role and providing greater control in this respect. However, the European Commission considered that this measure exceeded its real objective, considering that it was neither proportional nor compatible with European legislation on services in the internal market, and urged Spain to reverse it. In response, a modification of said internal regulations is proposed through this Royal Decree, which allows the personnel required for the exercise of the activity to be hired by the authorized company through any of the modalities permitted by law, thus aligning Spanish legislation with the European directives on services and professional qualifications.

Signing of the Social Security Agreement between Spain and Costa Rica.

• On September 16, 2025, the Council of Ministers gave the green light to the Agreement allowing the signing of the Social Security Agreement between Spain and Costa Rica. This Agreement, whose negotiation began in May 2022, represents the first bilateral agreement that establishes coordination mechanisms between the social security systems of both countries, being a milestone for Costa Rica in this field. Its application extends to employees who are or have been subject to the legislation of either nation, as well as their beneficiaries. In terms of content, it covers the contributory benefits of the Social Security system (retirement, permanent disability, and death pensions arising from common illness or non-occupational accidents) and, in the case of Spain, also includes the benefits of the State Pension System, such as ordinary retirement pensions and those for family members. The text includes fundamental principles of coordination between systems, such as equal treatment for beneficiaries residing in the territory of any of the signatory States, the sum of contribution periods for access to benefits, the possibility of transferring such benefits between countries, and the single determination of the applicable legislation.

JUDGEMENTS OF INTEREST

September 9, 2025, Judgment of the Constitutional Court (Plenary) No. 148/2025, Rec. 1186/2024. The guarantee of indemnity also covers claims addressed to the employees’ legal representatives.

• The Constitutional Court admits that the guarantee of indemnity can be extended to claims brought before employee representatives, and not only before courts of law, when such actions, in defense of a right of which the employee believes to be the holder, fulfill a function of intermediation with the company, within its work of monitoring compliance with labor regulations, and are clearly aimed, directly or indirectly, at avoiding or preparing a subsequent judicial claim. The Court reasons that this extension seeks to avoid the dissuasive effect that the employee would suffer if the extrajudicial claims were left unprotected and could be punished with repressive measures by the employer. The judgment establishes a fundamental principle: any adverse action taken following a complaint or grievance registered with the employee representatives must be independently and objectively justified. If it cannot be agreed that the decision was due to reasons other than and prior to the complaint, the dismissal could be considered null and void for violating their right to effective judicial protection, in its aspect of the guarantee of indemnity.

September 10, 2025, Judgment of the Supreme Court (Social Chamber, 1st Section) no. 768/2025, Rec. no. 2337/2024. Irregular reinstatement if the company does not comply with the 10-day term to fix the reinstatement.

• The Supreme Court confirms that the 10-day period that the company has to communicate the date of reinstatement in writing to the employee begins to be calculated from the notification of the judgment, and not from the date on which it becomes final. Therefore, if the company communicates the reinstatement outside this period, the execution would be considered untimely and the reinstatement would be declared irregular, even if the communication occurs later. Insofar as its non-compliance is preclusive and makes the readmission irregular, it would give rise to the termination of the contract and payment of the corresponding severance compensation. In this regard, it should be recalled that the consolidated line of case law maintains that the 5- and 10-day periods -for the option and the communication of the date of reinstatement, respectively- are simultaneous and begin to run from the date of notification of the judgment.  

September 10, 2025, Judgment of the Supreme Court (Social Chamber, 1st Section) no. 760/2025, Rec. no. 14/2024. The company is not obliged to provide ergonomic chairs to employees in remote work mode.

• The Supreme Court confirms that there is no general duty to provide ergonomic chairs to the entire workforce working remotely, considering that their provision does not constitute an “employment condition” comparable to salary or working hours, and that it is not required either by individual agreements or by the applicable collective bargaining agreement. The Court clarified that the ergonomic risk must be assessed in a specific way, considering the position, the working day and the breaks, so that a generic risk does not require the provision of specific measures. Furthermore, in the case in question, the company had complied with its preventive and compensatory obligations, providing the necessary equipment to the employees, paying monthly compensation for expenses and having a procedure that allowed the delivery of ergonomic material prescribed by the medical prevention service. 

September 5, 2025, Judgment of the Superior Court of Justice of Galicia (Social Chamber) no. 5637/2025, Rec. no. 3945/2024. Right to maintain teleworking due to conciliation.

• The Chamber revoked the company’s decision and ordered the company to maintain the remote working arrangement requested by an employee to take care of her mother and ordered the company to pay compensation of 3,750 euros. The Court considers that the company’s refusal took place without real negotiation or sufficient objective justification, so that the refusal violated the right to conciliation regulated in article 34.8 of the Labour Act. The Chamber emphasizes that the company limited itself to alleging “operational reasons” and “oversizing”, without duly explaining why these circumstances prevented the application of less burdensome alternatives, such as hybrid solutions, nor did it prove that the current organization made the adaptation impossible. The Chamber recalls that the company must weigh specific factors, such as the size of the workforce, the organization of working hours, the specialization of the position or the existence of other employees in similar situations, and provide evidence demonstrating the suitability, necessity and proportionality of its refusal of the request received.

September 9, 2025, Judgment of the Supreme Court (Social Chamber, 1st Section) no. 753/2025, of, Rec. no. 34/2024. The time dedicated to the completion of mandatory courses constitutes effective working time.

• The Supreme Court recalls that the training and revalidation courses required by the regulations to perform or maintain a professional qualification must be considered effective working time, and that the same includes, when necessary, the necessary travel time and possible per-diems to attend such courses. This implies that companies must compute and remunerate the time spent as part of the working day, which has an impact on various matters, such as the recording of working hours, the computation of hours, overtime, breaks and, where applicable, social security contributions. The Chamber emphasizes that the key to differentiating it is whether the training is mandatory for the position by legal or regulatory requirement: if it is, it cannot be left out of the computation of working hours or the remuneration of the employee taking the mandatory course in question.

September 10, 2025, Judgment of the Supreme Court (Social Court, 1st section) no. 2549/2025, of, Rec. no. 769/2024. State agreement for security companies: allowances and mileage expenses are only for temporary trips.

• The Chamber maintains its criterion that the allowance is an extra-salary payment, the purpose of which is to compensate expenses caused by a temporary displacement outside the usual place of rendering services. In the case in question, the company applies the State Security Collective Bargaining Agreement, which expressly links the accrual of allowances to the fact of “leaving the place for which the employee was hired” when such departure is of a temporary or transitory nature. Thus, if the provision of services in the new place is consolidated over time, it will cease to be considered as a displacement and will become the new habitual place. In such circumstances, the company would not have to pay daily subsistence allowances and, failing that, it would be appropriate, where appropriate, to apply the transport or distance bonuses covering the cost of travel from the employee’s home to the usual place of work. In this context, the Chamber recalls the application of Article 40.6 of the Labour Act, which admits temporary displacements with the payment of the corresponding allowances, but if the duration in a period of three years exceeds twelve months, the case must be treated as a “transfer”. Therefore, in such cases, it is not appropriate to claim the allowances or mileage for travel, since the temporary nature disappears, but the travel must be calculated from the new habitual place of rendering of services.

September 10, 2025, Judgment of the Supreme Court (Social Chamber, 1st section) no. 759/2025, Rec. no. 264/2023. Positive administrative silence protects the registration of Equality Plans in companies without union representation.

• The Chamber analyzes the case of a company which, lacking employee representatives, requested the registration of its equality plan without obtaining a union response or administrative resolution within the legal term. The Directorate General of Labor denied the registration out of time, alleging the invalidity of the equality plan for failing to comply with the requirement of formal negotiation with the employee representatives. The Chamber confirms that, from a formal point of view, in the absence of an express resolution from the Directorate General of Labor within 3 months, the ‘positive administrative silence’ operates, meaning that the request made by the company regarding for the registration of the equality plan must be understood as granted.  

Contact Andersen's Employment Law Team:

Victoria Caldevilla, Partner at Andersen.
Germán Martínez, Partner at Andersen.

COMMENT OF THE MONTH

Declaration of permanent disability of an employee: what do we do?

On May 1, 2025, April 29th Law 2/2025 of came into force, which eliminated as a cause for automatic termination of the employment contract the declaration of permanent disability of an employee, in the degrees of total, absolute and great disability.

In our day-to-day work, we find ourselves, increasingly, with the question that gives title to the present commentary. Faced with the declaration of permanent disability of an employee, companies are not clear about how to act, the obligations deriving from the regulation and the risks to which they are really exposed.

Before going into the development of the commentary, I would like to put on record the meaninglessness of the reform of the regulation, when the permanent disability is recognized in the degree of absolute and great disability.

Absolute permanent disability is a degree of disability that, due to an illness or injury, does not allow the employee to perform any work with a minimum of performance, efficiency and professionalism. It completely disqualifies the employee from any profession or trade.

For its part, severe disability is the maximum degree of permanent disability granted to persons who, being in a situation of absolute permanent disability, need the assistance of a third party for day-to-day acts such as dressing or feeding themselves.

How then, in both cases, can the regulation even foresee the possibility that companies have to make reasonable adjustments that are necessary for these people declared in a situation of absolute permanent disability or great disability, who cannot work, to consider the possibility of continuing to work? 

And the fact is that, going into the matter, employees who have been declared permanently totally, absolutely or severely disabled have a period of 10 calendar days to inform their companies whether they want to become pensioners or whether they want to continue working in the same situation, despite the disability that has been recognized.

If they communicate access to the pensioner status, there is no problem, proceeding to the suspension or termination of the contract due to the declaration of permanent disability, as was previously the case.

However, in those cases in which they communicate their wish to continue working, companies have a period of 3 months to make the necessary reasonable adjustments, either in their own job, or in any other job that may be vacant in the company that is compatible with their new situation.

The regulation is sparing in specifying what the ‘reasonable adjustments’ should consist of in companies with more than twenty-five employees. Therefore, following the doctrine of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the employer “is obliged to take effective and practical measures, taking into account each individual situation, to enable any person with a disability to have access to employment, to take part in it or to advance professionally, or to be offered training, without placing an undue burden on the employer”.

In line with the above, reasonable measures can even cover issues that go beyond the professional profile of the employee, giving him/her professional training that was not available to him/her until now.

In the workplace, reasonable adjustments may include providing flexible working hours, remote working, leave, relocation to a new office or reassignment to a different job (due to lighting conditions, noise, etc.) if requested and justified by the employee with a disability.

It will be essential to count on the specialized advice of the external prevention service to detect existing possibilities and to carry out an arduous common work to allow the continuity of the employee in the company or, otherwise, to be able to prove in a reliable way that there is no possibility of continuing.

During the 3-months period referred to above, the employment relationship will continue to be suspended.

Before the 3 months have elapsed, companies must communicate to the employee the proposals for his/ her continuity or, in the event of manifest impossibility, the termination of the contract with transfer to pensioner status, since, once this period has elapsed, the companies will not be able to make use of this cause for termination of contract and will be obliged to make a dismissal for supervening inability, which entails the payment of a severance compensation of 20 days’ salary per year of service, with a maximum of 1 year’s salary.

If the employee rejects the proposals made, he/she will also be subject to termination of contract due to pensioner status.

Companies must be extremely cautious in making the reasonable adjustments mentioned above, since if they do not carry them out or if they are manifestly insufficient, the employee can sue the company for null dismissal, based on indirect discrimination on the grounds of disability, and request compensation for damages.

In cases in which companies do make reasonable adjustments but the employee does not agree with them, he/she can also sue the company, so that a third party, in this case, a judge, can determine whether the proposed adjustments were reasonable or not and, ultimately, whether the termination of the contract for becoming a pensioner is in accordance with the law.

We will see how the jurisprudence on this matter progresses, given the recentness of the reform, but we expect a considerable increase in litigation by the employees, who will clearly try to obtain some type of compensation from the companies in cases in which, until now, they became pensioners due to a declaration of permanent disability, without any compensation whatsoever.

Pablo Matheu, Senior Associate at Andersen.

You can download the full document here.