Employment Newsletter

Legislative News

Law 2/2025, of 29 April, which amends the revised text of the Workers' Statute, regarding termination of employment contracts due to permanent disability, and the revised text of the General Social Security Law, regarding permanent disability

As of April 30 2025, the text amending article 49.1.e) of the Royal Legislative Decree 2/2015, of 23 October which approves the revised text of the Workers' Statute ("WS") and articles 198 and 200 of Royal Legislative Decree 8/2015, of 30 October, which approves the revised text of the General Social Security Law ("GSSL") was published in the Official State Gazette. The new developments, which came into force as of 1 May 2025, are as follows:

• Suspension of the employment relationship with job reservation for the time necessary to make reasonable adjustments or change to a vacant and available position;
•  Automatic termination of the contract due to severe disability, absolute or total permanent disability is hindered, it is only allowed if the reasonable adjustments are disproportionate or if there is no vacant and available position;
• Possibility of termination of the contract if the proposed change of position is rejected;
• Maximum period of three months from the notification of permanent disability to make reasonable adjustments or change to a vacant and available position; and
• Suspension of the permanent disability benefit while the adaptation or relocation is maintained.

Judgements

1. Calculating the permanent disability pension on a reduced contribution base for childcare is not indirect discrimination on the basis of sex

Judgment C-584/23, of the High Court of Justice of the European Union, of April 10 2025

The ruling analyses whether article 197 of the GSSL, which calculates the permanent disability pension on the basis of the contribution base of the month prior to the causal event, even if the worker is on reduced working hours due to childcare, constitutes indirect discrimination on the basis of sex. The reason for the possible discrimination is that most of the workers who exercise this right are women.

The High Court of Justice of the European Union concludes that it does not constitute indirect discrimination, since this measure could only cause unfavourable consequences as of the third year of the reduction of working hours. This is due to the fact that the contributions of a worker who has reduced working hours to childcare are increased during the first two years up to 100% of the amount of the contribution corresponding to the salary for a full-time working day.

2. The change of working hours from Monday to Sunday without compliance with the procedure of substantial modification of the working conditions is null and void

Judgement 288/2025, of the Supreme Court, Social Chamber, of 4 April 2025

The ruling judges a case in which it is analysed whether the modification of a working schedule that was carried out from Monday to Friday and begins to include Saturdays and Sundays is to be considered a substantial modification of the working conditions ("SMWC").

The Supreme Court ("SC") considers that it does and declares the business decision null and void, since it had not followed the procedure or requirements of a SMWC (article 41 of the WS) because: (i) the effective provision of services was carried out from Monday to Friday since 2017, without ever having required the workers to provide services during the weekend, which evidences a common practice; (ii) the imposition to work during the weekend affects the organization of working time and rest, a matter provided for in article 41 WS; and (iii) the company did not provide evidence regarding any organizational cause justifying the measure, merely alleging a requirement of a client.

3. Nullity of clauses of a remote working agreement for imposing undue restrictions and violating employment and fundamental rights

Judgement 267/2025, of the Supreme Court, Social Chamber, of 2 April 2025

The SC analyses the compliance with the legislation of clauses included in a remote working agreement signed by the employees of a company, declaring the nullity of some of them for failing to comply with: (i) Law 10/2021, of 9 July, on remote working; (ii) the Spanish Constitution; and (iii) Organic Law 3/2018, of 5 December, on the Protection of Personal Data and guarantee of digital rights. Specifically, it declares its nullity for the following reasons:

• The company makes the reversibility of working remotely conditional on the fulfillment of certain requirements, despite the fact that current legislation does not require any requirement for the employee to be able to request a return to on-site work;
•  The company could eliminate remote working without compensating employees, which does not respect the principle of stability in working conditions;
• It was provided that the prevention service could access the worker's home without prior consent, which violates the fundamental right to inviolability of the home; and
• The right to digital disconnection had been regulated without having previously granted a hearing to the representatives of the workers.

4. Linking the bonus' accrual to the continued employment is not deemed valid when the contract termination is due to a substantial modification of the working conditions

Judgement 197/2025, of the Supreme Court, Social Chamber, of 13 March 2025

The judgment analyses the claim of an employee whose employment relationship was terminated, due to a SMWC, and who claims the proportional payment of the annual bonus for objectives, corresponding to the year in which his employment relationship ended. The company denied the payment, arguing that the bonus is only payable if: (i) the employee continues to be employed by the company during the entire accrual period and; (ii) the employee continues to provide services to the company at the time of payment.

The SC upheld the appeal of the employee and confirmed the right to receive the proportional part of the bonus, arguing that the contractual clause that makes the accrual of the incentive conditional upon remaining in the company until 31 December cannot be applied in cases of termination of the contract for reasons not attributable to the employee, as occurs in terminations under article 41.3 WS. This is based on the fact that the voluntary nature of the termination at the employee's request is not present.

5. It is considered a substantial modification of the working conditions the transfer of the work centre 60 kilometres away from the previous one

Judgement 194/2025, of the Supreme Court, Social Chamber, of 12 March 2025

The case raises the question of whether a business decision to definitively change the work centre of several workers to another located 60 kilometres away, without providing any organizational or productive cause, constitutes a SMWC, even if it does not involve a change of residence.

The SC considered that it did, because the measure substantially altered the working conditions both due to its impact on the actual duration of the working day and the personal burdens arising from commuting requirements. This is because it entails a significant increase in the working day, with the employees having to allocate the time equivalent to 50% of their working day to this purpose.

6. The presumption that accidents occurring at the time and place of work are work-related accidents applies despite the fact that the worker had a previous pathology

Judgement 189/2025, of the Supreme Court, Social Chamber, of 12 March 2025

A worker requests that his total permanent disability, caused after suffering an injury while performing his usual work, is considered a work-related accident. The insurance company and the company classify it as a common illness, understanding that the medical condition existed previously. The SC classifies it as an occupational accident since:

• The presumption of article 156.3 GSSL (whereby injuries sustained during the time and in the place of work are considered occupational accidents) was not rebutted since it was not proven that there was no causal link between the effort made and the injury produced; and
• This presumption is not overturned by the fact that the worker previously suffered from the disease or presented symptoms (since what is relevant is the action of the work as a triggering factor).

7. Nullity of a dismissal of an employee on sick leave due to the disciplinary dismissal being based on unlawful evidence

Judgement 1140/2025, of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia, of 6 March 2025

The judgment analyses the nullity of the disciplinary dismissal of an employee who was accused of having simulated a medical leave in order to enjoy unauthorized vacations. The SC confirms that there was a violation of the fundamental rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data and declares the dismissal null and void because:

• The company commissioned a private surveillance based solely on unsubstantiated suspicions regarding the legitimacy of the employee's medical leave, which arose following the unauthorised transmission of health-related data by the company’s occupational health service;
• The results of this surveillance, which was initiated almost immediately after the commencement of the medical leave, were subsequently used by the employer to justify the dismissal;
• The evidence obtained is unlawful given that the employee had not given her consent to the disclosure of her health data, and such information was not used for medical or preventive purposes, breaching article 18 of the Spanish Constitution and article 9 of Regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of individuals concerning the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data; and
• The worker was on medical leave, protected by this special situation and consequently, since the disciplinary grounds alleged in the dismissal letter have not been duly proven, the dismissal is declared null and void for violating the fundamental right to equality on the grounds of illness.

8. Fairness of the dismissal of a worker who tried to obtain undue employment protection by becoming a union delegate

Judgement 68/2025, Bilbao Social Court No. 2, of 10 March 2025

The validity of the dismissal of a worker affected by a collective dismissal was analysed. This worker demanded the nullity of his dismissal for violation of freedom of association, discrimination on health grounds and reduction of working hours for child care. The worker began his union activity only after learning, due to his job, of his inclusion in the collective dismissal procedure.

The Court considered that the initiation of union activity was merely reactive, aimed at obtaining employment protection against a dismissal that had already been decided, since the employee had never previously exercised union activity and only joined after being informed of his inclusion in the collective dismissal. It also ruled out the existence of discrimination, as it found that the worker was in a condition to fully perform his duties and that the measure was not linked to his exercise of family reconciliation rights.

To keep an eye on

The Council of Ministers approves the Preliminary Bill for the reduction of the maximum duration of the ordinary working day, the guarantee of the working day register and the right to digital disconnection

The Council of Ministers has approved, on 6 May 2025, at the proposal of the Ministry of Labour and Social Economy, the Preliminary Bill for the reduction of the maximum duration of the ordinary working day, the guarantee of the working day register and the right to digital disconnection.

Among the main measures, the Preliminary Bill establishes the progressive reduction of the maximum legal working hours from 40 to 37.5 hours per week, without salary reduction. In addition, the Preliminary Bill establishes the obligation for companies to implement a digital time recording system, interoperable and accessible to the Labour Inspectorate and workers' representatives, with records which must be kept for four years. The unwaivable right of workers to digital disconnection is also reinforced, prohibiting company communications outside working hours. Failure to comply with these measures may result in penalties of up to 10,000 euros per worker.

The parliamentary processing of the draft bill is still pending, and its final approval will depend on the support of the political forces in Congress (Congreso de los Diputados). Notwithstanding the absence of definitive information regarding the timeline for the entry into force of the proposed legislation, it should be noted that the Government has formally requested that the bill is processed through the expedited (urgency) legislative procedure. In principle, this would result in a substantial reduction of the standard parliamentary deadlines, potentially limiting the overall timeframe to approximately three to four months. However, it must also be borne in mind that a significant number of procedural stages within the legislative process are not subject to mandatory time constraints and may be extended. Given the current political and institutional complexity, there is a tangible risk that the process may experience delays or, in certain scenarios, become subject to procedural deadlock or obstruction.