Employment - Legislative and case law developments

1. Anti-discrimination safeguards extended to include carers of people with disabilities

The CJEU has ruled that carers of family members with disabilities are entitled to reasonable work adjustments from their employer, thereby extending anti-discrimination protection beyond people with disabilities themselves. This obligation applies automatically as soon as the employer becomes aware of the situation and may include changes to working hours, changes in duties or workplace adaptations. Although the case refers to children under 18, the ruling can be applied to any family member with a disability, including spouses and elderly parents.

2. Employment termination for refusing a substantial contract modification constitutes collective dismissal

The CJEU has ruled that dismissals resulting from a refusal to accept relocation may constitute collective dismissals if they involve substantial changes to the contract. In such cases, this requires prior consultation when the employer envisages that the workers will reject the proposals. These consultations must comply with all the information requirements of Directive 98/59 and must take place before any collective  agreement on internal mobility is reached.

3. Indemnity guarantee extended to include claims made to employee representatives

The Constitutional Court has ruled that workers submitting claims to works councils or employee representatives are protected by the indemnity guarantee under article 24.1 of the Spanish Constitution. This ruling extends constitutional protection to out-of-court proceedings handled through employee representatives when their purpose is to resolve labour disputes and avoid legal proceedings.

4. Time spent on compulsory training to renew maritime safety certificates considered working time

The Supreme Court has ruled that, in accordance with article 23.1(d) of the Workers’ Statute, compulsory training required to renew maritime certificates, as established by international and national regulations, must be considered actual working time.

5. Remote workers not always entitled to an ergonomic chair

The Supreme Court has rejected the claim that companies are required to provide ergonomic chairs for all remote workers, as this working condition is not comparable to salary or working hours. Whether this measure is necessary depends on the specific nature on the remote worker’s job and, in some cases, may even require a medical prescription. The court also noted that neither collective agreements nor remote working agreements include this obligation and that employees are already compensated for remote working costs.

6. Obligation to negotiate work adjustments for family reasons reinforced

The High Court of Justice of Galicia upheld the appeal of a telemarketer who requested to continue working from home to care for her 82-year-old mother with Parkinson’s disease. The court ruled that the right to a work-life balance takes precedence over business interests. Although the employer had allowed remote working for four years, it subsequently refused to extend the arrangement, citing vague “operational reasons” and providing no specific justification or alternatives. The ruling recognised the right to work remotely and ordered the company to pay EUR 3,750,thereby reinforcing the obligation to negotiate work-life balance matters in good faith.