December 2025
The time has come to reflect on the course of this year 2025 in the world of work. Each year brings its setbacks and successes, and this one has been abundant in both for companies, workers, and labour law professionals.
The year 2025 began decisively, perhaps with the most far-reaching law enacted during this period. Dated the second day of the year, Organic Law 1/2025 of 2 January, on measures concerning the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, introduced highly controversial reforms, unevenly received.
Alongside substantive amendments—which have mainly provided greater legal certainty (such as specifying the thresholds of seriousness for wage arrears and delays under Article 50 of the Workers’ Statute; correcting the gap created by Organic Law 2/2024 of 1 August on gender-balanced representation regarding the nullity of objective/disciplinary dismissals of individuals exercising rights to work-life balance and leave; and clarifying the exemption of severance payments agreed in pre-judicial administrative conciliation)—Law 1/2025 introduced other, more contentious changes. The reorganisation of Labour Courts into Labour Sections within Courts of First Instance, within a broader model of systemic judicial transformation, is perceived—beyond its theoretical merits—as a reform for which, despite the transitional periods set out in the law, the Judiciary is unprepared due to insufficient human and material resources. Many fear it will, for a considerable time, add further confusion and delay to a system of justice that is far from among the most efficient, without delivering any tangible benefit. Even greater doubts arise from the separation of conciliation hearings from trials, whose success will largely depend on the actual role assumed by Court Clerks (LAJ). For now, the reform has been criticised for doubling scheduling burdens for practitioners and for the risk that “alternative dispute resolution mechanisms” (ADR/MASC) may become bureaucratic obstacles to accessing labour courts rather than genuine alternative pathways. Other measures—such as the early submission of documentary and expert evidence and greater emphasis on oral judgments—have drawn criticism in professional circles but may warrant more time for practitioners to adapt and evaluate them. Measures promoting digitalisation and procedural discipline can be viewed positively, provided the necessary resources are made available. The introduction of an “objective cassational interest” requirement in cassation appeals for the unification of doctrine is seen by some scholars as an access-restricting filter, but can also be viewed as a rationalisation of a mechanism intended to remain exceptional.
In a completely different area, Law 2/2025 of 29 April, amending the Workers’ Statute and the General Social Security Act regarding permanent disability, imposed significant changes by ending the automatic termination of employment contracts upon a declaration of total/absolute disability or severe invalidity. The reform amended Articles 48.2 and 49.1 of the Workers’ Statute and introduced coordinated adjustments in the General Social Security Act, establishing—in line with European law and case-law on the right to work and disability—the obligation to assess reasonable accommodations and possible reassignments before any termination. Given the ambiguity of the text, an intense debate has emerged regarding the scope of “reasonableness,” the applicable evidentiary standard, and the procedural treatment of the employer’s decision. Once again, the scope and reach of a new legislative provision ultimately fall to judicial interpretation, generating uncertainty for both companies and workers.
Among the measures that did not come to fruition, the most notable failure was the Bill to reduce the maximum duration of ordinary working time and to reinforce time-tracking obligations and the right to disconnect. Among other reforms, it would have reduced annual working hours to the equivalent of 37.5 hours of effective weekly work. Rejected in September 2025, it stands as further evidence that the balance and consensus which enabled numerous agreements and legislative reforms in previous years is now broken and difficult to restore. Another example is the collapse of the Occupational Health and Safety Committee, where social partners and the Government had been discussing necessary reforms to preventive legislation. Both breakdowns have been accompanied by mutual threats: on one side, to use regulatory power to reshape reality—for example in working-time recording or the organisation of Prevention Services—and on the other, to repeal all regulations adopted during this period after any future parliamentary shift.
Turning to case law, I highlight—strictly from a personal standpoint—three judgments of the Labour Chamber of the Supreme Court which, regardless of how they have been assessed (and assessments have varied), have driven significant normative developments.
First, the Judgment of the Full Court No. 736/2025 of 16 July 2025, which deemed the severance under Article 56.1 of the Workers’ Statute “adequate” for the purposes of Article 10 of ILO Convention No. 158 and Article 24 of the Revised European Social Charter, rejecting the possibility that courts increase such severance based on the circumstances of the case. The decision places a full stop—or perhaps merely a comma, should the parties pursue other judicial avenues—on a matter that deeply polarised public and professional debate, and whose conclusion was not without controversy, as reflected in the dissenting opinions.
Second—though not in chronological order—is Judgment No. 59/2025 of 29 January, also of the Full Court, which closes another debate: the scope and effects of the 2021 reform of collective bargaining. The Court reaffirms the authority of the principle of temporal priority in the structure of collective bargaining and the binding force of company-level agreements over sectoral agreements based on this principle and the allocation of powers under Articles 82.4 and 42.6 of the Workers’ Statute. This does not prevent further disputes—particularly regarding the survival and ossification of bargaining units through ultra-activity—a matter also addressed by Judgment No. 597/2025 of 17 June.
Lastly—because an ending is always necessary—the Full Court Judgment No. 825/2025 of 24 September 2025, of great practical significance for companies and workers alike, concerns one of the rights that has received the most legislative and judicial attention over the last decade: the right to work-life balance. The Court imposed on employers the obligation to negotiate before denying—even on legitimate grounds—a worker’s request under Article 34.8 of the Workers’ Statute, except where the request is manifestly unreasonable. Failure to comply leads to judicial recognition of the right and an accompanying award of damages for violation of the right to work-life balance.
As we can see, 2025 has been a year full of developments and interest, and 2026 will likely follow with similar intensity.
Luis Pérez Capitán
Of Counsel
