September 2026
Luis Pérez Capitán, Of Counsel at Sagardoy, examines three recent judgments addressing significant issues in employment law.
Case 1: Shift Patterns and Irregular Working Time
National Court Judgment No. 143/2026, revising its previous position, holds that the postponement of rest periods for shift workers in the air navigation sector, where circumstances beyond the employer’s control arise and in accordance with the applicable collective bargaining agreement, does not constitute irregular working time.
Whether changes to working arrangements, including shifts, rest periods and working hours, made pursuant to a collective agreement or regulatory framework are classified as irregular working time has significant implications for business efficiency. Such classification may restrict the speed with which employers can respond to situations requiring immediate action. In practical terms, the main consequence of treating these organisational changes as irregular working time is the unavoidable application of the five-day notice requirement, regardless of any agreement reached between the parties. This may place a considerable constraint on business decisions that demand a more rapid response.
Download the full publication.
Case 2: Establishment of the Negotiating Committee
National Court Judgment No. 149/2026 of 18 September: confirmation of the agreed collective redundancy process, no employer involvement in the composition of the negotiating committee, and reflections on the significance of the agreement reached.
The SAGARDOY legal team successfully represented the case in this noteworthy and complex litigation, which addressed, among other issues, the delicate question of the employer’s conduct in relation to the establishment of the negotiating committee and the significance of the agreement reached during a collective redundancy process. The first issue is of considerable practical importance, as the employer has no control over the election process, given that: “The employer is neither present nor permitted to be present during this electoral process, as any involvement in the selection would fundamentally undermine it.” Nevertheless, the consequences may be significant if collusion between the employer and the employee representatives involved in the negotiations can be demonstrated, potentially resulting in nullity, regardless of whether such collusion affected the employer’s final decision. The second issue concerns the legitimacy that a negotiated agreement confers upon a collective redundancy process. This is particularly relevant given the absence in Article 51 of the Workers’ Statute of a provision equivalent to that contained in Article 47 regarding temporary workforce adjustment measures (ERTEs).
Download the full publication.
Case 3: Rights and Freedoms of Foreign Nationals in Spain
Supreme Court Judgment No. 868/2026 (Administrative Chamber), dated 8 July, Appeal No. 19/2025, concerning the legality of certain provisions of Royal Decree 1155/2024 of 19 November, approving the Regulations implementing Organic Law 4/2000 of 11 January on the Rights and Freedoms of Foreign Nationals in Spain and Their Social Integration: temporary work agencies may hold temporary residence and seasonal work authorisations. Annulment of the third paragraph of Article 101.1 of the Royal Decree.
It is uncommon for this column to comment on judicial decisions outside the labour courts’ jurisdiction. However, brief reference must be made to a significant administrative law judgment concerning the complex issue of migration, arising from one of the key legislative instruments in this field: Royal Decree 1155/2024 of 19 November.
