May 2026
Gemma Fabregat, Of Counsel at Sagardoy, analyses three recent judgments addressing key issues in employment law.
Case 1: Scope of collective redundancy within a labour group and trade union freedom. Effects of a judicial finding of a labour group
Supreme Court Judgment (STS) 446/2026, 24 April
STS 446/2026 of 24 April rules on the appeals in cassation lodged by USO and CCOO against High Court of Justice (National Court) Judgment (SAN) 55/2025 of 21 April, which had upheld the lawfulness of the collective redundancy implemented within the MASORANGE group. The dispute did not primarily concern the existence of the economic, production-related and organisational grounds for the dismissal, but rather whether a group of companies existed for employment law purposes, a question on which the validity of the scope within which the procedure had been negotiated depended.
Case 2: Non-emergency patient transport, working time and collective arbitration: the functional application of Additional Provision Two of Law 55/2003
Supreme Court Judgment (STS) 436/2026, 22 April
STS 436/2026 of 22 April resolves the appeals in cassation brought by CGT and CSIF against SAN 174/2024 of 16 December, which had dismissed the challenge to the arbitration award issued by Mr Jesús Cruz Villalón on 16 July 2024, concerning the organisation of working time for mobile staff in the ambulance transport sector providing services to the National Health System.
Case 3: Weekly rest and public holidays in the contact centre sector
National Court Judgment (SAN) 88/2026, 19 May
SAN 88/2026 of 19 May, to which this commentary refers, rules on the joined collective disputes brought by the General Confederation of Labour (CGT), the Workers’ Trade Union (USO), the State Federation of Services, Mobility and Consumer Affairs of UGT (FeSMC-UGT), and the Services Federation of Workers’ Commissions (CCOO), joined by CIG, CSIF and STC, against the Customer Experience Companies Association (CEX), the employers’ association for the contact centre sector. The ruling arises from the consolidated proceedings 134/2026, 158/2026, 161/2026 and 167/2026.
