March 2026
Gemma Fabregat, Of Counsel at Sagardoy, analyses three recent judgments addressing relevant issues in employment law.
Case 1: Pay differentiation and common illness in the objectives and permanence bonus.
Supreme Court Judgment (STS) 159/2026, of 12 February
STS 159/2026 of 12 February resolves an appeal in cassation in the context of a challenge to a collective agreement, in which various issues relating to the agreed regulation were raised. However, the main interest of the judgment lies in its analysis of the objectives and permanence bonus and, in particular, the impact of temporary incapacity due to common illness on the accrual of such bonus following the entry into force of Act 15/2022 on equal treatment and non‑discrimination (Articles 2.1 and 4).
Case 2: Definition of unlawful assignment of workers in artistic service contracts.
Supreme Court Judgments (SSTS) 181/2026 of 24 February (rcud 542/2024) and 192/2026 (Plenary) of 25 February
SSTS 181/2026 of 24 February and 192/2026 of 25 February, the latter delivered by the Plenary of the Social Chamber of the Supreme Court, examine the boundary between lawful contracting and unlawful assignment of workers in the context of outsourcing artistic services, in relation to the provision of choral services at the Teatro Real through the association Intermezzo Programaciones Musicales. These judgments enable the Supreme Court to reiterate, systematise and reinforce its doctrine on the distinction between lawful contracting under Article 42 of the Workers’ Statute and unlawful assignment of workers under Article 43 in a particularly singular sphere such as artistic and performing activities.
Case 3: Business succession and reversion of an industrial lease: scope of Article 44 of the Workers’ Statute.
Supreme Court Judgment (STS) 156/2026, of 9 February (rcud 734/2025)
STS 156/2026 of 9 February addresses a case of business succession in the context of the termination of an industrial lease agreement for a hotel business and the reversion of the tourist complex to its owner. The judgment allows the Supreme Court to reiterate its doctrine on the application of Article 44 of the Workers’ Statute in situations involving the reversion of productive units and, in particular, on whether the recovery by the owner of a leased business constitutes a transfer of undertaking when what is received is not merely the premises, but a functioning productive unit capable of immediate operation.
