September 2026
Remote Work Reversibility and Individual Agreements in Spain: How Recent Supreme Court Rulings Challenge Traditional Employment Law Principles
Remote working arrangements in Spain continue to raise complex legal questions. Two recent judgments of the Spanish Supreme Court have reinforced the primacy of individual agreements and the concept of reversibility in remote work, producing outcomes that appear to sit uneasily with some long-established legal and employment law principles.
The well-known saying “he who can do more can do less” originates in Roman law (non debet, cui plus licet, id quod minus est, non licere). Since the Digest of Justinian, it has been regarded as a general principle of law.
However, when it comes to remote working, this principle no longer seems entirely applicable. In a recent judgment dated 1 July 2026 (Appeal No. 131/2025), the Spanish Supreme Court made clear that an employer may lawfully bring remote working to a complete end, provided it complies with the conditions collectively or individually agreed for exercising the right of reversibility. By contrast, the employer may not unilaterally reduce the level of remote working from 100% to 75%.
To a non-specialist, this conclusion may seem counterintuitive. After all, it allows a change from 100% remote work to 0%, while prohibiting a reduction from 100% to 75%. Yet this outcome is not the result of an artificial or overly technical interpretation by the Court. Rather, it follows from a literal, systematic and arguably purposive interpretation of Spain’s Remote Work Act (Law 10/2021).
As the Supreme Court correctly points out, Law 10/2021 distinguishes between changes to remote working arrangements and the exercise of reversibility. On the one hand, Article 5.3 provides that “the decision to work remotely instead of working on-site shall be reversible for both the employer and the employee”. This reflects the voluntary nature of remote work, which is one of its defining features. The only limitations on reversibility, which in practice amounts to reducing remote working to 0%, are: (i) that the employee was not originally hired to work remotely; and (ii) that the right is exercised in accordance with the terms established through collective bargaining or, failing that, in the individual agreement.
On the other hand, Article 8.1 requires a prior written agreement between the employer and the employee in order to modify “the conditions established in the remote working agreement, including the percentage of on-site work”. As a result, the percentage of remote working cannot be imposed or modified unilaterally, unless it is reduced to 0%, in which case the issue falls within the scope of reversibility. This prohibition applies even through the mechanism provided under Article 41 of the Workers’ Statute for substantial modifications of working conditions.
The same judgment also highlights another important principle: the predominance of individual agreements over collective arrangements in matters relating to remote work. In a separate judgment issued on 12 May 2026 (Appeal No. 31/2025), the Supreme Court had already concluded that there is no legal obligation to negotiate a remote work model beforehand with employee representatives. The only requirement under Law 10/2021 is the existence of an individual agreement that complies with the legal minimum standards and with any provisions that may have been established through collective bargaining, where a statutory or non-statutory collective agreement exists or has been negotiated.
This is simply the other side of the same coin. Even where a collective agreement is negotiated, it cannot override the autonomy of the parties that underpins remote work arrangements, nor can it be used to modify collectively those aspects that have been agreed in an individual remote work agreement.
Whether this approach is desirable or not, the primacy of the individual agreement undoubtedly weakens another fundamental principle, this time one rooted in employment law: the binding force of collective bargaining.
There is little doubt that the conclusions outlined above derive directly from the wording of the legislation and may well reflect the legislature’s original intention. Nevertheless, it is worth considering whether the combination of these two elements could produce unintended consequences.
First, employers may have less incentive to enter into collective agreements if such agreements primarily serve to restrict their room for manoeuvre, while offering limited scope to establish or amend working conditions without subsequent individual negotiations to modify existing remote work agreements.
Secondly, the focus of negotiation shifts almost entirely to the individual level, overlooking the fact that, in most employment relationships, there is no genuine equality of bargaining power between employer and employee. This could lead to a form of negotiation that, one might argue, resembles a “take-it-or-leave-it” approach. If an employer cannot reduce the percentage of remote work by as little as 5%, it may instead choose to revoke remote working altogether and then use that position as leverage to negotiate the level of remote work it originally intended to implement.
Ultimately, more than five years after the enactment of Law 10/2021, it may be time to reconsider certain aspects of the legislation. Practical experience has revealed that some of its provisions can lead to unintended consequences, affecting employers, employees and employee representatives alike.
Partner
