Labor Newsletter. April 2026

Is a 24-hour notice period sufficient to allow an employee to submit representations prior to disciplinary dismissal?
High Court of Justice of Asturias, Labour Division, Judgment 70/2026, 27 January 2026, appeal no. 1675/2025

In this case, the High Court of Justice of Asturias has upheld the finding of unfair dismissal in a disciplinary termination, holding that the 24-hour period granted to the employee to submit prior representations was insufficient. The Chamber acknowledges that the employer did afford a hearing procedure, but concludes that said period did not allow for a genuine and effective defence.

The ruling is grounded on the principle that the prior hearing cannot be reduced to a mere procedural formality. Where an employer opens such a channel, it must provide a reasonable timeframe enabling the employee to respond, prepare their account, and address the alleged misconduct.

In practical terms, this judgment requires a review of internal disciplinary dismissal protocols. The lesson is straightforward: a procedural defect in timing may invalidate a termination decision, even where the imputed conduct has been duly established and would otherwise justify the maximum disciplinary sanction.

Must a temporary employment agency also assume the enhanced compensation benefits established under the host company's collective agreement?
Supreme Court, Labour Division, Judgment 199/2026, 25 February 2026, appeal no. 3222/2024

The Supreme Court confirms that a worker placed by a temporary employment agency (TEA) is entitled to the same compensation for permanent total disability arising from a workplace accident as would have been received had the worker been directly employed by the host company. The Court reached the same conclusion in a recent earlier judgment (STS 466/2025, of 27 May), concerning a voluntary enhancement of temporary incapacity benefits.

The Chamber reasons that these voluntary social security enhancements form part of the essential terms and conditions of work and employment that must be equalised during the period of assignment. It clarifies, accordingly, that the principle of equal treatment with the host company's workforce is not confined to ordinary remuneration, but may extend to broader economic coverage arrangements.

The implications for employers are significant: compliance is required with the purpose pursued by EU Directive 2008/104/EC and with the current provisions of the national legislation governing Temporary Employment Agencies (Article 11 of Law 14/1994).

Can a single sexually explicit comment justify disciplinary dismissal?
High Court of Justice of Catalonia, Judgment 1244/2026, 2 March 2026

Whereas the March Newsletter examined how the STSJ of Madrid of 26 September 2025 opened the door to the possibility of a single act constituting workplace harassment, this ruling of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia upholds the dismissal of an employee who, at the workplace, grabbed the hand of a minor female trainee and said to her "estás bien rica mamasita".

The judgment is particularly significant in that it categorically rejects any attempt to characterise the facts as a joke, compliment, or isolated comment of no legal consequence. The Court holds that this single episode, by reason of its content, the physical contact involved, and the context in which it occurred —a workplace setting, the victim being a minor and a trainee— falls squarely within a "prototypical case of sexual harassment in the employment sphere" and justifies the imposition of the maximum disciplinary sanction.

From an employment compliance and human resources management perspective, this judgment reinforces the advisability of maintaining preventive and training policies that foster awareness of what constitutes workplace harassment and help prevent serious incidents from the outset.

Under what circumstances may an employment contract be terminated following a declaration of permanent total disability without offering reasonable adjustments?
High Court of Justice of Castilla y León, Judgment 1003/2026, 17 March 2026

The High Court of Justice of Castilla y León examines the case of a worker declared as having permanent total disability (PTD), who sought to have the termination of her employment relationship classified as dismissal. The Chamber confirms that, in the circumstances of this case, neither dismissal nor discriminatory conduct on the part of the employer is established.

The judgment focuses on a matter of significant practical relevance for employers: following the declaration of permanent total disability, there is no evidence that the worker requested reasonable adjustments or redeployment from the employer; and the Chamber holds that, in those circumstances, the employer's conduct did not infringe the requirements of European Union law invoked in the appeal.

The judgment serves as a reminder of the advisability of reviewing procedures and documenting each step taken in cases involving permanent total disability. Sound legal risk management remains the most effective tool for containing associated risks and costs.

May incentive schemes be made conditional upon prior disciplinary history and managerial discretion?
Supreme Court, Labour Division, Judgment 165/2026, 17 February 2026, appeal no. 8/2025

The Supreme Court upholds the nullity of several incentive clauses included in CaixaBank's remuneration scheme. The Court rejects, on the one hand, the deprivation of variable pay for employees who have been sanctioned for a serious or very serious disciplinary infringement and, on the other hand, the granting of managerial authority to adjust bonuses in the absence of sufficiently defined and objective criteria.

The Chamber holds that linking the forfeiture of an incentive to a disciplinary sanction amounts, in practice, to an additional economic penalty; and further considers that a bonus adjustment scheme affording such broad managerial discretion, without clear and determinate rules of application, is not legally valid.

Incentive policies must be structured in accordance with established judicial doctrine, ensuring that the parameters applied are transparent, measurable, and foreseeable, so as to prevent findings of liability requiring full payment of such variable remuneration.