Laboral Newsletter. July 2026

Verbal disagreement with a possible change in working conditions is sufficient to trigger protection against retaliation.
Judgment of the Supreme Court, Labour Chamber, No. 562/2026, of 23 June 2026, Appeal No. 2521/2025.

An employee working as a dog groomer had a conversation with the employer, who sought to persuade her to work certain Saturdays. The employee — who recorded that conversation — expressed her disagreement with that decision, referring to a document which she had signed marked "not in agreement". Six days later she was subjected to disciplinary dismissal, with the company acknowledging that the dismissal was unfair.

The Supreme Court upholds the nullity of the dismissal. It holds that the disagreement expressed, even though it did not amount to a formal or judicial claim, constitutes sufficient evidence of a breach of the guarantee of indemnity (Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution). The six-day temporal proximity shifts to the company the burden of proving the absence of retaliation, a burden it failed to discharge.

Note: any expression of disagreement by an employee — even if verbal and informal — may trigger the guarantee of indemnity if the company takes an adverse measure within a short period, and it is therefore advisable always to document the grounds preceding a dismissal.

Does a private settlement agreement committing to acknowledge unfair dismissal before the SMAC have discharging effect?
Judgment of the Supreme Court, Labour Chamber, No. 532/2026, of 10 June 2026, Appeal No. 2081/2025.

Not always. In this case, the company issued a disciplinary dismissal to an employee and, on the same day, the parties signed a "settlement agreement" acknowledging the dismissal as unfair, with compensation of EUR 20,000 (against the EUR 60,000 required by law), making its effects conditional on subsequent administrative conciliation, which the employee ultimately did not ratify.

The Supreme Court confirms the dismissal was unfair, declining to recognise discharging effect for the agreement owing to its contradictory wording: it purported to take effect from signature, yet was made conditional on the outcome before the SMAC. As no such agreement was reached before that body, those effects never took hold.

For a private settlement agreement relating to a dismissal to be valid and effective, it must be drafted clearly, be dated after the date of dismissal, be free of any defect of consent (signed by an adviser or workers' representative), and must not be subject to a condition precedent of subsequent ratification.

Amounts paid for failure to give notice in an objective dismissal are subject to social security contributions.
TGSS RED System Bulletin (BNR) No. 8/2026, of 14 July, and No. 9/2026, of 16 July 2026.

Until now, the TGSS (Social Security General Treasury) had taken the view that amounts paid for failure to give notice in objective dismissals were compensatory in nature and were excluded from social security contributions. This bulletin introduces a change in the TGSS's approach: as this is a concept distinct from the statutory severance payment for termination, its nature is closer to that of salary and it must be included in the contribution base.

Accordingly, the company will have to pay contributions on these amounts by way of a supplementary settlement, taking the date of termination as the accrual date, and must report them under code CRA 0054, now renamed "SEVERANCE/AMOUNTS FOR FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE". This change requires a review of how the costs of objective terminations are calculated and reported where statutory notice is not given.

Note: (i) the TGSS's criterion does not expressly provide for retroactive application to contributions on amounts previously paid under this heading, and (ii) the bulletin states that the TGSS's systems have already been prepared for its implementation.

Can posting a video on social media containing internal data and disparaging the company be classified as a fair dismissal?
Judgment of the High Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands, Labour Chamber, No. 264/2026, of 27 May 2026, Appeal No. 38/2026.

A hotel waiter, during working hours and using his personal mobile phone, recorded and uploaded to the social network TikTok a video showing the payment system (room service POS terminal), while stating that a coffee costing 20 cents was sold for 5 euros and that employees were paid only EUR 1,400.

The High Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands upholds the dismissal as fair on the ground of breach of contractual good faith and abuse of trust (Article 54.2.d of the Workers' Statute), given that confidential data from the internal system were disclosed and the company was publicly disparaged, without it being necessary to establish specific economic harm: the objective capacity to damage the company's reputation is sufficient.

Note: posting internal company information on social media — systems, prices, margins or working conditions — may constitute grounds for a fair disciplinary dismissal, without the company needing to establish actual economic harm.

May the company require cohabitation or the status of primary carer in order to grant leave for the care of family members? Judgment of the Supreme Court, Labour Chamber, No. 373/2026, of 15 April 2026, Appeal No. 104/2025.

In this case the company required its employees to prove cohabitation with the affected family member, or their status as primary carer, in order to grant the five-day paid leave provided for in Article 37.3(b) of the Workers' Statute. Several trade unions challenged this practice by means of collective dispute proceedings.

The Supreme Court dismisses the company's appeal and confirms that, in the case of a spouse, common-law partner, or relatives up to the second degree, the law requires no more than proof of the family relationship and of the triggering event. Cohabitation and effective care are only required where the beneficiary is a person other than those listed above.

Note: the company may only require proof of the family relationship (or of cohabitation where there is no family tie) and of the triggering event; it may not impose a requirement to prove cohabitation or primary carer status, unless it can establish an abuse of right.