Labor and Employment | First quarter 2026

This newsletter highlights the key labor and employment developments from the first quarter of 2026—and what they mean for your business.

Labor measures in response to the Middle East crisis

• To address the impact of the crisis triggered by the conflict in the Middle East, Royal Decree-Law 7/2026, of March 20 (RDL 7/2026) approved the Comprehensive Response Plan to the Middle East Crisis, which includes a package of direct aid for companies affected by rising energy and fuel costs. Spain’s Congress approved these measures on March 26, 2026.
• These benefits take the form of tax and energy measures. Besides, RDL 7/2026 introduces relevant developments on sustainable mobility and people management. Specifically, it limits employers’ ability to terminate employment contracts at companies receiving aid under RDL 7/2026; it requires companies to repay any direct aid received if they do not implement the sustainable mobility plans set forth in Act 9/2025 on time; and it reduces the implementation deadline for these plans from 24 to 12 months (i.e., until December 5, 2026).

2026 social security contribution caps and bases 

• Royal Decree-Law 3/2026, of February 3, established, effective January 1, 2026, the transitional framework for minimum and maximum contribution bases, the maximum cap, the Intergenerational Equity Mechanism, and the additional solidarity contribution. Against that backdrop, Order PJC/297/2026, of March 30, sets out the 2026 contribution rules in the context of an extended budget. The Order applies retroactively from January 1, 2026.

Minimum wage

• Royal Decree 126/2026, of February 18, set the 2026 statutory minimum wage at €1,221 per month, paid in 14 installments (€17,094 per year), with retroactive effect from January 1. The Government has also announced that it plans to introduce specific rules to ensure the statutory minimum wage increase is effective in practice by preventing “offsetting” mechanisms (i.e., absorbing the increase through certain individual pay supplements), although no draft legislation has been published yet.

Working time registration: Opinion of the Spanish Council of State

• On March 19, the Standing Committee of the Council of State—the Government’s highest advisory body on legislative and regulatory matters—unanimously issued Opinion no. 188/2026 on the draft Royal Decree implementing the consolidated text of the Workers Statute on working time registration.
  The Council of State concluded that the draft Royal Decree should not be approved because it identified three grounds for nullity: (i) it would require a legal basis set by statute (not regulation) in the area of personal data protection; (ii) it would exceed the limits of regulatory authority by imposing, through regulations, a mandatory and universal digital system that the Workers Statute would need to expressly authorize; and (iii) it would encroach on the constitutionally and legally protected space for collective bargaining by displacing existing agreements and restricting future negotiations.
  Although the opinion is unfavorable, it is not legally binding. That said, the Government could still approve the proposed Royal Decree, but it would face a high risk of future legal challenges, given the weight administrative courts typically place on the Council of State’s findings.

Key case law

Strikes and “technical/organizational stikebreaking”

• The Constitutional Court, in its March 12 judgment (no. 24/2026), found a breach of the right to strike (article 28.2 of the Spanish Constitution). The court held it was unlawful for the company to use technical means during strike days to neutralize the strike’s impact.
  The judgment looks at the scope of the employer’s ius variandi and the limits on management prerogatives during a strike, focusing on the purpose and the objective effect of the technical measures adopted in the context of the dispute.

Weekly rest day that falls on a public holiday

• In judgment no. 372/2025, of April 30, the Supreme Court held that employees who work Monday through Sunday and have a fixed weekly rest day between Monday and Friday are entitled to an additional day of rest when their weekly rest day coincides with a public holiday.

Parental leave: how it can be taken and accrual of vacation

• In judgment no. 62/2026, of January 26, the Supreme Court (en banc) set two key criteria for the “parental leave” regulated in article 48 bis Workers Statute: (i) the minimum unit for taking intermittent parental leave is a full week; and (ii) parental leave accrues entitlement to paid vacation, departing from the general rule that links vacation accrual to time actually worked.

Paid leave to care for hospitalized family members (article 37.3 b Workers Statute)

• Start of the leave. In judgment no. 126/2026, of February 4, the Supreme Court held that employees may request this paid leave at any time before the medical discharge is issued. This allows employees to plan care more effectively depending on the circumstances.
  In judgment no. 32/2026, of February 18, the Court of Appeals held that the leave cannot start after the hospital discharge, because article 37.3 b Workers Statute ties the start date (dies a quo) to the hospitalization itself.
• How the leave is taken. In judgment no. 1084/2025, of November 13, the Supreme Court struck down a collective bargaining provision that required leave for hospitalization/care and bereavement to be taken in calendar days, holding that it must be taken in working days.
• End of the leave. In judgment no. 140/2026, of February 5, the Supreme Court held that leave does not end merely because the hospital discharge occurs before the legally provided five days have elapsed, where there is no medical discharge and home rest has been prescribed.

Variable pay and vesting conditions

• Impact of temporary disability on variable pay. In judgment no. 159/2026, of February 12, the Supreme Court held that it is discriminatory to apply a retention requirement that counts temporary disability as absence, and explained how to prorate variable pay based on time actually worked.
• Conditions to receive variable pay. In judgment no. 165/2026, of February 17, the Supreme Court held it is unlawful to condition payment of variable compensation on the absence of disciplinary sanctions during the accrual period, and addressed the limits of employer discretion when adjusting bonus payouts.
• Variable pay in vacation pay. Finally, in judgment no. 1171/2026, of December 2, the Supreme Court clarified that the objective test for including variable pay in vacation pay is whether it was paid for at least 6 months out of the previous 11, provided its amount exceeds the fixed amount set out in the contractual annexes.

 Disciplinary dismissal

• In judgment no. 1283/2025, of December 19, the Supreme Court held that, for disciplinary dismissals based on absenteeism, the one-month period provided for in the applicable collective bargaining agreement must be calculated from date to date (not by calendar months).

Notice requirement in collective dismissals

• Regarding the six-month advance notice required in certain collective dismissals under Royal Decree 608/2023, of July 11, the Supreme Court held that (i) failure to meet the notice period does not, by itself, make the collective dismissal null or unfair; (ii) the failure must be justified; and (iii) the consequences are limited to the administrative sphere (judgment no. 1228/2025, of December 10).

Invalidity of a termination condition included in a collective bargaining agreement

• In judgment no. 114/2026, of February 3, the Supreme Court (en banc) declared invalid a collective bargaining clause that provided that the agreement would automatically cease to have effect, whether during its initial term or any extension, in the event of legislative changes. The Court held that the negotiating parties cannot subject the validity of a collective bargaining agreement to termination conditions triggered by external legal changes, even if those changes are highly relevant for the sector.

Freedom of association

•  Format of data provided for the gender equality plan diagnosis. In judgment no. 10/2026, of January 19, the Court of Appeals held that neither Act 3/2007, of March 22, on effective gender equality, nor Royal Decree 901/2020, of October 13, requires a specific format for delivering the data and information needed to prepare the diagnostic assessment for a gender equality plan, but only that the information enables the diagnosis to be prepared on an agreed basis.
• Employee representative involvement in policies on the use of digital devices. In judgment no. 31/2026, of February 19, the Court of Appeals addressed two relevant issues. First, it held that employee representatives’ right to participate in preparing policies on the use of digital devices does not require the employer to negotiate or reach an agreement, and that issuing a prior report is sufficient. Second, it clarified the distinction between the absence of an expectation of privacy (which allows employer monitoring of device use) and the continued protection of employees’ fundamental rights, which only give way where the monitoring measure meets the proportionality test.

For more information, please contact our Knowledge and Innovation Area specialists.