SPAIN: An Introduction to Employment: Highly Regarded

Key Employment Law Trends for 2025

Main legislative trend: continuous regulatory reform

New legislation in the field of labour law, expected to be approved during 2025, is neither few in number nor minor. In fact, practically all the areas structured around this field (labour relations, social security, labour procedure, etc) will be affected by some kind of legal amendment, with the planned reduction in maximum legal working days being the key measure of the year. From this point of view, continuous reform of the labour law system arguably remains the main legislative trend.

However, in contrast to what might be desirable, this trend does not necessarily respond to an overall global strategy for the modernisation of labour law and social security, and even less to the 21st century’s much-trumpeted Workers’ Statute. On the contrary, regardless of their greater or lesser significance, most of the regulatory reforms announced in the field of labour relations are of a very specific nature, exclusively affecting concrete and very specific issues of the legal system. Moreover, although they affect the same legal field of action, the initiative for carrying out these reforms comes from different agents, resulting in legal provisions of very different content and hierarchy; in practice, this creates some imbalances from the perspective of legal technique.

As such, it is no longer the case that the legal interpreter must have in-depth knowledge of the content of each of the very diverse labour regulations published in the Official State Gazette, but rather that they must be permanently up to date with their effective approval. This is a requirement that is increasingly difficult to meet for practically everyone who interacts in the field of labour relations and, in particular, for those who make up the human resources departments of business organisations. This is especially the case when many of the introduced reforms differ in terms of their time of entry into force (sometimes with different and successive reference periods), or even when these reforms are continually announced but not formally adopted (a paradigmatic example is the planned reform of the maximum legal working day).

In short, if there is one thing that continues to characterise labour and social security law today, it is its extremely changeable nature – so much so that, rather than a trend, continuous regulatory reform should be considered the obligatory reference point in the field of labour relations.

Resulting judicial trend: permanent revision of case law

Alongside the continuous reform of regulations, current labour and social security law is also characterised by the permanent revision of its jurisprudence. From this point of view, the years of our courts’ interpretations of the basic legal institutions remaining practically immovable over time are long gone. Indeed, today it could be argued that there is no labour law institution not susceptible to judicial reformulation.

A clear example of this can be seen in the recent judgments of the Fourth Chamber of the Supreme Court, in relation to the formal obligation to offer workers a hearing prior to their disciplinary dismissal [STS (Plenary) 1250/2024, of 18 November (rcud 4735/2023)] or the validation of the legal system of fixed severance pay for dismissal [STS (Plenary) 1350/2024, of December 18th (rcud 2961/2023)].

This of course is a consequence of the highly changeable nature of the labour law system, but is also a result of the following two factors.

The first factor is the increasing importance of legal sources of a supranational nature. This of course is in addition to the social law of the European Union, the Conventions of the International Labour Organization (of which Spain has ratified a great many) and the revised European Social Charter (ratified by Spain in 2021). In fact, it is not possible to properly interpret the labour law system without reference to the judicial pronouncements issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, and without reference to the rulings of the European Committee of Social Law.

The second factor is the increasingly important role that our courts and tribunals are assuming as a result of the way in which the so-called conventionality trial is applied in Spain. Instead of attributing such an important task exclusively to the highest judicial instances (“concentrated judicial control”), this instead allows our courts and tribunals in any of their different instances to displace the application of the domestic norm, when in the specific case they understand that it opposes an international norm (“diffuse judicial control”). In this way, although not expelled from the legal system, the domestic rule may be displaced when resolving a specific case (“principle of prevalence”).

Certainly, the fact that this is indeed the case is only the logical consequence of the evolutionary transition that the judicial interpretation of our legal system is undergoing. However, the risks that may arise in practice from this new interpretative approach must be acknowledged – for example, the proliferation of new litigiousness concerning problems that, although traditionally overcome, may resurface in any instance and on any occasion with regard to new reinterpretative approaches. The principle of legal certainty will also be further undermined, in so far as any jurisprudential construction will be permanently subject to reinterpretation on the basis of these new approaches.

Confirmation of the methodological trend: working protocols

Finally, in addition to the foregoing, the introduction of new and more numerous labour protocols of very different scope and content in business organisations will continue to be the main trend in 2025, from a strictly methodological point of view. After all, the introduction of these protocols is ultimately aimed at a new way of applying labour and social security law in the field of labour relations. Methodologically speaking, this application should change from being basically reactive (judicialisation) to fundamentally preventative (extra-judicialisation).

However, a number of issues are to be taken into account with these new labour compliance protocols. These include the following, among others.

• Their exponential growth in a very limited period of time. In this regard, note how in recent years organisations have had to consider a wide variety of plans, protocols and policies – eg:
  • equality plans;
  • sexual harassment and gender-based harassment protocols;
  • LGBTI anti-discrimination policies;
  • complaints channels;
  • digital disconnection protocols;
  • working day registers; and
  • pay registers.
• Their introduction in a context that is not sufficiently specialised. In view of the negative consequences for organisations that can result from the absence of these labour protocols, it could be argued that “low cost” corporate actions are not acceptable today.
• The different legal nature of these labour protocols. Thus, their adoption requires following highly differentiated procedures as regards the greater (negotiation) or lesser (hearing, information) participation of workers’ representatives in their drafting.
• Their sometimes less-than-adequate adaptation to the true size of our organisations, the vast majority of which are small and medium-sized enterprises.

Conclusion: Constant Updating

In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the updating of labour and social security law must continue to be obligatory for all those who interact in this sector of the legal system. Certainly, if the trends for 2025 continue to include reform of regulations, the continuous revision of our jurisprudence or the introduction of increasingly more numerous and complex labour protocols, the extraordinary difficulty that this task entails in practice is evident.

However, through constant training, the legal interpreter must be able to acquire the necessary know-how to adapt to the new challenges that lie ahead in the field of labour relations. It is therefore not surprising that, together with their increasing specialisation, adapting to the changes in legislation and case law must form the main characteristic of today’s labour lawyer.