Notice for irregular distribution

The collective agreement or an agreement with the workers' representatives (RLT) can establish the irregular distribution of employees' working hours throughout the year. In the absence of an agreement, the company can irregularly distribute 10% of said working hours. In any case, employees must be informed with a minimum notice of five days of the day and time of work, and this period cannot be reduced by agreement or arrangement.

Well, a union challenged a clause in the agreement for violating the minimum five-day notice required for irregular distribution of working hours and allowing the company to change the schedule or shift system with only a 24-hour notice. And the Supreme Court [TS 13-11-2025] ruled in its favor. According to this, the 24-hour notice is unreasonable, affects the reconciliation of workers, and contradicts the legal minimum of five days.

Dismissal by email

A company communicated a dismissal by email and the courts [TSJ Basque Country 25-11-2025] considered it valid. Although the usual channel was not used and the message was sent to the employee's personal email, the company demonstrated that the employee had effective knowledge of the measure within a reasonable period.

Dismissal is only finalized when it is effectively communicated, that is, when the affected party accesses its content. This written communication serves to inform, allow for challenging, define the dispute, set deadlines, and prove unemployment. And in this case:

• The worker accessed the message three business days later – and even replied to it. Therefore, the dismissal is considered finalized.

• Furthermore, the company had sent other notifications to that same address that the employee read, without objecting to it.

Null modification

If a company implements a substantial modification of working conditions (MSCT) that a judge later declares null, the worker can claim the amounts not received and, in addition, interest for the delay in payment. But when do these moratorium interests start?

The Supreme Court [TS 18-11-2025] has clarified that:

• Interests arise from mere non-compliance or non-payment.

• They accrue from the day the company should have correctly paid (that is, from when the MSCT was implemented and part of the salary or benefits stopped being paid), and not from when the sentence annulling the measure becomes final. The sentence "declares" a right that already existed, it does not "create" it from that moment.

Regarding the amount, the law establishes an annual late interest of 10% of the amount owed.