Requests for flexible work schedules are on the rise. The concern is not the request itself, but how it is handled. A poorly worded refusal can result in an automatic approval by court order. Flexible work schedules do not equate to reduced work hours. And refusing to negotiate is not an option. Recent court rulings have set the standard quite clearly.
Article 34.8 of the Workers’ Statute (ET) is no longer merely a declaratory provision. In recent years, and especially following its reform, it has become one of the most contentious issues in labor management. Companies face a clear tension: on the one hand, the right to work-life balance; and on the other, the need to maintain productive operations.
The key is not in saying yes or no. The key lies in how one responds.
What happens when a company denies a request for accommodation in court?
When an employee challenges a company’s denial, labor courts do not simply verify whether the company said “no.” They analyze the entire process.
a) Reasonableness and proportionality
The court will weigh whether the requested measure is reasonable in relation to:
- The actual work-life balance needs.
- The company’s internal organization.
- The operational impact.
It is not enough to simply allege “organizational problems.” They must be substantiated.
A generic refusal, without objective data or specific justification, usually works against the company.
b) Genuine negotiation process
Since the amendment to Article 34.8 of the Workers’ Statute, the company is required to initiate an effective negotiation process within a maximum of 15 days.
This is not a mere formality. There must be genuine dialogue, an exchange of proposals, and an analysis of alternatives.
The Supreme Court, in STS 825/2025, has been clear: If there is no negotiation and the employee goes to court, the measure is automatically granted unless it is manifestly unreasonable or disproportionate.
Failing to respond, responding after the deadline, or simply rejecting the proposal without negotiating may result in automatic judicial approval.
c) Proven organizational impact
The courts will examine:
- Whether there is a disruption to shift schedules.
- Whether it affects customers or production.
- Whether it requires additional hiring
- Whether it causes harm to other employees.
But it is not enough to simply state this. It must be proven.
Abstract arguments such as “this disrupts the company” are usually insufficient if not accompanied by data.
d) Shared Responsibility
In cases involving childcare, the courts consider:
- The other parent’s employment situation.
- Whether there is joint custody.
- Whether there are realistic care alternatives.
- Whether both parents are sharing responsibilities.
Work-life balance cannot be granted unilaterally without analyzing the family context.
When the other parent has compatible work schedules and does not request similar measures, this factor can be decisive.
e) Constitutional dimension
The right to work-life balance has constitutional significance, but it is not absolute.
It must be exercised in a manner that is balanced with the freedom of enterprise and productive organization.
The courts are seeking balance, not automatic rulings.
A recent example is the ruling by the High Court of Justice of Castile and León on July 30, 2025.
In this case, an employee requested:
- Reduced hours.
- Workplace accommodations.
- Telework.
- Exclusion of Saturdays.
The company rejected the initial proposal and offered an alternative. The Court considered the company’s refusal justified because:
- The position required on-site presence.
- Most of the work took place in the afternoons and on Saturdays.
- Negotiations were initiated.
- The employee was inflexible.
- The other parent was available.
The ruling confirmed that the company’s proposal was reasonable and proportionate.
The company’s flexibility and the employee’s willingness to negotiate are also considered by the court.
Are Accommodation and Reduction the Same Thing?
It is common for a request for accommodation to include a disguised reduction. Legally, however, they are distinct concepts.
Reduction of Working Hours (Art. 37.6 of the Workers’ Statute)
- Automatic right.
- Involves a proportional reduction in pay.
- Must be applied daily (unless otherwise agreed).
- The employer cannot refuse if the requirements are met.
Work schedule adjustment (Art. 34.8 ET)
- Right to request, not to demand.
- Does not reduce pay.
- Requires negotiation.
- May be denied if justified.
Attempting to combine both measures creates unnecessary conflicts.
If a request for adjustment includes a partial reduction on specific days, the correct approach is to submit two separate requests.
The Costliest Mistake: Failing to Negotiate
Supreme Court Ruling 825/2025 has established an important legal precedent by stating that if the company refuses to negotiate and the employee files a lawsuit, the relief sought is automatically granted, unless there is clear unreasonableness.
Silence is no longer neutral. It is dangerous.
The risk is not just losing the case. Damages may also be awarded if a violation of fundamental rights is proven.
The role of good faith
The courts are placing increasing weight on good faith in negotiations. The following is analyzed:
- Whether the employee demonstrates the need.
- Whether the company proposes viable alternatives.
- Whether there is a genuine balance.
- Whether there is a collaborative attitude.
Good faith is not a theoretical concept. It is proving to be decisive in the judgments.
Case Study
A company with 35 employees receives a request for accommodations to:
- Work only the morning shift.
- Eliminate Saturdays.
- Work from home two days a week.
- Reduce working hours on two specific afternoons.
The company:
- Fails to respond within the deadline.
- Refuses to enter negotiations.
- Merely issue a generic rejection.
The employee files a lawsuit.
Likely outcome under current case law: Automatic approval of the accommodation (unless there is manifest disproportion).
Now let’s imagine the same case handled correctly:
- Formal initiation of negotiations.
- Request for reasonable information.
- Documented analysis of the impact.
- Interim alternative proposal.
- Reasoned written communication.
In this scenario, the company has a much better chance of defending its position.
Strategy for Companies
Workplace accommodation is no longer a minor issue. It is one of the current focal points of labor litigation. The risk does not lie in granting or denying a request. The risk lies in failing to manage the process correctly.
We recommend:
- Establishing protocols for accommodation requests.
- Developing templates for reasoned responses.
- Documenting the negotiation process.
- Train team leaders.
- Review applicable collective bargaining agreements.
If your company is receiving requests for accommodation or reduced hours, or if you wish to review your internal procedures to avoid risks, we are available to:
- Audit your work-life balance protocol.
- Draft response templates aligned with case law.
- Analyze specific cases before they escalate to court.
For more information, please contact our Labour consulting.
If you find this interesting, please share it on social media. Thank you!
