If an employee requests to adjust their working hours for work-life balance reasons, the company may disagree... but it can no longer simply dismiss the request with a direct refusal.
When it comes to work-life balance, the problem is often not that a company says “no,” but how it arrives at that “no.” The Supreme Court (TS) has pointed out something very practical: when a person requests an adjustment to their working hours for family reasons, the company cannot simply refuse and move on. First, it must open a space for real negotiation, even if only briefly, to try to accommodate the request or propose alternatives.
Why is this so important? Because if this step is omitted, the conflict is no longer discussed on equal terms: the procedure becomes the focus of the matter, and the judge may tip the balance in favor of the employee.
Supreme Court Ruling 825/2025 is a good example of this idea: it is not saying that everything must always be granted, but that skipping the negotiation can be costly, even when the organization believes it has reasons.
The ruling addresses a very common scenario: an employee requests an adjustment to their working hours for work-life balance purposes under Article 34.8 of the Workers’ Statute (ET, wording introduced by RDL 6/2019) and the company responds by refusing, without opening the individual negotiation process provided for in the regulation when there is no specific provision in the collective agreement.
The Supreme Court states bluntly: this negotiation process is not merely decorative. It is an essential part of the law; if the company skips it, the lawsuit will be an uphill battle.
The key idea that establishes doctrine
The core of the criterion is this: if the company does not open the negotiation process, the ruling must uphold the request in the terms requested by the worker, unless the court finds that the request is manifestly unreasonable or disproportionate.
In plain language: if there is no negotiation, the judge tends to “repair” the right by granting the request, unless it is clearly absurd.
Please note. It is not enough to deny “with reasons” if there has been no real negotiation beforehand. Motivation alone may come too late.
What is meant by “serious negotiation”?
Negotiation, in this case, is not a two-line email or a hallway conversation. The Supreme Court treats it as genuine negotiation, with an exchange of positions and a search for common ground: proposals, counterproposals, reasonable alternatives, all within the legal time frame.
It also makes an important point: if the company accepts from the outset, perfect; the negotiation is “consummated” because there is already an agreement. But if it is going to refuse or propose something else, there must be prior process.
- Please note. If the company says, “there were meetings,” but cannot prove it with minimal evidence (minutes, emails, proposals), this usually comes to nothing in court.
The exception that can save a denial
The ruling does not make adaptation an “automatic right” in all cases. The door that remains open is clear: the judge may not grant it if the request is manifestly (note the word) unreasonable or disproportionate.
This sets the bar high: it is not enough that it “complicates,” “inconveniences,” or “is not liked.” There must be a clear lack of proportion or an organizational impact that is very difficult to sustain… and even then, it is sensible to have negotiated and tried alternatives first.
The company often loses credibility when its first reaction is “no” and the alternative only appears when there is already a demand.
Connection with the current wording of Article 34.8 ET
Although the case is analyzed with the applicable wording of RDL 6/2019, it should not be forgotten that Article 34.8 has continued to evolve, and today the rule reinforces the idea of speed and reasoned response in shorter time frames (in practice, this has pushed many companies to formalize the process better).
Practical translation: if it was already dangerous to improvise, now it is even more so.
Attention. Not having an “internal circuit” (HR, management, legal, deadlines, documentation) turns every request into a poorly managed emergency.
What does this mean for companies and Human Resources?
To prevent a conflict from being decided by an “omitted step,” it is advisable to act methodically:
- Written acknowledgment of receipt with a clear date.
- Formal opening of the negotiation process (schedule, meetings, interlocutors).
- Real exchange: what the person is asking for, what needs there are, what alternatives exist.
- Alternative proposal if it does not fit (an impossible or cosmetic alternative is not valid).
- Final written decision with reasons, objective grounds and, where appropriate, evidence or data (charts, production peaks, shifts, coverage, etc.).
What the Supreme Court penalizes most is not disagreeing but not having tried to find a solution when the law requires it.
If you want a quick rule for everyday use: “First negotiate, then decide.”
If you start by deciding, the procedure is flawed and the case may be resolved on that basis. In working time adjustments, many legal defeats begin with a typical phrase: “denied” without any trace of negotiation.
For more information, consult with Labor Consulting.
If you find this interesting, share it on social media. Thank you!
