{"id":9040527,"date":"2026-02-18T07:00:52","date_gmt":"2026-02-18T07:00:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.gremicat.es\/?p=9040527"},"modified":"2026-02-11T09:43:08","modified_gmt":"2026-02-11T09:43:08","slug":"working-hours-adjustment-is-not-denied-without-further-ado","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.gremicat.es\/en\/working-hours-adjustment-is-not-denied-without-further-ado\/","title":{"rendered":"Working hours adjustment is not denied without further ado"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

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. <\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

When it comes to work-life balance, the problem is often not that a company says \u201cno,\u201d but how it arrives at that \u201cno.\u201d 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.<\/span><\/p>

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.<\/span><\/p>

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.<\/span><\/p>

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.<\/span><\/p>

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.<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

The key idea that establishes doctrine\n<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

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, <\/span>unless<\/span><\/i> the court finds that the request is manifestly unreasonable or disproportionate.<\/span><\/p>

In plain language: if there is no negotiation, the judge tends to \u201crepair\u201d the right by granting the request, unless it is clearly absurd.<\/span><\/p>

Please note<\/b>. It is not enough to deny \u201cwith reasons\u201d if there has been no real negotiation beforehand. Motivation alone may come too late.<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

What is meant by \u201cserious negotiation\u201d?<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

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.<\/span><\/p>

It also makes an important point: if the company accepts from the outset, perfect; the negotiation is \u201cconsummated\u201d because there is already an agreement. But if it is going to refuse or propose something else, there must be prior process.<\/span><\/p>