The Supreme Court clarified that an employer cannot simply shift an employee’s regular Monday-to-Friday schedule into a weekend without a meaningful change in terms and conditions. The ruling reinforces that any alteration to core work hours must reflect a substantial change in working conditions for the affected group, not a unilateral reallocation of days.
In a February decision reviewed by EFE, the social court rejected an appeal to consolidate prior doctrine presented by Emergia Canarias Client against a March 2013 Supreme Court of Justice of the Canary Islands decision. Looking back to 2018, the company informed its streaming service staff that weekend work would continue to be available for operations. This move triggered a review of contractual clauses that governed staffing in the allocation department, where the workweek was listed as Monday through Sunday based on service needs. The contracts, aligned with Labor Law and the Call Center Agreement, permitted an uneven distribution of daily hours and work time across the roster.
decline at work
In 2018, one employee left a position that involved broadcasting, yet the company still relied on service providers across other departments. The company then extended weekend work to include additional teams in broadcasting and related services.
The Supreme Court made clear that workers in the broadcasting division primarily render services from Monday to Friday, which is advantageous for the organization. However, this arrangement can be altered only through a collective, significant change in working conditions. A unilateral shift to weekend schedules or any other major modification without such a change would be invalid, as it represents a mere adjustment of the schedule rather than a genuine modification of terms of employment.
The court emphasized that the employer’s decision to modify hours and distribute working time for the broadcasting unit constitutes a substantial change if it affects pay, benefits, rest periods, and overall work-life balance in a way that alters the fundamental terms of employment. The ruling cautions that merely reallocating days without addressing compensation, rest, and job duties does not satisfy the threshold of a substantive change in working conditions. This interpretation serves to protect workers from abrupt, unilateral shifts in schedules and underlines the need for collaborative negotiation when broad changes are contemplated. Legal observers note that the decision aligns with established labor principles that prioritize stability in core terms of employment when affecting groups of workers within a department. In practice, this means employers must engage in meaningful consultation and, where necessary, negotiate to implement schedule changes that impact a sizeable portion of a workforce. Attribution: Legal analysis based on court documents and industry commentary from 2024.