Even private life or not
Balancing personal life with work raises tricky questions about what belongs to private life and what falls under professional life. How far can a judge or a boss influence that line? Can a company discipline an employee for criticizing it through social media? Is it legal to monitor an employee on sick leave to ensure they follow medical prescriptions before returning to work? And when a supervisor asks an employee to adjust the schedule, is asking the employee to rely on grandparents for childcare acceptable instead of shifting duties?
There is a heated debate in court about this last issue, especially with a recent royal decree 5/2023 issued at the end of June. The aim is to promote shared responsibility and compromise within companies. The decree grants employees with dependent children the right to request a fixed and specific work arrangement. This is the legal concept called time concretion. For instance, a worker who alternates between morning and afternoon shifts may request to always work mornings to pick up their child from school.
Until now, this right was limited to workers already entitled to reduced hours, and the concrete form of time flexibility was not guaranteed. Since the change, companies must respond within a defined period, 30 days, with a clear yes or no. If the response is no, the company must provide a proper justification.
That last point has created confusion in the courts. When and why is it legal for a company to refuse an adaptation for a worker caring for children? Should the employee disclose whether a partner or the grandparents can cover childcare while the employee works?
Private life yes or no
It is a sensitive matter because it touches personal space. If a worker needs a compromise and the request aligns with the organization of work, justice should avoid weighing the other parent’s situation too heavily. Mireia Sanra, a member of ICAB’s young lawyers group and a lawyer at Vallbé, comments on this view. Higher courts in Galicia and Madrid have shown mixed positions. Some tribunals require the employee to state personal details to justify a shift change, while others do not.
Sanromà, a labor law professor at the University of Valencia, describes the situation as a balance right. The company may need to surrender and adapt, but it can also demand transparency about the employee’s personal circumstances, such as partner work hours or school hours. The professor notes that negotiations lose value if one party fails to provide essential information.
Adrian Todolí agrees that transparency plays a role in fair negotiations and emphasizes that the discussion should not hinge on sensitive personal data alone.
Joint responsibility
Courts in the Canary Islands and Castile La Mancha support a view that favors transparency as part of shared responsibility. The norm is intended to balance care responsibilities between men and women and prevent a pattern of continual schedule changes that disappear into organizational churn. An example from La Mancha involved a restaurant cook where altering a shift to three o’clock instead of four would close the kitchen early and hurt business. The couple cited available childcare as a reason for the request, but the court did not always side with the employee. It suggested that wording and mutual arrangements matter for keeping the business viable.
The idea is that if a company struggles to accommodate a change, the other parent should meet the needs necessary to support a reasonable accommodation. Solving a practical need that can be met through shared responsibility should not become an unsolvable puzzle for the employer. If a man requests such a time adjustment, it is often easier for the courts to accept it since it aligns with the goal of shared responsibility.
Labor experts emphasize that the focus should be on mutual responsibility rather than single expectations. The aim is to foster a culture where both parents can participate in childcare without one side shouldering all disruption. This is not about one parent controlling the schedule, but about equitable arrangements that work for the family and the business.
I am waiting for guidance
Legal practitioners from Col·lectiu Ronda argue against narrow interpretations that would limit the scope of family and work balance. They argue that asking whether grandparents or a partner can cover childcare narrows the opportunity to share care and denies children the chance to enjoy both parents’ involvement. A different viewpoint comes from Todolí who notes a risk of producing a moral narrative that single parents cannot manage the child’s needs. He suggests it is not necessary for both parents to share the leave in the same way, and the reality is more nuanced.
The divergence among courts, the lack of a precise rule through collective bargaining, and the ongoing evolution of the law mean many workers with children turn to the courts for resolution. The outcome varies by region and the judge’s criteria. Legal experts consulted for this report expect the Supreme Court to issue a final decision within about a year, but a unified doctrine is not guaranteed. Each case could depend on the assigned judge and the specifics of the workplace. (Source: University of Valencia law scholars, Pere Vidal, and regional court notes.)