September usually brings a wave of internal reorganisation, and one of the most common moves right now is tightening the hybrid model. Before you send out that internal memo cutting remote days, pause. A recent ruling makes it clear that where remote work stems from a collective agreement, an employer cannot change it on its own initiative.
The case: fewer days at home, more in the office
The scenario will sound familiar. A company decides to reduce the share of remote work and increase on-site presence, and communicates it as a straightforward organisational decision. The court found that this amounts to a substantial modification of working conditions of a collective nature, and therefore requires the procedure set out in Article 41 of the Spanish Workers’ Statute, including a consultation period with the employees’ legal representatives. Because the company acted without that negotiation, the decision was declared null.
That word matters. “Null” does not mean adjusted or compensated. It means the measure falls away entirely, with a return to the previous arrangement and all the internal friction that entails.
The key: where the remote work came from
Here is the technical distinction that changes everything. Remote work agreed individually with each employee, under the distance-working agreement provided for in Spain’s Law 10/2021, is not the same as remote work forming part of a collective agreement. In the first case, the rules for changing it come from the individual agreement and the distance-working legislation. In the second, the condition is collective in nature, and altering it necessarily runs through Article 41.
Put simply: the origin of the condition determines the route to changing it. And that origin is often unclear in companies that improvised remote-work policies from 2020 onwards — first out of necessity, then out of habit — without recording where each element came from.
What this means in practice
First, a documentary exercise: check whether your remote-work policy sits in a company-level collective agreement, in an agreement with employee representatives, in individual contracts, in a signed annex, or simply in an email from 2021 that nobody has revisited. Each source carries a different regime.
Second, plan the change with time. If the adjustment is genuinely needed, Article 41 does not block it — it requires you to follow it. A well-prepared consultation period, with substantiated grounds and solid documentation, is entirely workable. What does not work is a surprise unilateral memo.
Third, mind the execution. In remote-work matters, badly handled decisions carry an internal reputational cost that goes well beyond the legal question.
Closing
Adjusting the hybrid model is legitimate and often necessary. Doing it through the wrong channel turns a reasonable decision into a null one. If you are considering changes to your remote-work policy for the new term, EBF can help you pin down exactly where that condition originates in your organisation and design the right procedure. Talk to us before you communicate anything.