The employee requested an adjustment to their working hours to work from 7.00 am to 3.00 pm, whilst maintaining a 40-hour working week. The request was based on the need to balance his work with the care of his child under the age of twelve, bearing in mind that the child\u2019s mother worked as a nursing assistant on rotating shifts and that the child\u2019s school day ended at 14:00.<\/p>\n
The company requested further information regarding the family and professional circumstances of the other parent. Subsequently, it rejected the request on the grounds of organisational and productivity-related reasons connected with coordination meetings and work planning.<\/p>\n
At first instance, the employee\u2019s claim was dismissed. However, the High Court of Justice of Asturias partially upheld his appeal, found a breach of his rights to a work-life balance and awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n
The company appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lack of negotiation could not determine the acceptance of the requested adjustment. The Supreme Court, in its Judgment 687\/2026 of 9 September, dismissed the appeal and upheld the contested decision.<\/p>\n
Here at the Employment Law Department<\/a> of Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P.<\/a>, we consider this ruling to be particularly relevant for companies, as it highlights that the handling of work-life balance requests requires not only a reasoned decision but also effective compliance with the legally established procedure.<\/p>\n One of the key aspects that companies must bear in mind is that Article 34.8 of the Workers\u2019 Statute recognises the right of workers to request adjustments to the duration and distribution of working hours, the organisation of working time and the manner in which work is performed\u2014including remote working\u2014in order to realise their right to a work-life balance.<\/p>\n These adjustments must be reasonable and proportionate, taking into account both the employee\u2019s needs and the company\u2019s organisational or production requirements.<\/p>\n The judgement reiterates that, where there is no applicable collective agreement setting out the terms for exercising this right, the company must initiate a negotiation process with the employee. This process must be conducted as swiftly as possible and within a maximum period of fifteen days.<\/p>\n Therefore, the company cannot replace negotiation with a direct refusal of the request<\/strong>, even if its response cites organisational or operational reasons.<\/p>\n Negotiation is not a purely formal procedure. It must allow for a genuine exchange of proposals and counter-proposals, conducted in good faith, with the aim of assessing the employee\u2019s work-life balance needs and the existing organisational possibilities.<\/p>\n The main conclusion of the judgement is that a breach of the obligation to negotiate may lead the courts to grant the adjustment requested by the employee on the terms set out.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court reiterates the criterion established in its Judgment 825\/2025 of 24 September, according to which, where the employer fails to initiate the negotiation procedure provided for in Article 34.8 of the Workers\u2019 Statute, the requested measure must be granted by the courts, unless it is manifestly unreasonable or disproportionate.<\/p>\n This does not mean that any request for an adjustment to working hours must be automatically accepted. The employer retains the right to object where there are objective reasons justifying such opposition, but must first comply with the procedure and assess the specific circumstances of the request.<\/p>\n In the case under consideration, the Supreme Court considered that the requested adjustment was neither manifestly unreasonable nor disproportionate. There was sufficient evidence to recognise the work-life balance needs alleged by the employee, and the proposed measure was not considered, in the terms assessed by the court, to be incompatible with the company\u2019s organisational functioning.<\/p>\n The ruling makes it clear that a negative response, even when accompanied by explanations regarding production needs, does not in itself remedy the omission of the negotiation process.<\/p>\n Article 34.8 of the Workers\u2019 Statute allows companies to assess their organisational and production needs when analysing requests for adjustments to working hours. However, this power must be exercised within the legally established procedure.<\/p>\n Where the company is unable to accept the proposal on the terms requested, it must consider the possibility of proposing an alternative that meets the work-life balance needs. If it ultimately rejects the request, it must set out in writing the objective reasons underpinning its decision.<\/p>\n In this analysis, it is advisable to identify the specific duties of the post, the times at which certain tasks must be carried out, the need for coordination with other departments, and the actual difficulties that the proposed adjustment might cause.<\/p>\n It does not appear sufficient to merely invoke general organisational problems or a possible loss of efficiency. The company must be able to explain how the requested working hours affect its operations and what alternatives were considered during the negotiations.<\/p>\n The Employment Law Department<\/a> at Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P.<\/a> recommends documenting the circumstances justifying the company\u2019s position and retaining the proposals exchanged during the process, so that it can be demonstrated that the request was examined on a case-by-case basis and with due diligence<\/p>\n The judgement also highlights the constitutional importance of measures designed to facilitate the compatibility of work and family life, linked both to protection against discrimination and to the mandate to protect the family and children.<\/p>\n This aspect must be taken into account when interpreting and applying Article 34.8 of the Workers\u2019 Statute. Work-life balance cannot be treated as a purely discretionary matter, but rather as a right whose exercise must be assessed in accordance with legal requirements.<\/p>\n Consequently, employers must avoid standardised responses that fail to take into account the specific circumstances of each individual worker. The existence of operational needs may be relevant, but must be weighed against the proven work-life balance needs and the reasonably available alternatives.<\/p>\n It is also worth recalling that negotiations must be conducted in good faith and cannot be reduced to a series of formal communications whose outcome is predetermined.<\/p>\n The proper handling of these requests therefore requires combining an individualised assessment of family circumstances with a realistic analysis of the organisation of work.<\/p>\n The main conclusion of this ruling is that the company must pay particular attention to the procedure followed when processing requests for adjustments to working hours for the purposes of work-life balance.<\/p>\n Before reaching a decision, it is advisable to review at least three issues: compliance with the statutory negotiation period, an individualised assessment of work-life balance needs, and the existence of objective reasons justifying the acceptance, an alternative proposal or the refusal of the requested measure.<\/p>\n It is also important to document the communications with the employee, the alternatives considered and the organisational circumstances underpinning the final decision.<\/p>\n For this reason, the Employment Law Department<\/a> at Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P.<\/a> recommends that companies review their internal protocols for managing work-life balance requests and ensure that those responsible for Human Resources are aware of the obligations arising from Article 34.8 of the Workers\u2019 Statute. Proper legal planning enables companies to anticipate risks, reduce the likelihood of legal disputes and make well-founded business decisions.<\/p>\n At Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P.<\/a>, we have experience in providing employment law<\/a><\/p>\n advice to companies on work-life balance, working hours adjustments and the management of labour relations, supporting them in assessing requests and adopting measures in line with current legislation<\/p>\n2. The obligation to negotiate before refusing a working hours adjustment<\/h2>\n
3. What are the consequences of failing to negotiate the request?<\/h2>\n
4. The importance of justifying organisational and production-related reasons<\/h2>\n
5. Work-life balance requires an individualised assessment<\/h2>\n
6. Key recommendations for companies<\/h2>\n
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)<\/h2>\n
1. What happens if the company rejects the request without prior negotiation?<\/h3>\n
\n
2. What should the company do if it considers that the requested adjustment would harm its organisation or business operations?<\/h3>\n
\n