“A reduced workweek is transformation, not a marketing initiative”

Leaders League: In your experience, what are the main legal challenges Spanish companies face when implementing reduced working-time schemes, particularly in terms of compliance and internal reorganization?

Ignacio del Fraile: The first challenge is fitting the working-time reduction into the appropriate legal framework. If the initiative comes from the company, there must be economic, technical, organizational or production-related grounds to justify it, which may give rise to a substantial modification of working conditions or, in temporary situations, to a collective process for suspension or reduction of working hours. Both procedures are particularly formalistic and require compliance with legal requirements on justification, documentation and communication/negotiation with workers’ legal representatives. If the reduction in working hours is requested by the employee for direct family caregiving reasons, the company is, in principle, obliged to accept it, provided that it takes place within the employee’s daily working schedule.

On the other hand, we should not overlook that the current Spanish government processed a bill to reduce the working week from 40 to 37.5 hours, without any pay reduction for employees. Although, for now, it does not appear that the necessary parliamentary majority exists to pass this law, it would have a very significant economic impact on companies, as they would have to reduce employees’ working time by 6.25% while assuming the same labor and social security costs.

 Many disputes do not arise from the reduced working-week itself, but from day-to-day misalignments in its implementation

Another relevant challenge in any working-time reduction relates to internal organization, as it affects shifts, coverage and services. In response, companies in Spain have several legal options to mitigate the organizational impact that a reduction in working hours may entail: from implementing an irregular distribution of working time, to strengthening employees’ functional versatility or applying functional or geographic mobility, while ensuring legal and collectively agreed limits are respected.

What differences do you observe between sectors regarding the legal feasibility of adopting reduced working time? Are there industries where labor or litigation risks are higher?

There are sectors where reducing working time seems easier to structure legally because the work is more flexible and digital, and therefore less dependent on shifts and continuous processes. In office activities, consulting, technology or professional services, productivity is measured by projects or outcomes, which makes it easier to link reduced working hours to clear objectives and remote-work tools.

Conversely, in sectors with continuous physical presence or essential services (manufacturing, healthcare, care homes, hospitality, retail, transport, logistics, and many others) the equation becomes more complex. To maintain service levels, it is necessary to hire more staff, reorganize shifts, and adjust schedules. Any error in that engineering can translate into significant increases in labor costs or breaches related to rest periods and working time. In industry and manufacturing, moreover, the reduction must be aligned with production lines, machine times, and complex occupational risk prevention rules.

From an industrial relations perspective, what role do trade unions play in implementing reduced working time, and what mistakes should companies avoid in this negotiation?

In Spain, trade unions play a significant role in the industrial relations system. In this regard, the bill launched by the government on reducing working time was the result of an agreement with the most representative trade union organizations. In addition, at the company level, trade unions also play an important role through the activity of works councils and personnel delegates, who are responsible for negotiating measures involving substantial modification of working conditions or reductions in working time that the company intends to implement. Such is the importance that the legislature assigns to workers’ legal representation that, in these procedures, it has incorporated a legal presumption whereby, if the consultation period ends with an agreement, the existence of the grounds justifying the measure is presumed, and it can only be challenged before the labor courts on the grounds of fraud, deceit, coercion or abuse of rights in its conclusion.

On the other hand, there are many mistakes companies should avoid. First, collective bargaining cannot begin from a closed model, with no room for adaptation, as if it were a package that can only be accepted or rejected. For good faith bargaining to exist, there must be proposals and counterproposals, which requires both parties to maintain flexible negotiating positions. Second, companies must clearly explain the economic, technical, organizational or production-related reasons that justify the measure, for which it is often advisable to rely on independent experts who can justify the measure from a more objective standpoint. Finally, the impact of the measure on particularly sensitive groups cannot be overlooked, such as employees already enjoying reduced working hours for the care of children or relatives, victims of gender-based violence, or those working special shifts.

Not all roles can adopt a reduced working-time system, and being transparent about this is essential to avoid conflict

What recommendations would you give to companies which want to adopt a reduced working-week but fear increasing the risk of labor litigation?

The first recommendation is to treat the reduced week as a transformation project, not as a simple internal marketing measure. Before announcing it, it is advisable to analyze which areas can be adapted without deteriorating the service, which roles are truly suitable for this model, and how the impact on productivity, quality and well-being will be measured. It is also advisable to start with a well-designed pilot: defined groups, transparent participation rules, and clear criteria for evaluating the success of the measure. In these procedures, it is especially important to take maximum care with the drafting of contracts, annexes or internal working-time policies. Many disputes do not arise directly from the reduced working-week but from day-to-day misalignments: people continuing to answer emails outside working hours, the setting of unachievable objectives for less working time, differential treatment between departments, etc. On the other hand, it is sometimes necessary to openly explain that not all roles can adopt a reduced working-time system, so corporate transparency can play a key role.

Finally, although the reduced working-time bill did not move forward, the government trying again soon cannot be ruled out, since it is a measure included in the coalition government agreement. Therefore, companies in Spain should undertake an analysis, even if only preliminary, of how a potential obligation to reduce working time could impact their internal production processes.