Labor law rulings of interest

Technological strikebreaking

According to the Constitutional Court [TC 12-03-2026], the use of technical or technological means by the company may violate the right to strike if used exceptionally to neutralize and reduce its effects.

During an indefinite strike at Metro Sevilla, the company put double trains into circulation, although before the strike, single trains were planned. The union argued that, despite formally respecting minimum services, the impact of the strike was sought to be reduced by doubling the seats. The court concludes that:

• If the company resorts to material means or technical procedures in a way that is different from the usual and specifically to face the strike, an “improper” substitution of workers occurs and their right is harmed.
• Here, as there was no ordinary cause justifying the use of double trains, the measure was exceptional and contrary to the right to strike.

Unsigned claim

A labor claim must meet certain minimum formal requirements. Among them, the signature of the person filing it is mandatory, as it expresses the will of the claimant to exercise the action. If the claim is presented only signed by the lawyer and without the signature of the plaintiff, the defect is relevant and must be remedied, and this has been confirmed by the courts [TSJ Murcia 17-02-2026].

In short, the claimant may appear on their own or act through a representative. In the latter case, representation must be accredited by a valid power of attorney (power “apud acta” or public deed). If the court requires the claimant to remedy the lack of signature (by providing the power or resubmitting the claim signed by themselves) but it is not corrected within the deadline, the claim will be inadmissible and the procedure will be archived.

Exception to the prior hearing

The Superior Court of Justice of Cantabria [TSJ Cantabria 30-01-2026] has confirmed the appropriateness of the disciplinary dismissal of a worker who downloaded confidential data of more than 16,000 clients of their company without authorization. The conduct was considered a serious breach of contractual good faith and an abuse of trust sufficient to justify the immediate termination of the contract, even if subsequent use of the data for profit or its transfer to third parties was not proven.

The courts remind that before a disciplinary dismissal, a prior hearing must be granted to make allegations. But this obligation admits exceptions when it is not reasonable to demand it. In this case, the employee acknowledged the facts when asked to hand over the work devices, and this can be considered equivalent to a hearing.