Labor-related court rulings of interest

Detail the payroll

The Supreme Court [TS 24-03-2026] establishes that the company must provide salary receipts with due clarity and separation, not only listing the remuneration concepts and deductions but also incorporating the necessary information for the worker to verify the correctness of the calculation.

A union challenged a payroll model that reflected the concepts but did not detail the key elements (calculation bases, time or period referred to, applied percentages, and adjustments for incidents such as IT/AT, strikes, or unpaid leave). Although the format followed the official model, the lack of breakdown prevented understanding how the amounts were obtained.

The company cannot transfer to the worker the burden of controlling days and hours and performing complex operations to verify if the payment is correct. The payroll must ensure clarity and transparency.

Shift change

The courts [TSJ Las Palmas 14-04-2026] have recognized a worker's right to move to the morning shift to care for their two minor children, despite a previous request being denied and that decision being upheld by the courts. The reasons are as follows:

• The first denial does not exhaust the right to request a work schedule adaptation: relevant changes in family circumstances allow for a new request to be examined.
• In this case, the other parent had professional obligations and could not attend to the children in the afternoon. Additionally, the teenage daughter exhibited self-harming behaviors and suicidal thoughts that required supervision and family support.

The court places special importance on the best interests of the minors and considers the generic organizational reasons alleged by the company to be insufficient, as it did not prove a real impossibility to adapt the shift.

Abuse of temporality

The Supreme Court [TS 11-05-2026] has clarified the consequences of the abuse of temporality in public employment:

• The fact that there is abuse does not automatically convert the worker into a permanent employee. In such cases, the permanent status only applies if the employee has passed a selection process to access a permanent position and did not obtain it due to a lack of vacancies.
• In other cases, the affected party can claim specific compensation for the harm caused by the abusive extension of the contract, even if the employment relationship continues (if it ends, such compensation is compatible with the compensation corresponding to the termination).

This applies to successive temporary contracts or to one extended for an unusually long period. The compensation must be adjusted to the proven damages and the circumstances of the abuse, and must be requested from the beginning of the judicial process.