Can a company modify remote working conditions? The Supreme Court clarifies the limits

What companies should consider before modifying remote working arrangements

The Supreme Court Judgment 608/2026, of 1 July (Social Chamber, appeal 131/2025), has attracted attention for declaring null and void the unilateral reduction in the percentage of remote working applied to employees with disabilities at a well-known corporate group. However, the ruling contains an essential nuance that many companies are overlooking: the Supreme Court does not rule out the possibility of remote working conditions being modified without the individual consent of the employees affected, provided that there is a legal mechanism allowing such changes.

The general rule: individual consent

Law 10/2021 on Remote Working requires any change to a remote working agreement (including the percentage of on-site work) to be agreed individually and in writing with each employee (Article 8.1 of the Remote Working Law). As a general rule, therefore, the company needs the employee’s consent to modify these conditions. Neither collective bargaining nor Article 41 of the Workers’ Statute (substantial modification of working conditions) allows the company to impose the change against the employee’s wishes.

This is the main reason why, in the case examined, the modification was declared null and void in respect of the employees who had not given their consent.

The exception: when remote working is regulated by a statutory collective bargaining agreement

The Supreme Court judgment does, however, introduce an important exception. If the remote working policy is based on a collective agreement with the legal status of a statutory collective bargaining agreement, certain conditions may be modified or disapplied collectively without having to obtain the individual consent of each employee affected.

To do so, the collective bargaining agreement must have been negotiated by parties with the legal standing required under Article 87 of the Workers’ Statute and processed in accordance with Title III of the Workers’ Statute. In addition, the company must follow the opt-out procedure provided for in Article 82.3 of the Workers’ Statute, which allows certain conditions established in a collective bargaining agreement to be disapplied where the legally established grounds are met.

By contrast, where there is no statutory collective bargaining agreement, or where the collective agreement is merely non-statutory, as was the case here, this mechanism cannot be used. In these situations, the modification is subject to the individual negotiation requirements established under Law 10/2021. This means that the company must obtain the consent of the employees affected and cannot use a collective consultation period to impose the change. Consequently, its room for manoeuvre is more limited.

Therefore, the Supreme Court does not prevent companies from modifying remote working conditions collectively and with general effect across the entire workforce concerned. What it requires is that such modifications be made through the appropriate legal procedure where the conditions are regulated by a statutory collective bargaining agreement (Article 82.3 of the Workers’ Statute), rather than through a unilateral decision presented as an internal policy or through a collective agreement that does not meet the necessary legal requirements.

The importance of how remote working is regulated

The judgment does, however, introduce an important exception. If remote working conditions are set out in a statutory collective bargaining agreement, there is a mechanism through which they may be modified collectively without having to obtain the individual consent of each employee.

To do so, the company must follow the procedure established in Article 82.3 of the Workers’ Statute, known as the opt-out procedure, and demonstrate the existence of one of the legally established economic, technical, organisational or production-related grounds.

A statutory collective bargaining agreement is one that has been negotiated and approved in accordance with the requirements established in the Workers’ Statute and which, as a result, has general effect on the employees falling within its scope.

By contrast, if remote working conditions are not regulated by an agreement of this kind, the company must comply with the provisions of Law 10/2021. In these cases, the change must be negotiated individually with the employees affected and their consent must be obtained.

Therefore, the Supreme Court does not prevent remote working conditions from being modified collectively. The key lies in how those conditions were regulated from the outset and which legal procedure must be followed to modify them.