Remote work is no longer an exception
Remote work entered Spanish labour law through an unexpected route. The pandemic forced companies, employees, lawmakers and courts to reorganise work at speed.
What started as an emergency response soon changed how many businesses operate. Five years later, remote work no longer looks exceptional. It now forms part of many corporate models.
Companies can use it to support efficiency and talent retention. Meanwhile, HR teams can build stronger flexibility policies. International groups can also align Spanish teams with global working practices.
However, courts also see remote work as a clear legal challenge. Business organisation, employee rights and legal certainty must therefore coexist in the same agreement.
Why the written agreement matters
In this context, Law 10/2021 of 9 July on remote work introduced a clear rule. Regular remote work cannot rest on improvisation.
First, it must be voluntary. Second, the parties must put it in writing. In addition, the agreement must define the essential conditions of the remote work model.
For example, it includes working tools, expenses, working time, remote and on-site distribution, company control mechanisms, technical incidents and reversibility.
In practice, conflict rarely starts because remote work exists. It usually starts because the agreement lacks precision.
Companies need room to react. Employees need predictability. At the same time, employee representatives need transparency. The remote work agreement sits at that crossroads.
Supreme Court Judgment 476/2026 of 12 May 2026, concerning Unísono Soluciones de Negocio, illustrates this tension. The Court reviewed specific clauses and defined their limits.
Therefore, the key question is no longer whether remote work will remain. The real question is whether companies regulate it with enough legal precision.
The 30% threshold changes the legal framework
Law 10/2021 does not apply to every isolated day of working from home. Instead, it applies when remote work becomes regular.
Remote work becomes regular when it reaches at least 30% of working time over a three-month reference period. As a result, this threshold has major practical effects.
Occasional flexibility is not the same as regular remote work
A company may allow an employee to work from home for a specific reason. That isolated decision does not always trigger the full regime.
The situation changes when remote work becomes stable. At that point, the relationship leaves the area of organisational tolerance.
Instead, it enters a specific legal framework. That framework brings formal, material and collective obligations.
In practice, many hybrid models exceed the threshold with ease. Two remote days per week can be enough, depending on the working schedule.
Companies that use hybrid work should therefore check their internal policies. A policy can guide the business. It cannot replace the individual agreement when the law requires one.
The legal risk is practical
However, the risk is not only administrative. If the agreement does not exist, the company loses legal certainty.
The same happens when the agreement leaves key issues for later unilateral decisions. This creates weak evidence and more room for dispute.
For instance, typical disputes concern expenses, on-site attendance, reversibility, technical incidents, union challenges and proof of organisational decisions.
Regular remote work therefore requires a different approach. It is not enough to allow work outside the office. Companies must govern that model legally.
Voluntariness does not remove managerial authority
Voluntariness stands at the centre of Law 10/2021. Therefore, remote work requires consent from both the company and the employee.
As a general rule, neither party can impose remote work unilaterally. Specific legal, collective or work-life balance rights may affect certain cases.
The agreement must have real content
Voluntariness means more than contractual balance. It defines the nature of the remote work agreement.
The agreement cannot become a document where the company reserves every essential decision for itself. It also cannot use vague language that removes real protection from the employee.
At the same time, voluntariness does not cancel the company’s organisational powers. The company still manages the work.
It may set objectives, require compliance with working time, define communication channels and protect confidential information.
It may also introduce security measures, data protection rules and reasonable control systems.
Good management needs more anticipation
However, remote work changes how the company must exercise those powers. In an office, physical proximity allows constant adjustment.
In a remote or hybrid model, the company must anticipate more issues. It must document decisions with greater care.
Good faith becomes a practical management rule. The company should give notice, explain decisions and avoid surprise changes.
The company may organise remote work. It should not act as if the written agreement had no value.
The agreement as a labour governance tool
The remote work agreement should not operate as a minor annex to the employment contract. It should function as a labour governance tool.
Its purpose is not only to confirm that the employee works remotely. Instead, it must organise a stable way of working.
That model affects working time, tools, expenses, availability, occupational risk prevention, data protection, information security and business control.
Minimum content under Law 10/2021
Law 10/2021 requires the agreement to include several essential matters:
- Inventory of equipment, tools and means provided for remote work.
- List of expenses and the compensation method.
- Working hours and availability rules.
- Percentage and distribution of on-site and remote work.
- Assigned workplace and chosen remote work location.
- Notice periods for reversibility.
- Business control measures.
- Procedure for technical difficulties.
- Instructions on data protection and information security.
- Duration of the agreement.
Precision strengthens the company
A clause that only repeats the law may look compliant. However, it may still fail when a real incident occurs.
A broad reservation of powers may look useful. It may also become vulnerable if it affects essential conditions.
In fact, precision does not weaken managerial authority. It strengthens it.
A company acts with more confidence when it knows when it may require attendance. It also acts better when it knows how to manage technical incidents or temporary reversibility.
Legal certainty does not come from reserving every option. It comes from regulating foreseeable situations well.
The Unísono judgment: clauses under judicial review
Supreme Court Judgment 476/2026 came from a union challenge. Specifically, the challenge concerned clauses in Unísono Soluciones de Negocio’s remote work agreements.
The company had introduced remote work during the pandemic. Later, it promoted individual agreements under the Contact Centre collective agreement.
Several unions challenged parts of the model and asked the courts to declare different clauses null and void.
Three issues with direct business impact
The judgment matters because it does not discuss remote work in abstract terms. Instead, it examines clauses that many companies use or consider using.
Three issues stand out.
- On-site return when a technical incident prevents remote work and no immediate solution exists.
- Mandatory attendance at certain meetings, training sessions or company activities.
- Temporary reversibility to on-site work in specific situations.
The National High Court had accepted part of the union claim. The Supreme Court reviewed that finding and validated many disputed clauses.
The Court rejected an excessively rigid view of remote work. It confirmed that the company can react to organisational, training, technical or coordination needs.
Validity does not mean unlimited use
This conclusion helps companies. In other words, remote work does not remove business organisation powers.
A company may plan cases where physical presence becomes necessary. It may also regulate technical incidents and temporary returns to the workplace.
However, the judgment does not give companies a blank cheque. Each measure must remain reasonable, proportionate and consistent with good faith.
The agreed distribution of remote and on-site days creates a legitimate expectation. The company may change it for justified reasons, not by surprise or routine disruption.
On-site attendance: coordination has limits
Hybrid work often raises a sensitive question. Can the company require attendance on a day initially planned as remote work?
Business reality shows that this need can exist. Some meetings work better in person. Some training sessions require direct interaction.
Audits, onboarding, prevention activities, internal presentations and team coordination may also justify physical presence.
The company can require attendance when it has a real reason
An absolute ban on on-site attendance would ignore how organisations work. Remote work does not turn the company into a purely virtual structure.
The Supreme Court accepted that agreements may include attendance obligations for meetings, training or activities with a justified business reason.
The important point lies in the drafting and application of the clause. The company should connect attendance to reasonable situations.
It should also apply the clause with good faith. Frequent, sudden or disproportionate use can alter the agreed remote work model.
Advance notice is essential
Advance notice plays a central role. A remote employee organises the day around an agreed schedule.
The employee may have planned travel, care duties, virtual meetings or tasks requiring concentration. A timely notice can fit that model.
An immediate notice for an ordinary activity can break the balance of the agreement.
On-site attendance should therefore support coordination. It should not become a permanent correction of remote work.
If the company needs presence frequently, it should review the hybrid model. The clause should not mask a flawed design.
Technical incidents: a common grey area
Remote work depends on infrastructure that the company does not always control directly. Internet access, electricity, equipment and platforms can fail.
Remote access tools, communication systems and cybersecurity measures can also stop working.
When this happens, the employment relationship enters a delicate area. The employee remains part of the organisation but cannot always provide services normally.
The agreement needs a real protocol
Law 10/2021 requires a procedure for technical difficulties that prevent normal remote work.
A generic sentence is not enough. The agreement should create a real protocol.
That protocol should cover immediate communication, designated channels, incident records, technical support and alternative instructions.
It should also explain when the employee must wait for a remote solution and when attendance at the workplace may become appropriate.
Not every incident justifies travel
The Supreme Court accepted a clause requiring on-site return when a technical incident prevents remote work and has no immediate solution.
The company does not have to stop operations indefinitely when a viable workplace alternative exists.
Even so, the company must assess each case. Not every failure justifies a commute.
The company should consider the expected duration of the failure, the time of day and the distance to the workplace.
It should also assess remote repair options, alternative tools and the remaining useful working time.
A twenty-minute system failure does not equal a prolonged equipment breakdown. An incident at the start of the day differs from one near closing time.
The procedure must solve the problem. It should not turn every technical issue into automatic on-site attendance.
Temporary reversibility needs its own limits
Reversibility forms one of the key elements of remote work. Law 10/2021 recognises that remote work does not have to last forever.
The parties may regulate a return to on-site work through collective bargaining or the individual agreement.
This makes sense. Business needs change. Roles evolve. Tools transform. Teams reorganise. Personal circumstances may also vary.
Temporary reversibility is not definitive reversal
Supreme Court Judgment 476/2026 accepted that an individual agreement may include temporary reversibility clauses. This is especially relevant when the collective agreement does not regulate the issue.
The Court distinguished between a definitive return to on-site work and a temporary suspension of remote work for a concrete reason.
This distinction matters for hybrid companies. Changing the agreed remote work percentage on a structural basis is one thing.
Requiring presence for a limited period due to a justified cause is another.
Temporary reversibility can support organisation. It should not empty the remote work agreement of content.
Open-ended clauses create risk
Risk appears when the clause gives the company an open-ended power. Phrases such as “organisational needs” need more detail.
The agreement should define the grounds, duration, notice period and effects of temporary reversibility.
Definitive reversal requires its own procedure. Occasional attendance requires another one. Technical incidents require a third one.
Mixing these categories creates uncertainty. It can also produce a de facto reversal without following the right process.
Good faith decides how the agreement works
Remote work clauses cannot be assessed only in theory. A clause may look reasonable on paper and still fail in practice.
The Supreme Court judgment makes this point clear. Companies must draft well and apply well.
Good faith requires coherent conduct
Good faith links the agreement with daily execution. It requires coherence between what the parties agreed and what the company does.
It also requires proportionate use of managerial powers. Organisational needs must be real, not generic formulas.
Employees should be able to anticipate relevant changes. Remote work cannot operate under permanent uncertainty.
A company may require attendance at training sessions. But it should not call employees at the last minute for ordinary training that it could have planned.
A company may require attendance after a technical incident. But it should not demand travel for a minor issue near the end of the day.
A company may agree temporary reversibility. But repeated and unpredictable use may alter the balance of the agreement.
A useful drafting question
Before approving a clause, companies should ask a simple question. How would we justify this clause before employee representatives, the Labour Inspectorate or a court?
That perspective improves drafting. It also reduces broad formulas and encourages procedures that the business can defend in practice.
From tolerated remote work to legal governance
Many organisations adopted remote work in an emergency. They later kept it for efficiency, culture or labour market reasons.
Not all of them have completed the move from tolerated practice to legally governed model. That move has now become necessary.
Remote work affects many areas
Remote work is not just a flexibility policy. It affects working time, availability, expenses and work equipment.
It also affects occupational risk prevention, data protection, information security, company control, equality, work-life balance and collective relations.
Its management needs a cross-functional view. HR, legal, compliance, technology, prevention and business teams should work together.
The daily practice must match the document
The risk does not always sit in the agreement. A company may have complete documents but managers who ignore notice periods.
It may have a strong corporate policy but weak individual agreements. It may have an incident protocol but no records.
It may also have control clauses that require a closer review under data protection and digital rights rules.
In hybrid models, coherence matters. The policy, the individual agreement and daily practice must point in the same direction.
The Unísono judgment reinforces this message. Companies may include clauses on attendance, technical incidents and temporary reversibility.
They must also define when, how, with what notice and within which limits those clauses apply.
How companies should review their remote work agreements
A proper review should go beyond checking whether a signed document exists. The company must check whether the document matches the model used in practice.
Key points for review
Companies should first identify every case where remote work exceeds the 30% threshold. Where regular remote work exists, a written agreement must exist.
They should then check whether the agreement includes the minimum content required by Law 10/2021.
The most sensitive areas usually involve expenses, tools, day distribution, assigned workplace, remote location and control measures.
Technical incidents and reversibility also require special attention.
Next, companies should review clauses that give them room to act. References to organisational needs, manager instructions or on-site attendance need clear limits.
Flexibility should remain available. But the agreement must make it legally understandable.
Training managers is part of compliance
Companies should also separate occasional attendance, temporary reversibility and definitive reversal. Each case needs its own process.
Finally, companies must train the people who apply the model. Remote work agreements do not stay inside HR.
Team leaders, managers, coordinators and business areas apply them every day. If they do not know the limits, the company may create risks during execution.
Flexibility needs rules
Remote work has not weakened the company’s organisational capacity. It has made that capacity more demanding.
Companies may regulate on-site attendance, technical incidents, temporary reversibility and control measures. They must use clear and workable clauses.
Supreme Court Judgment 476/2026 confirms that certain organisational clauses in remote work agreements can be valid.
The company still has tools when technical incidents, training needs, in-person meetings or temporary returns justify action.
Yet validity in general terms does not authorise every specific application. Notice, proportionality and good faith remain essential limits.
Flexibility does not rest on open-ended formulas. It rests on rules that organise change without breaking the balance of the agreement.
In a hybrid labour market, the question is no longer whether remote work should exist. The question is whether companies can manage it as ordinary work organisation.
That requires legal judgment, business coherence and rigorous execution.
At Suárez de Vivero, we advise companies, international groups and HR departments on remote work agreements, telework policies, hybrid models, collective relations and the legal management of on-site attendance in flexible workplaces.
Frequently asked questions about clauses in remote work agreements
When must a remote work agreement be formalised?
It must be formalised when remote work becomes regular. Law 10/2021 treats remote work as regular when it reaches at least 30% of working time over three months.
In those cases, an internal policy is not enough. The company needs a written agreement with the minimum legal content.
Can the company impose remote work?
As a general rule, no. Remote work requires consent from both the company and the employee.
Specific work-life balance rights, legal rules or collective provisions may affect certain situations.
Can the company require attendance during remote work days?
Yes, but not without limits. The company may require attendance for justified meetings, training, technical incidents or organisational needs.
The clause must be clear. The company must apply it with good faith, proportionality and reasonable notice.
What did the Supreme Court decide on 12 May 2026?
The Supreme Court generally validated several clauses in Unísono’s remote work agreements.
Those clauses covered attendance at meetings and training, return to the workplace after unresolved technical incidents and temporary reversibility.
The Court still required good faith, proportionality and reasonable notice in each specific application.
What happens when a technical incident prevents remote work?
The agreement should include a specific procedure. If the incident prevents work and no immediate solution exists, attendance at the workplace may be possible.
Before requiring travel, the company should assess the failure, the time of day, the commute, remote solutions and the remaining working time.
Can the parties agree reversibility of remote work?
Yes. The individual agreement or collective bargaining may regulate reversibility.
The clause should define the cause, procedure, notice period and effects. It should not give the company an unlimited power.
What is the difference between temporary reversibility and definitive reversal?
Temporary reversibility changes or suspends remote work for a specific reason and a limited period.
Definitive reversal creates a stable return to on-site work or a structural change to the agreed model.
Can a valid clause be applied unlawfully?
Yes. A clause may be valid in abstract terms and still be applied in an abusive or disproportionate way.
Companies should document the reason for each measure and respect the balance of the agreement.
Must the company give a copy to employee representatives?
Yes. The company must provide employee representatives with a copy of remote work agreements and their updates.
It should exclude information that affects personal privacy.
What should companies with hybrid models review?
They should review regular remote work cases, written agreements, minimum legal content and clauses on attendance, incidents and reversibility.
They should also check that managers apply the model consistently.