News Detail

The Supreme Court has upheld the right of airlines to specify organizational aspects of minimum services during a strike, such as designating the personnel who will provide them, always within the limits established by the administrative authority. This ruling clarifies the division of powers between the government and companies in the implementation of minimum services during collective bargaining disputes.

Cabin crew strike and resolution of minimum services

In June 2022, several airlines experienced a strike called by the Workers' Union (USO) among their cabin crew. The State Secretariat for Transport issued a resolution to guarantee the mobility of citizens, establishing the minimum services to be provided during the strikes.

The resolution established the general criteria and expressly authorized airlines to designate the personnel necessary to perform the minimum services.

The union appealed the decision to the National Court, arguing that the Administration had improperly delegated its authority by allowing the companies themselves to specify the affected personnel. It also alleged a lack of sufficient justification in the decision.

The National Court upheld the appeal and overturned the administrative decision. The airlines appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court.

Business implementation of minimum services

The Supreme Court has upheld the appeal filed by the airlines, overturned the ruling of the National Court and fully validated the administrative decision on minimum services.

In its argument, the High Court distinguishes between the setting of minimum services, which corresponds to the Administration, and their operational implementation, which may correspond to the companies, always within the established framework.

Criteria established regarding minimum services

• Justification for minimum services. The government authority must adequately justify minimum services, explaining why they are necessary based on the type of flights, specific dates, affected airports, or the impact on fundamental rights such as freedom of movement. A generic or standardized justification is insufficient.
• Limits of the Administration. The Administration is not obligated to specify how many or which workers must provide minimum services. Its function is to guarantee the maintenance of essential services, without assuming functions proper to the business organization.
• Company organizational powers. Companies may designate the specific personnel who will provide minimum services, exercising their management and organizational powers (Article 20 of the Workers' Statute). This action does not imply a transfer of powers, but rather a practical application of the framework established by the resolution.
• Constitutional balance. The resolution must guarantee a fair balance between the right to strike (Article 28.2 of the Spanish Constitution) and the protection of other fundamental rights such as freedom of movement (Article 19 of the Spanish Constitution). Minimum services must be limited to what is strictly necessary to preserve these rights.

Supreme Court ruling

The Supreme Court:

• The appeal filed by the airlines is upheld.
• It revokes the ruling of the National Court.
• Declares the resolution of the Secretary of State for Transport that set the minimum services to be in accordance with the law.
• Establishes legal precedent:

“For the purposes of providing due justification for setting minimum services when the right to strike is exercised in the air sector, companies retain the power to specify certain aspects of said services within the limits set in the corresponding administrative resolution, as a consequence of their powers of management and organization of the workforce.”

• The court orders the union to pay the costs of the proceedings, up to a maximum of 3,000 euros. In the appeal to the Supreme Court, each party will pay its own costs.

Dissenting opinion

One of the judges issued a dissenting opinion. He argued that the ruling should also have established maximum staffing levels for minimum services, as this omission could affect the proportionality of the right to strike. In his view, leaving this aspect to the companies' discretion disrupts the balance of power between employer and employee during a labor dispute.