Key data
| Regulation | Resolution of May 21, 2026, from the General Labor Directorate, registering and publishing the Supreme Court Judgment relating to the Collective Agreement of Exolum Aviation, SA |
|---|---|
| Publication | June 3, 2026 |
| Entry into force | June 3, 2026 |
| Affected parties | Workers of Exolum Aviation SA (especially temporary workers) and companies with collective agreements that distinguish rights by contract type |
| Category | Labor Legislation |
| Year | 2026 |
| Annulled provision | Sixth transitional provision of the Collective Agreement of Exolum Aviation, SA |
| Violated article | Article 15.6 of the Workers' Statute |
| Appellant | CGT (General Confederation of Labor) |
| Official source | BOE-A-2026-11929 |
Temporary workers at Exolum Aviation present in the company since July 24, 2007 were excluded from a right that their permanent contract colleagues had: voluntarily accepting incentivized leave. The Supreme Court, upholding the CGT's appeal, has declared that distinction null and has established doctrine affecting any company with similar clauses in its agreements.
The resolution is published in the Official State Gazette of June 3, 2026 and has immediate effect. The Supreme Court's Social Chamber applies Article 15.6 of the Workers' Statute, which prohibits treating temporary workers worse than comparable permanent workers without an objective reason to justify it.
What does this regulation establish?
The sixth transitional provision of the Collective Agreement of Exolum Aviation, SA established that only permanent staff with seniority proven from July 24, 2007 could voluntarily accept incentivized leave. Workers with temporary contracts who were also in the company on that same date were excluded solely because of their contract type.
The Supreme Court considers that this distinction has no objective justification. The reference date was the same for both groups; the only difference was the contract type. That alone is not sufficient reason to deny a right to temporary workers.
| Element | Before the judgment | After the judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Access to voluntary incentivized leave | Only permanent staff with seniority from 24/07/2007 | Also temporary staff with the same reference date |
| Distinction criterion | Contract type (permanent vs. temporary) | Criterion annulled for violating art. 15.6 ET |
| Legal basis applied | Sixth transitional provision of the agreement | Provision declared null by the Supreme Court |
The established doctrine strengthens anti-discrimination protection for workers with fixed-term contracts in Spain. The principle is clear: if two workers are in the same objective situation (same company, same reference date), they cannot be treated differently merely because one has a permanent contract and the other a temporary one.
Economic and operational impact
For Exolum Aviation, the judgment implies reviewing and adapting the collective agreement to eliminate the annulled provision and ensure that affected temporary workers access the same conditions as permanent staff with the same reference date. This may involve:
- Review of the temporary worker group with seniority from July 24, 2007 to determine who is entitled to equalized guarantees.
- Possible individual claims from temporary workers who were excluded from incentivized leave in the past.
- Costs of negotiating and adapting the collective agreement.
For the rest of the business sector, the impact is preventive but urgent: any company with an agreement that distinguishes rights between permanent and temporary workers without objective justification is exposed to union challenges or individual claims based on this same Supreme Court doctrine.
Who does it affect?
- Exolum Aviation, SA: directly, due to the annulment of the sixth transitional provision of its collective agreement.
- Temporary workers at Exolum Aviation with proven seniority from July 24, 2007, who must now be equalized to permanent staff regarding voluntary leave.
- Companies in any sector whose collective agreements contain clauses that reserve rights or guarantees exclusively to permanent staff without objective justification.
- HR departments and labor advisors who manage collective agreements or negotiate differentiated conditions by contract type.
- Unions and worker representatives who can use this doctrine to challenge similar clauses in other agreements.
Practical example
Imagine a logistics company with a collective agreement that, in its provision on incentivized leave, establishes that only "permanent staff with seniority from January 1, 2010" can access them. The company also has temporary contract workers who have been on staff since that same date.
Following the Supreme Court doctrine applied to the Exolum Aviation case, that clause would be challengeable: contract type alone does not justify excluding temporary workers from a right that permanent staff with the same reference date do access. A union could appeal that provision and obtain its annulment, forcing the company to equalize conditions and face possible retroactive claims from excluded workers.
What should companies do now?
- Audit the current collective agreement: identify all clauses that establish different rights or guarantees based on contract type (permanent vs. temporary). Pay special attention to provisions on incentivized leave, seniority, access to benefits or employment guarantees.
- Evaluate if objective justification exists: for each distinction detected, assess whether there is an objective and documented reason that justifies it. If the only difference is contract type, the clause is vulnerable to challenge.
- Consult with a specialized labor advisor: before modifying the agreement or making decisions about the affected group, obtain legal advice on the specific risk and adaptation options.
- Negotiate agreement adaptation: if problematic clauses are detected, initiate the negotiation process with worker representatives to eliminate or reformulate them with objective criteria.
- Review possible pending claims: assess whether there are temporary workers who may have been excluded from rights in the past and who can now claim, to manage the risk proactively.
Frequently asked questions
What clause exactly has the Supreme Court annulled in the Exolum Aviation agreement?
The Supreme Court has annulled the sixth transitional provision of the Collective Agreement of Exolum Aviation, SA. This clause reserved voluntary acceptance of leave exclusively to permanent staff with proven seniority from July 24, 2007, excluding temporary workers who were also in the company on that same date.
What article of the Workers' Statute is the judgment based on?
The judgment applies Article 15.6 of the Workers' Statute, which expressly prohibits treating temporary workers worse than comparable permanent workers without an objective reason that justifies that different treatment.
Could my company have a similar problem if its agreement distinguishes between permanent and temporary workers?
Yes. If your collective agreement contains clauses that reserve rights (incentivized leave, employment guarantees, social benefits) only to permanent staff, without objective justification beyond contract type, those clauses are challengeable by applying the same doctrine that the Supreme Court has established in the Exolum Aviation case. It is recommended to audit the agreement with a labor advisor.
Who filed the appeal that led to this judgment?
The appeal was filed by the CGT (General Confederation of Labor), which challenged the sixth transitional provision of the agreement for considering it violated the rights of temporary workers compared to permanent staff.
When does this judgment enter into force and from when is it applicable?
The resolution from the General Labor Directorate that registers and publishes the judgment was published in the Official State Gazette on June 3, 2026, the date from which it is applicable. The annulment of the sixth transitional provision of the Exolum Aviation agreement has immediate effect from that date.
Official source
Consult complete regulation in official source
Notice: This article is purely informational in nature and does not constitute legal advice. For specific decisions, consult a qualified professional. Source: https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2026-11929