Statements of interest in the labor field

They cloned their hard drive

The courts [TSJ Castilla-La Mancha 18-07-2025] have determined that an employer may access the hard drive of the computer provided to the worker in order to verify compliance with their labor obligations and substantiate a disciplinary dismissal, as long as such access is limited to work-related information and not personal data. In the case at hand:

• The company had evidence of improper computer use by the worker.
• Cloning the hard drive was necessary to verify the employee's work activity and detect possible breaches.
• The company did not access private accounts like personal OneDrive and only verified compliance with labor obligations.

Therefore, it was concluded that the affected party's right to privacy was not violated, as the business control was proportionate, appropriate, and necessary.

Mandatory courses

The Supreme Court [TS 09-09-2025] has confirmed that the time workers spend taking mandatory basic training certification renewal programs in safety and fire fighting, required by international and European regulations, must be considered as effective working time. Thus, both attending the courses and the travel time to attend them count as effective working time.

The court argues the following:

• The renewal of professional certificates is part of the workers' labor responsibilities and occupational risk prevention.
• Therefore, it sides with the employees and confirms that taking these courses and the travel time are considered working hours.

Ergonomic chairs for everyone?

The Supreme Court [TS 10-09-2025] has determined that a company is not obligated to provide ergonomic chairs to teleworkers, unless specified in the individual remote work agreement or the corresponding collective agreement. However, it must:

• Ensure adequate financial compensation for expenses related to teleworking.
• Carry out individual risk assessments with provision of specific ergonomic material if required by a medical prescription.

In the case at hand, neither the agreement nor the telework agreement required the company to provide ergonomic chairs. Additionally, there was no medical prescription in this regard. Therefore, labor rights in terms of equality and occupational risk prevention were not violated.