The Spanish Supreme Court declares a collective dismissal void due to completely untimely notification to the labour authority

The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment on the 24^th of March 2026, has held that because the initial notification was filed well past the deadline, the labor authority was completely prevented from fulfilling its role during the consultation period, thereby rendering ineffective one of the safeguards for workers’ rights in collective dismissal proceedings.

According to the ruling, such notification is not a mere administrative formality, but a substantive safeguard inherent to the collective dismissal itself. Its purpose is to disclose the company's intent and enable the labour authority to carry out its functions of seeking solutions, as provided for in Directive 98/59/EC, as well as to monitor the progress of negotiations during the consultation period, in accordance with Article 51.2 of the Workers' Statute. 

When must the notification be made to the labour authority?

The ruling distinguishes between the provisions of Directive 98/59/EC —under which the labour authority's intervention takes place once the information and consultation period has concluded— and the provisions of the Workers' Statue, which places such intervention parallel to the consultation period. Therefore, the lack of notification at the initial stage of the consultation period under the Workers' Statue is not equivalent to that contemplated in Directive 98/59/EC, as the Spanish legislature has expressly located the functions of the labour authority during the consultation period itself.

Consequently, the employer must notify the labour authority, from the very start of the consultation period, the initiation of the collective dismissal procedure, in order to allow its intervention and the proper performance of its functions. Otherwise, the employer would violate one of the pre-dismissal obligations, which cannot be classified as a mere formal breach, but rather as a breach of material nature. 

What are the consequences of failing to notify for employers?

Companies might assume that only the total omission of the consultation period by the employer leads to the nullity of the decision. However, the reiterated doctrine of the Fourth Chamber has understood that such nullity also proceeds in cases of serious breaches that prevent the proper development of the consultation period, even if meetings have formally been held. Therefore, the Supreme Court expressly includes the completely extemporaneous notice of the start of the collective procedure to the labour authority. This is because it makes it impossible for the authority to intervene and properly carry out its functions of seeking solutions and supervising the negotiation process. One of the essential guarantees of the procedure is emptied of content and, hence, is equivalent to the failure to hold the consultation period.

Thus, the business decision cannot be classified as unlawful or not in accordance with the law but rather as null and void. This implies the reinstatement of the affected employees to their positions and the procedural wages from the date of dismissal until the judgment, according to Articles 123 and 124.11 of the LRJS.

Conclusion

This ruling reinforces the idea that notifying the labour authority the initiation of a collective dismissal procedure constitutes a structural requirement of the process, linked to the validity of the termination decisions. Any notification made outside of this period will result in the nullity of the company's decision, as it prevents the labour authority from intervening to ensure workers' rights and perform its functions.

From now on, companies must be particularly rigorous in coordinating the start of the consultation period with the notification to the labour authority, ensuring that the latter is done correctly and in a timely manner. The cost of an error in this phase, as the analyzed resolution highlights, can be the total nullity of the procedure and the obligation to reinstate the entire affected workforce with back pay.

If you would like more information on how this ruling may affect your company or your internal protocols, please do not hesitate to contact our Employment Law team.