The Supreme Court confirms that union delegates must be able to access the working time record

The Supreme Court has confirmed that union delegates have the right to access the working time record under the same conditions as works councils. Judgment STS 572/2026, of 24 June 2026 (ECLI:ES:TS:2026:2920, reporting judge García-Perrote Escartín) dismisses the cassation appeal brought by the defendant company, a contact centre business, and upholds the National Court (Audiencia Nacional) judgment that had already ruled against the company.

The point that reaches the Supreme Court is narrow but has real practical reach: whether the delegates of a union’s national branch can demand the same information and documentation handed to the works councils, covering the entire company, and whether the company is obliged to provide it without waiting to be asked.

Where the dispute comes from

The union Fuerza Independiente y Sindical de Trabajadores (FIST) sued the company for the protection of fundamental rights of freedom of association. The claim’s request for relief had fifteen points: premises, corporate email, messaging tools, a virtual noticeboard, release time for representatives and 60,000 euros in compensation, among others.

The National Court, in its judgment 91/2025, of 24 June, upheld only one of those fifteen points. It ordered the company to hand over to FIST’s union delegates the same information and documentation given to the works councils, covering the whole company and with the same frequency, plus 1,500 euros in damages. It dismissed everything else.

Within that single upheld point, the National Court specified which documentation was required: that of Article 64 of the Workers’ Statute (Estatuto de los Trabajadores), access to the working time record under Article 34.9 of the Workers’ Statute, and a copy of the remote work agreements under Article 6.2 of Law 10/2021. It is that reference to the working time record that makes the case interesting.

The company’s two arguments, and why the Supreme Court rejects them

The company appealed in cassation on a single ground. It argued two things. First, that there is no set deadline or frequency for handing the documentation to the delegates. Second, that the delegates had never requested that documentation, so the company had no reason to take a “proactive” stance.

The Supreme Court replies that both premises are wrong.

On deadlines, it recalls that Article 64 of the Workers’ Statute does set them in many cases: quarterly information under sections 2 and 5, at least annually under section 3, whatever frequency applies under section 4, and ten days under section 64.4 e). Article 6.2 of the remote work law also sets an express deadline, no later than ten days from the formalization of the agreement. The idea that there is no frequency does not stand up against the wording of the law itself.

On the absence of a prior request, the duty to inform and hand over documentation is not triggered by the representatives asking:

“la empresa sí debe tener una actitud «proactiva» al respecto. Con mayor rigor, cabe decir que no se trata tanto de tener aquella actitud, sino que la normativa vigente obliga a la empresa a entregar determinada información y documentación, muchas veces fijando el plazo concreto para hacerlo, y la empresa debe cumplir directamente con sus obligaciones en el plazo previsto. Estamos ante una obligación positiva y directa, sin que quepa interpretar que dicha obligación solo surge o se desencadena tras la solicitud de los representantes de las personas trabajadoras.”

The duty arises from the law, not from a request. A company that waits to be asked for the record before making it available is already in breach.

What it means for the record to be “available”

The Supreme Court distinguishes between two obligations that are often confused, and that nuance is what makes the judgment useful for any company, whether or not it has an open union dispute.

The documentation under Article 64 of the Workers’ Statute is handed over. These are reports, copies and data that the company delivers to the representatives within set deadlines. The working time record under Article 34.9 of the Workers’ Statute works differently. The last paragraph of that provision requires the records to remain “available” to the legal employee representatives, a right of permanent access to the record rather than a periodic delivery of copies:

“El último párrafo de este precepto establece que los registros de jornada han de permanecer «a disposición» de los representantes legales de las personas trabajadoras. Y es a este «acceso» del registro de jornada al que precisamente se refiere el fundamento de derecho noveno de la sentencia recurrida.”

In practice, meeting the working time record obligation towards the legal representatives is not satisfied by sending a PDF once a month. The works council, and now with this judgment the union delegates too, must be able to consult the record whenever they need to. The National Court added a detail that the Supreme Court does not correct: that access must allow the information to be downloaded and printed, not just viewed on screen without being able to extract it.

That last point is not minor in this case. The company had implemented a security policy and a “paper-less” approach that, according to the proven facts, made it difficult for the representatives to download or forward the sensitive documentation. The right of access loses its meaning if the system lets you look but not obtain a usable copy.

Why this goes beyond a union case

It is tempting to read the judgment as a labor relations matter at a large contact center company. But the criterion on the working time record applies to any employer with legal representatives, and its scope widens with the regulatory reform on the way.

The draft of the new Royal Decree on the Digital Time Record insists precisely on the accessibility of the record: for the worker, for the legal representatives and for the Labor Inspectorate, in the latter case with remote access. The doctrine that the Supreme Court now confirms on the current Article 34.9 of the Workers’ Statute fits that direction. A record that exists but is not genuinely available to those entitled to consult it only half complies.

For anyone deciding which tool their workforce uses to clock in, the judgment sets out three concrete requirements. The record must be permanently accessible to the legal representatives, without waiting for anyone to demand it. That access reaches both works councils and union delegates. And if the representatives can view the record but not download or print it, the right falls short.

What becomes final

The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, upholds the National Court judgment and declares it final. It imposes no costs because the respondent party did not appear, and it orders the loss of the deposit the company lodged to appeal. No ordinary appeal lies against this Supreme Court ruling.

How Cleverfy solves this

Cleverfy starts precisely from that idea of accessibility. The record is stored in an immutable way, with traceability of every change, and the data comes out in a format that can be downloaded and printed, which is what the National Court required and the Supreme Court confirms.

On that basis, the record is designed to be opened by different profiles depending on who is entitled to consult it:

• The company, which manages and totals the workforce’s working time.
• Each worker, over their own record, with immediate access and copy.
• The legal representatives, works councils and union delegates, over the company as a whole, which is exactly the scenario of this judgment.
• The Labor Inspectorate, to which the new Royal Decree wants to give remote and immediate access.

Taken to what the Supreme Court decides, that design covers the three requirements of the ruling: permanent access without anyone having to claim it, the same scope for works councils and delegates, and records that can be extracted and not just viewed on screen. You can see it in a 15-minute demo, along with what a time-tracking software must comply with under the new Royal Decree.

Frequently asked questions

Do union delegates have the right to access the working time record? Yes. Article 10.3.1 of the Organic Law on Freedom of Association (Ley Orgánica de Libertad Sindical) grants union delegates the right to access the same information and documentation that the company makes available to the works council. That documentation includes the daily working time record, which Article 34.9 of the Workers’ Statute (Estatuto de los Trabajadores) requires to be kept available to the legal employee representatives. Judgment STS 572/2026, of 24 June, confirms that this access reaches union delegates just as it does works councils.

Does the company only have to hand over the working time record if the representatives ask for it? No. The Supreme Court makes clear that the duty to inform and hand over documentation is positive and direct. It arises from the law, with specific deadlines in many cases (quarterly, annual or ten days under Article 64 of the Workers’ Statute), and it does not depend on the representatives requesting it. The company must comply on its own initiative within the stipulated deadline, without needing to be prompted.

What is the difference between handing over documentation and giving access to the working time record? Article 64 of the Workers’ Statute requires certain documentation to be handed over to the legal representatives within set deadlines. Article 34.9 of the Workers’ Statute, by contrast, requires the working time records to remain available to the representatives: it is a right of permanent access to the record, not a periodic delivery of copies. The judgment under appeal referred precisely to that guarantee of access, and the Supreme Court confirms it.

---

Sources: judgment STS 572/2026, of 24 June 2026 (ECLI:ES:TS:2026:2920, cassation appeal 232/2025), available through CENDOJ. It upholds SAN 91/2025, of 24 June (proc. 28/2025). Articles 34.9 and 64 of the Workers’ Statute (Estatuto de los Trabajadores) and Article 10.3 of the Organic Law on Freedom of Association (Ley Orgánica de Libertad Sindical).

Legal note: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.