Hand raising vote

The revocation of the mandate of a workers' delegate cannot be validly agreed by a hand raising vote. The law requires that such decision be adopted in a meeting called for that purpose through personal, free, direct, and secret suffrage:

• The secret vote is not a mere formality. The courts classify it as an imperative rule, so it cannot be replaced by a public vote.

• Therefore, if the revocation is voted by a show of hands, the revocation agreement is void.

The Supreme Court [TS 16-12-2025] recalls that, being a matter of public and non-negotiable order, electoral rules are imperative. Therefore, to correctly revoke the mandate, the convocation requirements (one-third of electors) and the absolute majority provided by law must also be respected.

Voluntary improvement for ETT

The courts [TSJ Basque Country 09-12-2025] have declared that, by applying the principle of equal pay, the worker made available by a Temporary Work Agency (ETT) is entitled to voluntary improvement for total permanent disability (IPT) resulting from a work accident on the same terms as the user company's staff.

Regarding payment responsibility:

• The ETT (as employer) is directly responsible for paying the full amount of the improvement. If the improvement is covered by insurance, the ETT's insurer is jointly liable up to the limit of its policy.

• The user company assumes subsidiary responsibility for the total amount, jointly extendable to its insurer when the policy does not exclude temporary workers.

Disease not included in the list

If a work-related illness is claimed for a condition not included in the list of occupational diseases, even if it is linked to work (for example, dysphonia in teaching staff), the classification as an occupational disease is incorrect, as confirmed by the courts [TSJ Castilla-La Mancha 09-01-2026]. The law defines an occupational disease as one contracted on behalf of others in activities listed and caused by the expected agents; therefore, if the diagnosis does not match the listed pathologies, it cannot be considered professional.

If the ailment is related to work, the appropriate contingency may be a work accident, but the worker must expressly request it and prove the causal link. The court cannot reclassify as an accident if not requested. Therefore, in the specific case, once the occupational disease was ruled out, the initially established contingency as a common illness was maintained.