Remote work and fundamental rights: a necessary transformation of the work model

We interviewed Álvaro Rodríguez de la Calle before the 2026 Labour Congress organized by Lefebvre.

Álvaro is a lawyer specializing in labor law and social security, and has extensive experience in both the public and private sectors. This, combined with his experience in regulatory compliance, makes him a reference advisor in Spain and internationally. He has advised companies on legal and social issues, including labor law, social security, and occupational risk prevention. As a Labour and Social Security Inspector on a secondment, he carried out his duties at the inspections in Biscay, Ciudad Real, and Madrid, overseeing regulatory compliance in various organizations.

Before joining ECIJA, Álvaro was the director of the labor area at KPMG and, previously, he held the position of General Director of Labour and Manager of the Regional Institute of Safety and Health at Work of the Community of Madrid. In this position, he managed administrative labor procedures during the COVID-19 health crisis, with special attention to temporary employment regulation files (ERTO). He is also a member of the Advisory Council of the Labor Law Section of the Madrid Bar Association and actively participates as a speaker in specialized seminars on labor law.

We interviewed Álvaro Rodríguez de la Calle to learn about the main topics he will address during his presentation at the round table on administrative and criminal infractions at the Lefebvre Labour Law Conference, on April 28 in Madrid. He also outlines the most significant changes in labor law and his key conclusions on issues such as teleworking and the application of AI in the workplace.

Based on your experience in both the public sector and advising private companies, what is the most significant change that has shaped labor law in recent years?

Without a doubt, the proliferation of regulations.

Can we talk about a new labor landscape?

Yes, we could speak of a new landscape, as the presence of public authorities in regulating labor relations has displaced social agents as active players in regulating working conditions.

Given these distinctive factors, has there been greater labor protection for workers? Why? 

This succession of regulations, as a result of the active involvement of public authorities, has not provided greater protection for workers; although, of course, that was the intention and objective. For example, the promotion and expansion of teleworking, now conceived simply as a form of service provision, has meant reviving a form of service provision that traditionally fostered practices that questioned the basic rights of workers.

Furthermore, the legislative technique, which leaves much to be desired, has generated significant legal uncertainty that, by its very nature, benefits no one.

Regarding the use of AI and corporate monitoring systems, what are the main legal risks?

The main one, in relation to AI, is the presence of indirect discrimination.

Do you believe that current legislation needs to be adapted to the new technological landscape? Why?

I do not believe that an adaptation of labor legislation is necessary, as it has shown remarkable resilience and versatility in the face of technological changes. In this regard, recent regulatory changes concerning the role of algorithms in determining working conditions — as an element that could indicate the presence of a dependency requirement — could already be considered covered by the presumptions of a labor relationship provided for in our legal system to guarantee workers' rights.

What is the key function of the Labour Inspectorate regarding new technologies in the workplace?

As mentioned earlier, if the fundamental principles of the labor legal system have proven to be valid in the face of new technological scenarios, the Labour and Social Security Inspectorate, when applying these principles, should not be particularly compromised in the response it must provide to these new scenarios. To make a reference, the legal framework for the protection of personal privacy has not changed substantially since the provisions regarding the inspection of lockers and employees' belongings. Thus, the infringement is exactly the same for unauthorized inspection of a locker as for unauthorized access to an electronic device (a very serious infringement according to article 8.11 of the LISOS). It is true that there are currently areas that could lead to intrusions into privacy, and that these new areas arise from the use of new technologies, but once detected or identified, the legal solution is essentially the same.

He participates as a speaker at the Lefebvre Labour Congress in the roundtable on administrative and criminal infractions. What new developments and key points would you highlight for companies regarding this type of infringement?

Without being able to highlight any novelty, the key point always lies in the same issue: respect for the principles of legality and specificity by the Labour and Social Security Inspectorate and, we would add, the proper processing of pre-sanctioning procedures. It is very common for companies to alarm only upon receiving notification of an infringement or an agreement, but this concern — understood as attention — should be focused from the moment inspection procedures begin.

Moreover, contrary to what one might think, the infringements detected by the Inspection continue to be the usual or recurring ones. That is to say, new infringements are not being committed as a result of the influence of new technologies on the behaviour of companies' economic activities.

Read the full interview here.