That a company communicates to its workers the bonus they are going to receive and weeks later decides to cut it in half does not necessarily constitute a substantial modification of their working conditions. This has been established by the Supreme Court in its judgment 829/2026, of 13 October, in which it analyzes the case of a company that rectified the quarterly incentives of its workforce after detecting a supposed error in the calculation of the targets. The ruling introduces an important distinction for workers who receive part of their pay through commissions, productivity bonuses, or variable remuneration: the company can correct a one-off incentive without necessarily having to negotiate with the unions, but that does not mean that any cut is legal.
The now-known ruling gives reasons to Regus Management España, a company dedicated to renting office space and workspaces, in the dispute it was maintaining with UGT and CCOO. The High Court overturns an earlier ruling by the National Court that had declared the employer’s action unjustified for not having followed the procedure established to substantially modify working conditions. However, the justices do not rule on whether the error alleged by the company truly existed or on whether the employees had the right to be paid the amounts initially announced. That issue remains open and can be brought by means of a salary claim.
The difference is relevant because the article 41 of the Workers’ Statute obliges companies to follow a specific procedure when they substantially modify the remuneration system or the amount of wages. In collective changes, that procedure includes a period of consultations with workers’ representatives. But the Supreme Court recalls that not every economic alteration, however significant it may be for the affected person, necessarily entails a substantial modification.
The company announced the bonus and weeks later reduced it by half
The origin of the conflict lies in the incentive system applied by Regus during the first quarter of 2025. In January, the company had communicated the objectives that its operations employees were required to meet in order to access variable pay, the amount of which ranged between the 5% and 30% of the base salary, depending on professional category and the degree of achievement. The model established three levels of achieving objectives: minimum, medium, and maximum. Once the quarter had ended, on the 25 April, the company communicated to workers individually the results obtained and the amount they were entitled to receive, with most placing in the intermediate level.
The situation changed on the 16 May, when Regus communicated that it had detected an error in the calculations. As it explained, when setting the initial objectives it had not included certain service income in the reference figure used to measure results. When those were incorporated, the objectives were higher and the percentage of achievement of numerous workers decreased. The consequence was that a large part of the workforce moved from the intermediate level to the minimum and saw their bonus reduced to half or even to an amount lower than the one initially announced.
UGT filed a lawsuit for a collective dispute, to which CCOO later joined, considering that the company had unilaterally changed salary conditions without opening the consultation period required by labor legislation. The National Court initially sided with the unions, but the company appealed to the Supreme Court. The Social Chamber now concludes that the incentive system as such had not been modified, but only the calculation of the amounts corresponding to a specific quarter. Since it was a specific correction and not a general and lasting change in compensation policy, it considers that it was not mandatory to apply the procedure under article 41.
Can your company reduce a bonus it has already recognized?
The answer depends on the circumstances. The ruling establishes that a significant reduction in the incentive does not have to be a substantial modification of working conditions, but it does not grant companies absolute freedom to cut amounts already communicated. To determine whether there is a substantial modification, factors such as the nature of the change, its duration and its consequences must be examined. In the case of Regus, the Supreme Court considers decisive that the same percentages, compliance levels and general incentive rules were maintained, while the correction was limited to a specific period.
However, the court has not declared that the reduction was correct. The National Court had questioned whether the error alleged by Regus was proven, but the Supreme Court does not go on to rule on that point because the lawsuit had been brought through the procedure of the substantial modification of working conditions. Once that classification had been dismissed, the judges consider that it does not correspond to examine, in that procedure, other possible irregularities related to the bonus amount.
This means that a worker whose incentive has been reduced can continue to claim the pay difference if they consider that the company did not have sufficient grounds to modify the amount recognized. For example, if an employee received a communication in which they were informed that they would receive a bonus of 2,000 euros and subsequently only received 1,000, they could claim the remaining 1,000 euros. Whether they manage to recover them will depend on the incentive plan’s conditions, the agreed objectives, the communications received, and the justification provided by the company.
This scenario must also be distinguished from those in which the company reserves the power to arbitrarily reduce incentives. In another ruling of 17 February 2026, relating to CaixaBank bonuses, the Supreme Court annulled a clause that allowed its amount to be adjusted at discretion without objective and verifiable criteria. Therefore, correcting a justifiable calculation error is not the same as unilaterally modifying remuneration without clear rules.
How to claim the bonus money and what deadline you have
If the company reduces a premium, commission, or incentive previously communicated, the first thing is to preserve all documentation that makes it possible to prove the amount initially recognized. The employment contract, the collective bargaining agreement, the incentive plan, the objectives communicated at the beginning of the period, the emails with the results, and the pay slips in which the amount ultimately paid is shown are especially important. It is also advisable to keep any subsequent explanation from the company about the reasons for the reduction and to request in writing the details of the calculations used to justify the new amount.
When the disagreement focuses on a salary amount that the worker believes is still unpaid, the avenue of a claim for payment may be used. In general, the article 59 of the Workers’ Statute establishes a one-year period to claim economic entitlements, counted from the moment when the action could be brought. For that reason, it is important to check when the bonus should have been paid and not let the deadline pass. Usually, before going to the Labour Court, a conciliation slip must be filed with the corresponding administrative service, a step that has effects on the statute of limitations in the terms provided by law.
The procedure is different if what is really intended to challenge is a substantial modification of working conditions, such as a general change in the calculation rules or in the remuneration system. In these cases, in general, there is a period of 20 business days to challenge the employer’s decision, in accordance with the applicable procedural rules. Confusing both avenues can be harmful: precisely in the case of Regus, the Supreme Court did not rule on whether the employees were entitled to the amounts initially communicated because the dispute had focused on determining whether there was a substantial modification.
The conclusion for workers is that the ruling does not make untouchable any business decision regarding bonuses, but neither does it guarantee payment of an amount simply because it was announced. Companies can make certain specific corrections without negotiating a substantial change, while employees retain the possibility of challenging the justification for the cut and claiming pay differences. The key will be to show what conditions were agreed, what objectives were met, and whether the incentive correction had a real and legally valid reason.