The decision of CCOO and UGT to call a 24-hour general strike linked to the housing crisis, raised at the request of the Tenants' Union and still pending a definitive date, has opened a debate that transcends the political opportunity of the mobilization and fully enters its legal fit. CEOE and CEPYME have questioned the call understanding that its demands exceed the strictly labor field and that, furthermore, the strike is proposed in the midst of an electoral process, before the general elections on November 29.
Spanish legislation, however, does not automatically make a strike illegal because it includes demands directed at the Government or because it has a political dimension. The determining question is whether the objectives pursued are related to the professional interests of the workers, a boundary that will have special importance in a call focused on access to housing and in which the unions also intend to incorporate salary and collective bargaining demands.
The starting point is found in article 28.2 of the Constitution, which recognizes the fundamental right to strike of workers to defend their interests, while a good part of the rules that determine how it should be exercised are still contained in Royal Decree-Law 17/1977 on labor relations, interpreted and partially corrected since then by constitutional jurisprudence.
A political strike is not the same as a strike with political content
The main question raised by the mobilization announced by CCOO and UGT is related to its purpose. Article 11 of the Royal Decree-Law of 1977 establishes that a strike is illegal when it is initiated or maintained "for political reasons or for any other purpose unrelated to the professional interest of the affected workers", a provision that might seem especially relevant when the recipient of part of the demands is the Government.
The interpretation of this prohibition, however, does not allow us to conclude that any strike aimed at influencing political decisions is necessarily illegal. The Constitutional Court has constructed a broad conception of the interests that workers can defend through this instrument and has also recognized that unions can call strikes to defend claims that collectively affect workers, even when they cannot be satisfied directly by each employer.
There lies one of the keys to the future call for housing. CCOO and UGT are not merely proposing a protest against the government's policy, but have linked the mobilization to the cost of housing for working people, to the need for sufficient wages to access it, and to labor-related issues such as collective bargaining and the renewal of the Agreement for Employment and Collective Bargaining. The unions defend precisely for this reason that it would be a mixed-character strike and not an exclusively political protest.
The legal boundary would therefore be to determine whether there is a sufficient link between the claims made and the professional, economic, or social interests of the workers. If the strike pursued exclusively political objectives completely unrelated to those interests, it could fall into one of the cases of illegality provided for by the regulation.
The strike must be called by legitimized subjects
The right to strike belongs individually to the workers, although its exercise is necessarily collective. This means that each worker decides whether or not to support a call, while certain collective powers, including the call itself, can be exercised by the representatives of the workers and by the trade union organizations.
The Constitutional Court already established in its ruling 11/1981 that unions can organize, direct, and control a strike, as long as they have a presence in the labor area to which the mobilization extends. This doctrine is particularly relevant in a general strike, where the call is not limited to a single company or workplace.
For this reason, although the political and social impetus of the protest comes from the Tenants' Union, the incorporation of CCOO and UGT is legally relevant to turn the social mobilization into a labor call for a general strike aimed at salaried workers.
The notice must be given at least five days in advance
The strike cannot be called from one day to the next. Once the decision has been formally adopted, the organizers must communicate it in writing to the affected employers and to the labor authority with a minimum of five calendar days' notice.
When the strike affects companies responsible for public services, the period increases to ten calendar days, and the representatives of the workers must give sufficient publicity before it begins so that users can be aware of the call.
The communication must identify the objectives of the strike, the actions taken to resolve the conflict, the start date, and the composition of the strike committee. In the case of the mobilization announced by CCOO and UGT, this procedure has not yet been completed, since the unions have announced their decision to call the strike but still need to specify its date and formalize the call.
A strike committee of a maximum of twelve people
Every call must also have a strike committee, responsible for intervening in the union, administrative, or judicial actions related to the conflict and for participating in the negotiations aimed at resolving it.
The legislation establishes a maximum of twelve members, although the Constitutional Court corrected the originally planned limitations to determine who could be part of this body when the mobilization affects several workplaces, as necessarily occurs in a general strike.
Furthermore, from the moment the notice is given and during the development of the strike, the strike committee and the employers are obliged to negotiate to try to reach an agreement, without preventing the workers from ending the mobilization at any time.
Essential services must be guaranteed
The fundamental character of the right to strike does not imply that any activity can be completely paralyzed. The Constitution itself establishes that there must be guarantees to maintain the essential services of the community, which allows the governmental authority to establish minimum services when the call affects activities whose interruption may compromise fundamental rights, constitutionally protected goods, or essential needs of the population.
These minimum services, however, cannot be set arbitrarily nor empty the right to strike of its content. Constitutional jurisprudence requires that the Administration justify its decision and explain the criteria used to determine which services must be maintained and to what extent, so that the measure can be subsequently reviewed by the courts.
Aside from these essential services, during any strike, the indispensable actions to preserve the safety of people and property and the maintenance of facilities, machinery, or premises that are necessary for the activity to be resumed once the conflict is over must also be guaranteed.
Abusive strikes also have limits
The law distinguishes between directly illegal strikes and certain modalities that can be considered illicit or abusive due to the way they are carried out. Among them are rotating strikes, certain strikes carried out by workers in strategic sectors with the aim of interrupting the production process, and the so-called strikes of zeal or regulation.
During the strike, the freedom of those who decide not to support it must also be respected. Striking workers can publicize the call and raise funds, but they must do so peacefully and without exerting coercion on those who choose to continue working. At the same time, the company cannot generally replace strikers with workers hired after the call has been communicated.