Are there buses tomorrow November 11? Minimum services of EMT, urban and interurban

Minimum services during a general public transportation strike must be set by a competent governmental authority, through a reasoned and proportionate resolution. Their purpose is to preserve the essential needs of the population, not to maintain the normal operation of transportation. There is no mandatory and uniform percentage for all of Spain: the necessary services must be justified in each case.

1. Legal basis

Article 28.2 of the Constitution recognizes the right to strike and requires guarantees to maintain the essential services of the community. The basic authorization is in Article 10 of Royal Decree-Law 17/1977, interpreted in accordance with the Constitution: it allows the governmental authority to adopt the necessary measures to ensure those services.

Law 39/2015 regulates administrative guarantees, especially motivation, notification, and publication; Law 29/1998 establishes judicial control. These rules are complemented by sectoral and regional regulations and constitutional case law. There is no single and exhaustive state procedure for all modes of transportation.

2. Who decides

Competence depends on the affected service and the powers of each Administration, not simply on the strike being general:

• State: the state authority empowered for the transports under its competence.
• Autonomous communities: the body to which their regulations assign the decision, which may be the regional government or the competent ministry.
• Municipal scope: the normative attribution must be verified; being the owner of the urban bus service alone is not sufficient to identify who can impose the minimums.

The operating company can provide data and organize execution, but cannot replace the authority in deciding the restriction. This is recalled by STC 8/1992.

3. How they are set

1. Analyze the call. Duration, territory, workers, and affected services are identified, along with foreseeable consequences for the population.
2. Gather sufficient information. The Administration collects data on demand, lines, frequencies, time slots, essential connections, personnel, and available alternatives. The company report does not replace public assessment.
3. Evaluate union proposals. Applicable hearing procedures must be respected and service maintenance offers considered. Negotiation does not mean an agreement is needed: STC 27/1989 clarifies that prior negotiation is not an indispensable constitutional requirement.
4. Determine what is indispensable. The right to strike and community rights are weighed. It is not enough to invoke inconveniences, economic losses, or copy percentages from previous calls.
5. Issue a reasoned resolution. It must identify competence, required services, and their duration, and explain why that specific level is necessary and proportionate. The essential nature of transportation does not allow suppressing the strike, as noted by STC 310/2006.
6. Publish or notify and execute. Knowledge must be given sufficiently in advance, through the corresponding bulletin when appropriate and necessary communications. Afterwards, the operator can designate workers with objective criteria, without expanding the established minimums.

4. How to challenge them

Unions and other legitimized subjects can appeal the resolution before the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, including the special procedure for the protection of fundamental rights. The competent court depends on the body that issued the act.

An urgent precautionary measure can be requested to suspend its effects before the strike. The appeal itself does not imply suspension. Judicial control must be useful and timely, as highlighted by STC 148/1993. Once judicial remedies are exhausted, constitutional protection is possible when its requirements are met.

The autonomous communities can set minimum transportation services over which they have competence and political responsibility. They cannot, through this means, freely regulate the right to strike nor assume state services just because the strike occurs within their territory. The key is to distinguish the general regulation of that right from the specific decision on which essential services must be maintained.

Distribution of competences

Labor legislation corresponds to the State, according to Article 149.1.7 of the Constitution. But determining minimum services is not exclusively a labor action: it also involves guaranteeing the affected public service. Therefore, the Constitutional Court attributes that decision to the state or regional authority competent over the service, as explained in STC 31/2010, following STC 233/1997.

In land transportation, Articles 148.1.5 and 149.1.21 establish a fundamentally territorial criterion: the State has competence over transports crossing more than one community; the autonomous communities can assume, through their statutes, those developed entirely within their territory. STC 118/1996 clarifies that an internal section of a supra-community line does not thereby become an independent regional service.

What can the autonomous communities decide?

• Metro, tram, and regional railways: can establish indispensable services when these services fall within their competences.
• Interurban buses: can set minimums in fully regional services under their competence, considering routes, schedules, and essential needs.
• Urban transport: the specific distribution between community and municipality must be examined. Municipal ownership of the service does not automatically determine who must set minimums; the attribution of powers and responsible governmental authority matters.
• State services: regional labor execution competence alone is not enough to intervene. STC 124/2013 confirmed state competence over airport services linked to airports of general interest, even if the affected centers were in Catalonia.

As a statutory example, Article 170.1.i of the Catalan Statute contemplates the determination of minimum services. However, that provision must be interpreted respecting state competences: it does not grant a general power over any strike localized in Catalonia.

Limits of the regional decision

Competence does not allow imposing any level of operation. Article 28.2 of the Constitution requires balancing the right to strike with maintaining essential services. The authority must respect these guarantees:

• Proportionality: preserve what is indispensable, not automatically reproduce ordinary service. Duration, time slots, territorial scope, affected users, and available alternatives must be weighed.
• Concrete motivation: explain which essential needs are protected and why each service or percentage is necessary. Generic formulas applicable to any strike are insufficient.
• Impartial public decision: corresponds to the governmental authority; the effective determination cannot be left to the company, even if public.
• Consideration of proposals: service maintenance offers must be evaluated. However, prior negotiation is not an indispensable constitutional requirement for the validity of the decision, according to STC 27/1989.

In short, they can specify minimums within their competence, but not neutralize the strike. STC 2/2022 illustrates this limit: it annulled a decision that produced, during the stoppages, an essential service provision higher than usual.

The latest municipal elections held in Madrid and Barcelona were on May 28, 2023. In Madrid, the PP achieved an absolute majority and José Luis Martínez-Almeida continued as mayor. In Barcelona, Trias per Barcelona was the most voted candidacy, but Jaume Collboni, from the PSC, was elected mayor with the support of the comunes and the PP.

Madrid: absolute majority for the PP

The Madrid City Council has 57 councilors and the absolute majority is reached with 29. The PP obtained exactly that number, so it could face the investiture without needing support from other candidacies. The distribution of the five forces that obtained representation was as follows:

• PP: 29 councilors and 44.50% of the votes.
• Más Madrid: 12 councilors and 19.11%.
• PSOE: 11 councilors and 16.75%.
• Vox: 5 councilors and 9.07%.

The result left the PP with more councilors than the other three represented candidacies combined: 29 versus 28. Más Madrid was the second municipal force, with one more councilor than the PSOE. Vox was the fourth represented candidacy. The results can be consulted in the RTVE electoral information.

The institutional consequence was direct: Martínez-Almeida was invested mayor with his own majority. It is important to distinguish the vote percentage from the percentage of councilors: 44.50% of the votes translated into 29 of the 57 City Council seats, enough to reach the absolute majority of the corporation.

Barcelona: victory of Trias and mayoralty of Collboni

The Barcelona City Council has 41 councilors, so the absolute majority requires 21. No candidacy reached that number in the elections. Six forces obtained representation, with this distribution:

• Trias per Barcelona–Junts: 11 councilors and 22.42% of the votes.
• PSC-CP: 10 councilors and 19.79%.
• Barcelona en Comú: 9 councilors and 19.77%.
• ERC-AM: 5 councilors and 11.22%.
• PP: 4 councilors and 9.21%.
• Vox: 2 councilors and 5.70%.

Trias per Barcelona finished first, with one more councilor than the PSC. The percentage difference between the PSC and Barcelona en Comú was especially small: 0.02 points, although they obtained ten and nine councilors, respectively. The detail is available in the Barcelona results published by RTVE.

However, winning in votes and councilors did not translate into obtaining the mayoralty. Jaume Collboni was elected mayor with the support of the PSC, Barcelona en Comú, and the PP. These three forces gathered 23 councilors — ten, nine, and four — above the 21 needed for an absolute majority. That support in the investiture should not be confused with the electoral result of each candidacy.

The main difference

In Madrid, the winning candidacy also achieved a sufficient majority to elect the mayor without external support. In Barcelona, the most voted candidacy was far from the absolute majority and the mayoralty went to the candidate of the second force thanks to the support of two other formations.

Therefore, the two results illustrate different situations: own majority in Madrid and election through support among candidacies in Barcelona. These figures correspond to the city councils of both cities, not to their autonomous communities nor to their provinces as a whole.