Decree of transparent conditions: All the information that companies must provide before hiring

To accurately answer your question about “at what stage was the parliamentary processing of the bill to transpose the European directive before the decree was approved,” I first need to precisely narrow down which specific case we are talking about. As formulated, the question refers to:

• A bill transposing a European Union directive.
• A specific European directive intended to be incorporated into the Spanish legal system.
• A decree (most likely a royal decree-law, although it could be another type) that was ultimately approved, presumably to meet deadlines or compensate for the lack of progress of the bill.

The problem is that, over recent years, there have been numerous transposition bills of directives coexisting with royal decree-laws or other regulatory instruments, for example in areas such as digital services, energy, consumer protection, transport, taxation, etc. Without knowing:

• The official full or approximate title of the bill, or
• The number and year of the European directive (for example, “Directive (EU) 2019/XYZ of the European Parliament and of the Council”), or
• At least the material scope (energy, data, transport, housing, taxation, equality, etc.) and some approximate time reference,

it is not possible to reliably identify which initiative you want to analyze. And without that prior identification, any answer about “at what phase it was” would carry a very high risk of referring to another different bill.

Under normal conditions, to determine the exact stage of parliamentary processing of a bill before resorting to a decree (generally a royal decree-law), the procedure would be:

• Locate the complete parliamentary file of the bill, which records all the milestones of the processing: consideration (if applicable), general debates, total amendments, committee stage, commission stage, amendments to the articles, possible vetoes or amendments from the Senate, etc.
• Identify the specific time point when the decree was approved (for example, the date of the royal decree-law) and see what stage the bill had reached at that time (if it was still in committee, if it was pending report, if the Senate had not yet ruled, etc.).
• Contrast that information with the political and legal motivation usually set out in the preamble of the royal decree-law or in the validation debates, where the Government usually justifies why, despite having a bill underway, it opts for the use of the decree-law (urgency, imminent transposition deadlines, threat of infringement procedure, need for legal certainty, etc.).

This comparison is key to rigorously answering your question, because what you really want to know is whether the bill was:

• In an initial phase (for example, newly presented and pending amendments),
• In an intermediate phase (in committee or commission, with amendments already registered), or
• Already in a final phase (about to be definitively approved, or only pending the second chamber’s reading).

Since there are many possible examples and I do not want to substitute one case for another, I would ask you to provide, to be able to specify the answer with the detail you seek, some of these data:

• The official or approximate name of the bill (even if incomplete).
• The number and year of the directive (for example, “Directive (EU) 2019/XYZ”) or at least the scope (energy, digital, transport, etc.).
• The type of decree that was approved (if you recall it was a royal decree-law, an ordinary royal decree, or if it had a specific number, like “Royal Decree-law X/20XX”).
• Any time reference (e.g., “it was approved in 2023,” “it was in the last legislature,” “it was about energy issues,” etc.).

With any of those elements, I can identify the correct parliamentary file and tell you, concretely, at what point in the processing the bill was just before resorting to the decree, also explaining what that phase implied and how it fit into the usual parliamentary dynamics.

If you can specify which directive and which bill you mean, I will reformulate and give you a detailed answer about the processing situation at that moment prior to the decree.

In Spanish legislation, the competencies of the Ministry of Labor and Social Economy (MITES) regarding labor transparency — and particularly pay transparency — are articulated through the Workers' Statute, equality legislation between women and men, and the framework of the Labor Inspectorate. These norms configure a block in which the Ministry exercises normative, registry organization, supervision/inspection, and technical support functions.

1. Basic framework: information and transparency in the Workers' Statute

The Royal Legislative Decree 2/2015, of October 23, approving the revised text of the Workers' Statute Law (ET), recognizes as basic rights:

• The right of workers to information, consultation, and participation in the company (art. 4.1 and 4.2, letters g and related).
• The right not to be discriminated against in pay matters, based on the principle of equal treatment (art. 4.2.c and art. 17).

These provisions are developed through the information rights of the legal representation of workers, contained in art. 64 ET (information on the evolution of the wage structure, personnel policies, etc.), which are the legal basis on which the Ministry and the Inspectorate require companies to adopt social and pay transparency behaviors.

2. Pay transparency: Royal Decree 902/2020 and pay equality

The central specific instrument is Royal Decree 902/2020, of October 13, on pay equality between women and men, which develops art. 28 ET reformed by Royal Decree-law 6/2019, of March 1.

Based on these norms, MITES assumes the following main competencies in pay transparency:

• Normative development: the Ministry proposes and the Government approves the regulatory development of the principle of pay equality (art. 28 ET and RD 902/2020), establishing:
  • The mandatory pay register for all companies (RD 902/2020, arts. 5 and following).
  • The minimum content and format of pay audits in companies that must have an equality plan.
  • Criteria for job evaluation from a gender perspective and transparency requirements in pay systems.
• Organization and management of registries: in coordination with the Ministry responsible for equality, Labor is responsible for the registration and deposit system of:
  • Equality plans and their diagnoses, which include pay transparency measures (connection with Royal Decree 901/2020 on equality plans and the REGCON registry).
  • Certain pay information that is part of the documentation that may be requested by the labor authority and Inspectorate.
• Definition of technical criteria: RD 902/2020 refers to guides and technical tools (standard registry tables, job evaluation methodologies, etc.) whose preparation is coordinated by MITES, so that companies comply with the pay transparency obligation uniformly.

3. Effective equality and collective bargaining

The Organic Law 3/2007, of March 22, for effective equality between women and men establishes in its arts. 45 and following the obligation to prepare equality plans in certain companies and guides collective bargaining to integrate equality and pay transparency clauses. RDL 6/2019 strengthens these obligations and modifies art. 28 ET to expressly introduce:

• The principle of equal pay for work of equal value.
• The requirement that companies have pay registers disaggregated by sex that can be consulted by the workers' representation.

The Ministry of Labor, through the Directorate General of Labor, has here a key role of:

• Interpretation and application of pay equality regulations in the approval and registration of collective agreements, vetoing clauses with manifest pay discrimination.
• Promotion of collective bargaining to introduce more transparent and gender-neutral professional classification and pay systems.

4. Supervision, inspection, and sanction: Law 23/2015

Law 23/2015, of July 21, organizing the Labor and Social Security Inspection System, assigns the Inspectorate — an autonomous body attached to the Ministry of Labor — functions of:

• Monitoring and enforcement of labor and Social Security regulations, including pay equality and non-discrimination (arts. 2 and 12).
• Advice and information to companies and workers about their rights to information, consultation, and pay transparency.
• Issuance of infringement and settlement reports when it detects pay discrimination or non-compliance in registries and audits (art. 13 and related, in connection with LISOS).

In practice, this means that the Ministry, through the Inspectorate, can:

• Request companies’ pay register and supporting documentation to verify the absence of discrimination.
• Order the correction of unjustified pay gaps and propose sanctions if not remedied.
• Prioritize specific inspection campaigns on pay transparency and equality plans, included in their strategic plans.

5. Technical support function and promotion of a culture of transparency

Finally, both Organic Law 3/2007 and RD 902/2020 itself and the Inspectorate’s strategic plans recognize MITES a function of promotion, training, and guidance:

• Preparation of practical guides, technical criteria, and FAQs on pay registers, pay audits, and job evaluation systems.
• Collaboration with social agents in awareness and dissemination campaigns on equality and pay transparency.
• Integration of the equality and transparency perspective in the annual planning of the Inspectorate, directing action towards sectors and companies at higher risk.

Overall, the legislation configures the Ministry of Labor as the center of design, control, and support of the labor transparency system in Spain, with the Labor Inspectorate as the executing arm and collective bargaining as an essential lever for that transparency to materialize in companies.

In Spain, the obligation to inform workers about the use of algorithmic systems in labor management mainly rests on the Workers' Statute (ET) as amended by Law 12/2021 on digital platforms, and on data protection regulations: Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) and Organic Law 3/2018, on Personal Data Protection and guarantee of digital rights (LOPDGDD).

Since the reform introduced by Law 12/2021, the revised text of the Workers' Statute Law (Royal Legislative Decree 2/2015) provides, in its article 64.4 and in a specific additional provision on digital platforms, a reinforced right of information for the legal representation of workers (RLT) about algorithms or artificial intelligence systems that affect working conditions, access and maintenance of employment, and profiling. This reform is part of the so-called “Rider Law” to guarantee algorithmic transparency in platform work.

On the other hand, the LOPDGDD develops the GDPR regarding information to data subjects. The consulted fragments of the law state that, when data are obtained from the data subject, the controller may fulfill the information duty of article 13 of the GDPR by providing “basic information” that must include at least:

• Identity of the data controller and, if applicable, their representative.
• The purpose of data processing.
• The possibility to exercise the rights recognized in articles 15 to 22 of the GDPR.

The LOPDGDD adds that if data will be used for profiling, this circumstance must be explicitly stated, and indicates that the data subject must be informed of their right to object to automated individual decisions producing legal effects concerning them or significantly affecting them similarly, according to article 22 of the GDPR. This directly connects with the use of algorithmic systems in labor decisions (e.g., shift assignment, performance evaluation, or dismissal decisions based on automatic scores).

a) Individual information to each affected worker

When a company uses algorithmic systems that process personal data of workers, it must comply with the information duties of the GDPR and the LOPDGDD. In practice, this requires providing, clearly and accessibly, at least:

• Who is the data controller (the company or, if applicable, the group) and for what the system is used (e.g., managing shifts, assigning orders, evaluating performance).
• That data will be used for profiling or automated decisions, when applicable.
• What rights the worker can exercise: access, rectification, erasure, restriction, portability, objection, and specifically, the right not to be subject to solely automated decisions with significant legal effects, as well as to request human intervention, express their viewpoint, and challenge the decision (article 22 GDPR).

This information must be provided at the time of data collection or, if data come from other sources, within the deadlines of article 14 of the GDPR, and remain permanently available (e.g., in easily accessible internal privacy policies).

b) Collective information to the RLT or unions

The Workers' Statute, after its amendment by Law 12/2021, recognizes the legal representation of workers the right to receive information about the parameters, rules, and instructions on which algorithms or artificial intelligence systems affecting:

• Working conditions.
• Access and maintenance of employment.
• Profiling of workers.

This obligation is especially intense in the field of digital delivery platforms, where the specific additional provision of the ET requires informing about the systems organizing work (order assignment, scoring, account deactivations, etc.). Information to the RLT must go beyond a generic notice and allow understanding the essential criteria of system operation, its potential impact on the workforce, and discrimination risks.

c) Automated decisions with legal or similar effects (GDPR)

When an algorithmic system makes “purely automated” decisions with legal effects on the worker (e.g., contract termination, denial of promotion) or similarly significant effects, the guarantees of article 22 of the GDPR and its development in the LOPDGDD are activated:

• Right to be informed of the existence of such decisions and their general logic.
• Right to human intervention by the employer.
• Right to express their viewpoint and challenge the decision.

In summary, companies using algorithms or AI systems in labor management must combine the labor transparency obligations of the Workers' Statute (article 64.4 and additional provision on digital platforms) with the information duties and safeguards against automated decisions provided in the GDPR and LOPDGDD, both individually and collectively.