The High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands has issued its ruling on a dispute concerning trade union freedoms in the tourism sector of San Bartolomé de Tirajana. The litigation pitted the company Hotel Gesellschaft against the Workers' Commissions (CCOO) union following the election of workers' representatives at the Parque Paraíso I and II bungalows. The legal controversy began when the company management drastically restricted visits by the union to promote its candidates among the staff.
The employer's intervention limited access to the break rooms to Thursdays only, from 13:30 to 14:00 PM, and also required that union representatives attend together. This measure directly affected the housekeeping staff, a group whose days off coincided precisely with Thursdays and whose lunch break began at 14:00 PM. In response to a formal protest from the CCOO hospitality sector, the company defended the restriction, claiming that its sole intention was "to prevent harm to the Hotel from demonstrations and negative media coverage" and to "disturb the workers as little as possible, as they might feel overwhelmed."
The conflict escalated to the courts following an arbitration award issued on February 27, 2025. This ruling upheld CCOO's appeal, finding that the company's conduct violated the fundamental right to freedom of association. The arbitrator declared "the electoral process null and void due to the company's anti-union conduct" and ordered a new election, requiring that the days and hours of access to the workplace be extended to include all break and lunch periods. However, the arbitrator declared itself incompetent to rule on the compensation for damages claimed by the union.
Far from settling the matter, the controversy escalated into a lawsuit filed with the Social Court No. 8 of Las Palmas. The lower court's ruling upheld the annulment of the election process and went a step further by ordering the company to pay €7.501 in damages for violations of fundamental rights, applying the minimum penalty for very serious offenses as stipulated in labor law. Dissatisfied with this financial ruling and the annulment of the elections, the company filed an appeal with the Social Chamber of the Canary Islands High Court.
The full bench of the High Court of Justice has now resolved the appeal, strictly defining the procedural channels. The court ruling emphasizes that "none of the cited provisions includes, as a possible object of the arbitration proceedings, the declaration and condemnation for the violation of fundamental rights," reiterating that these special actions related to electoral procedures are limited in scope and preclude the improper accumulation of claims outside their strict legal framework.
Based on these technical considerations, the Labor Chamber has issued a mixed ruling. On the one hand, it dismissed the company's appeal regarding the review of the arbitration award, upholding the electoral annulment and ordering the cessation of restrictive practices. On the other hand, the court overturned the lower court's second ruling, finding "the procedure followed for the claim to be inadequate." The direct consequence of this legal correction is the elimination of the financial penalty imposed on the hotel, as the judges determined that the procedure for challenging electoral arbitration awards is not suitable for claiming compensation for moral or union-related damages without meeting the requirements of the procedural modality for the protection of fundamental rights.
The ruling, signed by judges Gloria Poyatos Matas, Yolanda Álvarez del Vayo Alonso, and Marina Mas Carrillo, provisionally settles this dispute in southern Gran Canaria without imposing court costs. The decision leaves open the ordinary legal avenues that the union may pursue in the future through the appropriate channels, while the company recovers the deposits allocated for an appeal that has managed to reduce the financial penalty but maintains the obligation to hold a new election process under strict guarantees of pluralism and union access.
