The technology sector is one of the fastest growing in Spain, but also one of the sectors that generates the most labor disputes when an inspection or a workers' complaint arrives. One of the usual sources of the problem is the incorrect application of the collective bargaining agreement. Many technology companies apply the office and office workers' agreement out of inertia, while others opt for the engineering or technology agreement without having carried out a prior legal analysis. The difference is not minor: it affects salaries, contributions, cost structure and legal security.
Almudena and Luis, labor lawyers and specialists in payroll and Social Security, explain how to correctly determine the collective agreement applicable to a technology company, what criteria the Labor Inspectorate uses and the consequences of making a mistake.
Labor Lawyer
Social Security Specialist
The starting point is not the name of the company, nor its corporate website, nor even its CNAE in isolation. The determining criterion, according to judicial and administrative doctrine, is the main activity actually carried out.
This criterion is based on Article 82 of the Workers' Statute and has been repeatedly confirmed by the case law of the Supreme Court, which has been stating that the applicable collective labor agreement must be determined on the basis of the real and effective main activity of the company, and not its legal form, corporate name or the performance of ancillary or complementary activities that do not define the core of the business.
In the technological field this is especially relevant because:
Each of these scenarios can lead to a different collective bargaining agreement.
Although both agreements may seem similar, there are relevant differences, especially in economic matters.
This is a residual and generic agreement, designed for administrative or general services companies.
Typical characteristics:
For this reason, it is often applied incorrectly in technology companies that actually develop engineering or software.
It is oriented to companies whose main activity is:
Usually involves:
From the labor point of view, applying this agreement is not an option, but an obligation when the activity requires it.
One of the most common mistakes is to think that "nobody will check it". In practice, the Labor Inspectorate analyzes:
If you detect an incorrect application of the collective bargaining agreement, the consequences can be significant.
In disputes over which collective bargaining agreement applies to a technology company (for example, whether a "generic" agreement such as Offices and Offices or a sectoral agreement such as the ICT/Consulting or Engineering Agreements should be applied), the courts usually start from a central idea: the agreement is not chosen, it is determined.
The key is to identify the real and effective main activity of the company and fit it into the functional scope of the corresponding agreement. In this analysis, the CNAE or the corporate purpose can serve as clues, but they are no substitute for the reality of the business. This methodology coincides with the technical criteria used by the Labor Administration (CCNCC/Ministry), which lists as elements of analysis the CNAE, the IAE, the corporate purpose, the activity declared to the Social Security and, especially, the specific functions performed by the workforce.
An oft-cited pronouncement to reinforce this approach is STS (Chamber IV) 729/2023 of October 10, 2023, issued in unification of doctrine(rec. 4202/2020, ECLI:ES:TS:2023:4056).
In this ruling, the Supreme Court consolidates two very useful ideas for IT companies with mixed activities (e.g., software development + ancillary services):
Principle of "company unity": as a general rule, the workforce is not fragmented by applying different agreements "per position" if there is no real and stable separation of activities.
Preponderance criterion: if the main activity is covered by a sectoral agreement, this agreement tends to apply to the company as a whole, even if there are ancillary tasks that could be reminiscent of another sector.
This is especially relevant in technology, because many companies have administrative, commercial or support teams, but the core business is IT.
To reinforce the "sectoral" fit in IT, it is useful to recall that the State Agreement on Consulting, Information Technology and Market Research expressly declares its binding force for all companies and workforces included in its scope, in accordance with art. 82.3 ET. This is stated in its official publication in the Official State Gazette (BOE).
In practical terms: if a company provides technological consultancy services, IT, software development or similar activities that fall within the functional scope of the ICT agreement, the application of a "generic" agreement (such as Offices and Offices) becomes legally risky, in the sense that sooner or later the workers' representatives may initiate a collective dispute, first before the Labor Court and then before the Court, claiming the correct application of the collective agreement because, in terms of rights and salaries, it benefits them.
In scenarios where there is a debate on concurrence (for example, company vs. sectoral agreements, or agreements of different scope), the Supreme Court has also been outlining specific rules. A recent example analyzed by specialized doctrine is STS 59/2025, of January 29, ECLI:ES:TS:2025:407, on criteria of prevalence in cases of concurrence.
When an agreement is disproportionate or economically unfeasible, labor legislation provides mechanisms such as the non-application of the collective agreement, always under strict conditions.
The consequences can be:
All sectors can be immersed in crisis, and it is then when these types of claims can appear, or in more serious cases, company restructurings or even the need to plant an ERTE ETOP.
In many cases, these conflicts derive in collective bargaining procedures, especially when workers' representatives or unions are involved.
At this point, it is essential to have lawyers specialized in collective bargaining, capable of redirecting the situation without generating a structural conflict in the company.
There is no automatic formula, but there is a clear method.
The essential steps are:
Not what appears on the website or in the trade name, but what the company does on a daily basis:
The CNAE is an indicator, not a definitive decision, but it helps to:
This process must be approached with legal rigor, as explained in detail in the analysis on how to change the collective agreement and collective bargaining, since a mistake can generate acquired rights that are difficult to reverse.
Each agreement defines:
Many technology companies:
In these cases, similar agreements are usually applied, but this is where most mistakes are made if a rigorous legal analysis is not carried out.
Determining the right collective bargaining agreement is not a minor decision and can make the difference between a safe labor management or a future problem.
At Conesa Legal, Almudena and Luis analyze each case taking into account:
If your company has doubts, a timely review is always the best decision: