Andorra Court Strikes Down Mandatory Arbitration in Labor Law as Unconstitutional

Andorra's Tribunal Constitucional ruled on 13 March 2026 that subsections 1, 2, and—by connection—5 of Article 6 in Law 33/2018 on collective conflict measures are unconstitutional. The provisions violate the right to judicial access under Article 10.1 of the Constitution by imposing mandatory arbitration without sufficient justification, proportionality, or exploration of less restrictive alternatives.

The court found that the system overrides collective bargaining, restricts review of arbitration awards to procedural issues only, and lacks evidence of threats to essential services. It declared the provisions null and void, allowing the Civil Chamber of the Tribunal Superior de Justícia to examine the award's substance for proportionality. This decision casts doubt on months of enforced compliance with the award in the Coopalsa bus drivers' dispute.

The conflict began on 13 December 2024, when the Coopalsa workers' committee requested administrative intervention after the company unilaterally altered schedules, hours, and planning, reducing drivers' flexibility. The Labour Department activated Andorra's collective conflict process for the first time, appointing an arbitrator who ruled on 22 January 2025 in favor of the drivers. The award mandated restoring pre-November 2024 conditions: a 40-hour weekly schedule across five intensive eight-hour days.

Coopalsa contested the binding award, arguing it breached constitutional rights. The Superior court's Civil Chamber raised an incidental unconstitutionality question. Prosecutors and Coopalsa backed the challenge, while the drivers' committee, General Council, and Sindicatura's legal services defended the law for enabling swift resolutions and avoiding overload on courts and administration. The Constitucional acknowledged legislative discretion and even cited European Court of Human Rights cases permitting limited mandatory arbitration, but concluded the restrictions here were unjustified.

The ruling preserves constitutional validity for provisions allowing ordinary courts to handle disputes over interpreting laws, conventions, or agreements. It prompts legislative reform and fuels debate on resolving labour conflicts while safeguarding essential services, administrative efficiency, and judicial oversight. For Coopalsa drivers, it affirms access to full court review; for employers, it introduces uncertainty in managing similar disputes.