Back to home
Business·

Andorra Tribunal Strikes Down Mandatory Arbitration in Labour Law as Unconstitutional

Ruling from bus operator dispute voids key provisions restricting court access, prompting government plans for urgent legislative reforms to balance swift resolutions and judicial oversight.

Key Points

  • Andorra's Constitutional Tribunal ruled subsections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.5 of Law 33/2018 unconstitutional for mandating arbitration that restricts court access.
  • Ruling arose from UTE Coopalsa bus drivers' dispute over schedule changes, invalidating arbitrator's binding award.
  • Provisions deemed disproportionate, lacking substantive judicial review; court review of agreements remains valid.
  • Government plans urgent legislative reforms to balance swift resolutions with judicial oversight.

Andorra la Vella – Andorra's Constitutional Tribunal ruled on 13 March 2026 that subsections 6.1 and 6.2 of Article 6 in Law 33/2018 on collective conflict measures are unconstitutional, along with subsection 6.5 by connection, for imposing mandatory arbitration that unjustifiably restricts access to ordinary courts under constitutional Article 10.1.

The decision stemmed from a labour dispute at UTE Coopalsa, the national bus operator. Drivers' representatives sought administrative intervention on 13 December 2024 after the company unilaterally changed schedules, introducing a 40-hour week over five days with less shift flexibility. Following failed conciliation, the Labour Department appointed an arbitrator who, on 22 January 2025, ordered Coopalsa to revert to pre-November 2024 schedules featuring intensive eight-hour days. Coopalsa challenged the binding award in the Superior Court of Justice, which raised constitutional doubts and referred the case to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the provisions disproportionate, arguing they eliminate judicial review of substantive matters, erode collective bargaining autonomy, and lack sufficient justification—even for essential public services. Subsection 6.5's procedural review does not provide adequate substantive oversight. Provisions allowing court review of legal interpretations in collective agreements remain valid.

Coopalsa and the Public Prosecutor's Office argued the system breached jurisdictional rights. The drivers' committee, General Syndicature, and General Council defended it, stressing swift resolutions and service continuity, with references to European Court of Human Rights cases. The Tribunal rejected these arguments as inadequately grounded.

The ruling renders the provisions radically null, invalidating the legal foundation of the Coopalsa award and allowing the Superior Court's civil chamber to assess its merits, including proportionality. This introduces uncertainty for labour disputes while strengthening court access. For Coopalsa drivers, it affirms judicial protection of working conditions; for employers, it limits administrative impositions.

Following the Wednesday Council of Ministers, Interior, Economy, Housing and Labour Minister Conxita Marsol said officials have consulted the parliamentary group on a proposició de llei to constitutionalise Article 6. She stressed urgent changes to support collective agreements, suggesting options like clearer arbitration triggers, expanded appeals, or direct court access if arbitrator selection fails. Marsol clarified the judgment targets the law's structure, not the award itself, and called for refined arbitration scope after conciliation. No timeline is set, pending Superior Court developments and further analysis.

Share the article via