At major logistics and maritime hubs such as the Port of Las Palmas and Santa Cruz de Tenerife, the temptation to gain operational flexibility by outsourcing services directly collides with one of the greatest risks under employment law: the illegal assignment of workers. A recent ruling by the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands concerning the management of spare parts for Naviera Armas and Randstad (Judgment No. 790/2026) sets out a clear roadmap for corporations seeking to decentralize processes without engaging in an abuse of the law.
The court ruling reveals that the dividing line between a legitimate business succession and labor-only contracting prohibited under Article 43 of the Workers’ Statute does not depend on ownership of the major assets, but on the effective exercise of managerial authority over employees. For operations directors, legal advisers and compliance officers, the Gran Canaria case offers essential guidance for structuring outsourcing arrangements that can withstand potential claims of illegal assignment.
The key foundation for maintaining a lawful contract is the presence of the contractor’s own management and the genuine exercise of managerial authority. The most common mistake in service contracts is for supervisors at the client company to issue direct orders to the supplier’s staff. To avoid this problem, the contractor must establish and maintain its own hierarchical structure at the workplace. In the dispute resolved by the Canary Islands court, the appointment of an internal coordinator at the warehouse and the presence of a consultant from the contractor proved decisive in validating the autonomy of the operation, as these middle managers were responsible for assigning shifts, organizing work schedules and evaluating the employees’ daily performance.
When coordinating daily operations, it is essential to distinguish conceptually and factually between technical instructions and genuine employment-related orders. It is entirely legitimate for the principal company to communicate its business needs, requesting, for example, that a specific spare part be available for a vessel at a given time. However, a violation occurs if personnel from the principal company address an outside worker directly to assign a task, instruct them on how to operate machinery or change their position. Case law supports the client’s right to specify what must be done and when, but requires decisions about how it is done and by whom to be made by the contractor’s coordinator.
Attendance monitoring, management of breaks and internal discipline represent another decisive factor before the courts. The genuine assumption of the role of employer must be demonstrated through tangible organizational actions. The implementation of the contractor’s own operating methods—such as a QR-code clock-in system, internal monitoring checklists or the unilateral modification of shift schedules to ensure that staff receive adequate rest—demonstrates the existence of a genuine employer. If the client company is the one authorizing leave, approving vacations or managing absences, the presumption of illegal assignment becomes virtually irrefutable.
There is also a widespread misconception that the contractor must own all the tools and fixed facilities in order to avoid unlawful labor intermediation. The regional high court’s ruling makes clear that, in auxiliary services, it is common and legitimate to lease warehouses, forklifts or furniture from the commissioning company itself. Even the use of corporate software applications, such as the SAP system, through a lease is valid in commercial practice. Nevertheless, the supplier must provide distinguishing elements that demonstrate its organizational capacity, such as its own corporate uniforms, a branded vehicle fleet, direct management of fuel cards and the provision of personal protective equipment (PPE).
Finally, the contractual arrangements between the two companies must transparently reflect the allocation of responsibilities and risks. The inclusion of clauses under which the commissioning company and the contractor agree to share future compensation costs proportionally according to the length of service of the transferred workforce does not constitute evidence of employment-law fraud. The judges confirmed that such provisions reflect standard commercial agreements intended to balance employment liabilities in long-term outsourcing operations. The lesson from the Las Palmas port complex is unequivocal: only the comprehensive assumption of human, organizational and managerial responsibilities can ensure full legal certainty in logistics outsourcing processes.
The article Vessel Operations Management: How a Baleària Subsidiary in the Canary Islands Defused a Complaint Over the Illegal Assignment of Workers was first published on canarymaritime.com.
