-Working in extreme heat, wage security and the worker’s right to refuse work-
This summer, as was the case last summer, much of Europe is experiencing one of the hottest periods in its history. The period between 2016 and 2025 has gone down in the records as the hottest decade.
If it is impossible to escape this reality—which is a direct consequence of the climate crisis—what needs to be done is to establish a legal framework that adapts to it, one that is permanent rather than temporary.
In Europe, the issue is no longer merely a meteorological warning but is being debated as a direct matter of workers’ rights and labour rights. Trade unions, parliaments and governments are striving to produce concrete legal regulations.
Here, however, the same scenario repeats itself every summer: the Department of Meteorology issues a warning, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security bans outdoor work during midday hours for a few days, and the issue is forgotten once the weather cools down. Last summer, around this time, between 24 and 27 July, a ban was imposed only between the hours of 12.00–16.00.
The Law Exists, but Clear and Measurable Rules Are Lacking
Although our legislation does not fully cover the relationship between extreme heat and work, it can be assessed under two separate laws.
Article 36 of the Labour Act No. 22/1992 grants the Ministry the authority to keep workplaces closed for a period to be determined between 12.00 and 16.00 during the period from 15 May to 30 September. However, this article is weak in two respects: firstly, the phrase ‘may determine’, which is entirely at the discretion of the authorities, defines an administrative initiative that is not tied to any objective temperature, or scientific threshold. Secondly, it makes no provision whatsoever regarding what will happen to a worker’s pay should a closure decision be made.
Article 54 of the same Act provides for a separate and stronger mechanism: if a life-threatening hazard is identified at the workplace, the Labour Office may suspend work partially, or entirely, and in such cases the employer is obliged to pay workers their full wages. However, this is not a right of ‘refusal to work’ that the worker can exercise at their own discretion; it is contingent upon the Labour Office’s assessment.
There is also Article 26. Where a worker is unable to work for compelling reasons, the employer is obliged to pay half the daily wage for a maximum of two weeks. This is the closest provision that could be applied to a ‘compelling reason’ such as high temperatures, but when compared to Spain’s model of a fully paid, four-day ‘climate leave’, it is much weaker in terms of both duration and wage protection.
The second law is the Occupational Health and Safety Act No. 35/2008. Article 6 of this Act imposes a general obligation on the employer to protect the health and safety of workers, prevent occupational risks and take all necessary measures.
The key provision, however, is Article 11: “First Aid, Firefighting, Evacuation of Persons and Imminent and Serious Danger.” According to paragraph (4) of this article, the employer must inform employees exposed to imminent and serious danger, take action to ensure they stop work, or leave the workplace and proceed to a safe place, and issue the necessary instructions; whilst the danger persists, employees – with the exception of those specifically assigned to do so – cannot be required to continue working, and employees who leave the hazardous area must not be placed at a disadvantage as a result. It would therefore be incorrect to state that our legislation contains no protection whatsoever regarding the suspension of work.
However, there is a critical distinction here. Article 11(4) does not grant the worker a general and independent ‘right to refuse to work’. The obligation to take action in this regard rests with the employer. The only individual initiative granted to the worker is set out in Article 11(5): in emergency situations where the health and safety officer cannot be notified immediately, the worker may, on their own initiative, act in such a way as to prevent the consequences of the danger — this is a far narrower exception than a general right to say, ‘I am not working today’. Article 17 of the Act, however, imposes only a duty to notify on workers: pursuant to Article 17(2)(C), a worker is obliged to immediately notify the employer, or the occupational health and safety worker representative upon observing a sudden and serious hazard, but the decision-making authority remains with the employer, or the Directorate.
Article 34 of the Act introduces a separate mechanism, parallel to Article 54 of the Labour Act: if a situation posing a danger to workers’ lives is identified, work may be suspended in whole, or in part by the Labour Office, or the workplace may be closed; in such cases, the employer is obliged to pay workers their full wages (Article 34(3)). However, this is also a power subject to the Directorate’s assessment; it is not a right that workers can exercise on their own.
The problem is that no legislation specifies how these general protections are to be applied in relation to extreme heat. Neither the Labour Act nor the Occupational Health and Safety Act defines ‘heat stress’, ‘extreme heat’ or ‘heatwave’. There are no regulations specifying what temperature constitutes an ‘imminent and serious danger’, or whether only air temperature should be considered, or whether factors such as humidity, solar radiation, air movement and the physical demands of the work should also be taken into account. Workers do not know in advance under what conditions they may stop working, employers do not know at what point they are obliged to halt work, and inspectors do not know according to which scientific criteria they should intervene. Furthermore, either there are no regulations governing the relevant legislation, or the existing regulations are inadequate.
Can a worker say, “I cannot work under these conditions”?
Another common shortcoming in the legislation concerns the manner in which the right is exercised. The Occupational Health and Safety Act places the obligation to take action on the employer. The only individual initiative granted to the worker is the ability to act on their own judgement in an emergency where the health and safety officer cannot be reached. Article 54 of the Labour Act, however, grants the authority to halt work to the Department. In other words, it is not made clear anywhere how a worker directly exposed to the hazard can initiate this process on their own. If the employer fails to take precautions, will the worker be able to stop working? In an emergency, will they be able to move to a safe place without waiting for any decision? If a dispute arises between the employer and the worker regarding the existence of a hazard, who will decide on this and within what timeframe? Most importantly, can the worker be certain that they will not lose their pay or their job when exercising this right?
There is a need for clear regulations that not only require the worker to report the danger but also enable them to directly refrain from working in the face of a serious and imminent danger. Because the fact that a right is indirectly enshrined in law is not the same as the worker being able to exercise that right without fear.
The Binding Standard Sought by Europe
This debate is not unique to us. Across Europe, trade unions are using figures to demonstrate that heat stress is no longer an abstract environmental issue but a concrete matter of personal safety. Across the continent, approximately 130 million workers are exposed to heat stress in the workplace; as a result, an average of 230 workers lose their lives each year, and 277,000 suffer health problems, or injuries.
Faced with this situation, European trade unions are calling for a binding law based on scientific criteria, rather than administrative decisions. The ‘wet-bulb globe temperature’ (WBGT) measures the human body’s ability to cool itself. The proposed draft discusses setting temperature limits in the workplace according to the intensity of the work and implementing corresponding measures, carrying out mandatory heat risk assessments, and introducing deterrent regulations for those who fail to comply.
The Spanish model is one of the most concrete and advanced examples in this regard. The regulation, which came into force in 2023, obliges employers to reduce or adjust working hours when the meteorological service issues an orange, or red warning and preventive measures prove insufficient.
By the end of 2024, following a flood disaster that claimed the lives of hundreds of people, a new clause titled ‘climate leave’ was added to the Labour Code: in the event of a serious and imminent risk—including a natural disaster or adverse weather conditions—workers are entitled to up to four days’ paid leave, during which no deductions may be made from their pay. Specific temperature thresholds are also in place for indoor workplaces.
In the United Kingdom, the TUC (Trades Union Congress) is calling for employers to be obliged to take preventative measures when the ambient temperature exceeds 24°C, and for workers to be granted the right to stop work when it exceeds 30°C (or, 27°C for heavy labour). This demand is not merely a theoretical proposal: the ‘Heat Strike’ movement, which emerged following the record-breaking heat of 2022, is expanding further this year and organising nationwide.
What Kind of Regulation Do We Need?
There is a need for separate, clear and enforceable regulations regarding extreme heat and heat stress within the legislation governing working life, particularly the Labour Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Such regulations should, at the very least, include the following: Ultimately, workers’ health cannot be left to the Ministry’s decisions made on a day-to-day basis. It must be clearly established in advance what measures are to be taken when the air temperature reaches a certain level, when work is to be suspended, and how workers’ pay is to be safeguarded.
- Heat stress and extreme heat must be clearly defined; the air temperature as shown on a thermometer alone must not be the sole criterion.
- Scientific thresholds must be established that take into account humidity, solar radiation, air movement and the physical demands of the work.
- The obligation to adapt work in line with these thresholds, provide paid breaks and, where necessary, suspend work entirely must become automatic.
- Access to clean drinking water, shade and cooling areas must be mandatory, and working hours should be shifted to cooler times of the day.
- Additional protection must be provided for pregnant women, older workers, those with chronic illnesses and those performing heavy work outdoors.
- Workers must be granted the right to refuse to work in the event of serious danger, without fear of loss of pay, or dismissal.
- Heat-related illnesses, accidents and deaths must be recorded separately; inspections must be swift, visible and dissuasive.
In conclusion, workers’ health cannot be left to decisions made by the Ministry at short notice. It must be clear in advance what measures will be taken when the air temperature reaches a certain level, when work will be suspended, and how workers’ wages will be safeguarded.
Source: WHO PAYS THE PRICE FOR THE HEAT?
