Labour and Social Security Inspectorate (Spain)

What is the Labor and Social Security Inspectorate?

The Labor and Social Security Inspectorate (ITSS) is the public authority that monitors compliance with social regulations in companies. Its establishment dates to the Regulation of 1 March 1906, and it is now structured as an integrated system comprised of the State Labor and Social Security Inspectorate, attached to the Ministry of Labor, with the participation of the autonomous communities, which have executive authority in matters of occupational risk prevention. Law 23/2015 regulates its organization, functions, the powers of its officials, and the guarantees for individuals and companies inspected.

Inspection is performed by Labour and Social Security Inspectors, who have public-authority status, and Labour Sub-Inspectors within their competence, who are agents of the authority. Articles 13 and 14 of Law 23/2015 regulate their powers. Unannounced entry remains subject to applicable safeguards, including express consent or judicial authorisation where the workplace coincides with an individual’s home.

In occupational risk prevention, the ITSS collaborates with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and with the technical bodies of the autonomous communities, whose authorized technicians can carry out checks of material conditions and requirements in accordance with article 9.2 of Law 31/1995 and Royal Decree 689/2005. The Inspectorate also provides advice and, under Article 12.3 of Law 23/2015, conciliation and mediation accepted by the parties, and arbitration where expressly requested by them or provided for by law.

Functions in occupational risk prevention

• Monitoring and control. Verification of compliance with preventive regulations: risk assessment, planning, preventive organization, training, health surveillance, equipment, workplaces and coordination of activities.
• Requirements. When it finds non-compliance, it may require the company to rectify the situation within a certain period before or together with the start of the sanctioning procedure (Article 43 of Law 31/1995).
• Stoppage of work. In the face of a serious and imminent risk to safety and health, it may order an immediate stoppage of the affected work. It informs the company and refers the decision to the labour authority; the company immediately notifies affected workers and their representation and confirms that notification to the Inspectorate (Article 44).
• Infringement reports. The sanctioning procedure is initiated by means of a report with a presumption of certainty, in accordance with the LISOS and Royal Decree 928/1998, with a proposed graduated sanction.
• Accident investigation. Reports fatal, very serious or serious work accidents and occupational diseases to the labor authority, and proposes, where appropriate, a surcharge on benefits.
• Advice and campaigns. It informs and advises companies and workers on the most effective way to comply with regulations and develops campaigns planned by sector and risk.

How an inspection operation unfolds

• Origin. The ITSS acts on its own authority for the reasons in Article 20 of Law 23/2015, including a complaint. The right to complain is public, while its source is confidential. Filing does not itself confer interested-party status during investigation, without prejudice to statutory information rights and possible status in subsequent proceedings.
• Visit or appearance. Entry into the center without prior notice, communicating their presence unless it harms the proceedings; possibility of accompaniment by workers’ representatives, and of requiring appearance with documentation.
• Verification. Examination of documents, interviews, inspection of facilities, sampling and measurement of agents, with the possibility of technical assistance.
• Visit record. A written record of the visit or attendance is made under Article 21.6 of Law 23/2015 and Order ESS/1452/2016, with a copy delivered or sent. Companies are not required to purchase or maintain a Visitors’ Book for these records.
• Result. Warning, requirement, violation report, proposed surcharge, work stoppage or report to the labor authority or the Public Prosecutor’s Office when there is evidence of a crime.
• Time limit. The verification procedures must conclude within the maximum period set by Law 23/2015, with the possibility of a reasoned extension.

Organizational application: how to prepare for an inspection

1. Keep the preventive documentation required by Article 23 of Law 31/1995 up-to-date and accessible: prevention plan, risk assessment, planning, periodic controls, health surveillance and list of accidents and occupational diseases.
2. Having evidence of information and training, delivery of PPE, coordination of activities, equipment reviews and preventive organization.
3. Designate the people who will attend the Inspection and establish a protocol of action during the visits, with the participation of the worker safety representatives.
4. Address the requirements within the deadline, document the measures taken, and communicate the correction.
5. Handle infringement reports and work stoppages with legal advice, respecting the deadlines for allegations and appeals.
6. Analyze the Inspection campaigns in the sector to anticipate the aspects that will be subject to verification.
7. Use inspection activities as a source of improvement to the preventive system, not just as a matter of compliance.

Preventive management software can centralise documents, retrieve and export existing records and help track deadlines. It does not replace physical checks or permit the manufacture of retrospective evidence of actions that were not performed.

Limits and common mistakes

1. Preventing or hindering the inspection process constitutes an obstruction offense under the LISOS law.
2. Not having up-to-date preventive documentation or submitting generic assessments that do not reflect the actual jobs and tasks.
3. Ignoring requirements or remedying them without leaving documentary evidence.
4. To confuse the actions of the Inspection with those of the qualified technicians of the autonomous communities or of the prevention services.
5. Consider that hiring an external prevention service covers the obligations required during the visit.
6. Ignoring the right of workers’ representatives to accompany the inspector and to be informed of the outcome.

The powers and procedures detailed are in Law 23/2015 and its implementing regulations; this sheet is for informational purposes.

Regulatory and reference framework

• Law 23/2015, of July 21. Regulating the Labor and Social Security Inspection System: organization, functions and powers.
• Law 31/1995, articles 9, 43 and 44. Functions of the Inspection in prevention, requirements and work stoppage.
• Royal Legislative Decree 5/2000 (LISOS) . Infringements and penalties in matters of occupational risk prevention and obstruction of the inspection work.
• Royal Decree 928/1998, of May 14. General regulations on procedures for imposing sanctions for social order infringements.
• ILO Convention 81 (1947) . Convention concerning Labour Inspection in Industry and Commerce.
• State Agency for Labor and Social Security Inspection . Official website: campaigns, technical criteria, complaints and procedures.

Royal Decree 138/2000 approves the Regulation of Organization and Operation of the Inspection and Royal Decree 689/2005 regulates the actions of the authorized technicians of the autonomous communities; the Inspection publishes technical criteria on the application of the preventive regulations.

Receiving a visit: identification, cooperation and participation

Reception arrangements should quickly locate someone familiar with the site without making their absence a barrier to inspection. Spain’s Law 23/2015 permits unannounced visits and establishes duties of cooperation. The general rule is that the official identifies themselves and communicates their presence, subject to the statutory exception concerning the success of the inspection. The company should provide truthful information and access within applicable powers, avoiding deliberate delays, concealment or instructions intended to influence what people say about the work.

Entry into a workplace coinciding with an individual’s home requires express consent or judicial authorisation under Article 13.1. That safeguard does not turn every business office into a private home or permit a general requirement for an appointment. A genuine question about the scope of an action should be raised specifically through the appropriate channel, maintaining required cooperation rather than replacing legal assessment with automatic refusal. The distinction concerns the legal circumstances of the premises, not a label applied at reception.

Preventive inspections involve participation under Article 40 of the Occupational Risk Prevention Law: communication to the employer and relevant worker representation so they can accompany the visit and make observations, subject to the legal exception. Visits may involve interviews, physical checks and documents. The company contact helps locate people and records but should not present a coordinated narrative as a substitute for facts or prevent workers from communicating what they know. Cooperation and the ability to make observations are complementary.

Preparing and supplying records without manufacturing evidence

A useful file connects each request to the particular document, date, version, scope and responsible person. The assessment should match the location and tasks examined; maintenance, information, training and coordination records should allow actual actions to be verified. Access to health and other personal data must respect statutory powers and applicable confidentiality. Preparing for an inspection is not a reason to circulate clinical histories among all internal contacts. Relevant records should be supplied through the appropriate authorised channel.

Keep a list of items supplied, the channel used and evidence of delivery. If a record is unavailable or does not exist, the response should describe that situation truthfully and address the subsequent request as applicable. Software can retrieve records and export existing information; it should not be used to manufacture retrospective signatures, dates or checks suggesting earlier compliance. A corrective measure adopted today should be dated accordingly and distinguished from the condition observed previously, with original records preserved.

Documents and physical conditions should be checked together. A training certificate does not demonstrate that a guard is installed; a single photograph does not prove maintenance throughout an entire period. Explanations should identify the evidence supporting each statement and its limitations. In a hypothetical example, an equipment check performed after the visit may establish correction, but should not be presented as an earlier inspection or replace analysis of why the control was missing. Evidence of improvement and evidence of previous conditions serve different purposes.

Visit record, corrective requirement and work stoppage: different effects

The official visit or attendance record documents the action and may include matters examined, incidents and requirements. Article 21.6 of Law 23/2015 and Order ESS/1452/2016 do not require companies to purchase or maintain visitors’ books for that purpose. A copy delivered or sent to the company must be retained for five years from its issue date. This retention duty should not be confused with the former electronic Visitors’ Book arrangements or presented as an obligation to create new entries there.

A preventive requirement under Article 43 of the Occupational Risk Prevention Law identifies deficiencies and the correction deadline in writing, without excluding a proposed sanction where appropriate. Compliance requires effective measures and evidence of their implementation. Absence of an immediate penalty does not authorise continuation of a deficiency; correction does not automatically erase the earlier infringement. A deadline in an illustrative visit example is not a general time allowance applicable to every workplace or every level of risk.

A stoppage under Article 44 concerns serious and imminent risk and requires immediate compliance. The company must notify the relevant people and evidence that notification. The provision allows challenge before the labour authority within three working days without thereby suspending compliance. It also regulates lifting the stoppage after its causes are corrected and immediate notification to the Inspectorate where the employer lifts it. Neither paying a penalty nor filing an appeal replaces controlling the hazard or meeting the conditions for resumption.

From infringement report to sanctioning decision

An infringement report records facts and proposes their classification and a sanction within the procedure governed by Royal Decree 928/1998. It is not a judgment or necessarily a final penalty. The presumption of accuracy concerns facts established and formally recorded in accordance with legal requirements under Article 23 of Law 23/2015 and Article 15 of the regulation. It admits contrary evidence and does not turn every legal assessment or assumption into an indisputable fact that cannot be challenged.

Article 17 of Royal Decree 928/1998 provides, for the infringement reports it governs, fifteen working days from the day after notification for representations supported by evidence. Before responding, check the document received, effective notification date, investigating body and applicable instructions. A visit communication, corrective requirement, infringement report and decision can involve different steps and deadlines. They should not be treated as one phase or assigned an identical calendar simply because they relate to the same workplace event.

Investigation of the file and the decision belong to the competent bodies under the procedure and allocation of powers. The file should allow representations about facts, the responsible party, infringed provisions, classification and grading where relevant. The final decision has its own appeal and judicial-review routes. Acceptance, early payment or a possible reduction have specific conditions and consequences; they are not automatic recommendations and should not be selected merely by looking at a figure or commercial convenience without assessing the legal position.

Follow-up, safeguards and learning after inspection

A follow-up register should distinguish each preventive measure from each procedural step: owner, deadline, action taken, closure evidence and communication. Legal challenges and preventive improvements can proceed on different tracks. A challenge does not justify assuming every effect of the decision is suspended; its rules and the relevant decision must be checked. Where contractors are involved, the measure must also reach the people and companies affected by changed conditions, including those who were absent during the inspection itself.

The right to complain is public, but this does not mean the source of a complaint can be publicly disclosed: Law 23/2015 imposes confidentiality. Article 20 distinguishes investigation, specified rights to information and possible interested-party status in subsequent sanctioning proceedings where statutory requirements are met. The company should focus on facts and measures without retaliation, and without treating a disagreement as obstruction. The presumption attaching to established facts and rights of defence coexist within the procedure.

Organisational closure examines the causes of deficiencies rather than merely filing the communication. It may require improved planning, resource allocation, supervision or coordination. A documented later check verifies that the change remains effective and reaches all relevant shifts. Absence of further correspondence does not by itself constitute a general certificate of compliance. Preventive obligations continue throughout operations and need adjustment when the workplace changes, even after a particular request has been answered or a proceeding has ended.