The case concerns a driver identified by the initials F.J.A., who is a member of SINACOAS. The union published his account with his consent and stressed that its description reflected the worker’s version of events.
According to the union, the incident began on 23 July 2026 near Ontígola, when the driver first reported a technical fault to his employer at 17:37.
He was allegedly told to continue driving until the vehicle displayed a warning instructing him to stop because the diesel particulate filter was completely blocked.
Driver allegedly told to continue despite fault
SINACOAS said the company initially promised to arrange roadside assistance after the vehicle stopped. When no mechanic arrived for several hours, the driver reportedly contacted the employer again.
He was then allegedly instructed to continue in the defective lorry at reduced speed.
After more than two hours, he reached Guarromán, where the load was unloaded during the night. He later managed to drive only as far as an unmanned filling station with automated pumps but no shop, catering facilities or other services.
The vehicle then became completely immobilised.
The driver is said to have remained there for more than a day, with outside temperatures above 42°C and no functioning air conditioning in the cab.
Assistance reportedly failed to arrive
SINACOAS claims that the driver repeatedly warned the company about the breakdown and the danger posed by the extreme heat.
According to his account, the employer said assistance had already been requested. However, when the driver contacted the repair service directly, he allegedly learned that the mechanic had not yet set off.
The union said the company did not offer a taxi, hotel room or any other means of leaving the overheated vehicle.
After SINACOAS intervened, the employer reportedly said that further communication would be handled through an external law firm or consultancy.
The driver’s condition allegedly deteriorated gradually until he called the 112 emergency number himself.
At around 20:30, he was taken by ambulance to hospital. According to the union, he remained under observation with symptoms of heatstroke and high blood pressure. He was given medication and discharged at around 23:00.
Union plans to report the case
SINACOAS said it intended to refer the incident to the relevant authorities and called for stronger inspections and tougher penalties for companies that put workers’ health at risk.
However, the union’s statement did not confirm whether a formal complaint had already been submitted, which authority would receive it or whether any official proceedings had begun.
There has also been no publicly reported response from the employer.
The allegations should therefore be treated as one party’s account, rather than as a legally established breach.
What Spanish law requires
Spain’s occupational risk prevention legislation requires employers to provide effective protection for workers’ health and safety in all aspects of their employment.
That duty includes assessing risks, planning preventive measures and adapting safeguards when working conditions change. Employers must also inform workers about hazards and allow them to stop work where there is a serious and immediate risk to their health.
Spanish law does not expressly state that a company must provide a hotel or taxi every time a lorry breaks down.
However, it imposes a broader duty to take effective action to reduce risks to the employee.
During extreme heat, this may include limiting exposure, stopping work, ensuring access to drinking water, rest and a cool place, and arranging medical assistance when a worker’s condition deteriorates.
Spain’s occupational safety institute identifies the prevention of heatstroke as a central objective of managing heat-related risks.
A lorry cab does not remove the employer’s duty
Rules governing conditions in fixed workplaces cannot always be applied directly to a vehicle cab away from company premises.
That does not leave drivers without legal protection.
The employer remains responsible for assessing risks arising from the work and taking suitable protective measures. This includes situations in which an employee is stranded on the road and exposed to dangerous weather conditions.
The decisive issue is therefore not simply that the vehicle broke down, but how the company responded after being told about the risk.
Where a driver reports being stuck in a defective vehicle, without air conditioning or shelter from extreme heat, the employer’s response should not be limited to arranging a mechanic.
It should also consider whether the driver can remain safely at the location, whether water and a cool shelter are available, and whether medical assistance or evacuation is required.
What would British law require?
There is no single statutory maximum workplace temperature in Great Britain.
However, employers remain subject to wide-ranging legal duties to protect employees from foreseeable risks, including heat stress.
Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, an employer must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of employees, write experts at specializedhr.co.uk.
The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 also require employers to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and introduce appropriate preventive and protective measures.
In a case involving a stranded driver, a defective vehicle, no air conditioning, temperatures above 42°C and no nearby facilities, the employer would be expected to assess the danger to the person, not merely the vehicle and cargo.
Leaving a worker exposed to such conditions after being warned of the risk could potentially amount to a serious health and safety failure, depending on the evidence and the steps reasonably available to the company.
Could a driver refuse to continue?
British employment law may also protect a driver who refuses to continue working in dangerous conditions.
Section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 protects employees from detriment in certain circumstances where they leave, propose to leave or refuse to return to a workplace because they reasonably believe there is serious and imminent danger.
The precise application would depend on the facts, including what the driver knew, the symptoms being experienced, the availability of alternative protection and the employer’s instructions.
However, a driver who reasonably believed that remaining in an overheated and immobilised vehicle posed a serious and imminent danger could have grounds to stop work and move to safety.
An employer should not require a worker to continue driving if the vehicle is unsafe or if the driver’s physical condition creates a risk to road safety.
Heatstroke would require urgent medical action
Heatstroke is a medical emergency, rather than simply a matter of discomfort.
Where a worker develops symptoms indicating severe heat illness, the priority must shift from operational recovery to emergency assistance.
In Great Britain, that would ordinarily mean calling 999, moving the person to a cooler place where possible and following emergency medical instructions.
An employer that knew a driver was becoming seriously unwell but continued to prioritise the delivery, vehicle movement or repair timetable could face close scrutiny over whether it had fulfilled its legal duties.
HSE could investigate
The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for enforcing much of Britain’s workplace health and safety law, although the relevant enforcing authority can depend on the activity and location involved.
A union or employee could report concerns where an employer had allegedly failed to control a serious workplace risk.
Investigators would be likely to examine the company’s risk assessment, breakdown procedures, communications with the driver, access to water and shelter, the time taken to provide assistance and any instructions to continue driving.
They would also consider whether the employer had an emergency plan covering drivers stranded during extreme weather.
British law does not automatically require a hotel or taxi after every vehicle failure. Yet depending on the circumstances, arranging transport to a cool location, accommodation, drinking water, roadside recovery or medical help may be necessary to discharge the employer’s wider duty of care.
Breakdown procedures must protect the driver
The incident described by SINACOAS highlights a wider weakness in road transport emergency planning.
When a vehicle fails, companies can focus heavily on the lorry, the cargo and the delivery schedule while overlooking the conditions in which the driver is waiting.
A roadside assistance procedure should therefore cover more than technical recovery.
It should include a rapid assessment of whether the driver has drinking water, shade, a temperature-controlled place to wait, access to toilets and food, and a reliable means of obtaining medical assistance.
During extreme heat, a broken-down vehicle can quickly become a health emergency for the driver.
Only an investigation by the relevant authorities can establish whether the employer in this case breached Spanish law.
The union’s account nevertheless underlines a basic principle that applies in both Spain and Great Britain: managing a breakdown means protecting not only the vehicle and load, but also the person stranded with them.
Cooperation: Agnieszka Kulikowska-Wielgus
