There is no legal distinction between blue-collar and white-collar workers as employment law does not include any classification of workers, although specific provisions or protection are applicable to:
Categories of worker based on the different duties and responsibilities are usually set by collective agreements.
An employment contract is a contract whereby a person undertakes, in return for payment, to work for another person or other persons under their authority and direction. Offer and acceptance are traditional elements of contract formation and are rarely a source of disagreement. The acceptance of an offer may be implied (notably by performance) or expressed.
Employment contracts are not subject to any special form unless otherwise provided for by law. However, the following contracts, among others, must be made in writing:
Terms and conditions of employment need not be expressly agreed and are governed by statutory provisions, collective agreements, work regulations or established practices.
Maximum Working Hours
Regular working hours may not be more than eight hours per day or 40 hours per week.
Flexible Arrangements
Average working hours rules
By collective agreements, regular working time may be defined as an average, within a reference period. In this case, the limits on working hours may be increased by a maximum of four hours, provided the weekly working time does not exceed 60 hours, not including overtime worked for reasons of force majeure. The average working time is calculated by reference to the period established in the applicable collective agreement, but cannot exceed 12 months, or, if the agreement makes no such provision, by reference to periods of no more than four months.
Exemption from the working hours rules
The exemption from working hours rules may be applicable to some specific jobs, such as managerial positions and commercial jobs, as well as to employees working remotely. A proper written agreement is legally required (this agreement can be part of the employment contract, as recommended).
Employees exempt from the working hours rules are entitled to an additional pay equivalent to no less than one overtime hour per day (general law). The additional pay can be paid separately or included in the monthly remuneration – in the latter case, this has to be specifically addressed in the written agreement (or in the employment contract).
Other flexible arrangements can also be set out in collective bargaining agreements (CBAs).
Part-time contracts
A proper written contract is legally required and must contain certain minimum terms. The normal weekly working period is shorter than the one worked by full-time employees. This reduction can be achieved:
Part-time employees are entitled to the same conditions as full-time employees on a pro rata basis, and have the right not to be discriminated against due to their status.
Overtime
Work done over the maximum weekly and daily limits qualifies as overtime. Overtime work is only admissible when requested by the employer if it is needed to face extraordinary circumstances or an increase in workload, or if the work is to prevent or repair damage to assets. However, there are some limits depending on the number of employees and type of contract. A CBA may establish higher ceilings.
Overtime work entitles the employee to additional pay. This is a rate of 25%, of the ordinary hour, during the first hour and 37.5% during the following hours on the normal working days; and 50% on public holidays and rest days.
Overtime worked over 100 hours per year is paid at the rate of 50% for the first hour or part thereof and 75% for each additional hour or part thereof worked on a normal working day; and 100% for each hour or part thereof worked on public holidays and rest days.
Overtime also entitles the employee to time off equivalent to one full day in the case of overtime on a mandatory rest day (usually Sunday). CBAs may establish a more beneficial treatment for the employee.
There is a minimum national salary (EUR920 for 2026) set by law. Collective labour agreements may set out higher salaries in a specific sector, group of companies and/or company.
In Portugal, there are 14 payments, 12 salaries, one holiday bonus and one Christmas bonus. The payment of variable salaries is optional, and companies are free to set out their own terms and conditions as long as they ensure that these are objective and non-discriminatory.
Annual Leave (Holidays)
All employees are entitled to a minimum of 22 working days’ annual leave. During the first year of employment, employees are entitled to two working days for each month of the duration of their contract, up to 20 working days, which may be taken after six months’ full performance of the contract. During holiday periods, employees are entitled to their normal monthly remuneration plus a holiday allowance, typically of the same amount.
Parental Leave
Upon the birth of their child, both parents are entitled to initial parental leave of 120 or 150 consecutive days, to be shared between mother and father. The leave can be enjoyed simultaneously by both parents between the 120th and 150th days.
The leave may be increased by 30 days if each of the parents enjoys, exclusively, a period of 30 consecutive days, or two periods of 15 consecutive days, following the mandatory period of six weeks following the childbirth to be enjoyed exclusively by the mother. In the case of multiple births (eg, twins), the duration of the initial parental leave is increased by 30 days for each child beyond the first one.
Fathers are entitled to take parental leave after birth of 28 days (consecutive or in interpolated periods of at least seven days), within 42 days of the birth (seven of which must be taken immediately after the birth). The paternity leave may be extended for seven more days provided it is taken at the same time as the mother’s initial parental leave.
During the parental leave, the employer is not obliged to pay remuneration, as the Social Security pays an allowance. This period of leave cannot prejudice the position of the woman concerning any of the remaining entitlements, notably those dependent on attendance at work.
Parents are entitled to extended parental leave, up to three months, to be taken after the initial parental leave. Following this extended leave, parents are also entitled to leave within the first two years of the child’s life to provide assistance to the child. There is no mandatory payment of the employer during these leave periods.
Employees with children under 12 years of age or, irrespective of age, with a disability or chronic illness who live with the employee and who are under their care, and employees with the status of non-formal caregivers, are entitled to work part-time or to work under flexible working hours arrangements.
Sick Leave
Employees are entitled to time off from work for illness or injury, which is paid by the Portuguese Social Security protection schemes, provided they meet all the eligibility requirements. The Social Security protection schemes pay sick pay to employees who are absent from work as a result of illness or injury. The employee can receive sick pay for a total of 1,095 days. Sick pay is calculated based on the employee’s remuneration reference for Social Security purposes and varies between 55% and 75% depending on the period of illness.
The sickness leave suspends the employment contract as of 30 days and has no maximum period. Employees have the obligation to communicate absences due to sickness as soon as possible and may be required to present medical documentation proving the sickness. In some cases, CBAs provide specific rules covering employee illness or injury.
Protection of Confidential Information
During the employment relationship, employees are bound by a confidentiality duty. The parties may also agree upon a confidentiality duty after termination.
Portuguese employment law allows restrictive covenants, notably confidentiality, non-competition (and in that context, non-solicitation) and/or minimum stay obligations. The duration of the post-employment non-compete duty cannot exceed two years from the termination of employment.
In cases of employees who hold positions that entail a special level of trust (eg, management positions) or that have access to sensitive information from a competition standpoint, the restricted period can be extended to a maximum of three years. The minimum stay duty can be set at a maximum of three years.
Employees covered by a post-contractual non-compete duty must receive financial compensation during the restricted period. Portuguese law does not set a specific criterion to determine the compensation to be paid during the non-compete period. The Constitutional Court case law follows the understanding that the compensation must be fair, adequate and proportional. This means that the non-compete duty financial compensation must be sufficient to support the employee during the restricted period, taking into account their salary while employed by the company. Although the law leaves the parties some room to establish the time of payment, the purpose of the compensation is to ensure that the employee can obtain a suitable income source during the restricted period. It is therefore recommendable that the payment of the compensation be made on a monthly basis during the restricted period.
If any agreement fails to provide for compensation, or if the compensation is considered insufficient, the agreement will be null and void, and will thus release the employee from complying with it and the employer from paying the compensation. The amount of compensation may be reduced in cases where the employer has expended large sums on the employee’s vocational training.
The remedies for a non-compete breach are limited to the possibility of seeking compensation from the former employee. The burden of argument, and the quantification and proof of the damage, falls solely on the former employer. In many cases, it is quite hard to quantify the damage as the value of information is difficult to measure. In addition, it is quite difficult to prove damage that arises as a result of the employee’s behaviour. In order to mitigate this risk, it is usual for the parties to agree on a penalty award.
Non-solicitation clauses are null and void under Portuguese employment law. No specific penalty is provided in the law concerning these agreements.
In addition, non-solicitation agreements may also constitute a breach of competition law, as this type of agreement is deemed limiting and disruptive to competition and therefore illicit. Companies may be penalised with fines that may amount to up to 10% of the company’s turnover.
In Portugal, personal data processing is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Law 58/2019 of August 8th, which incorporates the GDPR into Portuguese law. When it comes to employees’ personal data, special category data may be collected, processed and used by employers when necessary to meet obligations and exercise rights under employment, social security and social protection law or a CBA.
Portuguese data protection law establishes that the consent given by an employee does not constitute a legitimate legal basis for processing their personal data if such processing results in a legal or economic advantage for the employees, except as otherwise specified by law. However, the Portuguese supervisory authority (the Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados – CNPD) holds that this provision is not compliant with EU law.
Transfers of personal data to third countries in and outside the EU (including Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland) are only permitted if the conditions under the GDPR are met. Furthermore, transfers to third countries (outside Europe) are also permitted if appropriate safeguards (eg, binding corporate rules and standard contractual clauses) are provided by the controller or processor of personal data, and only if enforceable rights and effective legal remedies are available for the data subject. In any case, the transfer of personal data must observe the main data quality principles established under the GDPR:
A proper written contract is legally required when hiring foreign employees, except for citizens from the EU or from a state with which there is a treaty between states. This contract can only be executed after the employee has obtained the proper visa and a copy of that visa must be annexed to the contract – this will not prevent a company from signing an offer letter or a promissory employment contract to be effective after the visa is obtained.
No specific registration requirements apply.
The law allows the full remote working and hybrid regimes (when the employee carries out some days of remote work from their home or co-working space, and on other days works physically on company premises). As a rule, remote work is implemented by written agreement, which shall contain, most notably:
The following categories of employees are entitled to remote work.
The capture and use of images, sound, writing or history, or the use of other means of control that may affect an employee’s right to privacy, are prohibited.
Powers of direction and control over the provision of remote work are exercised, in principle, by means of the equipment and information and communication systems allocated to the employee’s activity, in accordance with procedures previously known by the latter and compatible with respect for their privacy.
The employer is obliged to carry out health examinations at work before the implementation of remote work and, subsequently, annual examinations to assess:
Furthermore, the employer has the duty to evaluate and control the health and safety conditions at work in the place where the employee carries out their activity, and to ensure that it complies with the health and safety conditions set by law.
Employees are entitled to unpaid leave of over 60 days to attend educational or vocational training. The employer can only refuse to grant such leave in the following cases:
Apart from this case, the employee does not have a legal right to take unpaid leave, which means that it will be up to the employer to decide whether or not to grant the unpaid leave.
The unpaid leave determines the suspension of the employment contract. All the rights, duties and guarantees of the parties that do not presuppose the actual provision of work remain in force and the time of suspension is considered for seniority purposes.
There are no new manifestations to mention for this jurisdiction.
Trade union organisations are entitled to the following.
Although not mandatory, the employees of a company may take the initiative to set up the following representative bodies.
Representatives of employees are entitled to time off to perform their duties and may convene general meetings of employees either outside or within working hours (in the latter case, for a maximum of 15 hours a year).
Works councils have information and consultation rights, such as:
At the industry level, CBAs are common in almost all sectors. Since CBAs usually provide more favourable employment conditions than the Employment Code, they will prevail. However, there are some specific matters where the law is mandatory and the CBA cannot overrule them. These matters mainly involve termination of employment contracts.
Employment contracts cannot, in principle, provide conditions that are less favourable than the ones established by a CBA. The parties to a collective agreement may agree that a particular provision is one from which there can be no derogation.
The employer may be entitled to terminate the employment contract by dismissal:
In addition, during the trial period, either the employer or the employee may terminate the contract without prior notice (save if the trial period has lasted more than 60 days, in which case the employer must give prior notice of seven days) or just cause. There is no right to any compensation unless otherwise agreed in writing.
Term contracts lapse at the end of their term, provided the employer or the employee respectively notifies the other in writing of the intention to terminate the contract, 15 or eight days prior to the end of the term.
All methods of termination require compliance with specific procedures provided in the law.
The legal grounds for collective dismissals are as follows:
If the dismissal is made on the grounds of redundancy, the employer must notify its intention, in writing, to the works council (if there is one) or otherwise to either the inter-union committee or the union committees. The notice must contain:
At the same time as the employer notifies the workers, it must also send a copy of the letter and the enclosures to the appropriate department of the ministry responsible for employment that deals with collective employment relationships.
Where there are no workers’ representative bodies, the letter must be sent to each of the employees who may be affected by the collective redundancies. Within five business days of the date of receipt of the initial notice, the employees may appoint, from among themselves, a workers’ representative committee of no more than three or five members, depending on whether the dismissal will cover up to or more than five workers. In the 15 days following the date of receipt of the initial notice, the employee and/or the workers’ representatives may issue a non-binding opinion about the dismissal and propose alternative measures.
If employment contracts are to be terminated, the company must, within 20 days after the initial notice has been received, inform each of the workers who are affected, in writing, of the decision to proceed with the redundancies, expressly stating the grounds for termination and the date of termination of the employment contract.
Only employees who are dismissed on grounds of redundancy or on grounds of failure to adapt must be given notice of termination as follows:
Dismissals without just cause are not permitted. In general, any wilful behaviour on the part of the employee, which, given its significance and consequences, makes any continuation of the employment relationship immediately impossible, constitutes just cause for dismissal.
In particular, any of the following conduct by the employee is deemed to constitute just cause for dismissal:
In order to dismiss an employee with just cause, the employer has to begin a disciplinary procedure against the employee. The procedure starts with the employer addressing a written statement of misconduct to the employee containing a full description of the relevant facts, particularly those that may be considered just cause for dismissal. Within ten working days of receipt of this document, the employee may present a written defence and request that the relevant evidence, such as witness statements, be examined. The employer must accede to the requests made in the written defence, or risk the disciplinary procedure being held invalid.
After conclusion of these proceedings, the employer must make a final decision within 30 days. Should the employer’s decision be of dismissal, the employer pays no compensation to the employee for the termination of the employment contract, except the legal amounts due for such termination and in respect of the pro rata holiday pay and Christmas bonus due.
Employers and employees may terminate employment contracts by means of a mutual agreement. Termination agreements take the form of a document to be signed by both parties, in two originals, with one to remain with each party. This document should expressly include, at least, the date on which the agreement was signed and the date on which it is effective. The parties may agree on other effects, provided these are not contrary to the law.
Should the parties agree to the employee being paid overall pecuniary compensation, it is assumed that they have included all the credits having matured on the date of the employment contract termination or being payable in reason thereof.
The effects of employment contract termination agreements may be revoked at the employee’s initiative by notice in writing within seven days of the date on which they were signed. The notice of revocation of termination will only take effect if, together with the notice, the employee delivers or in any way places at their employer’s disposal the entire amount of the pecuniary compensation possibly paid pursuant to the agreement or by reason of the termination of their employment contract. The revocation notice provisions do not apply to duly dated employment contract termination agreements when the signatures on them have been certified in the presence of a notary.
Any dismissal of pregnant employees, as well as employees who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding and employees with the status of non-formal caregivers, always requires the prior opinion of the equal opportunities authority. If this opinion is not in favour of the dismissal, the employer is only permitted to continue with the dismissal following a court finding of just cause.
In addition, the dismissal of any employee who is a workers’ representative is presumed to be made without just cause.
The employee may apply to the Employment Court for a declaration of unlawfulness of the dismissal. The court should declare the unlawfulness of the dismissal in the following situations:
When a dismissal is declared unlawful, employees are entitled to:
Any sums they may have received as a result of the termination of their employment contract, which they would not have received were it not for their dismissal (eg, unemployment subsidy), will be deducted from this compensation.
In lieu of reinstatement, employees may choose to receive a compensatory award, the amount of which is established by the courts and is equivalent to between 15 and 45 days of basic pay and length-of-service payments for each full year or fraction of a year of service.
If companies have a maximum of ten workers, or if the workers are directors or managers, the employer is entitled to oppose reinstatement provided it can justify that the return of these workers would seriously interfere with and prejudice the normal running of the company. The court must assess the grounds alleged by the employer.
The grounds for anti-discrimination claims include any direct or indirect discrimination that privileges, benefits, wrongs or deprives of any right or exemption from any duty based notably on ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, family situation, economic situation, education level, origin or social status, genetic heritage, decreased work capacity, handicap, chronic disease, nationality, ethnic origin or race, country of origin, language, religion, political or ideological convictions, or union affiliation.
Employees who seek to enforce discrimination rights may lodge judicial claims. They must indicate the employee with whom they consider themselves to be discriminated against. The employer must prove that the different treatment between the two employees is based on non-discriminatory reasons.
Employees may be entitled to compensation and, to the extent possible, to be placed in an equal position with their colleagues compared with whom they consider themselves to be discriminated against.
There are no new regulations with regards to the digitalisation of employment disputes.
The Portuguese judicial system has specialised courts specifically dedicated to labour and employment cases. Portuguese law does not specifically allow class action cases related to employment and labour cases. However, unions are entitled to represent their affiliate works in judicial proceedings seeking to defend collective rights of employees.
In Portugal, arbitration is currently not possible in employment disputes.
Nominal compensation will be awarded to the prevailing party for attorney’s fees incurred, to be paid by the non-prevailing party. This compensation corresponds to 50% of the legal fees and other costs associated with the legal action paid by both parties to the court during the judicial procedure.
Av. Fontes Pereira de Melo, 43
1050–119 Lisbon
Portugal
+351 213 197 300
plmjlaw@plmj.pt www.plmj.com
Portugal’s Employment Market in Transition: Transparent Pay, Borderless Work and the Reform That Really Matters
Portuguese employment law is entering a period in which some of the most important changes affecting employers are no longer driven solely by amendments to the Labour Code. European regulation, the internationalisation of work, technology and a growing demand for transparency are changing how companies recruit, pay, manage and retain people.
The legal framework is being asked to respond to business models and workforce expectations that have developed faster than many of the concepts traditionally used to regulate employment.
Three developments are particularly relevant for companies doing business in Portugal: pay transparency, the rapid growth of Employer of Record arrangements, and the wider debate on labour reform. Together, they raise a broader question: whether Portugal’s employment framework is sufficiently prepared for a labour market that is becoming more transparent, more international and increasingly shaped by technology.
Pay Transparency: A New Corporate Culture, Not Just Another Compliance Rule
Portugal is not starting from zero
Portugal did not transpose Directive (EU) 2023/970 within the deadline of 7 June 2026. A draft proposal was subsequently published and, as at September 2026, the legislative process has not yet been completed. Portuguese employers are therefore still awaiting the final shape of the national regime.
This does not mean that pay transparency is entirely new to Portuguese law. Law No 60/2018 already introduced specific measures aimed at promoting equal pay between women and men for equal work or work of equal value, including the requirement for employers to maintain a transparent remuneration policy based on objective criteria and mechanisms through which unexplained pay differences may be scrutinised by the competent authorities.
The Portuguese transposition proposal builds on that framework rather than creating a separate regime. Its approach is to amend Law No 60/2018 by incorporating additional transparency, information, reporting, enforcement and employee-protection requirements deriving from the Directive.
The real change is therefore not the introduction of equal pay as a legal principle, but the level of transparency and accountability that will surround remuneration decisions. Pay policy will increasingly cease to be an exclusively internal management matter. Employers will need to understand how pay decisions are made, ensure that the criteria used are objective and gender-neutral and, crucially, be able to explain and demonstrate them.
This is not just a large-company issue
It would be a mistake to treat pay transparency as a compliance project relevant only to large corporations. The new framework is intended to apply broadly across the employment market, although the size of the organisation will remain relevant to the scope and intensity of certain obligations.
The number of employees may affect matters such as pay reporting and its frequency, disclosure of certain pay-progression criteria and the circumstances in which more detailed pay assessments may be required. Larger employers are therefore likely to face a more demanding reporting and monitoring framework, but smaller organisations should not assume that they fall outside the new transparency requirements.
This is particularly relevant in Portugal, where small and medium-sized businesses represent a significant part of the corporate landscape. For many organisations, the main challenge will not be producing formal reports, but ensuring that remuneration decisions, job structures and progression criteria can be objectively explained.
Transparency will therefore become part of the way remuneration is managed regardless of headcount. Companies will increasingly need to understand why employees are paid differently, whether those differences can be objectively justified and whether the criteria used are applied consistently.
Resistance is not a strategy
Simply resisting transparency is unlikely to be a viable strategy. The direction of European and Portuguese regulation is clear, and Portugal already has an enforcement structure capable of using remuneration data to identify potential disparities. The existing framework already requires transparent remuneration policies and allows unexplained pay differences to have significant legal consequences.
The consequences of non-compliance also go beyond ordinary labour fines. Law No 60/2018 already provides for labour offences and ancillary sanctions in certain circumstances, while the draft transposition would reinforce the sanctions regime, particularly in cases of repeated infringements. Measures may include the loss of tax and financial incentives or public benefits, restrictions on access to public procurement procedures and mandatory training on pay transparency.
For businesses that depend on public contracts, investment incentives or public support, pay transparency can therefore move from an HR issue to a matter of corporate risk, governance and access to business opportunities. Early preparation is consequently more effective than waiting for an employee request, an inspection or a reporting deadline.
A first pay-transparency review should focus on:
• mapping the functions actually performed within the organisation and identifying work that is the same or of equal value;
• analysing total remuneration rather than basic salary alone;
• identifying unexplained pay patterns and historical inconsistencies;
• reviewing the criteria used for remuneration, performance assessment and career progression;
• assessing whether those criteria are objective, gender-neutral and consistently applied;
• ensuring that remuneration data is complete, structured and capable of being analysed; and
• preparing HR teams and managers to explain and apply the organisation’s remuneration policy consistently.
The starting point should therefore be a clear diagnosis of the organisation’s current position: its functions, remuneration, progression criteria, processes and underlying data. Inaction is not a neutral option; the earlier organisations understand their own remuneration structures, the easier the transition to greater transparency is likely to be.
From compliance obligation to competitive advantage
Pay transparency should not be viewed only through the lens of compliance and sanctions. In a labour market in which employees increasingly expect clarity about how they are paid and how they can progress, a coherent remuneration structure can become a competitive advantage.
Transparency does not mean that every employee must earn the same amount. It means that differences in remuneration should have an objective and explainable basis. An organisation capable of explaining what it values, how remuneration is determined and what an employee needs to do to progress can offer something an opaque salary system cannot: clarity and predictability.
This may become increasingly relevant to attraction and retention. For employers competing for qualified professionals, well-designed remuneration and progression structures can become part of their ability to attract and retain talent. The reform may therefore provide an opportunity to improve job architecture, performance management and career progression, while addressing inconsistencies that might otherwise have remained hidden.
The data challenge – and the AI opportunity
One of the most demanding aspects of the new framework will be the practical application of the concept of “work of equal value”. Although the principle is not entirely new to Portuguese and European equal-pay law, the new transparency framework will give its practical implementation much greater importance.
The exercise goes well beyond comparing employees with the same job title or professional category. Organisations will need to identify comparable roles by reference to objective factors such as skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions. In complex organisations, building those comparison groups may become one of the most resource-intensive parts of the entire exercise.
That challenge is inseparable from data. Employers will need to combine information on functions, remuneration components, career levels, responsibilities and progression criteria across potentially large populations of employees. In many organisations, that information is dispersed across different systems or has never previously been structured for this purpose.
Artificial intelligence and advanced data-analysis tools are therefore likely to become increasingly relevant. They may assist with mapping functions, identifying potential comparison groups, analysing remuneration patterns and detecting disparities that require closer examination, particularly where the volume and complexity of the data make purely manual analysis impractical.
Technology will not replace legal and human judgment. Determining whether roles are genuinely of equal value, or whether a pay difference is objectively justified, requires an understanding of the work actually performed and of the organisational context. AI should therefore support, rather than determine, those assessments. The scale of this transformation may also create new products, services and business opportunities.
Transparency is coming – preparation is the choice
The central question for Portuguese employers is no longer whether pay transparency will affect them. For most organisations, in one form or another, it will.
The choice is whether transparency arrives as an externally imposed compliance exercise or whether the company uses the period before the new regime is fully implemented to understand its remuneration system, correct inconsistencies and define defensible rules for the future. Employers that prepare early will be better placed both to comply and to compete for talent in a market in which remuneration decisions will increasingly be expected to be fair, understandable and capable of explanation.
Borderless Work, National Rules: The Rise of Employers of Record
A global model without a Portuguese legal home
The internationalisation of work is changing not only where employees work, but also how companies hire them. Employer of Record (EOR) arrangements have become an increasingly common way for international businesses to recruit employees in countries where they do not have a local entity. Typically, a Portuguese EOR enters into the employment contract and assumes the formal role of employer, while the employee works for and is integrated into the business of a foreign company.
The commercial logic is easy to understand. EOR arrangements can provide a fast route into a new market, facilitate access to talent across borders and avoid the immediate need to establish a local corporate presence. The legal position is less straightforward: Portuguese employment law does not specifically regulate the EOR model.
Portuguese law does regulate other situations in which the contractual employer and the entity benefiting from the work do not fully coincide, including temporary agency work and the occasional assignment of employees. Those regimes, however, were designed for different circumstances. The result is a model increasingly used in practice without a dedicated framework defining the role and responsibilities of each participant.
Who is the employer in practice?
That gap matters because Portuguese employment law attaches importance to the reality of the relationship, not only to the contractual labels chosen by the parties. In an EOR structure, one entity may sign the employment contract while another selects the employee, integrates them into its organisation, defines objectives and supervises the work.
The analysis may therefore require asking:
• Who recruits and selects the employee?
• Who gives day-to-day instructions and defines objectives?
• Who determines working arrangements and approves leave?
• Who evaluates performance and influences remuneration or progression?
• Who exercises disciplinary authority?
• Who ultimately decides that the role should be created, changed or eliminated?
These questions help determine whether the contractual allocation of responsibilities reflects the reality of the employment relationship. The greater the distance between the formal employer and the entity actually directing and managing the employee, the greater the legal uncertainty surrounding the arrangement. An EOR should therefore be understood as an employment structure, not merely a payroll or administrative solution.
When the model is tested: termination
Termination is where those tensions may become particularly visible. A recent case before the Porto Labour Court concerned an employee formally hired in Portugal through an EOR structure but working exclusively for a foreign technology company. The dismissal, based on the alleged elimination of the employee’s position, was declared unlawful because the reasons provided were insufficiently specific to satisfy the requirements of Portuguese law.
The broader significance of the case remains open. At this stage, the decision has addressed the lawfulness of the dismissal, but the proceedings may still raise wider questions concerning the legal characterisation of EOR arrangements and the allocation of employer responsibilities under Portuguese law. The case may therefore contribute to the emerging Portuguese legal discussion around the model.
The case also illustrates a practical difficulty where the commercial decision is taken abroad but the Portuguese entity must legally implement it. If the foreign business decides that a role is no longer required, the EOR still needs sufficient factual information to support a legally compliant procedure. A disconnect between the entity making the business decision and the entity implementing the employment decision can itself create risk.
A relevant model in a legal framework not built for it
EOR arrangements respond to a genuine development in the labour market. Companies increasingly recruit across borders, employees work as part of international teams and establishing a local corporate presence may not always be proportionate, particularly where only a limited number of employees are involved. In that context, the EOR model can provide a practical response to the growing internationalisation of employment.
The difficulty is that employment legislation has not evolved at the same pace. Portuguese law does not currently recognise the EOR as a specific legal model, and the existing rules governing employment relationships involving more than one entity were designed for different circumstances. The legal framework therefore does not provide a clear answer to all the questions that these structures may raise.
Particular care is therefore required when using EOR arrangements in Portugal. Their legal treatment must be assessed in light of the mandatory rules of the jurisdictions involved and, in particular, of how the employment relationship operates in practice.
Until a clearer framework develops, questions may remain regarding the legal characterisation of the relationship and the allocation of employer responsibilities. As cross-border employment continues to expand, Portuguese law may ultimately need to address these structures more directly.
Labour Reform: Portugal Needs More Than Another Labour Code Amendment
The debate is bigger than the Labour Code
Portugal’s recent debate on labour reform again placed amendments to the Labour Code at the centre of attention. The Government’s broad reform proposal did not obtain parliamentary approval in June 2026, but the more important question remains: what does the Portuguese labour market actually need from a reform?
The traditional debate tends to start with the Code itself: which rules should become more flexible, which protections should be reinforced and which provisions should be amended. Those questions matter, but they are not sufficient. Some of the main obstacles to better-paid, more productive and more adaptable employment in Portugal lie partly outside employment legislation.
A meaningful reform should therefore address four connected priorities:
• improving productivity, as the basis for sustainable wage growth and stronger business competitiveness;
• making work pay, by looking at the gap between the cost borne by the employer and the additional income effectively received by the employee;
• preparing workers for the jobs and skills that will be required in the future, rather than treating professional training primarily as a formal compliance obligation; and
• creating legal certainty for innovation and new ways of hiring and organising work, so that employment law can respond to changing business and technological realities.
Productivity: the issue behind the debate
Portugal has faced a persistent productivity challenge. Recent OECD analysis continues to identify a significant gap in labour productivity compared with other advanced economies. This matters because sustainable improvements in wages and working conditions ultimately depend on the ability of businesses to generate more value.
Labour reform should therefore also ask how the employment framework can contribute to higher productivity. Greater flexibility in the organisation of work, investment in technology, better management practices and stronger skills can all play a role. The objective should not be to obtain more work from employees, but to create the conditions for more productive work and greater value creation.
Productivity also connects the other priorities. Higher productivity creates greater capacity to improve remuneration; skills are essential to productivity growth; and innovation will only generate value if companies can adopt new technologies and organisational models within a workable legal framework.
Make work pay
A debate about improving salaries cannot disregard the taxation of employment. From the employer’s perspective, increasing remuneration may represent a considerably greater cost than the additional amount that ultimately reaches the employee after tax and social contributions.
This matters to both sides of the employment relationship. Businesses may face a substantial increase in employment costs while employees perceive a much smaller improvement in disposable income. Labour, tax and social-security policy should therefore be considered together if the objective is to improve real remuneration and strengthen employers’ ability to attract and retain qualified workers.
Train for tomorrow’s jobs, not only today’s jobs
Another structural challenge is skills. Artificial intelligence, automation and digitalisation are changing the content of existing roles as well as creating new ones. The ability of workers and organisations to adapt will increasingly influence employability, productivity and competitiveness.
Portuguese employment law already imposes professional training obligations. However, compliance with a statutory number of training hours is not necessarily the same as preparing employees for the transformation of their functions. A system can comply formally with the law while having limited impact on the skills that organisations and employees will actually need.
The focus should therefore move increasingly towards reskilling and upskilling. Employers need conditions that encourage meaningful investment in employees whose roles are changing, while workers need realistic opportunities to develop skills that remain valuable as technology transforms the labour market.
Employment protection should consequently not be understood exclusively as protecting a particular job in its current form. Protecting employability may become increasingly important: preparing people to perform the jobs that will exist tomorrow, rather than only preserving the jobs that exist today.
Regulate innovation without regulating it out of existence
A further challenge is legal certainty for innovation. New forms of hiring and organising work are developing faster than the legal concepts available to regulate them. The same is true of cross-border remote work, artificial intelligence, algorithmic management and other technology-driven changes to the workplace.
The answer is not simply less regulation. Legal uncertainty creates problems for businesses and employees alike: companies need to know which organisational models can be adopted and what responsibilities arise from them, while workers need to know which entity is accountable for their rights and which protections apply.
Nor should every new form of work be forced into legal concepts designed for different economic and organisational realities. A modern framework should preserve necessary protections while providing clear allocation of responsibilities, predictable legal consequences and sufficient flexibility for new models to develop. The challenge is to regulate innovation without regulating it out of existence.
Measure reform by outcomes, not amendments
Ultimately, the success of labour reform should not be measured by the number of Labour Code provisions amended, nor reduced to a binary choice between greater flexibility for businesses and greater protection for workers.
A more meaningful test is whether the framework helps Portugal raise productivity, improve real remuneration, develop and retain skills and adapt to new forms of work. These objectives require labour law, taxation, social-security policy, education and training, technology and competitiveness to be considered together.
Portugal does not necessarily need more employment rules. It needs a framework in which productivity, labour law, taxation, skills policy and innovation work together. The reform that really matters may therefore be broader than the Labour Code itself.
The Next Reform Has Already Started
Pay transparency, Employers of Record and the wider debate on labour reform may appear to concern different legal problems. In reality, they point in the same direction. Employment is becoming more transparent, more international and more dependent on technology, while many of the legal structures used to regulate it remain national and rooted in traditional models of work.
For businesses operating in Portugal, the response increasingly requires anticipation rather than reaction: understanding remuneration systems before transparency exposes their weaknesses, structuring international hiring arrangements around the reality of employer functions, and investing in the skills that technological change will require.
For policymakers, the challenge is broader. The next Portuguese labour reform should not begin and end with the question of which provisions of the Labour Code should be rewritten. It should ask what legal, fiscal and skills framework Portugal needs to create productive, better-paid and adaptable employment in a labour market whose transformation is already under way.
Edifício ICON Douro
Rua Manuel Pinto de Azevedo
No 106-126
Piso 1 – Q1 e Q4
4100-320 Porto
Portugal
+351 223 166 418
dower@dower.pt www.dower.pt