The Argentine Confederation of Medium-sized Enterprises (CAME), the Argentine Rural Society (SRA) and the Agricultural Intercooperative Confederation (CONINAGRO) appeared yesterday before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (CSJN) as amicus curiae in support of Title IV Labor of the DNU 70/2023 “Foundations for the reconstruction of the Argentine economy”.
This title, declared unconstitutional by the National Labor Appeal Chamber and which is being examined by the Court, includes a series of articles that eliminate fines for dismissing workers in some situations.
The business bodies have expressed the need to repeal all the articles that provide for economic sanctions and which according to them “constitute the art main generators of labor disputes in the Argentine Republic”.
Articles 8, 9, 10 and 15 of Law 24.013; 1 and 2 of Law 25.323; and 80 of Law 20.744, in accordance with the text provided by Law 25.345, they stated, “make it difficult to create real employment, putting SMEs faced with the possibility of facing an expense that the company itself is not able to generate The economic sanctions mentioned cause an enormous economic impact, seriously, unfairly and disproportionately compromising companies and society as a whole.
Luago, SRA, Coninagro and CAME declared: “The fines of laws 24.013, 25.323 and 25.345 were the worst legislative policy error in social and economic matters in the history of labor law in Argentina, since they dissuaded employers from ‘take on in a transcendent way.”
The labor chapter of the decree of necessity and urgency (DNU) of economic deregulation 70/2023 was declared unconstitutional by the appeals chamber, which gave rise to an amparo appeal presented by the CGT. Consequently, it declared “the constitutional invalidity of Title IV (articles 53 to 97) of DNU 70/2024, as it is contrary to article 99, inc. 3rd, of the national Constitution”.
In arguments, the court acknowledged “that Vulnerability is a circumstance that affects the person working in a dependent relationship.given its negotiating inequality, and that food rights are at stake – in itself or through its derivatives -, the objective circumstances are configured to believe that the issues introduced – due to their structural quality and quantity – in Title IV of the decree in question results from an essential and specific debate and decision of the Legislative Power.”
The judges did not mince words in underlining that what the Government tried to do with a Decree of Necessity and Urgency, at least in terms of labor law reform, It should have been done through legislative means.
Source: Clarin
