The Argentine Labour Court recently decided that the change of the employee’s working hours breached labour laws, since the working hours are an essential term of the employment contract and there was a change from a night shift to a day shift, and considering that the employee had worked the night shift for the last 17 years, the change therefore was to his detriment
Jan
28
2020
Argentina: Mandatory salary increase for private sector workers
A mandatory salary increase must be granted to all employees, regardless if they are under any specific collective bargaining agreement. The increase for each employee was established in AR$ 3,000 (paid with January´s salary) and an additional increase of AR$ 1,000 (as of February), meaning a total increase of AR$ 4,000. Those employees who have a reduced working day, the increase should be granted proportionately. Agricultural workers and personnel of private households are excluded from this measure
Dec
19
2019
Argentina: Employees to collect twice the severance compensation provided in case of wrongful dismissal
The National Government has declared a public labour emergency for 180 days as from 13 December 2019, so till 10 June 2020, entitling employees to duplicate severance for each and every item allowable in cases of wrongful dismissal
Dec
19
2019
Argentina: Is the employer entitled to change the place of work?
The Labour Court ruled that the change of the employee´s place of work breached labour laws, because the employer altered the essential terms of the employment contract to the detriment of the employee. The Court ordered the employer to reinstate the former working conditions and pay damages as compensation, since the employee was a union delegate
Nov
27
2019
Argentina: National Supreme Court ruling clarifies the type of relationship that exists between a medical doctor and a clinic
In a recent decision, the National Supreme Court of Justice overruled the judgement of the lower court and found that the relationship between a medical doctor and a clinic, which lasted more than 20 years, did not constitute a labour relationship and should be considered a civil services contract
Oct
25
2019
Argentina: Mandatory one-time bonus for all private sector employees in Argentina
The Argentine government issued a formal decree, wherein employers are required to pay a mandatory one-time bonus of AR$ 5.000 (equal to USD 85 at the current exchange rate), to be paid in October 2019, to all private sector employees
Sep
28
2019
Argentina: An employee that suffers a drug addiction problem is protected against discriminative dismissal
The Labour Courts of the City of Buenos Aires recently ruled that the dismissal of an employee that was suffering a drug addiction problem was discriminative and therefore, ordered the employer to pay him moral damages compensation
Aug
27
2019
Argentina: Labour Court considers whether an employee, who informally represented other employees before the employer is protected against dismissal as a union delegate?
In this particular case, the Labour Court considered that the employer had the burden to prove that the dismissal of the employee was not related to the employee´s claims against the company and his recent affiliation to the union. The Court ruled that even though the employee was not formally appointed as a union delegate, and consequently could not be afforded protection under union laws, the dismissal was discriminative and therefore null. Accordingly, the employer was ordered to reinstate the employee and pay him moral damages compensation
Jun
25
2019
Argentina: Are surveillance-camera footage valid as evidence before a Labour Court in Argentina?
This case law shows that for surveillance-camera footage to be used as evidence in a court claim, some legal requirements must be met and have to be ratified by other means of evidence
Apr
29
2019
Argentina: Court Holds That An Intern Who Does Not Perform Tasks Related To His College Studies Is Considered An Employee Of The Company
The Labour Courts of the city of Buenos Aires recently ruled that a student who carried out administrative tasks at the collections department of the defendant, is not an intern, and should be considered an employee of the defendant