Judiciary Strengthens Legal Protection for Long-Term Workers

The Judicial Power issued a new criterion for cases in which a reinstatement demand promoted by a worker was distorted by means of a notarial deed. Specialists agree that the resolution reinforces the job stability for people who have been in a company for many years.

The Second Collegiate Court of the Seventeenth Circuit resolved that in a trial where the person has many years of service and argues a unfair dismissalthe claim cannot be disproved through a notarized record of facts.

“The Board must deviate from the formal result obtained from the record of facts drawn up by a notary public and carry out a verisimilitude judgment, if it notices that the worker had many years of service with the defendant company and with that it intends to distort the unjustified dismissal that he alleges ”, determined the court in the criteria published in the Judicial Weekly of the Federation.

As it is an isolated thesis, it does not yet have the scope of a jurisprudence, but it does set a precedent for new cases. According to Diego García Saucedo, managing partner of the firm García Vázquez Abogados, this criterion becomes much more relevant in the new labor justice system.

“This criterion is setting a very important guideline for us: we must forget about hiring private notaries to certify something in the event of a contentious process and rather, reinforce labor relations areas, obtain truly reliable administrative acts or internal investigations, basing ourselves more on internal processes. It marks consistency with the labor reform because litigation will have to be of higher quality. We can no longer do labor relations as we have been doing,” said the specialist.

Through the resolution, the collegiate court warned that in cases of long-serving workers, a notarized act is not sufficient element to deny reinstatement to the person who argues an unjustified dismissal. On the other hand, other aspects must be taken into account, such as the employee’s own manifestation of keeping his job.

“It would be contrary to logic for this type of employee to stop working from one day to the next, with the damage that this entails, such as the loss of their labor rights. acknowledgment of seniority, the increase in vacation days granted based on years of service, the payment of seniority and vacation premiums, contributing to social security to obtain a possible pension, etc.; especially, if with different means of proof the intention of the worker to continue with the employment relationship is proven, ”the court detailed in its resolution.

For Carlos Ferran, managing partner of the firm Ferran Martínez Abogados, this criterion is in line with “the enhanced job stability”, a concept that is used in the union of labor lawyers and is linked to article 161 of the Federal Labor Law (LFT).

“What this article establishes is that people who have a age of 20 years or more, in order to terminate them, only a cause of article 47 will not suffice, but a serious situation must arise or one that makes the continuation of the employment relationship impossible. It is somehow an additional protection for people who have been in service for more than 20 years”, explained the specialist.

Diego García agreed on this, although the criterion issued by the court does not cite article 161 of the LFT, it is consistent with the protection provided by the norm.

Protection of seniority needs to be rethought

From the perspective of Carlos Ferran Martínez, the criterion is also a call to reflect on the antiquity protection provided by labor law. “Protection is good, but it must be accompanied by a productivity standard and reduce the years by half, because who is going to last 20 years in a company, you have to be more sensible in that.”

For his part, Diego García explained that the worker terminations with a lot of seniority usually represent a financial contingency for companies, especially due to the seniority premium. This, to a large extent, has motivated them to be more prone to a cut before reaching 20 years of service.

However, the specialist stressed, the court sets a precedent: the practices of the past, not because they have worked, means that they are good. In this sense, presenting a notarized record of facts where it is ensured that the worker incurred in a serious fault, it is a tool that loses weight because it only attests to the employer’s version, but does not reflect the voice of the worker.

“This criterion shows us that there are no longer magic recipes, we are going to have to become more specialized in Human Resources areas and labor relations so as not to use recipes from a thousand years ago. It implies an evolution in the sense of presenting the evidence, not falsifying it,” said Diego García.