notice.
The recent amendment to the Employment Contracts Act relating to work part time, defined as those under which the employee "agrees" to pay services for a certain number of hours per day or week, less than two-thirds of normal working hours of the activity. The new version brings the text to the system of art. 1, 11,544 law that expressly does not refer to the monthly schedule.
At the discretion of Legal Counsel of the Argentina Chamber of Horizontal Property and real estate activities Dr. Enrique Albisu, reform, especially the assumption of overcoming the legal limit would impact on historical ratings of collective bargaining, such as "responsible non-permanent "," helper ½ day "," ½-day security staff, and alternates journalized, putting at risk the interests of collective alarm consortium, for our part, we consider unfounded. Let
separate both sets of skills.
Workers
½ hours.
In line with the principle established by Art. 46, LCT these workers have been hired to work in a time equal to half of managers and permanent assistants and security personnel. So are expressly defined in collective bargaining. This means that the "obligation agreed upon by the worker" is tied at four (4) hours per day, that is, within the legal guidelines below the 2 / 3 of the eight established by law 11,544.
The question of the Circular Concerning the course he was hired "by a special agreement" to work two hours per day, does not transform in any way a contract for "full time", despite anything to the contrary is a reading light inc. 1 "in fine " the new article. This, as far as the "qualification standard" of "half-day" is a benefit for the employee (any limitation of time) and obviously can not be altered in pejus by the employer (art. 12, LCT ), considering the alleged "alteration" as contrary to the principle of irrevocability. From this perspective, its extent, derogatory to the limitation of working-only result in a wage premium (a surcharge of 50% in business hours) and not the outright conversion of the contract, as is the Circular, as that reitérese, could only apply to "benefit" and not "impair" the rights of workers. Such is the obvious meaning of the rule, which would yield in front of a special regulation in the collective agreement, such as building workers.
Taxation to work "six hours" instead of the half-day established in the agreement -Course work on buildings, for example, would be null and void. The statute operates as a mechanism "fraud" when there was a provision in the CST, which protects workers' rights, as in 378/04. As in our case, there is express provision in the collective agreement, the effects of "fraud" of the general rule does not operate. Subtract
weigh suggested in this review as provided in the second paragraph of art. 92 ter (" may not perform overtime or overtime ). This legal provision is merely a labor prohibition referred to in the art. 40, LCT, and as such to the employer to be resolved, as in all cases, payment of premium pay without affecting the validity of the clause. Should be recalled in any event, given the availability of the pieces of work hours in excess of the legal or conventional, there is always the alternative of giving to them by the operator or repeal by the principal. Substitutes
, journalized, etc.
the extent that any substitute will be hired but for four or eight hours, it is virtually impossible that the rule affecting its operation.
journalized In the conventional cap has nothing to do with legal. Far away are the 48 hours law of 18 hours set by collective bargaining historically. The example is solved in reality: if you cross the 18-hour week, will be uneconomical for the consortium have a journalized, the cost of time in relation to time worked, so the course becomes abstract.
Circular 12.
Following is the wording in the Circular of the CAPHAI:
Law 26474: Clarification Circular No. 9
Amendments to article 92 ter of the LCT
As reported in Circular No. 9 January 2009, there has been a change in the art. 92 ter of the LCT, which will obviously entail a direct impact on labor relations in the apartment buildings, especially in the case of NO Charge Permanent Aides 1 / 2 Day, Personal Surveillance 1 / 2 hours, Alternates and Staff
journalized .- By a quick analysis of the issue we have in the inc. 1 of article 92 ter, there was a change from the previous wording, which on the one hand disappears in the first part of the word "month" in the earlier draft
.- So now the first part of this paragraph says "The contract part-time work is one whereby the worker agrees to provide services for a certain number of hours per day or week (before adding "or a month" that the new wording has disappeared) lower than two thirds (2 / 3) of the usual time activity .- In this case the remuneration shall not be less than proportional, which corresponds to a full-time worker, established by law or collective agreement, in the same category or job .- "is added below the reworded as follows "If the agreed working hours exceeds that ratio, the employer must pay the remuneration for a full-time worker.
words, if the worker came to work part-time over the 2 / 3 parts of a full-time worker, you should have to settle the pay like a full-time worker.
Suppose a non-permanent charge in addition to working the 4 pm. daily (Monday to Saturday) by a special agreement was established that daily work 6 hours per day, and it was liquidating two hours but that was like two hours from the issuance of this rule, you should have to basic pay plus no more than two hours with simple work, but from now on, the salary will be a charge PERMANENT.
This same will happen if we with reference to the DEPUTY OF 1 / 2 DAY, who works 4 hours. per day supplant for example to charge non-permanent, and its substitution works 6 hours., he shall pay the wages as if an alternate (full time) and not as a Substitute for '/ 2 hours to 2 hours more simple . In
inc. 2) also have been some changes, which impact on employment.
So it says "The part-time workers may not perform overtime or overtime, except in the case of art. 89 of this law" (here the rule does not change, but then adds the following ) "The limit violation set-time for part-time contract will generate the employer's obligation to pay the salary for a full day for the month in which they had achieved much the same, without prejudice to other consequences arising from the breach "
Examples of the penalty provided for the standard, we can put the case manager did not ask a permanent, working 1 or 2 extra hours such as Sunday to remove debris .- As would be violating the time limit set The part-time worker would be making overtime or overtime, and can surely be reached considering that in this case, and in that month will be not settle as a permanent NO charge, but as a PERMANENT Manager. Dr. Enrique M.
Labour Advisory
Albisu
0 comments:
Post a Comment