In a ruling handed down on September 15, the Labor Court No. 2 of Corrientes resolved a dispute that exposed common tensions in the world of unregistered work. The judge Héctor Rodrigo Orrantía partially granted the lawsuit filed by a worker against the owner of the dietary products store, and dismissed the action regarding another person reported, who could not be linked as an employer.
The ruling ordered the payment of $435,242.85 plus interest in compensation for dismissal and other labor items, after considering the existence of a dependency relationship proven which was never registered.
The case began when the person fired He demanded payment of more than one million pesos for dismissal, salary differences and fines, claiming to have worked as a stocker and occasionally as a cashier at the dietetic store located in Corrientes capital.
According to his story, he joined on May 23, 2022 and was discharged on August 25 of the same year. through a WhatsApp message sent by the ownerwho informed him that he was terminating his services. The actor maintained that he was never registered and that, after dismissal, he urged his employer to regularize the situation and reinstate him, without obtaining a favorable response.
The lawsuit included details about working conditions: Monday through Saturday, daily payments of approximately $1,800—sometimes supplemented with local products—and the lack of overtime pay when covering other employees.
The defendants They categorically denied the existence of any employment relationship, the ownership of the premises and the authenticity of the documentation presented. Both challenged the documentary evidence and rejected the facts reported by the actor.
The process advanced with the production of documentary evidence, testimonials and computer expertise on the actor’s telephone number. Judge Orrantía focused his analysis on two key issues: the ownership of the premises and the existence of the employment relationship. Regarding the first, the magistrate concluded that the exploitation of the trade corresponded to a person named Flores, based on the exchange of document letters between the parties and his attendance at the administrative hearings before the Undersecretary of Labor.
On the other hand, it was not proven that the other defendant, surnamed Cabral, had the role of employer or that he had received notices or participated in the employment relationship, so The lawsuit against him was rejected.
Regarding the employment relationship, the judge also assessed the testimonies of two people, who claimed to have seen the employee working as a stocker and serving at the premises. The ruling highlighted that “The statements of the witnesses in the proceedings lead to proving the alleged – and denied – provision of services in the place indicated when suing, under dependency and subordination”.
This conclusion was also supported by the legal presumption of article 23 of the Employment Contract Law, which establishes that the provision of services presumes the existence of an employment contract. unless there is evidence to the contrary, which was not provided by the defendant.
The time and manner of the termination of the bond were another point of conflict. The actor maintained that the relationship broke down on September 7, 2022, the date on which he received a negative response to his request for reinstatement. However, the judge considered it proven, based on computer expertise, that The dismissal occurred on August 25, 2022, when Flores sent him a WhatsApp message that ended by saying: “I am aware of your performance, unfortunately we are not comfortable working like this. We are going to do without your service…”. The magistrate stressed that this communication, although informal, constituted a direct dismissal and that its content was “generic and imprecise”, without complying with the legal requirement to clearly express the cause of the dismissal, which made it illegitimate and generated the right to compensation.
The ruling rejected the claims for salary differences from previous months, as they are not sufficiently detailed or accredited, and also dismissed the planned fines in article 80 of the Employment Contract Law and in article 8 of Law 24,013, for not having met the formal requirements, such as the specific notification for the delivery of certificates and notification to the AFIP.
In the liquidation, the judge did recognize the items of compensation for seniority, notice, integration of the month of dismissal, vacations and proportional bonus, calculated on a monthly remuneration of $122,068.25 and taking August 25, 2022 as the date of dismissal. The total amount of the sentence, $435,242.85will generate interest until effective payment.
Regarding the costs, the judge applied a proportional criterion: he imposed 60% on the employer and 40% on the plaintiff, considering that only 39.56% of the original claim was successful and that several items were rejected. Regarding Cabral, the costs were imposed on the actoras no link has been proven.
