2023-08-08 14:34:41
The Superior Court of Justice rejected the amparo presented by Unter for the discounts of the days of teacher unemployment.
The highest court ratified a ruling by the Viedma Chamber of Labor and validated the Education decision not to pay those days not attended by teachers who adhered to the measures of force in the 2023 cycle.
In June, the Chamber dismissed the protection of the teachers’ union, which later insisted on to the Superior Court of Justice, which now confirmed that judicial resolution, with four votes in favor and one abstention.
Within the framework of a conflictive start to the school year, the Ministry of Education resolved in March to advance the discounts for days of unemployment, which it applied in several settlements, although, finally, in the July parities, it suspended its application to reach an agreement with Unter.
Initially, the Labor Chamber -with the signatures of judges Rolando Gaitán, Carlos Marcelo Valverde and Gustavo Guerra Labayén- understood that Unter did not demonstrate “that the administrative acts” of Education “have been” carriers of a manifest arbitrariness or illegality, unavoidable requirement for the origin of the direct constitutional action provided for in article 43 of the Provincial Magna Carta».
Before his appeal to the STJ, the Province -represented by the State Attorney, Gastón Pérez Estevan and the attorneys Ignacio and Sebastian Racca- defended the application of the discounts and maintained that there was no “violation of the right to strike”.
In his speech, the Attorney General, Jorge Crespo did not share Unter’s position since “the expression of grievances is not enough.”
The STJ’s position was raised by Judge Ricardo Apcarian, accompanied by Cecilia Criado, Sergio Barotto and Sergio Cecci. The ruling had the abstention of Liliana Piccinini.
In principle, the STJ understood that the position of the Unter “They are only subjective discrepancies with the criteria followed by the decision” of Education and “they fail to undermine its foundations.”
In addition, he stated that “it is not evident” that Unter’s accusation that there was “culpable employer conduct that would justify the strike”, “consisting of the breach of previous joint agreements.”
Then, the judicial court recalls that “for the amparo” to prosper “it must be directed against a notoriously illegal act and harmful to a constitutional right or guarantee, where the illegality must be concrete and clearly visible.”
In addition, “the amparo members did not conclusively demonstrate – it is highlighted – the non-existence or insufficiency of other ways that allow them to obtain the protection they seek.
In relation to “the affectation of the salary and the right to strike”, the STJ recalls its position that “the payment of salaries for the days of strike does not correspond, unless” that the discount originates “in causes exclusively attributable to the employer” and that “Situation could not be established in these proceedings.”
It also states that the International Labor Organization (ILO) “has indicated that the deduction of wages for days of strike does not raise objections from the point of view of the principles of freedom of association.
Finally, it reaffirms the position of the State Prosecutor’s Office that the present conflict “does not constitute an assumption of affectation of trade union freedom.”
1691505479
#Río #Negro #STJ #rejected #protection #Unter #validated #discounts #strikes