A federal court in Rosario convicted him Nation state To compensate to a lawyer who served in office for almost 17 years Ministry of Economic Affairs under different contractual modalities, assuming that their employment relationship was covered up by Transitional arrangements although these are ongoing tasks of the legal service Condition.
The decision was made by the federal judge Gaston Salmainwho partially upheld the complaint Alternating current and ordered payment of a number of Article compensatory for an amount equal to the amount provided for employees of Permanent investment of the state. In his ruling, the judge rejected the Supreme Court’s key defense proposals Nation state and came to the conclusion that the way the Work link strictly speaking, did not reflect the reality of the work carried out by the plaintiff throughout almost two decades.
According to the resolution he had access to InfobaeThe woman began working for the public administration on May 1, 2000 and maintained this relationship until January 3, 2017, always working as a lawyer Consulting tasks And judicial defense. During this long period, their relationship was implemented in different ways contractual regulationswhat included Service locations, Agreements passed through national universities And successive contracts planned Temporary workersalthough – in the judge’s opinion – the functions performed were typical of the legal service Condition.
The lawyer argued this in her lawsuit these contracts They did not correspond to the reality of their work. He stated that since his entry he had been under a “Dependency and subordination relationship“, receiving direct instructions from the General Directorate of Legal Affairs of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and assuming that a Workload maintained over time. According to him, he completed tasks from Monday to Friday, with long days linked to the number of files they manage.
The verdict found it proven that CA intervened in the defense of the two in the first years of the relationship State interests in cases related to railway companies undergoing liquidation or asset restructuring processes. In this context, he acted in processes related to Metropolitan Railways SA (FEMESA) in liquidation, Argentine Railways And the Ferrocarril General Belgrano SA Companybefore federal and provincial courts and chambers based in Rosario.
Over time, this employment expanded to other areas of the public sector. In addition to the railway cases, there were proceedings against the railways former water and electricity company, EncotesaActions linked to INDECTrials against former banade and the National Savings and Insurance Fundin addition to numerous protection measures and lawsuits brought after the Financial crisis 2001, including the well-known cases of “Playpen“.
The judge reconstructed the various phases of the employment relationship. Between 2000 and 2004, the lawyer provided services in the area Conducting legal proceedings from Ferrocarriles Argentinos and FEMESA under the modality of Location of Servicesowed bill monthly a fixed amount for your work. From 2004 to 2010, the relationship was registered through contracts with various national universities, including those of Saint Martin, Lomas de Zamora, Avellaneda And February 3rd.
As stated in the proceedings, the plaintiff never advised them Study houses and continued to do the same legal tasks for the state. This statement was supported by the Integrated test to the file. The judgment cited in particular the response of National University of Tres de Febrerowhich reported that “payment for services provided was monthly.” Invoice templateand that “the monthly amount was from $4,000For the judge, this modality proved the continuity of provision and the absence of a “temporary or contingent character” of the services.
Since May 1, 2010, the link has been formalized by Rental agreements of services in accordance with Article 9 of the Law 25.164that regulates it national public employment. At this point Alternating current received his remuneration through receipts issued by him Ministry of Economy and Public Finance. This was stated in a contract signed in 2013 and submitted as evidence provide services as Legal advisor with “Dedication from 100%, 40 hours weekly” and that he had to respond to the instructions of the General Directorate of Legal Affairs.
The relationship officially ended in early 2017. In a letter document On January 3 of that year, the state communicated its decision to him do not extend the contract and asked him to coordinate the handover of the cases to his person in charge. In the same exchange he was told that he “refrain from acting as an agent” of the ministry.
During the trial, the nation state objected to the lawsuit. As a preliminary defense he raised the lack of utilization of the administrative channels and stated that the plaintiff had not properly activated the judicial authority. He also denied that there was one stable employment relationship and explained that the concluded contracts They have adapted to the current regulations.
The President of the Federal Court 1 of Rosario rejected this initial position after considering that the demand for a Administrative claim Previously it would have been a “useless rigorism“.
According to the matter, that is official defense He claimed the contracts were Location of Services and that the lawyer filed charges Professional fees, no salaries. He also relied on the theory of his own actions, as the lawyer had signed it Contracts and payments received unformulated Objections for years. According to the state, the decision is by don’t renew The link responded to “irregularities in the information provided Legal system and lack of care in the Task performance“.
Judge Salmain rejected all of these arguments after evaluating the evidence presented during the trial. It was proven that the plaintiff worked continuously for the state during this time almost 17 yearswhich performs its own and permanent functions legal service. In his opinion, “it turned out that the link had nothing to do with that Idea of transience” and did not fit into the assumptions for hiring Temporary workers.
In his reasoning, Salmain recalled the doctrine established by the Supreme Court in precedent: “Ramos“, which analyzed the use of fixed-term contracts to cover permanent functions within the public administration. In this sense, it was alleged that the State used them Contract numbers approved for exceptional situationswith force diversion“, with the aim of disguising a stable relationship.
On this basis he came to the conclusion that the Termination of the employment relationship It needed to be economically repaired. However, he made it clear that it was not appropriate to apply the regulation Employment contract law nor order the plaintiff’s reinstatement, but rather recognize a equivalent compensation to what is provided for permanent civil servants.
With the ruling, the nation state was obliged to do so pay compensation according to the best compensation that the plaintiff received during that time last year of service, with interest from January 2017. Fee regulation has been postponed and the decision may be reviewed by the Commission Federal Court of Appeal from Rosario.
About The Author
