C. Nat Trab. , Room 7 meetings, in cars, "Gagliardi, Andrea F v. Axa Assistance Argentina SA "felt that a) because the whole" Tulosai "rule imposed by the alleged fraud, as well as the subsidy paid by the employer without what is monthly based on a performance evaluation system of worker for the purpose of discarding your computer for the purposes of art. LCT 245, by operation of the distribution of the burden of proof, the employer must prove the use of a performance evaluation system of work, detailed and make it known and b) if not proved the existence of a performance evaluation system for the payment of annual bonuses, the amounts paid are not apprehended by the decision imposed by the whole "Tulosai" and should be considered "negative implication", in order to form the basis of art. 245 of the Labor Contract Law.
be recalled that on 19/11/2009, C. Nat Trab., In full, (orders, "Tolusai, Alberto P v. Central Bank of Argentina") established the following doctrine: "1) not for inclusion in the wage base under the first paragraph of Article 245 of TBI, the proportion of the annual salary supplement and 2 °) discarded the configuration of an alleged fraud to the labor law, the subsidy paid by the employer without a monthly basis and based on a performance evaluation of the employee, shall not be counted for purposes of determining the wage base under the first paragraph of Article 245 of the LCT "
The discussion about the nature of the so-called "bonuses" used to occur primarily in cases where the "plus" salary was significantly higher wages. For example, if a worker receives an annual salary equivalent to eight, it is clear that some imbalance suggests a covert way of wage payment, because the "prize" would be a payment actually essential primary rather than a mere supplement. Another example of a certain distortion of the "prize" or "bonus" usually occur when that concept is payable irrespective of the financial results achieved by the worker.
is a case to take into account a recent decision (prior to the plenary). C. Nat Trab. , Room 6 meetings, in cars, "Donadio, F v. Adalberto Santander Sociedad de Bolsa SA (04/03/1909) stated that: 1) if the remuneration paid for out of the monthly salary, and at different times almost double that salary, it is evident that, for reasons of convenience, the employer has delayed payment of wages who make day to day and 2) may not be at the discretion of the employer to determine the base remunerative art. 245.
In light of how it was established that the whole doctrine and the solution reached by the delivery of the C. Nat Trab., Room 7 th this seems to have been expressly left open the door to enter pose in that regard.
be recalled that on 19/11/2009, C. Nat Trab., In full, (orders, "Tolusai, Alberto P v. Central Bank of Argentina") established the following doctrine: "1) not for inclusion in the wage base under the first paragraph of Article 245 of TBI, the proportion of the annual salary supplement and 2 °) discarded the configuration of an alleged fraud to the labor law, the subsidy paid by the employer without a monthly basis and based on a performance evaluation of the employee, shall not be counted for purposes of determining the wage base under the first paragraph of Article 245 of the LCT "
The discussion about the nature of the so-called "bonuses" used to occur primarily in cases where the "plus" salary was significantly higher wages. For example, if a worker receives an annual salary equivalent to eight, it is clear that some imbalance suggests a covert way of wage payment, because the "prize" would be a payment actually essential primary rather than a mere supplement. Another example of a certain distortion of the "prize" or "bonus" usually occur when that concept is payable irrespective of the financial results achieved by the worker.
is a case to take into account a recent decision (prior to the plenary). C. Nat Trab. , Room 6 meetings, in cars, "Donadio, F v. Adalberto Santander Sociedad de Bolsa SA (04/03/1909) stated that: 1) if the remuneration paid for out of the monthly salary, and at different times almost double that salary, it is evident that, for reasons of convenience, the employer has delayed payment of wages who make day to day and 2) may not be at the discretion of the employer to determine the base remunerative art. 245.
In light of how it was established that the whole doctrine and the solution reached by the delivery of the C. Nat Trab., Room 7 th this seems to have been expressly left open the door to enter pose in that regard.
