05/26/2010 was published in the official boletión 26,593 law that Article 255 provides as bis rejoining the LCT, the following:
Section 255 bis: "Repayment Period. The payment of salaries and allowances that may correspond to the termination of the employment contract, whatever its cause, shall be within the limits laid down in Article 128 counted from the date of termination of employment. "
The rule fills a gap in the field, since not a deadline in the LCT for the payment of compensation by the distractors, there was no certainty about the same as that generated controversy in relation to time after which should interest arrears and also in relation to the time after which the worker is entitled to make the injunction provided for in art. 2 of Law 25,323.
It is worth noting that the case majority favored a different solution that sets the new standard, and that the matter had been resolved that the time limits provided for in art. LCT 128. do not apply to the payment of compensation, which should be from the same time the rupture occurred [1] .
also the Attorney General to the House of Labor ruled that the location of the art regulatory plexus. 128, TBI, does not allow its extension to debt payments but is circumscribed to pay debts [2] .
And in general, had resolved that the vocation to the recovery of compensation by the dismissal, born simultaneously with the materialization of extinction, with no waiting time limit for the delay occurs [3] .
Therefore, from the entry into force of art. LCT 255 bis, reviewed the case law is inapplicable here and the late payment of compensation arising from the termination of the employment contract will only come from over the periods specified in art. LCT 128 (3 or 4 days after the distractors as In the case of workers receiving compensation on a weekly or bi-weekly / monthly, respectively).
Similarly, it appears that, from the new rules, you can not claim, as was part of the jurisprudence, that the fact that the actor has made a credible intimation referred to in art. 2, Law 25,323, along with the notice of dismissal does not deprive an effective site for purposes of compliance with the collection that the rule requires [4] .
On the contrary, it now appears that, as the Board is holding 10 meetings of the CNAT, with the order studied in the same submission was untimely rupture for the purposes of access to compensation provided for in art. 2, Law 25,323, and that the site should be performed after the break of the employment contract [5] and add, after the expiry of the deadlines introduced by art. LCT 255 bis.
[1] (C. Nac. Trab., Hall 7 th, 1/7/1999 - Pragmatic SA v. Ministry of Labour
[2] From the opinion of the prosecutor attached to the Nat C. . Trab., that the Board endorses.
(C. Nac. Trab., Hall 1 st, 20/3/2000 - Dre, Alejandra C. v. Fridge Rafaela SA)
[3] (CNAT Room 02.10.2009 IV "Patrick, Gonzalo c / Outlet Group SA)
(CNAT Division III 29/06/2001 "Ortman, Luis c / Multiagrar Horst Meyer, Haenel and others)
(Room VII CNAT 11/11/2008" Very dear, Edgardo c / Assoc philanthropic and charitable French French Hospital)
[4] (C. Nac. Trab., Room 4 ª, 31/10/2007 - González, Diego M. v. BankBoston NA and other)
(C. Nac. Trab., room 2 ª, 17/07/2002 - Franco, Norma B. v. Betman, Daniel and other)
[5] (C. Nac. Trab., room 10 th, 10/2/2006 - Casullo, Eduardo F. v. Automobile Dealers Association of Argentina)
Section 255 bis: "Repayment Period. The payment of salaries and allowances that may correspond to the termination of the employment contract, whatever its cause, shall be within the limits laid down in Article 128 counted from the date of termination of employment. "
The rule fills a gap in the field, since not a deadline in the LCT for the payment of compensation by the distractors, there was no certainty about the same as that generated controversy in relation to time after which should interest arrears and also in relation to the time after which the worker is entitled to make the injunction provided for in art. 2 of Law 25,323.
It is worth noting that the case majority favored a different solution that sets the new standard, and that the matter had been resolved that the time limits provided for in art. LCT 128. do not apply to the payment of compensation, which should be from the same time the rupture occurred [1] .
also the Attorney General to the House of Labor ruled that the location of the art regulatory plexus. 128, TBI, does not allow its extension to debt payments but is circumscribed to pay debts [2] .
And in general, had resolved that the vocation to the recovery of compensation by the dismissal, born simultaneously with the materialization of extinction, with no waiting time limit for the delay occurs [3] .
Therefore, from the entry into force of art. LCT 255 bis, reviewed the case law is inapplicable here and the late payment of compensation arising from the termination of the employment contract will only come from over the periods specified in art. LCT 128 (3 or 4 days after the distractors as In the case of workers receiving compensation on a weekly or bi-weekly / monthly, respectively).
Similarly, it appears that, from the new rules, you can not claim, as was part of the jurisprudence, that the fact that the actor has made a credible intimation referred to in art. 2, Law 25,323, along with the notice of dismissal does not deprive an effective site for purposes of compliance with the collection that the rule requires [4] .
On the contrary, it now appears that, as the Board is holding 10 meetings of the CNAT, with the order studied in the same submission was untimely rupture for the purposes of access to compensation provided for in art. 2, Law 25,323, and that the site should be performed after the break of the employment contract [5] and add, after the expiry of the deadlines introduced by art. LCT 255 bis.
[1] (C. Nac. Trab., Hall 7 th, 1/7/1999 - Pragmatic SA v. Ministry of Labour
[2] From the opinion of the prosecutor attached to the Nat C. . Trab., that the Board endorses.
(C. Nac. Trab., Hall 1 st, 20/3/2000 - Dre, Alejandra C. v. Fridge Rafaela SA)
[3] (CNAT Room 02.10.2009 IV "Patrick, Gonzalo c / Outlet Group SA)
(CNAT Division III 29/06/2001 "Ortman, Luis c / Multiagrar Horst Meyer, Haenel and others)
(Room VII CNAT 11/11/2008" Very dear, Edgardo c / Assoc philanthropic and charitable French French Hospital)
[4] (C. Nac. Trab., Room 4 ª, 31/10/2007 - González, Diego M. v. BankBoston NA and other)
(C. Nac. Trab., room 2 ª, 17/07/2002 - Franco, Norma B. v. Betman, Daniel and other)
[5] (C. Nac. Trab., room 10 th, 10/2/2006 - Casullo, Eduardo F. v. Automobile Dealers Association of Argentina)
