Efectos del aislamiento preventivo obligatorio en las relaciones laborales
Cargando...
Fecha
2020
Autores
Cerquera Ferrigno, Emilin
Cabrera Arellana, Lilia
Pérez Angulo, Camilo
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Ediciones Universidad Simón Bolívar
Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales
Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales
Resumen
Desde 1.918 no se habían vivido los efectos de una pandemia, los cuales no
solamente recaen sobre el estado de salud de la comunidad, sino que también
afectan de manera directa, la interacción social, la economía y las relaciones
laborales.
Si bien nuestro sistema jurídico tiene como base el positivismo, no lo es menos que
es imposible reglar en una codificación todas las situaciones existentes y/o que
pudieren llegar a existir en una sociedad.
Por esta razón, el Código Sustantivo del Trabajo y la Seguridad Social, si bien
contempla principios y regla situaciones generales, no contiene disposiciones
normativas expresas que establezcan opciones para los empleadores, que tienen
altas cargas prestacionales, ante la imposibilidad de explotación total de los
negocios.
Desde el mes de Marzo y hasta Agosto de 2020, se ordenó un aislamiento
preventivo obligatorio, el cual tenía como finalidad evitar que las personas salieran
de su hogar, incluso para laborar, hecho que afectó industrias que dependían de la
atención al público o explotación de servicios que no se pueden reemplazar por
actividades a distancia.
Por esta razón muchas empresas, vieron comprometido su patrimonio, al no poder
desarrollar su actividad comercial, y con la única alternativa de iniciar trámites de
liquidación de compañías que eran el resultado de largos años de esfuerzo, toda
vez que suspender o terminar los contratos de trabajo de forma unilateral, de
personal que no podía ser mantenido o cuya labor no se podía ejecutar de manera
remota, no tenían alternativa o solución alguna, por tanto, y sin cuestionar la
pertinencia o no de un sistema positivista en el derecho colombiano, este artículo
busca, establecer si es posible adaptar el supuesto de hecho, aislamiento preventivo
obligatorio, en el supuesto de derecho, artículo 51, numeral 1, del CSTSS.
Como objetivos general se tiene la de interpretar los efectos del aislamiento
preventivo obligatorio en las relaciones laborales como objetivos específicos se
plantea la de describir la evolución del concepto de fuerza mayor y/o caso fortuito
en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema de Justicia; revisar el contrato de trabajo
bajo la pandemia del Covid-19
Este artículo se justifica en la medida en que se puedan establecer cargas,
proporcionales, a las partes, incluyendo los empleadores, ante situaciones que si
no son limitadas por el estado y jurisprudencia nacional, crearan una situación que
podrá causar, incluso el cierre de negocios y el aumento de situaciones de
desempleo.
Pues bien, como resultado tenemos que en efecto es viable la suspensión y/o
terminación de los contratos de trabajo amparados en el artículo 51 del C.S.T. y S.S.
siempre y cuando el mismo se estructure de una forma coherente, demostrando que
es consecuencia directa del hecho.
Es decir, en primera medida se debe indicar que la causa de la fuerza mayor no lo
es la pandemia Covid-19, sino el aislamiento preventivo obligatorio decretado por el
Gobierno Nacional, que como resultado del mismo, la compañía no pudo continuar
operando, o en su defecto se hizo de forma limitada.
cualquier análisis que pretenda ser realizado por los jueces constitucionales, deben
ser contrastados con la realidad nacional y la de la compañía, ya que si bien, la
persona jurídica tiene derechos fundamentales limitados, no se puede cercenar su
posibilidad de desarrollo y continuidad por suplir un deber que en últimas es del
Estado, mediante la imposición de cargas exorbitantes
Since 1918, the effects of a pandemic have not been experienced, which not only affect the health of the community but also directly affect social interaction, the economy and labor relations. Although our legal system is based on positivism, it is no less so that it is impossible to regulate in a codification all existing situations and / or that could come to exist in a society. For this reason, the Substantive Code of Labor and Social Security, although it contemplates general principles and rules, does not contain express normative provisions that establish options for employers, who have high benefit burdens, given the impossibility of total exploitation of businesses . From March to August 2020, a mandatory preventive isolation was ordered, which was intended to prevent people from leaving their home, even to work, a fact that affected industries that depended on the attention to the public or exploitation of services that cannot be replaced by remote activities. For this reason, many companies saw their assets compromised, as they were unable to carry out their commercial activity, and with the only alternative of initiating company liquidation procedures that were the result of long years of effort, every time they suspended or terminated the contracts of work unilaterally, of personnel that could not be maintained or whose work could not be executed remotely, had no alternative or solution, therefore, and without questioning the relevance or not of a positivist system in Colombian law, this Article seeks to establish whether it is possible to adapt the assumption of fact, mandatory preventive isolation, in the assumption of law, article 51, numeral 1, of the CSTSS. The general objective is to interpret the effects of Mandatory Preventive Isolation in labor relationships, as specific objective is to describe the evolution of the concept of force majeure or/and fortuitous event in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice; review the employment contract under the context of Covid-19 Pandemic. This article is justified to the extent that proportional burdens can be established on the parties, including employers, in situations, that if not limited by the state and national jurisprudence, will create a situation that may even cause the closure of businesses, therefore, unemployment issues will increase. As a result, we have that the suspension and /or termination of employment contracts covered by article 51 of C.S.T. and S.S. is viable if it is structured coherently, showing that it is a direct consequence of the fact. In the first measure it must be indicated that the force majeure cause is not Covid19 pandemic, but the Mandatory Preventive Isolation decreed by the National Government, which as a result of it, the company was unable to continue operating, or failing that, its operative capacity decreased. Any analysis that claims to be carried out by constitutional judges must be contrasted with the national reality and company’s one, since although the legal person has limited fundamental rights, its possibility of development and continuity cannot be curtailed by supplying a duty that ultimately belongs to the State, by imposing exorbitant charges.
Since 1918, the effects of a pandemic have not been experienced, which not only affect the health of the community but also directly affect social interaction, the economy and labor relations. Although our legal system is based on positivism, it is no less so that it is impossible to regulate in a codification all existing situations and / or that could come to exist in a society. For this reason, the Substantive Code of Labor and Social Security, although it contemplates general principles and rules, does not contain express normative provisions that establish options for employers, who have high benefit burdens, given the impossibility of total exploitation of businesses . From March to August 2020, a mandatory preventive isolation was ordered, which was intended to prevent people from leaving their home, even to work, a fact that affected industries that depended on the attention to the public or exploitation of services that cannot be replaced by remote activities. For this reason, many companies saw their assets compromised, as they were unable to carry out their commercial activity, and with the only alternative of initiating company liquidation procedures that were the result of long years of effort, every time they suspended or terminated the contracts of work unilaterally, of personnel that could not be maintained or whose work could not be executed remotely, had no alternative or solution, therefore, and without questioning the relevance or not of a positivist system in Colombian law, this Article seeks to establish whether it is possible to adapt the assumption of fact, mandatory preventive isolation, in the assumption of law, article 51, numeral 1, of the CSTSS. The general objective is to interpret the effects of Mandatory Preventive Isolation in labor relationships, as specific objective is to describe the evolution of the concept of force majeure or/and fortuitous event in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice; review the employment contract under the context of Covid-19 Pandemic. This article is justified to the extent that proportional burdens can be established on the parties, including employers, in situations, that if not limited by the state and national jurisprudence, will create a situation that may even cause the closure of businesses, therefore, unemployment issues will increase. As a result, we have that the suspension and /or termination of employment contracts covered by article 51 of C.S.T. and S.S. is viable if it is structured coherently, showing that it is a direct consequence of the fact. In the first measure it must be indicated that the force majeure cause is not Covid19 pandemic, but the Mandatory Preventive Isolation decreed by the National Government, which as a result of it, the company was unable to continue operating, or failing that, its operative capacity decreased. Any analysis that claims to be carried out by constitutional judges must be contrasted with the national reality and company’s one, since although the legal person has limited fundamental rights, its possibility of development and continuity cannot be curtailed by supplying a duty that ultimately belongs to the State, by imposing exorbitant charges.
Descripción
Palabras clave
Aislamiento preventivo obligatorio, Emergencia sanitaria, Fuerza mayor, Suspensión, Contrato de trabajo, Sanciones, Indemnizaciones, Mandatory preventive isolation, Health emergency, Force majeure, Suspension, Employment contract, Sanctions, Compensation
