Dear friends, today we will address the criteria or legal interpretation that the authorities make and impart in the various labor processes, as you well know in social matters such as labor law, there is legally speaking something called “deficiency supply”.”, And you may ask, what is that? It is when the labor authority (H. Tribunales and even H. Juntas), and/or authorities in federal amparo matters (H. Juzgados de Distrito or H. Collegiate Circuit Courts), are in the obligation, if applicable, to make up for, correct and/or repair any error or omission that the workers, through their representation, have committed in the process being instigated, since the social sector is the most unprotected by the law, this figure arises that not everyone likes, in such a way that by not offering, presenting evidence or omitting information, due to ignorance of the law, the labor sector has this “procedural advantage”; Thus it is a procedural advantage, and this counteracts the procedural impartiality that must exist in any judicial labor process, (trials), given that the “Capital, Source of work or the Employer”, does not have the substitution of any error committed at the time of opposing their respective defenses, or in the hearings or terms that they promote, given that the legal burden of proving the non-dismissal or debt of benefits will always have the “EMPLOYER”, and this makes more evident in part the criteria or interpretation that the Judge makes when issuing a judgment or sentence, or in the case of the "Employer"; Added to the fact that in the same way, in the legal labor sector, there is a legal doubt called "the legal doubt of the employer", and this makes more evident in part the criteria or interpretation that the judge makes when issuing a judgment or award. “presumption”This also plays in favor of the worker, that is, in the absence of evidence or material elements that at the time of opposing the employer's defenses, it will be presumed that it was done in the way the worker says or it will be interpreted in favor of the worker, and this of course gives rise to the fact that the judges have to a certain extent a criterion or interpretation more inclined to the workers' sector. It is necessary to indicate, dear friends, that it is not to stigmatize this sector, but rather in the comments that are made, the effect is to have or implement in the labor sources more documentary or digital elements in which it can be accredited or offered as evidentiary material, and this supports the capital sector that there was no dismissal, that the worker abandoned the source of work, or even that the same resigned, and with this would be in a better procedural fairness that can be had before the authorities, in order to not generate or have to apply the presumption or supply, given that if such elements are counted or implemented in trials through the lawyers, who represent the employer sector; and the authority does not determine them, there is a procedural figure called “EXCESS SUPPLEMENT”This, by the way, happens too much in practice, of course, leading to terrible interpretations by the labor authorities, which are alleged in the trials of guarantees “ties” that the employer sector runs with the luck of not having any substitution, this does not make the fellow representatives of the employer sector, to do everything humanly possible, However, it must be taken into account that if the work sources are always omitted in their internal organization (due diligences or in other words, the duty to be), it will affect and support the justice imparters to have a defined criterion on this matter, which will continue to be to the disadvantage of the employer sector.
So much for this week's comments, we'll see you next week...
