Dear friends, in the weekly article we make the following comments, always on the way, to clarify doubts or doubts in the labor legal field, in this article we mention what is an extralegal benefit, as the vast majority knows or has knowledge in labor law, As the vast majority of people know or have knowledge of labor law, an “extralegal” benefit is considered to be one that is not expressly contemplated by the Federal Labor Law, so it is friends, various labor sources give economic incentives or in kind to their workers, (such as punctuality bonuses, proactivity bonuses, food vouchers, etc.).), such effect is always aimed at the improvement of labor relations and in favor of the workers, so that they are with benefits and motivated within the companies.
But such extralegal benefits does it become an employer's obligation? Well before the previous questioning, the reality is that the mentioned extra-legal benefits, has two aspects, for the capital (PATRON), this is derived from the constant with the payment conditions of such, bonuses, incentives, are made to the workers, since the law of the matter does not contemplate such payments, however there are employer's obligation and it will be understood as an integral part of the salary those incentives that in a daily and constant way are made to the workers, in their payment days whether weekly, every fourteen days, every two weeks or monthly; Given that when paid in this periodicity it is obliged that such benefit is part of the obligations of the employer and rights of the workers, but friends, let us not fall into misinterpretations to the comment, it is necessary to indicate that the work sources always seek with such economic incentives the greater welfare of their workers, of course with this the companies seek a benefit or differentiator with the other work sources, as well as in several cases a tax advantage and a benefit of having workers with healthy finances and without economic pressure concentrated in their functions; But this does not mean that if such payment or extralegal benefit is not made in a constant period it is an obligation, that is to say if such incentives are made every certain time and not on a daily basis in the respective salary payments, there is no obligation or that it is interpreted as a right of the workers, it is pertinent to mention that both the workers and the companies, have express rights and obligations in the law of the matter, however the business group within the scope of a healthy coexistence with its active workers grants such bonuses and incentives and others, In order to have a different source of work and in favor of the local economy, not in all cases a dissociation of responsibilities is sought, if not in several sources of employment agreements are made or signed at the time of hiring where the company expressly grant and are obliged to comply with payments via extralegal benefits with their employees, it is insisted that this should not be considered as an obligation if it does not comply with the requirements already exposed.
The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation itself has pronounced on the matter and has mentioned in the following criterion: Digital register: 2024328
Instance: Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation Eleventh
Epoch Subject(s): Constitutional, Labor
Thesis: 2a./J. 9/2022 (11th.) Source: Gaceta del Semanario Judicial de la Federación (Judicial Weekly of the Federation) Type: Jurisprudence Thesis
How and what should be taken into account for such provision or contribution of capital to the working sector.
Dear friends, we must take into account that all those incentives that the labor sources grant will be beneficial for the parties (worker and employer), and we must consider the effort of the capital in having its work sector in an environment of improvement and constant economic improvement of which, of course, the business sector benefits equally, but this does not mean that such payments, if they are not complied with, are mandatory, However, this does not make such payments, if they do not comply with the aforementioned antecedents, mandatory, since there will always be a procedural balance between the parties in the event of a lawsuit and what is or is not credited as debt or as payment compliance, will not be valued by the labor authority in the ruling that is issued.
So much for this week's comments, we'll see you next week...
