Citas bibligráficas
Esta es una referencia generada automáticamente. Modifíquela de ser necesario
Rodriguez, S., (2023). Informe Jurídico sobre la Casación Laboral N° 24071-2019 La Libertad [Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú]. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/25608
Rodriguez, S., Informe Jurídico sobre la Casación Laboral N° 24071-2019 La Libertad []. PE: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; 2023. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/25608
@misc{renati/24803,
title = "Informe Jurídico sobre la Casación Laboral N° 24071-2019 La Libertad",
author = "Rodriguez Asencios, Sergio Enrique",
publisher = "Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú",
year = "2023"
}
Título: Informe Jurídico sobre la Casación Laboral N° 24071-2019 La Libertad
Autor(es): Rodriguez Asencios, Sergio Enrique
Asesor(es): Campana Zegarra, David José
Palabras clave: Remuneraciones--Perú; Igualdad--Aspectos económicos; Libre empresa; Salarios--Perú
Campo OCDE: https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.05.01
Fecha de publicación: 4-ago-2023
Institución: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Resumen: El presente informe tiene como objetivo realizar un análisis crítico sobre lo
resuelto en la Casación Laboral N° 24071-2019 La Libertad. Bajo esta casación,
la Corte Suprema se pronuncia sobre la justificación de los tratos remunerativos
diferenciados en base a causas objetivas y razonables. Precisamente, el caso
versa sobre una demanda de homologación de remuneraciones, iniciada por una
ex trabajadora frente a su antigua empleadora.
De esta manera, se evidencia un conflicto jurídico dado que la empleadora, en
función al derecho a la libertad empresarial, establece un tratamiento
remunerativo diferenciado entre la demandante y dos trabajadoras, con el mismo
puesto y las mismas funciones de trabajo, justificado únicamente en la
antigüedad. La Corte Suprema difiere de esta posición, toda vez que la
antigüedad tiene que ser evaluada junto a otros criterios objetivos como la
progresión en la carrera y las funciones desarrolladas en iguales puestos de
trabajo.
El presente trabajo comparte la posición descrita y busca complementarla
siguiendo un método de investigación dogmático y crítico racional. Para ello, en
vista de la legislación, doctrina, jurisprudencia y convenios internacionales, se
concluye que la libertad empresarial para fijar remuneraciones se limita por los
criterios objetivos y el respeto a la igualdad y no discriminación. En esa línea,
para justificar un tratamiento remunerativo diferenciado, se requiere una
evaluación conjunta de todos los criterios objetivos posibles a identificar. En el
caso analizado, donde existen trabajadoras con el mismo puesto y funciones, la
antigüedad no puede ser un criterio evaluado de forma aislada.
The purpose of this report is to make a critical analysis of the ruling in the Labor Cassation No. 24071-2019 La Libertad. Under this cassation, the Supreme Court pronounces on the justification of differentiated remuneration treatment based on objective and reasonable causes. Precisely, the case deals with a claim for homologation of remunerations, initiated by a former employee against her former employer. In this way, a legal conflict is evident since the employer, based on the right to entrepreneurial freedom, establishes a differentiated remuneration treatment between the plaintiff and two female workers, with the same position and the same job functions, justified solely because of seniority. The Supreme Court differs from this position since seniority must be evaluated together with other objective criteria such as career progression and the functions performed in the same jobs. This paper shares the position described above and seeks to complement it by following a dogmatic and rational critical research method. To this end, in view of legislation, doctrine, jurisprudence and international conventions, it is concluded that the freedom of companies to set remuneration is limited by objective criteria and respect for equality and non-discrimination. In this line, in order to justify a differentiated remuneration treatment, a joint evaluation of all the possible objective criteria to be identified is required. In the case analyzed, where there are female workers with the same position and functions, seniority cannot be a criterion evaluated in isolation.
The purpose of this report is to make a critical analysis of the ruling in the Labor Cassation No. 24071-2019 La Libertad. Under this cassation, the Supreme Court pronounces on the justification of differentiated remuneration treatment based on objective and reasonable causes. Precisely, the case deals with a claim for homologation of remunerations, initiated by a former employee against her former employer. In this way, a legal conflict is evident since the employer, based on the right to entrepreneurial freedom, establishes a differentiated remuneration treatment between the plaintiff and two female workers, with the same position and the same job functions, justified solely because of seniority. The Supreme Court differs from this position since seniority must be evaluated together with other objective criteria such as career progression and the functions performed in the same jobs. This paper shares the position described above and seeks to complement it by following a dogmatic and rational critical research method. To this end, in view of legislation, doctrine, jurisprudence and international conventions, it is concluded that the freedom of companies to set remuneration is limited by objective criteria and respect for equality and non-discrimination. In this line, in order to justify a differentiated remuneration treatment, a joint evaluation of all the possible objective criteria to be identified is required. In the case analyzed, where there are female workers with the same position and functions, seniority cannot be a criterion evaluated in isolation.
Enlace al repositorio: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/25608
Disciplina académico-profesional: Derecho
Institución que otorga el grado o título: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Facultad de Derecho.
Grado o título: Abogado
Jurado: Mendoza Choque, Luis Enrique; Merzthal Shigyo, Marilú del Pilar
Fecha de registro: 4-ago-2023
Este ítem está sujeto a una licencia Creative Commons Licencia Creative Commons