Bibliographic citations
This is an automatically generated citacion. Modify it if you see fit
Aragón, S., (2024). Informe Jurídico sobre la Casación Laboral No. 3636- 2010 Cusco [Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú]. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/28425
Aragón, S., Informe Jurídico sobre la Casación Laboral No. 3636- 2010 Cusco []. PE: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; 2024. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/28425
@misc{renati/526746,
title = "Informe Jurídico sobre la Casación Laboral No. 3636- 2010 Cusco",
author = "Aragón Samanez, Sol Ivanna",
publisher = "Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú",
year = "2024"
}
Title: Informe Jurídico sobre la Casación Laboral No. 3636- 2010 Cusco
Authors(s): Aragón Samanez, Sol Ivanna
Advisor(s): Herrera Toscano, Ricardo Arturo
Keywords: Violencia en el trabajo--Perú; Derecho individual del trabajo--Jurisprudencia--Perú; Remuneraciones--Perú; Derecho laboral--Jurisprudencia--Perú
OCDE field: https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.05.01
Issue Date: 2-Aug-2024
Institution: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Abstract: En el marco de un proceso laboral por cese de actos de hostilidad, la Corte
Suprema de Justicia concluyó que si bien el retiro de confianza legitima al
empleador a reasignar al trabajador a su categoría originaria, quedaría proscrita
la posibilidad de reajustar su remuneración al cargo originario al que habría sido
reasignado.
A criterio de la Corte, dado que la remuneración se constituye como un derecho
fundamental, bajo ningún escenario, sería posible reajustar y,
consecuentemente, rebajar la remuneración de los trabajadores. Este reajuste
solo procedería en caso de acuerdo entre las partes; caso contrario, se
configuraría el acto de hostilidad por rebaja inmotivada de remuneración,
previsto en el inciso b) del artículo 30º del TUO de la LPCL.
Desde nuestra posición, sostenemos que, si bien el derecho a la remuneración
merece una especial tutela, su otorgamiento obedece a criterios objetivos, tales
como la categoría a la que pertenece el trabajador, así como el tipo de encargos
y funciones que realiza. Asimismo, en tanto nuestro ordenamiento legitima la
posibilidad de reasignar al trabajador al cargo ordinario y categoría previos que
ocupaba (en razón a la especial naturaleza que tiene este cargo), no vemos
razón que impida realizar un reajuste a su remuneración.
Consideramos que este supuesto no se configura como una privación arbitraria
de la remuneración, sino que se trata de un escenario en el que existen razones
objetivas que, en el caso particular, permiten concluir que es posible reajustar la
remuneración de los trabajadores.
In a lawsuit filed for unlawful work harassement, the Supreme Court of Justice concluded that while the “withdrawal of trust” legitimizes the employer to reassign the worker to their original category, the possibility of readjusting their salary according to this position would be prohibited. In Court's opinion, since salary is a fundamental right, under no circumstances would be possible to readjust and, consequently, reduce the workers' salary. This readjustment would only be possible in case of an agreement between the parties; otherwise, it would be considered as an act of work harassement, as provided in subsection (b) of Article 30 of the Texto Único Ordenado de la Ley de Productividad y Competitividad Laboral. However, we argue that, while the salary deserves special protection, its perception should be based on objective criteria, such as the category to which the worker belongs, as well as the type of tasks and functions they perform. Likewise, since our legal system legitimizes the possibility of reassigning the worker to the ordinary position and previous category they occupied (due to the special nature of this trust position), we see no reason that would prevent the readjustment of their remuneration. We consider that this position does not constitute an arbitrary deprivation of salary, but rather a situation where exist objective reasons that allow us to conclude that it is possible to readjust the workers salary.
In a lawsuit filed for unlawful work harassement, the Supreme Court of Justice concluded that while the “withdrawal of trust” legitimizes the employer to reassign the worker to their original category, the possibility of readjusting their salary according to this position would be prohibited. In Court's opinion, since salary is a fundamental right, under no circumstances would be possible to readjust and, consequently, reduce the workers' salary. This readjustment would only be possible in case of an agreement between the parties; otherwise, it would be considered as an act of work harassement, as provided in subsection (b) of Article 30 of the Texto Único Ordenado de la Ley de Productividad y Competitividad Laboral. However, we argue that, while the salary deserves special protection, its perception should be based on objective criteria, such as the category to which the worker belongs, as well as the type of tasks and functions they perform. Likewise, since our legal system legitimizes the possibility of reassigning the worker to the ordinary position and previous category they occupied (due to the special nature of this trust position), we see no reason that would prevent the readjustment of their remuneration. We consider that this position does not constitute an arbitrary deprivation of salary, but rather a situation where exist objective reasons that allow us to conclude that it is possible to readjust the workers salary.
Link to repository: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/28425
Discipline: Derecho
Grade or title grantor: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Facultad de Derecho.
Grade or title: Abogado
Juror: Osorio Velarde, Ccantu Stefany; Bustamante Arce, Karen Giuliana; Herrera Toscano, Ricardo Arturo
Register date: 2-Aug-2024
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License