Bibliographic citations
Tuesta, A., (2023). Informe Jurídico sobre Resolución Sub Directoral N° 001-2007- MTPE/2/12.310 y la Resolución Directoral N° 01-2007-MTPE/2/12.3 del Expediente N° 09-2007-MTPE/2/12.310, Ministerio de Trabajo y Promoción del Empleo vs. Telefónica Móviles S.A., procedimiento administrativo sancionador por infracción al ordenamiento jurídico sociolaboral [Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú]. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/24333
Tuesta, A., Informe Jurídico sobre Resolución Sub Directoral N° 001-2007- MTPE/2/12.310 y la Resolución Directoral N° 01-2007-MTPE/2/12.3 del Expediente N° 09-2007-MTPE/2/12.310, Ministerio de Trabajo y Promoción del Empleo vs. Telefónica Móviles S.A., procedimiento administrativo sancionador por infracción al ordenamiento jurídico sociolaboral []. PE: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; 2023. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/24333
@misc{renati/526813,
title = "Informe Jurídico sobre Resolución Sub Directoral N° 001-2007- MTPE/2/12.310 y la Resolución Directoral N° 01-2007-MTPE/2/12.3 del Expediente N° 09-2007-MTPE/2/12.310, Ministerio de Trabajo y Promoción del Empleo vs. Telefónica Móviles S.A., procedimiento administrativo sancionador por infracción al ordenamiento jurídico sociolaboral",
author = "Tuesta Véliz, Adriana Laura",
publisher = "Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú",
year = "2023"
}
This report deals with File No. 09-2007-MTPE/2/12.310, which originated in the context of a labour inspection carried out by the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion (MLEP) at the offices of Telefónica Móviles S.A. This case took place before the creation of SUNAFIL, which is why the Ministry carried out the inspection and sanctioning activity through its respective areas. In this way, through an administrative sanctioning procedure, the MLEP fined Telefónica for the commission of a series of infractions to the social and labour regulations, for which the company alleged several violations of the procedure. Therefore, this report will deal with the analysis of the case, in order to determine the existence of defects and irregularities in the sanctioning procedure and the administrative acts issued, as well as the contravention of the delimiting principles of the sanctioning power of the Administration and the principle of the primacy of reality. In that sense, using the regulations applicable at the time of the facts of the case, it will be identified that, although there is a case of contractual denaturalization punishable, the administrative authority has not carried out a due sanctioning procedure, in violation of its principles. Also, the infraction report, as well as the first and second instance resolutions have lacked due motivation and have not considered the arguments of the administrative authority, among other irregularities that will be detailed.
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License