Recently, it was reported in various media outlets that the multinational company Enerflex has initiated an international arbitration against Mexico due to an adverse labor ruling.
The ruling, issued by the Local Board of Conciliation and Arbitration in Tabasco, requires Enerflex to pay over 2 billion pesos (around 120 million dollars) in compensation to a former mid-level employee, who allegedly received a daily salary of over 434,000 pesos.
Coincidentally, a couple of weeks ago, the Fourteenth Collegiate Labor Court in the First Circuit established a criterion stating that judges in labor disputes must analyze the plausibility of the salary specified in a labor ruling
To do so, in cases where a ruling or judgment indicates an exorbitant or out-of-range salary for the employee’s position, the Authority must conduct an analysis of notorious facts (such as websites, collective contracts, etc.) in order to determine, based on the principle of reality, whether it is credible that the employee received such salary.
While this is an isolated criterion, applicable to the guarantees established in direct amparo lawsuits against labor resolutions, it is a significant step towards eradicating the terrible practices that plague labor claims, such as distortion of facts, inflating actual salaries, modifying the date of employment, etc.
As the New Labor Justice System progresses, we are increasingly encountering these new criteria, which help resolve labor disputes in the courts of the Judiciary, focusing on real conditions rather than cases where the facts were completely distorted by some of the parties.
If you have any doubts or are interested in learning more about this or other new labor criteria, please contact the Labor Department of Vega, Guerrero, and Associates, who will be happy to address your concerns.
