Labor Relations

By virtue of before exposed and before the generated controversy, there was uprising on the part of the one of the Division of Opinions of Legal consultancy of the MINTRA (Opinion N 14 of date 16 of October of 2006) the determined position was in the following terms: ” According to this Consultancy, when the worker or worker exerts his right to vacations, permissions and rest, except for the derivatives of occupational diseases and industrial accidents is in the legitimate benefit of a labor human right, reason why the cause of the benefit of services during these days of work is not attributable to him or she herself. In other words, the reason or reason of such circumstance is ” imputable” to the own worker or worker and not to the employer or employer, not being forced this last one to grant the benefit to him anticipated in the Law of Feeding for the Workers, in accordance with the indicated thing in article 19 of its Regulation, by virtue of which by mandate of the own legislator the benefit is generated by day of work indeed toiled “. (Underlining and outstanding by the contributor).

This position, however, to guarantee the thesis of of the exception, makes prevail the hierarchy of the law over the regulation laid downs in the manual, but, according to that subscribes, he is not cnsona with the spirit, intention and reason who sustain the creation of the Law of Feeding for the Workers, since to all all, leave neglected to the workers at moments at which he exerts other rights that attend to him, such as, the right to the vacacional rest, the right to the health, the right to the maternity, etc. More recently, in date 25 of June of 2008, and by means of Nro Opinion. 09-2008 emanated of the Division of Opinions of the Legal Consultancy of the MINTRA, and in attention to consultation lifted by the Main directorate of Labor Relations of the Ministry of the Popular Power for the Work and Social Security, fijanueva position on the matter, modifying, consequently, the maintained criterion until now, and thus is pronounced: On this base it concludes ” that the nonbenefit on watch of the worker or the justified worker, will not be able to be understood in case some, since a fact imputable to its person and consequently does not constitute cause for the suspension of this benefit, still more, when employment or the employer of fulfillment to the same, by means of the provision or gives of tickets of feeding to its workers and/or workers, as it establishes article 19 of the Regulation of the Law of Feeding for the Workers..