The judgment considered that telecommuting was an integral part of the employment contract and its abolition would affect the worker.
November 12, 2025 – 7:12 p.m.
a Tucuman court ruling By ordering call centers to recover labor issues, we will set an important precedent in labor issues. Telework modalities For employees who are unilaterally told to return to in-person work.
The judge considered the company’s decision to be: “Us Valiandi’s abusive behavior”that is, the improper use of an employer’s power to change working conditions. According to the judgment: home office It had become a “required method” for contracts. labor. The ruling is not yet final, but the company has 10 days to comply.
Telework: Contract details and company claims
Employee, Cynthia CastilloHe has been working at the company since 2016. Although he began working from home during the pandemic, the crux of the incident dates back to 2016. August 18, 2022More than a year after health restrictions ended, he signed the following agreement: “Contract Renewal” —Formal modification of the original contract.
This new agreement “Waha Plan 24”establish a lower workload, Providing remote tasksIn addition to including Compensation for utilities and internet costs. he January 30, 2024the company notified workers that: Resume in-person tasksclaims that telework was a countermeasure. exceptional The motive was a health emergency and we thought it appropriate to return to our original plan once the situation was over.
key to court decisions
Court finds company’s interpretation invalid since 2022 contract was signed Long after the pandemic is over and nothing was established temporary condition For remote mode. In this sense, he commanded: Restore telework modalities. In his resolution, he emphasized three central points:
- Expectations of permanence: The prolonged period of remote provision, more than two years after the end of health restrictions and more than a year and a half since the signing of the new agreement, creates a reasonable expectation of stability in working arrangements.
- Contract without expiration date: The document signed in 2022 did not specify any conditions or expiry date, so telecommuting should be considered part of the regular contract rather than an exception.
- Economic and personal harm: The judgment highlighted that the unilateral changes caused economic harm to the employees who lived in Lures and had to take four buses a day to get to work. Additionally, returning to in-person contact implied personal harm, as remote care enabled her to care for her 9-year-old daughter and sick mother.
There is still the possibility of an appeal, but the judgment witness case About the range of Ius Valiandi and the limits of a company’s power to deal with it. new work model. The court held that in this context not only had the company changed the terms of the contract without consent; Affects acquired rights and the balance between parts.
About The Author
