The Guareguaychu Civil and Commercial Appeals Court upheld the conviction of an employer for failing to withhold 30% of severance compensation. payment for meals of the workers. The ruling is based on Article 551 of the National Civil and Commercial Code (CCyCN), which provides for joint and several liability of employers in case of failure to comply with a court’s suspension order.
The case of BMG v. Guay Meat SA arose out of the Guareguay Children, Youth and Family Criminal Court granting a claim by the mother of a minor beneficiary. The court understood that the company, in its capacity as a judicial retention agent, must deduct the percentage set for food costs even if the worker is fired and receives compensation. By failing to do so, they were covered by joint and several liability as provided by CCyCN.
Company’s claim
The company appealed this decision, arguing that the conviction was unacceptable. His main argument is that The judicial letter received at the time only ordered the withholding of the “compensatory goods.” Unlike salary, retirement benefits are non-remunerative in nature. According to his position, he was under no obligation to extend his holding of the concept unless expressly indicated in the letter.
Additionally, the company suggested that the minor’s mother and her attorney knew termination was imminent and took no steps to request a hold before the worker received compensation. He said the plaintiff even had a termination letter and still decided to protest directly against the company.
The defendant argued that he had acted in accordance with the law and that he should not have reported the dismissal to the court or held any concept not contained in the court order. He also argued that the latest judgment shifts the responsibility of the debtor or the court to himself, depending on his position, and violates the principle of equality under the law.
Plaintiff’s Answer: The best interests of the child.
The minor’s mother denied having any prior information about the worker’s dismissal. He said he only learned of the layoffs after they had taken place. But beyond that, he stressed, the company has an obligation to act with special effort as a judicial retention agent.
He invokes the principle of the best interests of the child, recognized in the CCyCN and the International Convention on Constitutional Hierarchies, and calls for decisions and actions by those involved in food processing to prioritize the protection of minors. Under that premise, it was understood that an employer would have to notify the court of the termination of the employment relationship and consult with the court on how to proceed before paying compensation.
In his opinion, the omission of retention is Negligence that is incompatible with the social role that an employer should play It faces a court order to maintain it. Furthermore, he believed that a strict interpretation of the official letter (limiting it to monthly wages) was contrary to the essence of the right to food.
Ministry of Civil Service intervention
The Ministry of Defense agreed with the plaintiff’s opinion. In his opinion, he recalled that Article 551 CCyCN provides for employers to be jointly and severally liable for the amount they had to deduct if they do not comply with a judicial suspension order.
He clarified that judicially mandated withholding includes both salary and retirement benefits. This is because the latter replaces the worker’s regular income and is key to maintaining the continuity of alimony payments. Therefore, non-withholding of compensation directly affects the fundamental rights related to nutrition and development of minors.
The agency also highlighted that there is evidence that the company was informed of the layoffs via text message, reinforcing the company’s obligation to act diligently. He recommended that the judgment be upheld and proposed that the scope of withholding be specified in judicial documents in the future to avoid divergent interpretations.
Chamber analysis and decisions
The maids, Mariano Morahan and Marcelo J. Arnolfi, agreed with the trial court’s argument. They stressed that the right to food is a fundamental human right that concerns the life, health and overall development of girls, boys and adolescents. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of these fundamental warranties.
For the court, joint and several liability as provided for in Article 551 CCyCN has a clear purpose. It is to ensure that child support is collected effectively and to prevent the lack of cooperation of a third party (in this case the employer) from interfering with the rights of the minor.
Although they recognized there was a jurisprudential debate as to whether worker compensation was included in the withholdings ordered by the judge, they leaned toward the majority’s position of extending the obligation beyond payroll. As they explained, seniority compensation replaces a worker’s regular income and therefore must also be achieved through withholding.
To the judge, the company’s actions were negligent. Despite the importance of paying child support, the company did not notify the court of the dismissal and did not withhold compensation. They emphasized that employers must act as socially responsible agents and must not make minors’ lives dependent solely on the debtor’s will.
What is child support? Who has to pay it?
of food allocation is legal obligations of parents Contribute to supporting children who are unable to take care of themselves. This obligation does not disappear upon separation or divorce, nor does it depend on cohabitation.
This includes not only food, but also everything necessary for the minor’s overall development, such as housing, clothing, transportation, health, education, and recreational activities.
Non-cohabiting parents must contribute financially according to their parents’ regulations. economic power and the standard of living before separation.
Fees in judicial practice are: Generally it is set as follows. percentage of net profit Generally, the parents who have to pay it, 20% and 30% per child, But what you have to be careful about is There is no maximum percentage. There are no restrictions. One of the purposes of the INDEC parenting basket was to serve as the basis for the child support that must be paid to each child in the case of non-cohabiting parents.
The judges analyzed it as follows:
-
Minors’ needs: From basic expenses to extracurricular activities.
-
Creditor income: Payroll, Billing, or Independent Activities.
-
Status of parents living together: Ability to contribute.
-
Previous standard of living: Continuation of children’s quality of life.
-
Number of children: Pro-rata.
-
Care and visitation system: Adjust if parents who don’t live together share more time.
Calculated as a percentage, so the fee automatically updated, For example, salary increases, bonuses, changes in income, etc.
About The Author
