1) Resolution No. 471/21 . Peer Commercial Employees :
Through the Resolution of the reference, the Ministry of Labor, Employment and Social Security of the Nation approved the new agreement of the Trade Employees Union, which establishes a non-remunerative increase equivalent to 32% of the basic salaries in force in the month May 2021.
The referred non-remunerative increase will be paid as follows: (i) 8% in May 2021; (ii) 8% in September 2021; (iii) 8% in January 2022 and (iv) 8% in February 2022. Likewise, an update clause was contemplated for the month of January 2022, at which time the inter-annual inflationary difference of the agreement will be evaluated.
An extraordinary contribution was set for the worker of $ 300 for the health emergency.
Finally , the Emergency Agreement for suspension of activities was extended until June 2021, by which the payment of a non-remunerative social allowance equivalent to 75% of the net salary that the worker would have received while providing services was established. normal and customary, with the obligation to make contributions and contributions destined for social work.
2) Resolution 5 /21. Minimum Mobile Salary :
Through the aforementioned Resolution, the National Council for Employment and Productivity and the Minimum and Mobile Salary, ordered an increase in said salary, according to the following scheme:
From the aforementioned months, the Minimum Mobile Salary will increase according to the transcribed table.
3) Note from the Ministry of Labor, Employment and Social Security of the Nation:
By note dated 05.10.21, the aforementioned Ministry addressed the Provincial Ministries and Secretaries of Labor and clarified that vaccinated workers may be summoned to return to work, in accordance with the provisions of Joint Resolution 4/21, without prejudice of the provisions of DNU 241/21 and 287/21.
4 ) Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. Judgment “Harl a p, Ana María c. OSDE Organization of Direct Business Services s. Dismissal ” :
On 04.22.21 the CSJN issued the ruling on the referral by which it rejected the lawsuit initiated by a psychiatrist who belonged to the OSDE provider list. In order to decide, the Highest Court upheld the existence of the Service lease contract and the fact that the necessary extremes could not be proven to have a dependency relationship as configured.
To conclude in the way it did, the Court considered the following variants proven in the case: i) variable payments based on the number of inpatient or outpatient patients served; ii) freedom of schedules; iii) possibility of replacement for another and care of patients privately for other social works or health insurance; iv) a manager intervened in the provision of psychopathology services for Osde affiliates.
For any question write to firstname.lastname@example.org