Blog

line

sensei

26/01/2017



TERMINATION AGREEMENTS OF EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS DO NOT REQUIRE TO BE RATIFIED BEFORE THE BOARD OF CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION

In recent dates the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation established jurisprudence holding that the termination agreements of the employment relationship between employer and employee do not require, for their validity, to be ratified before the respective Conciliation and Arbitration Board.

The foregoing means that private agreements executed between employer and employee have full validity for all legal purposes without the need to go to the Conciliation and Arbitration Board, nevertheless it will be necessary to take care of matters of substance and form of said agreements so that they are not declared null.

Below is the text of the aforementioned jurisprudence thesis:

Era: Tenth Era

Registration: 2013496

Instance: Second Room

Type of thesis: Jurisprudence

Source: Judicial Weekly Journal of the Federation

Publication: Friday, January 20, 2017 10:21 h

Subject(s): (Labor)

Thesis: 2a./J. 167/2016 (10a.)

TERMINATION AGREEMENTS OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP. FOR purposes OF THEIR VALIDITY, THE PARTIES DO NOT HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO GO TO THE COMPETENT BOARD CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION TO RATIFY THEM.

 

If the employer and the employee agree to terminate the employment relationship between them through an agreement, for the purposes of its validity they do not have the obligation to go before the Conciliation and Arbitration Board to ratify it. The above, because of the joint interpretation of the labor provisions with respect to the agreements of termination of the employment relation, is concluded that said procedure is an optional act, without this implying that the employee loses the opportunity to promote the action of nullity, through the processing of a labor lawsuit. It should be noted that the legal system maintains a structure of incentives to motivate the employer and the employee to come before the Board to ratify the agreement; however, this situation should not be understood as an obligation that makes the termination of the employment relationship more costly for the parties.

SECOND ROOM

Contradiction of thesis 21/2016. Among those supported by the Fourth Collegiate Court on Labor Matters of the First Circuit and the Collegiate Court of the Twenty-Sixth Circuit. June 29, 2016. Majority of three votes of the Ministers Eduardo Medina Mora I., Javier Laynez Potisek and José Fernando Franco González Salas. Dissidents: Margarita Beatriz Luna Ramos and Alberto Pérez Dayán. Speaker: Javier Laynez Potisek. Secretary: Jorge Roberto Ordóñez Escobar.

Contending criteria:

The one supported by the Fourth Collegiate Court on Labor Matters of the First Circuit, by resolving the direct amparo 867/2015, and the diverse one supported by the Collegiate Court of the Twenty-Sixth Circuit, by resolving the direct amparo 64/2015.

Thesis of jurisprudence 167/2016 (10a.). Approved by the Second Chamber of this High Court, in a private session on October twenty six, two thousand and sixteen.

This thesis was published on Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:21 am in the Judicial Weekly Journal of the Federation and, therefore, is considered mandatory as of Monday, January 23, 2017, for the purposes provided in the Seventh item of the Plenary General Agreement 19/2013.


TERMINATION AGREEMENTS OF EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS DO NOT REQUIRE TO BE RATIFIED BEFORE THE BOARD OF CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION

sensei

26/01/2017



In recent dates the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation established jurisprudence holding that the termination agreements of the employment relationship between employer and employee do not require, for their validity, to be ratified before the respective Conciliation and Arbitration Board.

The foregoing means that private agreements executed between employer and employee have full validity for all legal purposes without the need to go to the Conciliation and Arbitration Board, nevertheless it will be necessary to take care of matters of substance and form of said agreements so that they are not declared null.

Below is the text of the aforementioned jurisprudence thesis:

Era: Tenth Era

Registration: 2013496

Instance: Second Room

Type of thesis: Jurisprudence

Source: Judicial Weekly Journal of the Federation

Publication: Friday, January 20, 2017 10:21 h

Subject(s): (Labor)

Thesis: 2a./J. 167/2016 (10a.)

TERMINATION AGREEMENTS OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP. FOR purposes OF THEIR VALIDITY, THE PARTIES DO NOT HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO GO TO THE COMPETENT BOARD CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION TO RATIFY THEM.

 

If the employer and the employee agree to terminate the employment relationship between them through an agreement, for the purposes of its validity they do not have the obligation to go before the Conciliation and Arbitration Board to ratify it. The above, because of the joint interpretation of the labor provisions with respect to the agreements of termination of the employment relation, is concluded that said procedure is an optional act, without this implying that the employee loses the opportunity to promote the action of nullity, through the processing of a labor lawsuit. It should be noted that the legal system maintains a structure of incentives to motivate the employer and the employee to come before the Board to ratify the agreement; however, this situation should not be understood as an obligation that makes the termination of the employment relationship more costly for the parties.

SECOND ROOM

Contradiction of thesis 21/2016. Among those supported by the Fourth Collegiate Court on Labor Matters of the First Circuit and the Collegiate Court of the Twenty-Sixth Circuit. June 29, 2016. Majority of three votes of the Ministers Eduardo Medina Mora I., Javier Laynez Potisek and José Fernando Franco González Salas. Dissidents: Margarita Beatriz Luna Ramos and Alberto Pérez Dayán. Speaker: Javier Laynez Potisek. Secretary: Jorge Roberto Ordóñez Escobar.

Contending criteria:

The one supported by the Fourth Collegiate Court on Labor Matters of the First Circuit, by resolving the direct amparo 867/2015, and the diverse one supported by the Collegiate Court of the Twenty-Sixth Circuit, by resolving the direct amparo 64/2015.

Thesis of jurisprudence 167/2016 (10a.). Approved by the Second Chamber of this High Court, in a private session on October twenty six, two thousand and sixteen.

This thesis was published on Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:21 am in the Judicial Weekly Journal of the Federation and, therefore, is considered mandatory as of Monday, January 23, 2017, for the purposes provided in the Seventh item of the Plenary General Agreement 19/2013.