The resolution removed the jurisdiction of the court that had suspended 83 articles of the reform and the case will change its jurisdiction.
The decision has a full impact on union strategy. Ojeda had issued a precautionary measure that stopped 83 articles of the reform —including changes in working hours, compensation, union representation and teleworking—, a measure that was celebrated by the
The new scenario changes the dynamics of the case. With the departure from the labor market, the Government is betting on a judicial environment that is more aligned with the discussion on the constitutionality of public policies and less conditioned by sectoral interests. The dispute continues, but on a more favorable terrain for the defense of the reform.
Raúl Horacio Ojeda is a labor judge with a background in Kirchnerism.
Before coming to the judiciary, he was an advisor to the Ministry of Labor during the governments of Néstor and Cristina Kirchner, where he was part of the team of then-minister Carlos Tomada.
From an academic and doctrinal level, he has held positions close to traditional trade unionism. He defended the right to strike as a fundamental right and questioned regulations such as the law on occupational hazards, which places him within a legal line aligned with the previous labor model.
His ruling, which suspended 83 articles of the reform, placed him at the center of the dispute between the Government and the CGT, in a case that has now changed its jurisdiction and could have a different outcome.
Federal judge Macarena Marra Giméne z decided to remove the competence of the National Labor Justice in the case initiated by the CGT against labor reform and ordered that the file be transferred to the Federal Administrative Court l. The decision reorders the judicial board in one of the most sensitive lawsuits for the Government and weakens the position of Judge Raúl Horacio Ojeda, who had provisionally suspended
83 articles of Law 27,802.The resolution was given in the context of the open competition dispute following the lawsuit of the trade union federation against the National State. The CGT had called for the unconstitutionality of different sections of the law, arguing that they affected individual and collective rights of workers, as well as principles such as progressivity, effective judicial protection and freedom of
association.
From the Ministry of Human Capital, the State stated that the case should be processed in the federal administrative courts, since it was the validity of a general rule issued by Congress and not of individual labor relations.
That was the criterion that was finally imposed.In her ruling, Marra Giménez argued that the lawsuit targets state acts of general scope, so its review is the responsibility of federal justice. With that argument, he dismissed the National Labor Court No. 63 and ordered the file to be sent. If there is resistance, the Chamber must intervene in Federal Administrative Litigation.
