Written by: DR. CARLOS CONTRERAS HERNÁNDEZ
specialist in labor law
I'll give the theoretical response and then the practical answer to your case.
In principle and in theory , you are at fault as he did not. You are violating the Ord. 2 of Article 97 of the CT, that could lead to having to pay employee benefits to that employee, unless you show a state of force majeure, which is quite difficult. Instead, the employee is exercising what is called an "exception for non-performance of contract", which is permitted in any contract with mutual obligations, whereby if one party does not fulfill its obligation, the other is entitled to renege yours, in which case the contract continues until one of the two parties decide to terminate directly (in this case would be a resignation of a worker) decides to go to court to declare the formal termination of the contract. In either two situations, you may be required to pay employee benefits for violation of article I mentioned earlier.
That's the legal theory, but in practical terms you you may want to dismiss that employee to leave his job, violation of Ord. 11 of Article 88 of CT, which is a true and demonstrable fact, before he even think about resigning. That would also be a disciplinary measure (or issue a precedent) on staff, because everyone else is going to work unless the employee, which shows, first, that the failure to pay the salary of one month is not a fact make it impossible to continue attending to work, and second, that the failure of a single month is not, if a serious fault, but it is a misdemeanor, and only serious offenses warrant a resignation, and in any case, only a lack warrants serious "than non-performance" (stop going to work) that I mentioned earlier.
0 comments:
Post a Comment