He Sunafil Labor Supervision Court issued Resolution No. 1074-2023/Sunafil-TFL-First Chamber. This ruling states that There can be no difference in the working conditions provided by a company depending on the subsidiary where they work. In the event that they exist and are not correctly justified, in accordance with section 25.17 of article 25 of the Regulations of the General Labor Inspection Law (RLGIT), it is considered an act of discrimination and the company will be sanctioned.
Find out in this note what the resolution of the Labor Supervision Court says and what the advice of labor lawyer Brian Ávalos, partner of the Payet Rey Cauvi Pérez firm, is to avoid falling into this sanction.
What does the Sunafil resolution say?
Resolution No. 1074-2023/Sunafil-TFL-First Chamber is a response to a complaint made against a department store which has a warehouse located in the Villa El Salvador district in Lima and a store, the Mall Aventura Plaza Shopping Center in the city of Arequipa. It details that the employees at the first headquarters were given food vouchers for S/7 per day worked as working conditions for all workers, while in the second, no.
According to the company, it is stated that due to the distances, the warehouse workers are given bonuses due to the distance between the establishment and the restaurants, unlike the store located in the Arequipa shopping center, in the which you can also find a food court. According to this court, this argument is not sufficient and the existence of the economic bonus of S/7 has created inequality among workers.
“Equality will only be violated when the unequal treatment lacks an objective and reasonable justification. When, on the contrary, the inequality of treatment is not reasonable or proportional, we will be facing discrimination,” can be read in the resolution of the Supervisory Court Labor
According to labor lawyer Brian Ávalos, partner of the Payet Rey Cauvi Pérez firm, the problem with the company has been that it has not been able to correctly support this working condition before the inspector who has assisted in the inspection. Furthermore, he points out that if it is a possible figure, the delivery of this bonus, however, has to be in exceptional circumstances.
How can sanctions be avoided?
Lawyer Ávalos pointed out that in order for companies to determine this salary difference between headquarters depending on their location, they have to be correctly supported and in very specific cases. Furthermore, he stated that in the case of wanting to provide a remuneration bonus, a figure that would best be adopted in this food voucher, differentiated by geographical location, it should be explicitly put in the company’s personnel policies and made known.
To do this, the legal expert points out that a working condition is the essential tools that the employer provides to carry out a certain job and these depend on various factors. He added that distance can be considered a factor, but the company is obliged to provide proper support as the work center is located in a remote place without major connections such as a mining camp.
Source: Larepublica
Alia is a professional author and journalist, working at 247 news agency. She writes on various topics from economy news to general interest pieces, providing readers with relevant and informative content. With years of experience, she brings a unique perspective and in-depth analysis to her work.
