- Thread starter Barnabe
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Labor law: if an employee resigns does he get "liquidacion"?
I'd never offer a "guaranteed legal statement" for free.
I don't think your foolish enough to give it for pay, either.
Don't see any contradiction...the employers who routinely terminate and rehire employees at the end of each year are technically firing them (laying them off) without fault on the employees' part...even if the employees are willing participants they have neither resigned nor done anything wrong and therefore are entitled to liquidacion...perhaps you meant that they had a one-year contract...the law does not see it that way...they are just being terminated (or laid off) for no fault of their own and hence are entitled to liquidacion even if they are offered their old jobs back, under a new contract.
I get your point, mine is : why does an employer pay liquidacion if he doesn't have to? If you have a 30 years old employee, he will retire in 30 years or so, and at this time the employer will have to pay. But the odds the employee will stay 30 years in the same company are very small, no? So, unless the employers fires the employee without any responsability of the employee, he will not have to pay liquidacion? Or am i missing something.
As a side effect, if the employer fires the employee, what about the preaviso?
I had this problem for years, finally I stopped liquidating my guys. When i closed my business I fired them with liquidacion.
Thanks to all the posters for their help.
Barnab?
In my opinion most employers THINK at the end they will have to pay, even the inspectors of the employment secretary say you better pay, but in many cases as an employer you win. If you want to get rid of an employee without paying liquidation and start keeping a log of his absences, late arrivals or other infractions of the code of conduct in the company, even if always reported to the secretaria de trabajo you will probably loose, while the judge will favour the employee...besides the employer will have to pay a lawyer, while the employee will have one that works on a commission of the money he gets for you.
BUT if an employee wants to leave and starts sabotaging operations and you file and report it correctly and have your witnesses, you will probably win the case, without paying liquidation.
Besides, hopefully the government will now finally do something about this archaic system of employee protection, which makes the employment market very inefficient and doesnt motivate the workforce AND with the social system in place is not necessary anymore. It's redundant to have / be paying for the social system in place (even if not completely adequate) and still have to pay liquidation.
BUT if an employee wants to leave and starts sabotaging operations and you file and report it correctly and have your witnesses, you will probably win the case, without paying liquidation.
Besides, hopefully the government will now finally do something about this archaic system of employee protection, which makes the employment market very inefficient and doesnt motivate the workforce AND with the social system in place is not necessary anymore. It's redundant to have / be paying for the social system in place (even if not completely adequate) and still have to pay liquidation.
Honestly I don't give a sh*t. I just think you "could" be wrong with that statement.Do.
It is a widespread practice in the DR. See also linked article above from a legal expert writing for the Hoy newspaper.
Do tell us the results of your checking.
Honestly I don't give a sh*t. I just think you "could" be wrong with that statement.
So do I, Eddy. We discussed it at El Neptuno but the legal advice we got was don't do it unless you are prepared to pay double. That was the advice of real Dominican lawyers.
Iberostar Hotels liquidate their employees every December and they have been doing it for many many years. So far I don't think there was a single case of a "double" pay. You know, we have some very unscrupulous lawyers in the province (think back the embargoes against the hotels --employee liquidation based -- where armed squads took possessions of the resorts *** ), so IF THERE WAS A CHANCE to have a double pay liquidation, it would have been tried already... most likely it was, and it was unsuccessful, because some hotels, including the mentioned IBEROSTAR (5 resorts in a complex) keep doing the yearly liquidation.
*** Juristas piden sancionar abogados y alguaciles que embargan hoteles de forma ilegal | Noticias SIN - Servicios Informativos Nacionales
*** Juristas piden sancionar abogados y alguaciles que embargan hoteles de forma ilegal | Noticias SIN - Servicios Informativos Nacionales
The question of the legality of liquidating employees every year has been around for years. Some courts (for example, the Labor Court of Appeals in Santiago) regularly ruled against it, but its judgments were overturned by the Supreme Court. The legality of the practice is still argued over among labor lawyers. I'm sure those backing workers will try again now that we have a newly elected Supreme Court.
La costumbre es ley (the customary is legal)
LA COSTUMBRE ES LEY o LA COSTUMBRE HACE LEY
(the customary or habitual is/makes/becomes law)
It basically means that a once a CIVIL/COMMERCIAL practice becomes widespread and is accepted for a long period of time it acquires LEGAL status....that is, it becomes UNWRITTEN/COMMON law.
Do you agree that "La costumbre es ley" in the DR (for civil/commercial matters!)?
In that case the practice under discussion is COMMON LAW (in addition to the SC rulings) in the DR.
Hi, Fabio: I agree with everything you said...There is also a legal maxim known across the Spanish-speaking world which as far as I know is upheld by most/all Dominican judges in CIVIL/COMMERCIAL matters (NOT for criminal matters)...It is:The question of the legality of liquidating employees every year has been around for years. Some courts (for example, the Labor Court of Appeals in Santiago) regularly ruled against it, but its judgments were overturned by the Supreme Court...
LA COSTUMBRE ES LEY o LA COSTUMBRE HACE LEY
(the customary or habitual is/makes/becomes law)
It basically means that a once a CIVIL/COMMERCIAL practice becomes widespread and is accepted for a long period of time it acquires LEGAL status....that is, it becomes UNWRITTEN/COMMON law.
Do you agree that "La costumbre es ley" in the DR (for civil/commercial matters!)?
In that case the practice under discussion is COMMON LAW (in addition to the SC rulings) in the DR.