Introduction
The Supreme Court, through Cassation No. 11726-2020, analyzes the validity of job tenure pacts, their effect on workers’ rights, and fundamental aspects such as the inalienability of remuneration, the proportionality of penalty clauses, and workers’ freedom to decide whether to continue in a labor occupation.
The case involves a healthcare worker who, after receiving special training funded by his employer, was required to remain with the company for a period equivalent to the length of his training. Conversely, the worker resigned before completing the agreed term, which led the employer to demand the reimbursement of the wages received during his training.
Supreme Court Analysis of the Tenure Pact
The tenure pact is an agreement between the employer and employee whereby the latter commits to working in the company for a specific period after receiving training financed by their employer. Its purpose is to ensure that the investment in professional training benefits the company without losing due to the worker’s premature departure.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that these agreements must uphold the fundamental rights of employees, particularly the right to non-waivable remuneration. Additionally, although the employee is free to resign, any penalty imposed must be proportionate and compliant with the principles of equity and labor justice.
Scope and Restrictions
The tenure pact in question contained a penalty clause, which obliged the employee to reimburse the remuneration received during the training period if they decided to resign before the agreed deadline.
Conversely, the Court ruled that this penalty was unconstitutional, as the salary is an inalienable right protected by the Constitution and cannot be subject to reimbursement. Nevertheless, the ruling left open the possibility for the employer to claim compensation for damages arising from the breach of the agreement, provided that such a claim complies with the requirements established in the Civil Code.
Loopholes in Tenure Pacts
One of the problems identified in this ruling is the lack of specific regulation on non-compete clauses in Peruvian labor law. Currently, these agreements are governed in a supplementary manner by the Civil Code, which generates uncertainty about their correct application and limits.
Specialists such as Paul Cavalié, a professor at the PUCP (Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú – Pontifical Catholic University of Peru), and Arturo Trelles, a labor lawyer, agree that it is necessary to establish clear rules to balance the protection of employees’ rights and the safeguarding of the employer’s investment in training and specialization.
Application of the Ruling and Recommendations
Although this cassation is not a binding precedent, it does provide a reference to solve similar cases in the future.
In this regard, the ruling clarifies that the return of salaries received cannot be demanded, but a reasonable and proportional penalty may apply for non-compliance with the tenure pact. Thus, it seeks to guarantee that employers can protect their investment in training without violating the fundamental rights of employees.
Conclusion
This Supreme Court ruling marks a significant advancement in interpreting job tenure agreements, emphasizing the need to balance employee rights with employer interests and reaffirming the protection of the right to remuneration, and regulates the use of excessive penalty clauses while allowing the possibility of claiming compensation if non-compliance results in verifiable damage.
Furthermore, the urgency of specific regulations on long-term employment contracts provides greater legal security for both employers and employees. Until regulatory frameworks are clear, companies must design these agreements in a balanced way, guaranteeing their legal validity and avoiding provisions that could be declared unconstitutional.
Source: Linkedin Roberto Vilchez Sanchez Post