The Chamber of Labourby a vote of two to one, overturning the ruling that ordered the reinstatement of three pilots from Argentine Airlines who was fired by the company last month after refusing to transport a plane that needed to be returned to the leasing company based in Brazil. This cause was promoted by the Airline Pilots Association (APPLA), although they are now back on hold after almost two months.
Within the framework of a series of strong measures that the unions had been taking against Aerolineas, demanding wage restructuring and against the privatization of the company, three pilots refused to fly the Embraer planewhich had to be returned at the end of the lease, with the argument not to guarantee “the release of the company.
The company made the decision to fire the pilots and immediately APPLA He went to court seeking an injunction demanding an “immediate halt” to the measure because he believed it was discriminatory and anti-union action which restricts the exercise of freedom of association rights. The request included returning the pilots to their positions with the same working conditions and wages that existed before the strike, on September 12, 2024.
Judge Vulcano issued a precautionary measure and ordered the pilots reinstated Walter Rodolfo Schonfeld, Javier Eduardo Weledniger and Carlos Diego Sepliarsky. In his decision, they considered that the dismissals were arbitrary and that they affected the right of the pilots to freedom of association and protest, indicating that their salary of nutritional nature. But, Argentine Airlines He appealed, arguing that there was an “extraordinary ban on art. 95 of Law 27,742″, describing this situation as “a serious non-compliance with the provisions of article 245 bis of the LCT.”
The company also raised the independence of the mission due to the lack of analysis of the requirements prepared in Law 26,854 (precautionary measures), and questioned the lack of treatment of the plausibility of the right and the risk of delay. Now, the Chamber of Labor overturned that protective measure and according to the resolution, the judge City of Dianahe confirmed the precautionary measure, interpreting that “freedom of association and the protection of the right to organize” had to be guaranteed and that “it was involved, as a result of the termination of the employment contract decided by the employer, that redundancy and its nutritional nature.” » –
While the judge Alejandro Perugini He pointed out that according to his criteria, “innovative measures of a prospective nature, such as those called for at the beginning, involve changing the de facto situation that ‘is based on rights that have not yet been recognized as valid.” Finally, the judge Mario Fera He made sure to support Judge Perugini based on “the regulatory framework in which the first application is designed and the specific features that indicate protective measures like the one requested.”
