This is a first setback for Javier Milei. The new and controversial Argentine president has seen his labor law reforms overturned by the courts. At least temporarily. The National Chamber of Labor, a labor law body, referred to by the largest trade union center in the country, took on Wednesday “a precautionary measure suspending the applicability” of the provisions of the “work” chapter of the decree of December 20, in the awaiting a substantive legislative review.
This suspension is valid “until a final decision is rendered on the substantive question raised in the present procedure”, underline the judges in their decision, published by several media, including the official Telam agency. The judgment, a first setback, albeit temporary, for Javier Milei’s ultraliberal reform drive, will be the subject of an imminent appeal.
A decree to turn everything upside down
President Milei, inaugurated on December 10, ten days later announced a “Decree of Necessity and Emergency” (DNU), setting the framework for massive deregulation of the economy, modifying or repealing more than 300 standards, affecting in particular work, the control of prices and rents, the privatization of public companies, regulations on exports and imports.
Presenting the decree, Javier Milei justified it by the need “to begin the path towards the reconstruction of the country, return freedom and autonomy to individuals and begin to disarm the enormous amount of regulations that have held back, hindered and prevented economic growth. This DNU has technically entered into force, but subject to subsequent approval by Parliament, where Milei’s party is only the third force. And in a still hypothetical timetable.
Unconstitutional aspects
But it is already the subject of lively debates between jurists on its constitutional character, or not, and has at the same time been the subject of around ten legal appeals, including that of the CGT in summary proceedings, filed last week. The most controversial aspects of the proposed labor law reforms concern, for the unions, the extension of the trial period from three to eight months, the reduction in compensation in the event of dismissal, limits on the right to strike, the possibility of dismissal in the event of blockage or occupation of the workplace.
Among their arguments, the judges note “that what constitutes so-called ’emergency’ reasons to avoid the due intervention of the legislative power on the substance of the legislation does not appear”, especially since certain standards “have a nature repressive or punitive”. They also emphasize that “it is not explained how the proposed reforms, if they were applied immediately, outside the normal legislative process, could remedy the situation” and boost formal employment quickly, “a fortiori given that the decree he himself emphasizes that this employment has stagnated for twelve years.