labor judges are stripped of the power to decide on labor reform

labor judges are stripped of the power to decide on labor reform

A Federal Administrative Court granted a request from the Government.
The labor court had already requested the partial suspension of the law approved by Congress.
The General Confederation of Labor (CGT) suffered a major setback in its attempt to get the courts to declare the Labor Modernization Law unconstitutional after a Federal Administrative Court ruled that this jurisdiction is the one that should intervene in the union's claim .

The measure was issued by Federal Judge Macarena Marra Giménez, head of the Federal Administrative Litigation Court 12, who decided to grant the injunction filed by the Ministry of Human Capital , headed by Sandra Pettovello , and declared the jurisdiction of that court in the case initiated by the CGT.

The truth is that Marra Giménez's ruling was made public after a first instance labor court suspended - provisionally - the application of 82 articles of Law 27,802 of the labor reform .

To support its claim for a change of jurisdiction, the Government relied precisely on article 79 of the Labor Modernization Law promoted by the Executive, which establishes that the Federal Administrative Litigation Court based in the City of Buenos Aires has jurisdiction to resolve issues in which the National State is the defendant or an interested third party.

The regulations even expressly prohibit the intervention of the National Labor Courts . The issue is that the controversial article was suspended by a ruling of the National Labor Court of First Instance No. 63.

In the presentation, the CGT, represented by its co-leaders Jorge Sola , Octavio Argüello and Cristian Jerónimo , asked that a large number of articles of the labor reform, published in the Official Gazette on March 6, 2026, be declared unconstitutional.
Likewise, the resolution points out that the court in charge of the national labor judge Raúl Horacio Ojeda, " is not a federal court , which is why the present inhibition is appropriate, especially considering that the National State has the prerogative of federal jurisdiction established by article 116 of the National Constitution."

Following the approval of the Labor Modernization Law, the union headquarters went to court to request that the proposal promoted by the Casa Rosada be declared unconstitutional. The proposal garnered 42 votes in the Senate and 135 in the Chamber of Deputies, marking a large majority in both chambers.

But on March 30, Ojeda issued an injunction at the request of the CGT (General Confederation of Labor), suspending 82 articles as a first step until a ruling could be issued on the merits of the case, which is its unconstitutionality. Faced with this decision, the government appealed the ruling, and Ojeda granted the national executive's appeal but maintained the injunction.
The main articles of the labor reform that were suspended
Among the main articles that were suspended is the one related to the new calculation of compensation that allowed the exclusion of, among other things, the Christmas bonus in case of dismissal.

The Labor Termination Fund (FAL), which replaces traditional compensation with a monthly fund, was also halted , as was the article that expands minimum services during strikes and defines activities of "transcendental importance," limiting the right to strike.

Among the measures that had been suspended were the extension of the probationary period in employment contracts, the repeal of the teleworking law, and the creation of an individual "time bank".

As anticipated during the debate in Congress, the Labor Modernization Law will continue its judicial path and its final destination will be in the hands of the Supreme Court of Justice.