4. NATIONAL JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND THE EFFECTIVENESS DECLARATION
The intergovernmental nature of Mercosur means that Member States, which have delegated no sovereign powers to any regional entity, are in charge of the enactment and enforcement of regional norms (61). Member States must, therefore, ensure that Mercosur law is implemented and complied with within their legal orders (62). Article 1 TA mandates that Member States have a legal obligation to harmonize their legislation in order to achieve Mercosur goals. Furthermore, Article 38 POP sets out that the parties commit themselves to adopt the necessary measures to ensure compliance with Mercosur law. Whilst national executive and legislative powers, traditionally reluctant to confer powers upon regional organizations, have paid little attention to the Declaration (63), the activism of the Member States judiciary has been pivotal to make sure that the Declaration did not turn into dead letter. National courts’ case law has overwhelmingly considered the Declaration as a justiciable instrument. Although they were initially hesitant, national judges have consistently referred to the Declaration, along with other national, regional and international instruments, in the legal reasoning of countless judicial decisions. This has undoubtedly rendered the Declaration one of the most important Mercosur legal instruments. In Argentina, provincial supreme courts (64) and several employment appeal courts (65) have relied upon the Declaration, viewing it not only as a vital regional integration instrument alongside ILO conventions, which are hierarchically above ordinary law, but also as an integral component of the bloque de constitucionalidad as a source of subjective rights. In the same vein, the Argentine Supreme Court has drawn upon the Declaration alongside with other constitutional norms and human rights international instruments in the ratio decidendi of several key cases to protect workers’ rights. Aquino (66) represents a pivotal, marking the first instance in which this court incorporated the Declaration in its recital 12 (67). In a landmark judgment that deemed the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Ley de Riesgos del Trabajo) unconstitutional, the Supreme Court, after citing a myriad of international and human rights instruments and the Declaration, highlighted that attaining the objective of economic development with social justice was one of its main goals. In the same vein, in the Álvarez judgment, another landmark case where the applicants had challenged again the constitutionality of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Ley de Riesgos de Trabajo), the Argentine Supreme Court reiterated the importance of the Declaration, along with other human rights and international instruments, as the legal basis to protect equal treatment in employment and occupation (68). Asociación de Trabajadores del Estado constitutes another major case where Argentine Supreme Court declared the unconstitutionality of the domestic trade union system relying upon multiple international human rights instruments, ILO instruments as well as Article 14 of the 1998-Declaration (69). References to the Declaration have been further included by the Buenos Aires Employment Courts of Appeal even in the aftermath of the 2015 revision, particularly in cases related to equality and non-discrimination in the workplace (70). In the same vein, the Uruguayan Supreme Court has considered the Declaration as part of the ‘constitutional bloc’ of the Uruguayan legal system (71). This approach has been consistently followed by Uruguayan employment appeal courts (72), which, relying upon, inter alia, the Declaration as part of the constitutional bloc, have considered labour rights, in particular decent work, as a key element to protect workers’ dignity (73). Furthermore, drawing upon Article 4 of the Declaration, it has been decided that the Uruguayan judiciary power has a legal obligation to respect the principle of non-discrimination when delivering judgments in matters related to employment (74). Consequently, the Declaration cannot only be relied upon against other individuals, such as employers, but also against the State in a broader sense. Uruguayan courts have also consistently drawn inspiration form the Declaration to protect the right to freedom of association, which is unsurprising given the fact that the Uruguayan 2006 Freedom of Association Act (Law 17940, 2 January 2006) refers to Article 9 of the 1998-Declaration (75). Similarly, Paraguayan courts have used the Declaration as a legally binding instrument (76). Prior to any judgments explicitly referencing the Declaration, Myriam Peña, a former judge of the Paraguayan Supreme Court, maintained that the Declaration was legally binding (77). However, there seems to be an interesting evolution in a recent case heard by the Paraguayan Supreme Court, where Article 4 of the 1998-Declaration was invoked. Relying upon this provision, which protects the principle of equality and nondiscrimination in the workplace, this court declared the unconstitutionality of a 2014 reform to the Aeronautical Code, which forced companies to give preference to Paraguayan pilots (78). Relying upon this provision, which protects the principle of equality and non-discrimination in the workplace, this court declared the unconstitutionality of a 2014 reform to the Aeronautical Code, which forced companies to give preference to Paraguayan pilots. Traditionally, Brazilian courts have been much more reluctant to rely upon Mercosur norms. In 2019, as far as the authors of the present article are aware, for the first time, the Supreme Labour Court (Tribunal Superior do Trabalho) relied upon Article 4 of the Declaration to underline the importance of the principle of equality and non-discrimination in the workplace within the Brazilian legal order. It referred to this provision along with other instruments of constitutional nature (79). This seemed to be in line with the approach of the TST president at the time the decision was made who considered that the Declaration could constitute a constitutional norm in light of the 2004 constitutional reform regarding human rights. This marks significant progress, especially considering that prior to 2019, the Supreme Labour Court had only made incidental mentions of the Declaration in four instances, albeit without integrating it into the core reasoning of those judgments (80). However, in a more recent development, relying upon an extensive array of international instruments and Articles 2 and 4 of the Declaration, a regional labour court, Tribunal Regional do Trabalho da 4ª Região, concluded that a conduct which involved harassment in the workplace violated the worker’s dignity which is protected by constitutional norms (81). In another case, where an employer was held liable for failing to guarantee safe and healthy working conditions, the same court concluded that there was a ‘direct’ violation of the Declaration, along with other international and regional human rights instruments as well as ILO Conventions, which enshrine the worker’s right to a health and safety working environment (82). Interestingly, the judgment concluded by stating that the judiciary had a duty to ensure the effectiveness of human rights in employment relationships. All in all, the Declaration, whose legal nature has been discussed since its adoption, has been consistently relied upon by first instance and appeal labour courts, as well as national supreme courts to protect workers’ rights across Mercosur Member States. This constitutes a strong indication that the Declaration is a legally binding instrument, and the judiciary has played a significant role in bringing this instrument to life.
_____________________
61 GARDINI, Gian Luca. “MERCOSUR: What You See is not (Always) What You Get”. European Law Journal. 2011, vol. 17, no. 5, p. 683-700.
62 SCOTTI, Luciana. “Diálogo de Fuentes: Las Normas Regionales del Mercosur y las Nuevas Disposiciones del Derecho Internacional Privado Argentino”. Revista de la Secretaría del Tribunal Permanente de Revisión. 2016, vol. 4, no. 7, p.152-184; Wojcikiewicz Almeida, Paula. Op.cit., p. 307. 63 One exception has been the Uruguayan 2006 Freedom of Association Act (Law 17940, 02 January 2006), which relying upon Article 9 1998-Declaration, protects trade union representatives.
64 Suprema Corte de Justicia de Mendoza, Sindicato Unido de Trabajadores de la Educación c. Gobierno de Mendoza p/ Acción de Inconstitucionalidad’, 08 May 2018, which has relied upon the Declaration to protect freedom of association and social dialogue.
65 First judgment: C.N.A.T., Sala VI, Stringa Domingo Alberto c/ Unilever de Argentina S. A. s/ despido, 23 October 2000. For a detailed list, see: ARESE, César. Derechos Humanos Laborales. Santa Fe: Rubinzal Culzoni 2014
66 Aquino, Isaac c/Cargo Servicios Industriales S.A. s/accidente – ley 9688, 15 July 2004; Silva, Facundo Jesús v Unilever de Argentina SA, 18 December 2007 regarding health and safety at work; 330:5435; Aerolíneas Argentinas SA v Ministerio de Trabajo, 24 February 2009 regarding working conditions and the obligation of the state to enforce labour legislation; Torrillo, Atilio Amadeo y otro c/ Gulf Oil Argentina S.A. y otro, 31 March 2009 regarding health and safety in the workplace; Pérez, Aníbal Raúl c/ Disco S.A., 01 September 2009 regarding the protection of wages.
67 PEROTTI, Alejandro. “El Fallo ‘Aquino’ de la Corte Suprema: Una Introducción a la Aplicación Judicial de la Declaración Socio-Laboral del MERCOSUR”. Revista de Derecho Privado y Comunitario. 2005, vol. 3, p.607-633.
68 Álvarez, Maximiliano y otros c. Cencosud S.A. s/acción de amparo, 07 December 2010, recital 7. 69 ATE s/ acción de inconstitucionalidad, 18 June 2013.
70 These are only two recent examples out of many judgments: C.N.A.T., Sala IV, “Perillo, Adriel Marcelo c/ BBVA Banco Francés S.A. s/ Despido” – JUZGADO N° 03, 12 October 2023; “Pelossi, Fabian Alfredo c/ Inc S.A s/ Juicio Sumarísimo” – JUZGADO Nº 41”.
71 Judgment 106/2006, Comision Tecnica Mixta de Salto Grande c. Damado Campos, Walter – Ejecucion de Laudo Extranjero de Condena», Fa. 1- 57/05, 21 July 2006; Judgment 775/2014, Asociación Departamental de Empleados Municipales de Canelones y Otros c/ Intendencia Municipal de Canelones – Ley Nro. 17.940 – Casación, 28 August 2014.
72 Tribunal Apelaciones Trabajo 4T, Judgment 354/2014, G.M., Oscar C/ Bowil SA y Otros – Proceso Laboral Ordinario (Ley 18.572), Recursos Tribunal Colegiado, 19 November 2014 (Article 9 1998-Declaration, Freedom of Association); Judgment 29/2015, Domínguez,Norberto y otro c/ G4s Security Services Uruguay SA – Reinstalación Tutela Especial, 05 February 2015 (Article 9 1998-Declaration, Freedom of Association); Judgment 275/2016, UOC y Otro c/ Dofin S.A. – Reinstalación, 07 September 2016 (Article 9 1998-Declaration, Freedom of Association).
73 Tribunal Apelaciones Trabajo 1T, Judgment 280/2019, Cardinal Analía y otro c/ Asociación Civil Amigos de Padre Pío. Recursos Tribunal Colegiado, 11 September 2019.
74 Tribunal Apelaciones Trabajo 1T, Judgment 368/2019, Poblete, Elda c/ Agesil S.A. Recursos Tribunal Colegiado, 13 November 2019.
75 As recent illustrative judgments, please see: Tribunal de Apelaciones del Trabajo de 2o turno, “AA y otro c/Ministerio del Interior – reinstalación tutela especial”, sentencia definitiva no 133/2023, 23/06/2023; Tribunal de Apelaciones del Trabajo de 3er turno, “AA y otros c/ BB–acción de amparo”, sentencia 13/12/2022.
76 Cámara Laboral de Apelaciones, DIAGRO S.A. c/ Resolución No. 668 de fecha 14/11/2001, dictado por el Vice Ministerio del Trabajo y Seguridad Social, 04 March 2003; Sala II, María de Lourdes de Barros Barreto B. y otra c. Interventores de Multibanco SAECA s. Amparo Constitucional, 23 May 2005.
77 PEÑA, Myriam. Op.cit. p. 57.
78 CSJ Paraguay, “Acción de Inconstitucionalidad promovida por Aerolink S.A. c/ Art. 1° de la Ley Nº 5221/14 que Modifica el Art. 93 de la Ley Nº 1860/02 «que Establece el Código Aeronáutico de la Republica del Paraguay””, Acuerdo y Sentencia No. 131, 22/02/2023.
79 Tribunal Superior do Trabalho, Recurso de Revista n° TST-RR-1076-13.2012.5.02.0049, Juliana Aparecida Tanso Spiandon c. Itaú Unibanco S.A., 24 April 2019.
80 VILAR LOPES, Gills and VILAR LOPES, Dalliana. Uma análise mercosulina do Direito do Trabalho nas decisões do Tribunal Superior do Trabalho (TST). En 38º Encontro Nacional da ANPOCS, Caxambu/MG. Anais GT29 (2014).
81 Tribunal Regional do Trabalho da 4ª Região, 8ª Turma, 0020477-30.2018.5.04.0211 ROT, em 26/11/2020.
82 Tribunal Regional do Trabalho da 4ª Região, 8ª Turma, 0020299-53.2020.5.04.0812 ROT, 19/05/2021.
