Suspension of the effects of employment contracts due to force majeure or fortuitous event, vs. Thirteenth Month: An Issue of Conflict

By Javier José Vallarino 

The Thirteenth Month is regulated by very special rules, specifically Cabinet Decree No. 221, of November 18, 1971, and Decree 19, of September 7, 1973.

In this regard, it is worth noting that Cabinet Decree No. 221 of November 18, 1971, created and established the figure of the Thirteenth Month as a special bonus and, in addition, as a right for workers, since this ” labor benefit ” is not paid voluntarily by employers, but they have the legal obligation to make said payment on the date corresponding to each part of the thirteenth month (April 15, August 15, and December 15 of each year).

In this sense, the Paragraph of Article Two of Cabinet Decree 221 of 1971 expressly provides that ” for the purposes of this remuneration, those days in which the worker was unable to provide service due to occupational disease , non-occupational disease, work accident , maternity , leave and vacation, duly verified, will be considered as worked days .”

In turn, Article Four of Cabinet Decree 19 of September 7, 1973, which regulates the scope of Cabinet Decree 221 of 1971, expressly provides that:

“ Article Four. The payment or deposit of each of the three items of the Thirteenth Month must be calculated on the average of the wages received by the worker during the period corresponding to each item, including base salary, overtime, work days with legal surcharges, commissions, bonuses, sick leave paid by the employer, maternity leave , vacations, paid leave, occupational risk and bonuses received during the respective period.” (emphasis added)

Neither of the two (2) Cabinet Decrees cited above, which, we reiterate, specifically regulate the thirteenth month, contemplate the suspension of the effects of employment contracts due to force majeure or fortuitous event (Section 8, of Article 199, of the Labor Code), as part of the ” effective working time ” that must be considered for the calculation of each item of the thirteenth month, nor as ” paid time ” for this same purpose.

Note that Decree 19 of 1973, which includes the official interpretation of the thirteenth month, expressly includes and considers the time in which i) the worker is enjoying her maternity leave , and in which ii) a worker is incapacitated due to occupational risks , as part of the effective working time and/or paid time that must be considered for the calculation of each of the items of the thirteenth month.

It is important to clarify that both maternity leave and disability resulting from occupational risks constitute causes for suspension of the effects of employment contracts expressly contemplated in sections 4 and 5 of Article 199 of the Labor Code.

Luego, el Artículo 199 del Código de Trabajo señala nueve (9) causas de suspensión de los efectos de los contratos de trabajo, incluyendo la fuerza mayor y caso fortuito, pero las normas especiales en materia de décimo tercer mes solamente contemplaron dos (2) de estas nueve (9) causas de suspensión de los contratos de trabajo para el cálculo y pago de esta bonificación especial: licencia de maternidad y riesgos profesionales.

Por las razones antes expuestas, no existía -ni existe- sustento jurídico alguno, ni siquiera aplicando el principio de interpretación más favorable al trabajador, ya sea que se trate de la regla indubio pro operario, o de la regla de aplicación de la norma más favorable al trabajador, que permita arribar a la conclusión de que la suspensión de los efectos de los contratos de trabajo por motivos de fuerza mayor o caso fortuito, deba ser considerada como tiempo trabajado o tiempo remunerado para efectos del cálculo del décimo tercer mes.

Dentro de este contexto, preocupa y es muy peligroso que el Ministerio de Trabajo y Desarrollo Laboral (en adelante MITRADEL) haya insistido, durante los meses de marzo y abril de 2020, con este criterio interpretativo que carece de sustento jurídico.

Pero más preocupante aún, es que los futuros reclamos laborales por diferencias de décimo tercer mes, concretamente diferencias en el pago de la primera partida del décimo tercer mes, serían de competencia privativa de las Juntas de Conciliación y Decisión adscritas a MITRADEL, cuando su cuantía no supere los B/.1,500.00 (Ley 7 de 1975), con la particularidad de que, tales procesos, no serían susceptibles de un recurso de apelación porque su cuantía no superaría los B/.2,000.00 (Ley 1 de 1986).

Si las Juntas de Conciliación y Decisión están subordinadas a MITRADEL, y si, además, la cuantía de la inmensa mayoría de los reclamos laborales por diferencia de décimo tercer mes, en virtud de los salarios que se pagan en Panamá, no superarían los B/.1,500.00, podemos vaticinar un número muy importante y abrumadoramente mayoritario de sentencias condenatorias dictadas en procesos laborales que serían de una única instancia.

Finalmente, es importante mencionar que la recientemente sancionada Ley 157, de 3 de agosto de 2020, dispone en su Artículo 5, que “los trabajadores que no reciban la segunda partida del décimo tercer mes, por razón de la suspensión de los efectos de sus contratos de trabajo, al no haber laborado entre el 15 de abril de y 15 de agosto de 2020, tendrán derecho a percibir un bono, cuya cuantía será determinada por el Órgano Ejecutivo y pagada a través a través del Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas”.

In our opinion, the provisions of Law 157 of 2020, by expressly exempting employers from paying the second installment of the thirteenth month with respect to the period during which workers were suspended from employment contracts, constitutes a tacit acceptance by MITRADEL (remember that the Minister of Labor was the one who proposed the Draft Law) that the criteria defended by its authorized spokespersons was wrong, incorrect, and responded to a political position adopted by the Administrative Labor Authority that caused economic damages to employers or companies that chose, on April 15, 2020, to obey the guidelines and directives wrongly issued by MITRADEL and paid in full the first installment of the thirteenth month, despite having previously suspended the effects of the employment contracts of a plural number of its workers.