Summons to appear before the SECLO – Suspension of the application of the statute of limitations

On June 6, 2006 the National Court of Appeals in Labor Matters resolved on two issues, by plenary judgment # 312 passed in the case “Martínez Alberto vs Y.P.F. S.A. on Employees’ Stock Option Plan (Part. Accionariado Obrero): (i) that section 3986, second paragraph of the Civil Code, that establishes that the effect of the out-of-court notice is to suspend the application of the statute of limitations for one year shall be replaced by the special and specific provisions of Law No 24,635, section 7 of which establishes that the filing of a claim in the SECLO suspends the application of the statute of limitations for six months pursuant to the provisions of section 257 of the employment contract law; (ii) that it should be interpreted that section 7 of Law No 24,635 sets forth that the administrative proceedings before the SECLO suspend the term of the statute of limitations applicable to legal actions for six months, even if the administrative proceeding may have taken a shorter term.

1.         Background information

Up to the passing of said plenary judgment the divisions of the National Court of Appeals in Labor Matters had different opinions on the application of section 3986, second paragraph of the Civil Code and on the calculation of the term of suspension of the statute of limitations when filing a claim in the SECLO.

As regards the first issue, one opinion was that the pretrial conference before the SECLO did not have the effects of the notice provided for in section 3988, second paragraph of the Civil Code while another one considered that the proceedings before the SECLO had the effects of a an out-of-court notice to the ends of suspending the statute of limitations for a year as set forth by section 3988, second paragraph of the Civil Code. 

As to the second issue, certain divisions of the Court considered that the statute of limitations was suspended for six months notwithstanding the fact that the administrative proceedings may take a shorter term, while others considered that the statute of limitations corresponding to any claim filed in the SECLO was suspended during the term of the proceedings.

2.         The decision

In the mentioned plenary judgment, the Attorney General acting before the Court of Appeals and the majority of the judges thereof agree on the first two opinions. Among the grounds for such decision, the attorney general points out that the existence of a specific and detailed legislation governing the effects of the claims filed in the SECLO, overrides a general system such as the one provided for in section 3988, second paragraph of the Civil Code. However, he explains that the application of section 3986 of the Civil Code is not eliminated from labor relations matters but that the mere summons to appear at the pretrial conference before the SECLO does not have the suspension effects provided for by said section of the Civil Code. Besides, as regards section 7 of Law No 24,635 the attorney general states that it should be interpreted in favor of the worker based on the provisions of section 9 of the Employment Contract Law.