The Court urges the Legislator to establish rules that regulate the exercise of the right to strike in essential services, including the definition of a minimum services model. In the absence of legislative progress in this regard, the Court holds that the labor judge has the power to assess whether during a strike minimum services have been ensured to protect the fundamental needs of the population, which could justify the legality of the strike in essential services.
The minutes of findings issued by the Ministry of Labor are not the only admissible evidence to prove the interruption of labor activities. Proof of how, when and where the work stoppage occurred can be supported by any available means of proof.
The Court considers that the proof of a strike is based more on the concrete and real conditions in which it occurred, so it is not essential that it was formally denominated as a protest or assembly, that it was partial or that the workers did not officially declare their participation in it. Likewise, the fact that the stoppage of activities has not been voted or officially declared by the general assembly of workers does not invalidate its nature as a stoppage of activities.
Source: Ruling SL2256-2023 of the Labor Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.
