Fine for late payment of partial unemployment compensation of teachers and conflict over jurisdiction between labor and contentious specialty

Abstract

The implementation of Article 2 of Law 244 of 1995 as amended by Law 1071 of 2006, which recognizes the fine for late payment equivalent to one day's salary for each day of delay in the payment of partial or definitive unemployment compensation of public servants to from its recognition, has had different interpretations by the judges of the Republic and this has meant that judges either declare themselves incompetent to hear about the claim, or deny the claims, causing exhaustion for users and a limit to access to the administration of justice.

It is observed that there are processes that were born with the intention of seeking nullity and reestablishment of the right in an administrative act and as a consequence of this, the compensation of the fines for late payment is sought. However, by virtue of a 2014 judgment from the Superior Council of the Judiciary, where it is mentioned that all the processes that contain the payment of such sanction must be processed as an executive issue, the administrative courts have resolved to declare themselves incompetent by sending the processes to the labor players who have the theory of the non-existence of the executive tittle, reason why they have no other way than to deny the payment order or, at the exceptions proceeding, declare the non-existence of the title.

Others, on the other hand, have chosen to directly present the executive demand in the labor specialty having the luck already mentioned. In February of this year, the Superior Council of the Judiciary again reconsidered its position by unifying the criteria set forth and giving instructions to guide the courts as to their competence in some way revolted by the pronouncement of three years earlier. In Neiva, this phenomenon has been presented, coupled with the fact that the High Civil Court Family until 2013 maintained the theory of the existence of the executive title, giving users the legitimacy to present their demands through the Executive process, position that changed in that year, creating a precedent for the labor courts of the Circuit of Neiva who continue to deny the payment orders.