Basket Ticket

Analysis: In order to elucidate the controversy raised, and in the opinion of the undersigned, need understand the background of the said regulations, in order to base the analysis on a criterion of legal rationality in the light of the spirit, purpose and reason for the studied regulations, in this sense must define the object or purpose of the Act; stipulates that in text of article 1 (Art. 1), both of the repealed law program of power for workers (1998), as in the existing law of food for workers (2004) is that as the .mejorar the nutritional status of cough workers, in order to strengthen their health, prevent occupational diseases and promote greater labour productivity. Then both normative words more, words less, match in his second article (Art. 2) part in fine, in the fulfilment of the obligation by the employer is limited to the granting of a meal balanced during the working day.. In This point becomes essential to conceptualize what the opinion of the Venezuelan labour law be understood by working day or workday, so the Art. Indycar brings even more insight to the discussion. 189 of the the labor law (LOT) in concordance with Art. 106 of its rules of procedure (RLOT), and the article 3 of the Regulation Act of food for workers (RLAT) defined it as the time during which the worker is at the disposal of the employer and may not freely dispose of their activity and their movements. Also establishes that the worker is at the disposal of the employer from the moment that arrives to the place where you need to make your work until you can dispose freely of his time and his activity.. Stated above, it is evident that from the date of promulgation of the repealed Act (1998) until the entry into force of the law (2006), passing by the law in force (2004), panning for companies in terms of compliance with the obligation to food when workers were in enjoyment of your vacation, permit, in rest pre and post natal and in periods of incapacity (rest), was rather clear, considering that such compliance was subordinated to the Jornada de Trabajo in the terms defined by the LOT; being that during these periods, the employee is not at the disposal of the employer and can have their time freely, for argument in contrast with the standard, the worker is not found within their working day, and consequently it is not a creditor of the benefit.

This entry was posted in News and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.