{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-142216", "citation": "Res. 00042-2012 Sala Segunda de la Corte", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Supresión de guardias médicas a microbiólogo por reorganización institucional", "title_en": "Elimination of medical on-call shifts for microbiologist due to institutional restructuring", "summary_es": "La Sala Segunda de la Corte Suprema de Justicia conoció el caso de un microbiólogo químico clínico, jefe de laboratorio de la CCSS, quien reclamó la eliminación de sus guardias médicas, modalidad de jornada extraordinaria que venía realizando de forma constante. La Sala determinó que las guardias médicas no forman parte de la jornada ordinaria ni constituyen un derecho adquirido, pues por su naturaleza excepcional la administración puede disponer su supresión cuando convenga a los fines institucionales, conforme al poder organizatorio del servicio público y a la normativa que limita el tiempo extraordinario en el sector público (artículo 31 de la Ley para el Equilibrio Financiero del Sector Público, artículo 6 de la Ley de Contingencia Fiscal, artículo 17 de la Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública). Se constató que la CCSS asignó una plaza de microbiólogo para cubrir el II turno en el laboratorio clínico, medida que ahorró recursos y mejoró la calidad del servicio, sin incurrir en arbitrariedad. Por tanto, se revocó la sentencia que otorgaba al actor el derecho a continuar realizando guardias y se acogió la excepción de falta de derecho, desestimando la demanda en todos sus extremos.", "summary_en": "The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled on the case of a clinical chemist microbiologist, head of laboratory for the CCSS, who claimed the elimination of his medical on-call shifts, a form of extraordinary working hours he had performed consistently. The Chamber determined that medical on-call shifts are not part of the ordinary working day nor do they constitute an acquired right, because their exceptional nature allows the administration to eliminate them when it suits institutional purposes, in accordance with the organizational power of public service and the regulations limiting extraordinary hours in the public sector (Article 31 of the Law for the Financial Balance of the Public Sector, Article 6 of the Fiscal Contingency Law, Article 17 of the Public Administration Salaries Law). It was confirmed that the CCSS appointed a microbiologist to cover the second shift in the clinical laboratory, a measure that saved resources and improved service quality, without acting arbitrarily. Therefore, the judgment granting the plaintiff the right to continue performing on-call shifts was revoked and the defense of lack of right was upheld, dismissing the claim in its entirety.", "court_or_agency": "Sala Segunda de la Corte", "date": "2012", "year": "2012", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "jornada extraordinaria", "guardias médicas", "relación estatutaria", "derechos adquiridos", "poder organizatorio", "CCSS", "preaviso", "auxilio de cesantía" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 58", "law": "Constitución Política" }, { "article": "Art. 31", "law": "Ley 6955" }, { "article": "Art. 6", "law": "Ley 8343" }, { "article": "Art. 17", "law": "Ley 2166" }, { "article": "Art. 4", "law": "Ley 6227" }, { "article": "Art. 143", "law": "Código de Trabajo" } ], "keywords_es": [ "jornada extraordinaria", "guardias médicas", "CCSS", "relación estatutaria", "derechos adquiridos", "poder organizatorio", "servicio público", "sector público", "microbiólogo", "auxilio de cesantía", "preaviso" ], "keywords_en": [ "overtime", "medical on-call shifts", "CCSS", "statutory employment", "acquired rights", "organizational power", "public service", "public sector", "microbiologist", "severance pay", "notice period" ], "excerpt_es": "En consecuencia, las guardias médicas no son parte de la jornada ordinaria del actor y como tal, no integran un derecho propio y consustancial al cargo. Reiteradamente se ha dicho que la naturaleza propia de la labor en tiempo extraordinario es, como su propio nombre lo indica, una jornada excepcional, pues lo que debe imperar en toda contratación laboral es el respeto a los límites horarios dispuestos como un derecho fundamental de las personas trabajadoras. [...] En el caso en estudio no se aprecia arbitrariedad en la restricción al actor, de laborar las guardias médicas (ver solicitud de folio 32). Se demostró el nombramiento de otro Microbiólogo Químico Clínico para que cubriera el II turno, en el Laboratorio Clínico, a partir del 15 de octubre de 2005 (ver folio 30 vuelto); lo que sin lugar a duda representa un ahorro de recursos económicos a la parte demandada debido al tipo de remuneración, que dejaba de ser la propia de la jornada extraordinaria. [...] Las entidades que como la demandada prestan un servicio público, tienen la potestad de reorganizar sus recursos y servicios en procura de la más adecuada y eficiente prestación del servicio; y mejores ventajas en el costo económico de su operación y funcionamiento (artículo 4 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública).", "excerpt_en": "Consequently, medical on-call shifts are not part of the plaintiff's ordinary working day and, as such, do not constitute an inherent right attached to the position. It has been repeatedly stated that the very nature of extraordinary time work is, as its name indicates, an exceptional working day, since what must prevail in every employment contract is respect for the hourly limits established as a fundamental right of workers. [...] In the case under study, no arbitrariness is observed in the restriction of the plaintiff's performance of medical on-call shifts (see request on folio 32). The appointment of another Clinical Chemist Microbiologist to cover the second shift in the Clinical Laboratory, effective October 15, 2005, was demonstrated (see folio 30 verso); which undoubtedly represents a saving of economic resources for the defendant due to the type of remuneration, which ceased to be that of an extraordinary working day. [...] Entities that, like the defendant, provide a public service, have the power to reorganize their resources and services in pursuit of the most adequate and efficient provision of the service; and better advantages in the economic cost of their operation and functioning (Article 4 of the General Public Administration Law).", "outcome": { "label_en": "Denied", "label_es": "Sin lugar", "summary_en": "The plaintiff's claim is dismissed and the judgment recognizing his right to continue performing medical on-call shifts is reversed, as they do not constitute an acquired right and fall under the administration's organizational powers.", "summary_es": "Se desestima la demanda del actor y se revoca la sentencia que le reconocía el derecho a continuar realizando guardias médicas, por no constituir un derecho adquirido y ser una potestad organizatoria de la administración." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "The work of medical on-call shifts is extrinsic to the appointment; it is an exceptional task—like overtime—that the defendant, in its capacity as service administrator, arranges to achieve the best fulfillment of its purposes.", "quote_es": "La labor en guardias médicas es ajena al nombramiento; es una labor excepcional -al igual que las horas extra- que la demandada, en su función de administradora del servicio dispone para lograr el mejor cumplimiento de sus fines." }, { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "there are no acquired rights against the organizational power of the Administration... there are no acquired rights against the rules governing the internal regime of the Administration.", "quote_es": "no existen derechos adquiridos frente al poder organizatorio de la Administración... no existen derechos adquiridos frente a las normas reguladoras del régimen interno de la Administración." }, { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "Authorizing or maintaining double or extended shifts, beyond the ordinary limits, is to ignore the constitutional principles on working hours, to contravene the laws, and to manage public resources to the detriment of the health of the officials themselves.", "quote_es": "Autorizar o mantener el desempeño en jornadas dobles o ampliadas, más allá de los límites ordinarios, es inadvertir los principios constitucionales sobre la jornada de trabajo, contrariar las leyes y administrar los recursos públicos en detrimento de la salud de los propios funcionarios y funcionarias." } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-6199", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 6955 Art. 31" }, { "target_id": "norm-49812", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 8343 Art. 6" }, { "target_id": "norm-3672", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 2166 Art. 17" }, { "target_id": "norm-13231", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 6227 Art. 4" } ], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-142216", "tier": 2, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [ { "doc_id": "norm-3672", "norm_num": "2166", "norm_name": "Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "09/10/1957" }, { "doc_id": "norm-49812", "norm_num": "8343", "norm_name": "Ley de Contingencia Fiscal", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "18/12/2002" }, { "doc_id": "norm-6199", "norm_num": "6955", "norm_name": "Ley para el Equilibrio Financiero del Sector Público", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "24/02/1984" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "“III.- Existe un hecho de fundamental importancia respecto del cual la parte recurrente no ha formulado objeción alguna. Se trata del enunciado b) del elenco de hechos probados de la sentencia de primera instancia según el cual, desde el año 1995 a enero de 2006, el actor ha laborado tiempo extraordinario (certificación de folios 23, 60 al 62). En efecto, con los documentos aportados, particularmente con la certificación de salarios percibidos por el actor de enero de 2002 a marzo de 2006, se evidencia que durante todo ese tiempo el actor devengó de forma normal, un monto adicional por concepto de salario extraordinario. El tema fundamental es que a partir de abril de 2006, esa prestación le fue eliminada. De la normativa institucional y de la prueba testimonial aportada se desprende que las llamadas “guardias médicas” son una modalidad de labor en tiempo extraordinario. En el Instructivo para la Confección, Trámite y Pago de Tiempo Extraordinario (expediente adjunto) se indica expresamente:\n\n2.5.7 Guardias médicas\n\nSe le paga a los profesionales médicos y se obliga su permanencia dentro del hospital. La remuneración se efectúa como tiempo extraordinario, utilizando los distintos factores de cálculo establecidos al respecto.\n\nEsta modalidad de tiempo extra, se inicia a partir del momento en que finaliza la jornada ordinaria y se extiende hasta el día siguiente antes de la hora en que inicia la jornada extraordinaria de ese día.\n\nDurante los fines de semana y feriados, las guardias comprenden períodos de 12 horas entre las 7 de la mañana y las 7 de la noche y entre las 7 de la noche y las 7 de la mañana del día siguiente.\n\nEn consecuencia, las guardias médicas no son parte de la jornada ordinaria del actor y como tal, no integran un derecho propio y consustancial al cargo. Reiteradamente se ha dicho que la naturaleza propia de la labor en tiempo extraordinario es, como su propio nombre lo indica, una jornada excepcional, pues lo que debe imperar en toda contratación laboral es el respeto a los límites horarios dispuestos como un derecho fundamental de las personas trabajadoras. Tanto la Constitución Política, como los instrumentos internacionales de derechos humanos de carácter económico social, la normativa interna, y la jurisprudencia reafirman el respeto a los límites de la jornada diaria de las personas trabajadoras como parte integrante del derecho a una vida saludable. El reclamo del actor debe ser analizado considerando la normativa relacionada con el respeto a esos límites; y las necesidades de los servicios prestados por la institución empleadora, que está obligada a implementar las medidas oportunas y convenientes para garantizar un eficiente servicio de salud. El establecimiento de disponibilidades y horas extraordinarias responde a su deber de dirección y organización de ese servicio, en cuya aplicación debe prevalecer el interés público que, por naturaleza, tiene condiciones variables que exigen adecuaciones y mejoras continuas. En el sector público, la labor en tiempo extraordinario ha sido objeto de una amplia regulación limitadora debido a que por la forma de su remuneración exige un mayor gasto para los fondos públicos. Así por ejemplo, la Ley para el Equilibrio Financiero del Sector Público n° 6955 de 24 de febrero de 1984, dispuso en su artículo 31:\n\nCuando en los poderes del Estado, en las instituciones descentralizadas y en las empresas públicas se haya consolidado situaciones laborales, en que un solo individuo trabaja en forma permanente la jornada ordinaria y una jornada extraordinaria, su superior jerárquico inmediato, deberá tomar inmediatamente las medidas correspondientes para que cese tal situación, so pena de ser responsable directo ante el Estado del monto de las jornadas extraordinarias que así se pagaren. De inmediato, también, se tomarán medidas por parte del Poder, institución o empresa, para que las funciones que originaron la jornada extraordinaria permanente se asignen a un empleado o funcionario específicamente nombrado para desempeñarlas, cuando tales funciones fueren de carácter indispensable.\n\nEn igual sentido, referido a la limitación que en principio existe en el sector público para laborar en tiempo extraordinario, se ubica el artículo 17 de la Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública. El artículo 6 de la Ley de Contingencia Fiscal n° 8343, de 18 de diciembre de 2002 dice:\n\nArtículo 6.- Pago de la jornada extraordinaria\n\nNo podrán autorizarse jornadas extraordinarias a una misma persona en forma sucesiva durante más de tres meses, en virtud de que desnaturaliza el carácter extraordinario de este tipo de jornada. Salvo justificación expresa y conforme a dichos criterios, la autorización de los pagos de horas extras por parte de las instancias de recursos humanos y los jerarcas de cada institución del Estado, deberá realizarse con estricto apego a los criterios de necesidad, razonabilidad y racionalización del gasto público.\n\nA pesar de esa excepcionalidad de la labor en tiempo extraordinario es claro que en el caso del actor, la ejecución de guardias médicas no fue ocasional, sino constante durante un periodo prolongado; sin embargo, ningún derecho tenía ni tiene a que se le mantuviera en esa condición. En este sentido, lleva razón el recurrente en cuanto no es posible ordenar a la institución empleadora programarle al actor igual cantidad de guardias por mes, como las que venía realizando antes del momento en que estas se le suspendieran pues es evidente que, precisamente con el objeto de restringir los gastos por pago de tiempo extraordinario, la Dirección General Gestión Regional y Red de Servicios de Salud asignó una serie de plazas con el objeto de cubrir el servicio vespertino (folios 28 y 29). Al Área de Salud de […] 2 -donde trabaja el actor- se le asignó una plaza de Microbiólogo Químico Clínico para ser utilizada en el Laboratorio Clínico exclusivamente en la jornada vespertina (ver folio 23). La fecha a partir de la cual entró en vigencia esa plaza fue el 15 de octubre de 2005 (folios 30 frente y vuelto). Por esa razón, resulta imposible obligar a la demandada a nombrar al actor para cubrir un servicio en el que fue nombrado un nuevo profesional. Por otra parte, tampoco se le puede obligar a nombrar al actor para la cobertura de los turnos de los fines de semana. Existe una norma interna que expresamente lo impide. Se trata de lo dispuesto en el punto 1.5 del Instructivo para la Confección, Trámite y Pago de Tiempo Extraordinario (documento aportado y que corre agregado al expediente principal) que dice:\n\n 1.5 Prohibición de realización de tiempo extra:\n\n(…/…) Se encuentran también inhibidos para la realización y cobro de tiempo extraordinario los(as) funcionarios(as) acogidos a dedicación exclusiva, disponibilidad de Jefaturas, disponibilidad y desplazamiento de Ingenieros y aquellos(as) que desempeñen cargos de jefatura, así como los que están excluidos de la limitación de la jornada de trabajo, de conformidad con lo que establece el artículo 143 del Código de Trabajo y el decreto n° 210183-H, en el que se menciona a:\n\n1. Gerentes (as)\n\n2. Empleados(as) que trabajan sin fiscalización superior inmediata.\n\n3. Funcionarios(as) que ocupan puestos de confianza\n\n4. Los (as) que llevan a cabo funciones discontinuas o que requieran su sola presencia. (…/…)\n\nEn el caso del actor, su limitación para realizar labores en tiempo extraordinario le viene impuesta por su condición de Jefe de Laboratorio (folio 25), lo que ha requerido que para circunstancias diversas, en las que ha existido inopia de recurso humano y para lograr favorecer un proceso de atención de urgencias se ha solicitado expresamente a la Dirección General Gestión Regional y Red de Servicios de Salud la anuencia para que autorice la labor del actor, en esa condición (folios 25 y 26). Esto refleja que no estaba autorizado a ejecutar labores en tiempo extraordinario para atender esos otros casos, es decir, ante la inopia de recurso humano o la atención de urgencias. La situación en estudio difiere del antecedente resuelto por esta Sala, sentencia número 236 de 9:30 horas de 15 de octubre de 1997, porque en ese otro caso el actor reclamó haber sido excluido del rol de las guardias de permanencia y la demandada no demostró la supuesta reestructuración del servicio que alegó, ni los fundamentos de su decisión; por lo que ésta se consideró arbitraria. En el caso en estudio no se aprecia arbitrariedad en la restricción al actor, de laborar las guardias médicas (ver solicitud de folio 32). Se demostró el nombramiento de otro Microbiólogo Químico Clínico para que cubriera el II turno, en el Laboratorio Clínico, a partir del 15 de octubre de 2005 (ver folio 30 vuelto); lo que sin lugar a duda representa un ahorro de recursos económicos a la parte demandada debido al tipo de remuneración, que dejaba de ser la propia de la jornada extraordinaria. Además, innegablemente, contar con un turno ordinario más, con un funcionario o funcionaria que inicia a partir de ese momento sin cargar con el cansancio propio de quien ha cumplido una jornada anterior, le otorga a la demandada mayor posibilidad de ampliar sus servicios y de ofrecerlos de mejor calidad, con un funcionario que hasta ese momento asume su jornada diaria de trabajo. Autorizar o mantener el desempeño en jornadas dobles o ampliadas, más allá de los límites ordinarios, es inadvertir los principios constitucionales sobre la jornada de trabajo, contrariar las leyes y administrar los recursos públicos en detrimento de la salud de los propios funcionarios y funcionarias. En consecuencia, el fallo impugnado deberá ser revocado en cuanto desestimó la excepción de falta de derecho opuesta a la pretensión subsidiaria; declaró el derecho del actor a continuar laborando bajo la modalidad de guardias de permanencia; y obligó a la institución accionada a programarle igual promedio de guardias al mes de la misma forma como las venía realizando antes del momento en que se hizo efectiva la suspensión de esas guardias. También, se debe revocar en tanto le ordenó cancelarle los salarios por las guardias que no le permitió laborar a partir de la suspensión efectiva de éstas; conjuntamente con los intereses sobre esas sumas. Lo procedente es, conforme lo argumentado, acoger la excepción de falta de derecho opuesta también en relación con la pretensión subsidiaria. En consecuencia, la demanda deberá ser desestimada en todos sus extremos al estar precluída y decidida en firme la denegatoria a la pretensión principal, denegada desde la sentencia de primera instancia, sin protesta alguna de parte del interesado. En todo caso, la liquidación parcial en los extremos de preaviso y de auxilio de cesantía respecto de lo devengado por concepto de guardias médicas, tampoco resulta procedente. En primer lugar, debe advertirse que la relación del accionante con la institución demandada es una relación estatutaria, de empleo público; lo que implica, necesariamente, consecuencias derivadas de la naturaleza de esa relación, una de ellas es su delimitación por normas precisas que regulan las condiciones de la contratación. A la Administración le corresponde, en atención a sus fines, establecer la organización y las condiciones del servicio que presta, sin que tales aspectos puedan ser producto de la autonomía de la voluntad entre partes. Las entidades que como la demandada prestan un servicio público, tienen la potestad de reorganizar sus recursos y servicios en procura de la más adecuada y eficiente prestación del servicio; y mejores ventajas en el costo económico de su operación y funcionamiento (artículo 4 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública). Por ello se ha indicado que “no existen derechos adquiridos frente al poder organizatorio de la Administración... no existen derechos adquiridos frente a las normas reguladoras del régimen interno de la Administración.” (PALOMAR OLMEDA, Alberto. Derecho de la Función Pública. Régimen Jurídico de los Funcionarios Públicos, Madrid, segunda edición, Editorial DYKINSON, S.L., 1.992, p. 38). La labor en guardias médicas es ajena al nombramiento; es una labor excepcional -al igual que las horas extra- que la demandada, en su función de administradora del servicio dispone para lograr el mejor cumplimiento de sus fines. El funcionario o la funcionaria conocen que su atribución es totalmente disponible por parte de la administración patronal, según convenga a una más eficiente y ventajosa operación de los recursos y atención de las necesidades. En este caso, la razón de ser de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social es la prestación del servicio público de salud. La administración y disposición de las guardias médicas, al igual que las horas extra, constituyen un recurso excepcional del que se vale la institución para ajustarse a esas necesidades excepcionales o a la garantía, que debe rendir, de la continuidad en el servicio. Ese carácter excepcional es de pleno conocimiento del funcionario o funcionaria porque el puesto tiene una jornada ordinaria bien definida y a la que sí tiene derecho irrestricto. En concreto, por su excepcionalidad, la disponibilidad de las horas extra al igual que las guardias médicas puede ser variada cuando así convenga a los intereses institucionales, sin que pueda hablarse de derechos adquiridos. Desde la sentencia número 144, de 9:30 horas de 3 de mayo de 1995 se dijo que: “Respecto de las horas extra la jurisprudencia ha sido reiterada en el sentido de que las horas extras no conceden más derecho que al de su pago, sin que se pueda argumentar derechos adquiridos en relación con la posibilidad de realizarlas,…”. Por otra parte, no debe perderse de vista la finalidad inherente al límite en las jornadas de trabajo, que se ha mencionado. El artículo 58 de la Constitución Política dice: \"La jornada de trabajo diurno no podrá exceder de ocho horas diarias y cuarenta y ocho a la semana. La jornada ordinaria de trabajo nocturno no podrá exceder de seis horas diarias y treinta y seis a la semana. El trabajo en horas extraordinarias deberá ser remunerado con un cincuenta por ciento más de los sueldos o salarios estipulados. Sin embargo, estas disposiciones no se aplicarán en los casos de excepción muy calificados, que determine la ley\". El límite a la jornada ordinaria de trabajo opera también en contra del interés económico de quienes pretenden ganar más recurriendo a las dobles jornadas que excedan tales restricciones horarias. El sistema de guardias médicas evidentemente da al traste con esas restricciones horarias y, con su eliminación, por parte de la institución, no solo se adecua la relación de trabajo a los cánones constitucionales sino que la administración empleadora hace uso de un ejercicio legítimo de sus potestades de adecuación del servicio a los fines e intereses institucionales, sin menoscabo de derechos adquiridos.”", "body_en_text": "**III.-** There is a fact of fundamental importance regarding which the appellant has not raised any objection. It concerns statement b) of the list of proven facts in the first-instance judgment, according to which, from 1995 to January 2006, the plaintiff worked overtime (certification on folios 23, 60 to 62). Indeed, with the documents provided, particularly the certification of wages earned by the plaintiff from January 2002 to March 2006, it is evident that throughout that entire time the plaintiff normally received an additional amount for overtime pay. The key issue is that as of April 2006, that benefit was eliminated. From the institutional regulations and the testimonial evidence provided, it is clear that the so-called \"medical on-call shifts (guardias médicas)\" are a form of overtime work. In the Instructive for the Preparation, Processing, and Payment of Overtime (Instructivo para la Confección, Trámite y Pago de Tiempo Extraordinario) (attached file), it is expressly stated:\n\n2.5.7 Medical on-call shifts (guardias médicas)\n\nPayment is made to medical professionals and their presence within the hospital is mandatory. Remuneration is made as overtime, using the different calculation factors established for this purpose.\n\nThis form of overtime begins at the moment the ordinary workday ends and extends until the following day, before the time at which the ordinary workday of that day begins.\n\nDuring weekends and holidays, the on-call shifts (guardias) comprise 12-hour periods between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., and between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following day.\n\nConsequently, medical on-call shifts (guardias médicas) are not part of the plaintiff's ordinary workday and, as such, do not constitute a right inherent and consubstantial to the position. It has been repeatedly stated that the very nature of overtime work is, as its name indicates, an exceptional workday, since what must prevail in every employment contract is respect for the hourly limits established as a fundamental right of working persons. Both the Political Constitution, international economic and social human rights instruments, internal regulations, and case law reaffirm respect for the limits of the daily workday of working persons as an integral part of the right to a healthy life. The plaintiff's claim must be analyzed considering the regulations related to respect for those limits; and the needs of the services provided by the employing institution, which is obliged to implement the timely and appropriate measures to guarantee an efficient health service. The establishment of availabilities and overtime hours responds to its duty of direction and organization of that service, in the application of which the public interest must prevail, which, by its nature, has variable conditions that require continuous adaptations and improvements. In the public sector, overtime work has been subject to extensive limiting regulation because, due to the form of its remuneration, it demands greater expenditure of public funds. Thus, for example, the Law for the Financial Equilibrium of the Public Sector (Ley para el Equilibrio Financiero del Sector Público) No. 6955 of 24 February 1984, provided in its Article 31:\n\nWhen in the branches of the State, in decentralized institutions, and in public enterprises, labor situations have been consolidated in which a single individual permanently works the ordinary workday and an overtime workday, his or her immediate hierarchical superior must immediately take the corresponding measures to cease such a situation, under penalty of being directly liable to the State for the amount of the overtime workdays thus paid. Immediately, also, measures shall be taken by the Branch, institution, or enterprise, so that the functions that originated the permanent overtime workday are assigned to an employee or official specifically appointed to perform them, when such functions are of an indispensable nature.\n\nIn the same vein, referring to the limitation that in principle exists in the public sector for working overtime, is Article 17 of the Public Administration Salary Law (Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública). Article 6 of the Tax Contingency Law (Ley de Contingencia Fiscal) No. 8343, of 18 December 2002, states:\n\nArticle 6.- Payment of the overtime workday (jornada extraordinaria)\n\nOvertime workdays may not be authorized for the same person successively for more than three months, as this denatures the overtime nature of this type of workday. Except for express justification and in accordance with such criteria, the authorization of overtime payments by the human resources departments and the heads of each State institution must be carried out with strict adherence to the criteria of necessity, reasonableness, and rationalization of public expenditure.\n\nDespite that exceptional nature of overtime work, it is clear that in the plaintiff's case, the performance of medical on-call shifts (guardias médicas) was not occasional, but constant over a prolonged period; however, he had and has no right to be maintained in that condition. In this sense, the appellant is correct in that it is not possible to order the employing institution to schedule the plaintiff for the same number of on-call shifts (guardias) per month as he had been performing before the time they were suspended, because it is evident that, precisely with the aim of restricting expenses for overtime payment, the General Directorate of Regional Management and Health Services Network (Dirección General Gestión Regional y Red de Servicios de Salud) assigned a series of positions to cover the evening service (folios 28 and 29). The Health Area of […] 2 —where the plaintiff works— was assigned a position for a Clinical Chemical Microbiologist to be used in the Clinical Laboratory exclusively on the evening shift (see folio 23). The date on which that position became effective was 15 October 2005 (folios 30 front and back). For that reason, it is impossible to compel the defendant to appoint the plaintiff to cover a service for which a new professional was appointed. On the other hand, it also cannot be compelled to appoint the plaintiff to cover weekend shifts. There is an internal regulation that expressly prevents it. This is the provision in point 1.5 of the Instructive for the Preparation, Processing, and Payment of Overtime (Instructivo para la Confección, Trámite y Pago de Tiempo Extraordinario) (document provided and attached to the main file) which states:\n\n 1.5 Prohibition of performing overtime:\n\n(.../...) Also inhibited from performing and collecting overtime are officials who are covered by exclusive dedication, availability of Department Heads, availability and displacement of Engineers, and those who hold management positions, as well as those who are excluded from the limitation of the workday, in accordance with the provisions of Article 143 of the Labor Code and Decree No. 210183-H, which mentions:\n\n1. Managers\n\n2. Employees who work without immediate superior supervision.\n\n3. Officials who occupy positions of trust\n\n4. Those who carry out discontinuous functions or those that require their mere presence. (.../...)\n\nIn the plaintiff's case, his limitation on performing overtime work is imposed by his condition as Head of Laboratory (folio 25), which has required that, for diverse circumstances where there was a shortage of human resources and to facilitate an emergency care process, express approval has been requested from the General Directorate of Regional Management and Health Services Network (Dirección General Gestión Regional y Red de Servicios de Salud) to authorize the plaintiff's work in that condition (folios 25 and 26). This reflects that he was not authorized to perform overtime work to address those other cases, that is, in cases of shortage of human resources or emergency care. The situation under study differs from the precedent resolved by this Chamber, judgment number 236 of 9:30 a.m. on 15 October 1997, because in that other case the plaintiff claimed to have been excluded from the roster of standby on-call shifts (guardias de permanencia) and the defendant did not demonstrate the alleged restructuring of the service it claimed, nor the grounds for its decision; therefore, it was considered arbitrary. In the case under study, no arbitrariness is perceived in the restriction on the plaintiff from working medical on-call shifts (guardias médicas) (see request on folio 32). The appointment of another Clinical Chemical Microbiologist to cover the second shift in the Clinical Laboratory, effective 15 October 2005, was demonstrated (see folio 30 back); which undoubtedly represents a saving of economic resources for the defendant due to the type of remuneration, which ceased to be that typical of the overtime workday. Furthermore, undeniably, having an additional ordinary shift, with an official who begins from that moment without the fatigue typical of someone who has completed a previous workday, gives the defendant a greater possibility of expanding its services and offering them with better quality, with an official who, up to that moment, assumes his or her daily work shift. Authorizing or maintaining performance in double or extended workdays, beyond ordinary limits, is to disregard the constitutional principles on the workday, to contravene the laws, and to administer public resources to the detriment of the health of the officials themselves. Consequently, the appealed ruling must be revoked insofar as it dismissed the defense of lack of right (excepción de falta de derecho) raised against the subsidiary claim; declared the plaintiff's right to continue working under the modality of standby on-call shifts (guardias de permanencia); and obliged the defendant institution to schedule him the same average number of on-call shifts (guardias) per month in the same manner as he had been performing them before the moment when the suspension of those on-call shifts (guardias) became effective. It must also be revoked insofar as it ordered the payment of wages for the on-call shifts (guardias) it did not allow him to work from the effective suspension thereof; together with interest on those sums. The appropriate course is, as argued, to uphold the defense of lack of right (excepción de falta de derecho) also raised in relation to the subsidiary claim. Consequently, the lawsuit must be dismissed in all its aspects, as the denial of the main claim is precluded and definitively decided, having been denied since the first-instance judgment, without any protest from the interested party. In any case, the partial settlement with respect to the components of notice (preaviso) and severance pay (auxilio de cesantía) regarding what was earned for medical on-call shifts (guardias médicas) is also not applicable. First, it should be noted that the plaintiff's relationship with the defendant institution is a statutory relationship of public employment; which necessarily implies consequences derived from the nature of that relationship, one of them being its delimitation by precise norms that regulate the conditions of the contract. The Administration is responsible, in attention to its purposes, for establishing the organization and conditions of the service it provides, without such aspects being able to be the product of the autonomy of will between parties. Entities that, like the defendant, provide a public service, have the power to reorganize their resources and services in pursuit of the most adequate and efficient provision of the service, and better advantages in the economic cost of its operation and functioning (Article 4 of the General Law of Public Administration). For this reason, it has been indicated that “there are no acquired rights against the organizing power of the Administration... there are no acquired rights against the norms regulating the internal regime of the Administration.” (PALOMAR OLMEDA, Alberto. Derecho de la Función Pública. Régimen Jurídico de los Funcionarios Públicos, Madrid, second edition, Editorial DYKINSON, S.L., 1992, p. 38). Work in medical on-call shifts (guardias médicas) is foreign to the appointment; it is an exceptional task —like extra hours— that the defendant, in its function as administrator of the service, arranges to achieve the best fulfillment of its purposes. The official knows that its allocation is entirely at the disposal of the employer administration, as is convenient for a more efficient and advantageous operation of resources and attention to needs. In this case, the raison d'être of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social is the provision of the public health service. The administration and arrangement of medical on-call shifts (guardias médicas), like extra hours, constitute an exceptional resource that the institution uses to adjust to those exceptional needs or to the guarantee, which it must provide, of continuity in the service. That exceptional nature is fully known to the official because the position has a well-defined ordinary workday to which he or she does have an unrestricted right. Specifically, due to its exceptional nature, the availability of extra hours as well as medical on-call shifts (guardias médicas) can be varied when it suits institutional interests, without being able to speak of acquired rights. Since judgment number 144, of 9:30 a.m. on 3 May 1995, it has been held that: “Regarding extra hours, case law has been reiterated in the sense that extra hours grant no right other than to their payment, without being able to argue acquired rights in relation to the possibility of performing them,…”. Furthermore, one must not lose sight of the inherent purpose of the limit on workdays that has been mentioned. Article 58 of the Political Constitution states: \"The ordinary daytime workday may not exceed eight hours a day and forty-eight per week. The ordinary nighttime workday may not exceed six hours a day and thirty-six per week. Work in overtime hours must be remunerated with fifty percent more than the stipulated salaries or wages. However, these provisions shall not apply in very qualified cases of exception, as determined by law.\" The limit on the ordinary workday also operates against the economic interest of those who seek to earn more by resorting to double workdays that exceed such hourly restrictions. The system of medical on-call shifts (guardias médicas) clearly defeats those hourly restrictions, and with their elimination by the institution, not only is the employment relationship adapted to constitutional canons, but the employer administration uses a legitimate exercise of its powers to adapt the service to institutional purposes and interests, without detriment to acquired rights.\n\nThere is an internal rule that expressly prohibits it. This refers to the provision in point 1.5 of the Instructivo para la Confección, Trámite y Pago de Tiempo Extraordinario (document provided and added to the main case file) which states:\n\n 1.5 Prohibition on working overtime (tiempo extra):\n\n(…/…) Officials covered by exclusive dedication (dedicación exclusiva), availability of management (disponibilidad de Jefaturas), availability and travel of Engineers (disponibilidad y desplazamiento de Ingenieros), and those holding management positions are also barred from working and collecting overtime (tiempo extraordinario), as well as those who are excluded from the limitation of the working day, in accordance with the provisions of article 143 of the Código de Trabajo and decree n° 210183-H, which mentions:\n\n1. Managers (Gerentes)\n2. Employees who work without immediate superior supervision (sin fiscalización superior inmediata).\n3. Officials holding positions of trust (puestos de confianza)\n4. Those who carry out discontinuous functions or those that require their mere presence. (…/…)\n\nIn the case of the plaintiff, his limitation on working overtime (tiempo extraordinario) is imposed by his status as Head of Laboratory (Jefe de Laboratorio) (folio 25), which has required that for various circumstances, where there has been a lack of human resources and to facilitate an emergency care process, express consent has been requested from the Dirección General Gestión Regional y Red de Servicios de Salud to authorize the plaintiff's work, in that capacity (folios 25 and 26). This reflects that he was not authorized to work overtime (tiempo extraordinario) to attend to those other cases, that is, in the face of a lack of human resources or emergency care. The situation under review differs from the precedent resolved by this Chamber, judgment number 236 of 9:30 a.m. on October 15, 1997, because in that other case the plaintiff claimed to have been excluded from the on-call duty roster (guardias de permanencia) and the defendant did not demonstrate the alleged restructuring of the service it claimed, nor the grounds for its decision; therefore, it was considered arbitrary. In the case under review, no arbitrariness is observed in the restriction on the plaintiff from working medical on-call duties (guardias médicas) (see request on folio 32). The appointment of another Clinical Chemical Microbiologist (Microbiólogo Químico Clínico) to cover the second shift in the Clinical Laboratory (Laboratorio Clínico), effective October 15, 2005, was demonstrated (see folio 30 verso); which undoubtedly represents a saving of economic resources for the defendant due to the type of remuneration, which ceased to be that of the overtime workday (jornada extraordinaria). Furthermore, undeniably, having one more ordinary shift, with an official who starts from that moment without the fatigue typical of someone who has completed a previous workday, gives the defendant a greater possibility of expanding its services and offering them with better quality, with an official who is just beginning their daily work shift. Authorizing or maintaining performance in double or extended shifts, beyond ordinary limits, is to ignore the constitutional principles regarding the working day, to contravene the laws, and to administer public resources to the detriment of the health of the officials themselves. Consequently, the appealed judgment must be reversed insofar as it dismissed the objection of lack of right (excepción de falta de derecho) raised against the subsidiary claim; declared the plaintiff's right to continue working under the on-call duty (guardias de permanencia) modality; and ordered the defendant institution to schedule him the same average number of on-call duties per month in the same manner as he had been performing them before the suspension of those on-call duties took effect. It must also be reversed insofar as it ordered the institution to pay him the salaries for the on-call duties it did not allow him to work from the effective suspension of these duties; together with interest on those sums. The proper course is, as argued, to uphold the objection of lack of right (excepción de falta de derecho) also raised in relation to the subsidiary claim. Consequently, the lawsuit must be dismissed in all its aspects, as the denial of the principal claim is precluded and firmly decided, denied since the first-instance judgment, without any protest from the interested party. In any case, the partial settlement regarding the items of notice (preaviso) and severance pay (auxilio de cesantía) with respect to what was earned for medical on-call duties (guardias médicas), is also not appropriate. In the first place, it must be noted that the plaintiff's relationship with the defendant institution is a statutory relationship, one of public employment; which necessarily implies consequences derived from the nature of that relationship, one of them being its delimitation by precise norms that regulate the contracting conditions. It is the responsibility of the Administration, in accordance with its purposes, to establish the organization and conditions of the service it provides, without such aspects being able to be the product of the autonomy of the will between parties. Entities like the defendant that provide a public service have the power to reorganize their resources and services in pursuit of the most adequate and efficient provision of the service; and better advantages in the economic cost of its operation and functioning (article 4 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública). Therefore, it has been indicated that *\"there are no acquired rights against the organizational power of the Administration... there are no acquired rights against the rules regulating the internal regime of the Administration.\"* *(PALOMAR OLMEDA, Alberto. Derecho de la Función Pública. Régimen Jurídico de los Funcionarios Públicos, Madrid, second edition, Editorial DYKINSON, S.L., 1992, p. 38).* Work in medical on-call duties (guardias médicas) is external to the appointment; it is an exceptional task—like overtime hours (horas extra)—that the defendant, in its function as service administrator, arranges to achieve the best fulfillment of its purposes. The official knows that its allocation is entirely available to the employer administration, as it suits a more efficient and advantageous operation of resources and attention to needs. In this case, the reason for being of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social is the provision of the public health service. The administration and disposition of medical on-call duties (guardias médicas), like overtime hours (horas extra), constitute an exceptional resource that the institution uses to adjust to those exceptional needs or to the guarantee, which it must provide, of continuity in the service. This exceptional nature is fully known to the official because the position has a well-defined ordinary workday to which they have an unrestricted right. Specifically, due to its exceptionality, the availability of overtime hours (horas extra) as well as medical on-call duties (guardias médicas) can be varied when it suits institutional interests, without one being able to speak of acquired rights. Since judgment number 144, of 9:30 a.m. on May 3, 1995, it was stated that: *“Regarding overtime hours (horas extra), the jurisprudence has been reiterated in the sense that overtime hours grant no right other than to their payment, and one cannot argue acquired rights in relation to the possibility of working them,…”.* Furthermore, the inherent purpose of the limit on working days, which has been mentioned, must not be lost sight of. Article 58 of the Constitución Política states: *\"The daytime working day may not exceed eight hours per day and forty-eight per week. The ordinary nighttime working day may not exceed six hours per day and thirty-six per week. Work in overtime hours (horas extraordinarias) shall be remunerated at fifty percent more than the stipulated wages or salaries. However, these provisions shall not apply in very qualified cases of exception, as determined by law.\"* The limit on the ordinary working day also operates against the economic interest of those who seek to earn more by resorting to double shifts that exceed such time restrictions. The medical on-call duties (guardias médicas) system evidently defeats those time restrictions and, with its elimination by the institution, not only is the employment relationship brought into line with constitutional canons, but the employer administration makes use of a legitimate exercise of its powers to adapt the service to institutional purposes and interests, without detriment to acquired rights.”\n\nImmediately, also, measures shall be taken by the Branch, institution, or company so that the functions that gave rise to the permanent extraordinary working day are assigned to an employee or official specifically appointed to perform them, when such functions are of an indispensable nature.\n\nIn a similar vein, referring to the limitation that in principle exists in the public sector for working extraordinary hours, is Article 17 of the Public Administration Salary Law. Article 6 of the Fiscal Contingency Law No. 8343, of December 18, 2002, states:\n\nArticle 6.- Payment of the extraordinary working day\n\nExtraordinary working days may not be authorized for the same person successively for more than three months, by virtue of the fact that it distorts the extraordinary nature of this type of working day. Except with express justification and in accordance with those criteria, the authorization of overtime payments by the human resources offices and the heads of each State institution must be carried out in strict adherence to the criteria of necessity, reasonableness, and rationalization of public spending.\n\nDespite that exceptionality of working extraordinary hours, it is clear that in the case of the plaintiff, the performance of medical on-call shifts (guardias médicas) was not occasional, but constant over a prolonged period; however, he had and has no right to be maintained in that condition. In this regard, the appellant is correct in that it is not possible to order the employing institution to schedule the plaintiff for the same number of on-call shifts per month as he had been performing before the time they were suspended, since it is evident that, precisely for the purpose of restricting expenses for extraordinary time pay, the Dirección General Gestión Regional y Red de Servicios de Salud assigned a series of positions for the purpose of covering the evening service (folios 28 and 29). The Área de Salud de […] 2 -where the plaintiff works- was assigned a position of Clinical Chemical Microbiologist to be used in the Clinical Laboratory exclusively during the evening shift (see folio 23). The date from which that position became effective was October 15, 2005 (folios 30 front and back). For that reason, it is impossible to compel the defendant to appoint the plaintiff to cover a service for which a new professional was appointed. On the other hand, it also cannot be compelled to appoint the plaintiff to cover weekend shifts. There is an internal rule that expressly prevents it. This is the provision in point 1.5 of the Instructivo para la Confección, Trámite y Pago de Tiempo Extraordinario (document provided and attached to the main case file) which reads:\n\n          1.5 Prohibition on performing extra time:\n\n(.../...) Those officials who are covered by exclusive dedication (dedicación exclusiva), availability of Department Heads (disponibilidad de Jefaturas), availability and travel of Engineers (disponibilidad y desplazamiento de Ingenieros), and those who hold management positions, are also barred from performing and collecting extraordinary time, as are those who are excluded from the limitation of the working day, in accordance with the provisions of Article 143 of the Labor Code and Decree No. 210183-H, which mentions:\n\n1.     Managers\n2.     Employees who work without immediate superior supervision.\n3.     Officials who hold positions of trust\n4.     Those who perform discontinuous functions or those that require their mere presence. (.../...)\n\nIn the case of the plaintiff, his limitation on performing work in extraordinary hours is imposed by his condition as Laboratory Head (folio 25), which has required that for various circumstances, in which there has been a shortage of human resources and to facilitate an emergency care process, the consent of the Dirección General Gestión Regional y Red de Servicios de Salud has been expressly requested to authorize the plaintiff's work, in that condition (folios 25 and 26). This reflects that he was not authorized to perform work in extraordinary hours to attend to those other cases, that is, in the face of a shortage of human resources or emergency care. The situation under study differs from the precedent resolved by this Chamber, judgment number 236 of 9:30 a.m. on October 15, 1997, because in that other case the plaintiff claimed to have been excluded from the on-call duty roster (rol de las guardias de permanencia) and the defendant did not demonstrate the alleged restructuring of the service it claimed, nor the grounds for its decision; therefore, it was considered arbitrary. In the case under study, no arbitrariness is observed in the restriction on the plaintiff to work medical on-call shifts (guardias médicas) (see request on folio 32). The appointment of another Clinical Chemical Microbiologist to cover the second shift, in the Clinical Laboratory, starting from October 15, 2005, was demonstrated (see folio 30 back); which undoubtedly represents a saving of economic resources for the defendant due to the type of remuneration, which ceased to be that typical of the extraordinary working day. Furthermore, undeniably, having one more ordinary shift, with an official who begins from that moment without carrying the fatigue typical of one who has completed a previous workday, gives the defendant a greater possibility of expanding its services and offering them with better quality, with an official who only then assumes their daily workday. To authorize or maintain the performance of double or extended workdays, beyond ordinary limits, is to ignore the constitutional principles on the working day, to contravene the laws, and to administer public resources to the detriment of the health of the officials themselves. Consequently, the contested judgment must be revoked insofar as it dismissed the defense of lack of right (excepción de falta de derecho) raised against the subsidiary claim; declared the plaintiff's right to continue working under the modality of on-call duty shifts (guardias de permanencia); and ordered the respondent institution to schedule him the same average number of on-call shifts per month in the same way he had been performing them before the time the suspension of those on-call shifts became effective. It must also be revoked insofar as it ordered payment to him of the salaries for the on-call shifts it did not allow him to work as from the effective suspension thereof; together with interest on those sums. The appropriate course is, as argued, to uphold the defense of lack of right also raised in relation to the subsidiary claim. Consequently, the lawsuit must be dismissed in its entirety, as the denial of the main claim is precluded and firmly decided, denied since the first instance judgment, without any objection from the interested party. In any case, the partial settlement of the items of advance notice (preaviso) and severance pay (auxilio de cesantía) regarding what was earned for medical on-call shifts is likewise not appropriate. First, it must be noted that the plaintiff's relationship with the defendant institution is a statutory relationship, of public employment; which necessarily implies consequences derived from the nature of that relationship, one of them being its delimitation by precise norms that regulate the conditions of the contract. The Administration is responsible, in view of its purposes, for establishing the organization and conditions of the service it provides, without such aspects being able to be the product of the autonomy of the will between parties. Entities that, like the defendant, provide a public service, have the power to reorganize their resources and services in pursuit of the most adequate and efficient provision of the service; and better advantages in the economic cost of its operation and functioning (Article 4 of the General Law of Public Administration). For this reason, it has been indicated that “there are no acquired rights (derechos adquiridos) against the organizational power of the Administration... there are no acquired rights against the norms regulating the internal regime of the Administration.” (PALOMAR OLMEDA, Alberto. Derecho de la Función Pública. Régimen Jurídico de los Funcionarios Públicos, Madrid, second edition, Editorial DYKINSON, S.L., 1992, p. 38). The work in medical on-call shifts is extraneous to the appointment; it is an exceptional task -like overtime (horas extra)- that the defendant, in its function as service administrator, arranges to achieve the best fulfillment of its purposes. The official knows that its attribution is entirely available to the employer administration, as it suits a more efficient and advantageous operation of resources and attention to needs. In this case, the reason for being of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social is the provision of the public health service. The administration and disposition of medical on-call shifts, like overtime, constitute an exceptional resource that the institution uses to adjust to those exceptional needs or to the guarantee, it must provide, of continuity in service. That exceptional nature is fully known by the official because the position has a well-defined ordinary workday to which they do have unrestricted right. Specifically, due to its exceptionality, the availability of overtime just like medical on-call shifts can be varied when it suits institutional interests, without being able to speak of acquired rights. Since judgment number 144, of 9:30 a.m. on May 3, 1995, it was stated that: “Regarding overtime, the case law has been reiterated in the sense that overtime grants no right other than to its payment, and one cannot argue acquired rights in relation to the possibility of performing them,…”. On the other hand, one must not lose sight of the inherent purpose behind the limit on working days, which has been mentioned. Article 58 of the Political Constitution states: \"The ordinary daytime working day may not exceed eight hours per day and forty-eight per week. The ordinary nighttime working day may not exceed six hours per day and thirty-six per week. Work in extraordinary hours shall be remunerated with fifty percent more than the stipulated wages or salaries. However, these provisions shall not apply in very qualified cases of exception, as determined by law\". The limit on the ordinary working day also operates against the economic interest of those who seek to earn more by resorting to double workdays that exceed such hourly restrictions. The system of medical on-call shifts evidently defeats those hourly restrictions and, with its elimination by the institution, not only is the employment relationship adjusted to constitutional canons, but the employer administration makes use of a legitimate exercise of its powers to adapt the service to institutional purposes and interests, without detriment to acquired rights.”" }