{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-268406", "citation": "Res. 00463-2019 Tribunal de Apelación de Trabajo del I Circuito Judicial de San José", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Ilegalidad de huelga en servicios de salud de la CCSS por vulnerar el derecho a la salud", "title_en": "Illegality of CCSS health services strike for violating the right to health", "summary_es": "El Tribunal de Apelación de Trabajo del I Circuito Judicial de San José confirmó la declaratoria de ilegalidad de la huelga realizada el 25 de junio de 2018 por varios sindicatos de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (CCSS), en protesta contra el proyecto de ley N.º 20.580 sobre política salarial. El tribunal determinó que, si bien la huelga tuvo un carácter político con trascendencia laboral y es una modalidad de protesta social amparable bajo el Convenio 87 de la OIT, su ejecución en los servicios de salud resultó desproporcionada e ilegal. Aplicando los principios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, se concluyó que la medida no superó el criterio de necesidad, pues la interrupción de servicios esenciales —como cirugías, cuidados intensivos y farmacia— puso en peligro el bien jurídico de la salud de la población, derecho fundamental que no puede ser restringido en su núcleo esencial ni siquiera en el contexto de una huelga política. Se rechazaron también las excepciones de falta de interés y se confirmó la inaplicabilidad de los requisitos de la huelga contractual (arts. 371, 377 y 381 del Código de Trabajo) a este tipo de movimientos atípicos. Como consecuencia, se ordenó que las sanciones disciplinarias y los rebajos salariales solo pueden aplicarse a futuro, a partir de la firmeza de la sentencia.", "summary_en": "The Labor Appeals Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José upheld the declaration of illegality of the strike held on June 25, 2018, by several unions of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (CCSS) in protest against draft law No. 20,580 on salary policy. The court determined that, although the strike had a political nature with labor implications and constitutes a form of social protest protected under ILO Convention 87, its execution in health services was disproportionate and illegal. Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court concluded that the measure did not pass the necessity test, because the interruption of essential services—such as surgeries, intensive care, and pharmacy—endangered the legal interest of public health, a fundamental right whose essential core cannot be restricted even in the context of a political strike. It also rejected the objections of lack of interest and confirmed that the requirements of contractual strikes (arts. 371, 377, and 381 of the Labor Code) do not apply to this type of atypical movement. As a consequence, it ordered that disciplinary sanctions and salary deductions may only be applied prospectively, from the date on which the judgment becomes final.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal de Apelación de Trabajo del I Circuito Judicial de San José", "date": "30/04/2019", "year": "2019", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "huelga política con trascendencia laboral", "servicios esenciales", "razonabilidad y proporcionalidad", "bien jurídico salud", "Convenio 87 OIT", "artículo 371 Código de Trabajo", "artículo 377 Código de Trabajo" ], "article_citations": [ { "law": "Constitución Política", "article": "61", "doc_id": "norm-871", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Constitución Política 0", "article": "61", "doc_id": "norm-871", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Constitución Política", "article": "105", "doc_id": "norm-871", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Constitución Política 0", "article": "105", "doc_id": "norm-871", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Constitución Política", "article": "121", "doc_id": "norm-871", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Constitución Política 0", "article": "121", "doc_id": "norm-871", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Constitución Política", "article": "153", "doc_id": "norm-871", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Constitución Política 0", "article": "153", "doc_id": "norm-871", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Código de Trabajo", "article": "371", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 2", "article": "371", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Código de Trabajo", "article": "376", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 2", "article": "376", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Código de Trabajo", "article": "377", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 2", "article": "377", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Código de Trabajo", "article": "379", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 2", "article": "379", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Código de Trabajo", "article": "381", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 2", "article": "381", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Código de Trabajo", "article": "384", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 2", "article": "384", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Código de Trabajo", "article": "385", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 2", "article": "385", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Código de Trabajo", "article": "386", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 2", "article": "386", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Código de Trabajo", "article": "661", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 2", "article": "661", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Código de Trabajo", "article": "666", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 2", "article": "666", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Código de Trabajo", "article": "667", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 2", "article": "667", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Código Civil", "article": "22", "doc_id": "norm-15437", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 63", "article": "22", "doc_id": "norm-15437", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial (1937)", "article": "1", "doc_id": "norm-33635", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 8", "article": "1", "doc_id": "norm-33635", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Reforma Procesal Laboral", "article": "2", "doc_id": "norm-80985", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 9343", "article": "2", "doc_id": "norm-80985", "source": "metadata" } ], "keywords_es": [ "huelga ilegal", "huelga política con trascendencia laboral", "servicios esenciales de salud", "CCSS", "principio de razonabilidad", "proporcionalidad", "necesidad", "Convenio 87 OIT", "Código de Trabajo", "calificación de huelga", "derechos fundamentales", "protesta social", "servicio mínimo vs servicio esencial", "Sala de Apelación de Trabajo" ], "keywords_en": [ "illegal strike", "political strike with labor implications", "essential health services", "CCSS", "principle of reasonableness", "proportionality", "necessity", "ILO Convention 87", "Labor Code", "strike classification", "fundamental rights", "social protest", "minimum service vs essential service", "Labor Appeals Court" ], "excerpt_es": "A juicio de este Tribunal, la acción de los sindicatos demandados inició con un fin amparable por el ordenamiento jurídico y fue ejecutado por medios pacíficos; sin embargo en su desarrollo vulneró el principio de razonabilidad desde el criterio de necesidad, porque si bien el mensaje de descontento social fue transmitido de forma efectiva en un día del movimiento, dado que fue un hecho público y notorio que durante ese período en la ciudad de San José y otros partes de Costa Rica se llevaron a cabo grandes concentraciones de personas que marcharon con consignas en contra del expediente legislativo N.º 20.580, los manifestantes representados por los Sindicatos aquí demandados, son trabajadores del sector salud, bien jurídico que se vio potencialmente involucrado, tal como se desprende de las actas notariales presentadas por la CCSS en su solicitud - imágenes 25 a 27-, donde se indica que en el Hospital San Juan de Dios, en el servicio de Operaciones, de 15 salas sólo 6 abrieron, de 57 cirugías programadas se suspendieron 37, cuando la lista de espera de pacientes es de 10.000,00. En el servicio de Nutrición, de 46 funcionarios 18 están en huelga, en Laboratorio, de 140 funcionarios del primer turno, 29 están en huelga. En ginecología, Neonatología y Obstetricia todas las cirugías se cancelaron, en total 10. En enfermería 55 funcionarios están en huelga, Farmacia consulta externa de 26 técnicos del turno 18 están en huelga incluyendo al que los trae del almacen.\n\nDos importantes conclusiones surgen de lo expuesto: 1. No es cierto como lo dicen los recurrentes que se genere una opresión del derecho de huelga, pues la OIT y la Constitución Política admiten la posibilidad de restricción incluso de prohibición en sectores donde se produzca afectación de un bien jurídico como lo es la salud, alternativamente se pueden adoptar medidas como un Sistema de Conciliación o de Arbitraje eficiente. Es preciso recordar que si bien el derecho de huelga es considerado por los órganos de control de la OIT como un derecho fundamental, no es un derecho absoluto, por lo que su ejercicio debe armonizarse con los derechos fundamentales de los ciudadanos y de los empleadores. Así, los principios de dichos órganos sólo amparan las huelgas legítimas, es decir, las huelgas que se realicen de conformidad con la legislación nacional cuando ésta no menoscabe las garantías básicas del derecho de huelga\" (GERNICON, Bernard. Op. cit. p.44). 2. Para ninguno de los casos de huelga, es errónea la interpretación de la prohibición del derecho de huelga. Bajo esta inteligencia, las conductas de los Sindicatos violentaron un derecho fundamental de las personas como lo es la salud, derecho que convierte en ilegal el movimiento de huelga, ya que se están violentando los legítimos intereses de los destinatarios de los servicios públicos que brindan los centros de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (sean esenciales o no, públicos o no) y del empleador quien, no tiene incidencia en el conflicto ni tampoco posibilidad alguna de solucionarlo.", "excerpt_en": "In the opinion of this Court, the action of the defendant unions began with a purpose protected by the legal system and was executed through peaceful means; however, in its development it violated the principle of reasonableness from the criterion of necessity, because although the message of social discontent was effectively transmitted in one day of the movement, given that it was a public and notorious fact that during that period in the city of San José and other parts of Costa Rica large concentrations of people marched with slogans against legislative file No. 20,580, the demonstrators represented by the Unions sued here are health sector workers, a legal interest that was potentially involved, as evidenced by the notarial records submitted by the CCSS in its request - images 25 to 27 - indicating that at the San Juan de Dios Hospital, in the Operations service, only 6 out of 15 operating rooms were open, 37 out of 57 scheduled surgeries were suspended, when the patient waiting list is 10,000. In the Nutrition service, 18 out of 46 officials are on strike, in the Laboratory, 29 out of 140 first-shift officials are on strike. In Gynecology, Neonatology and Obstetrics, all 10 surgeries were canceled. In Nursing, 55 officials are on strike; in the Outpatient Pharmacy, 18 out of 26 shift technicians are on strike, including the one who brings supplies from the warehouse.\n\nTwo important conclusions emerge from the foregoing: 1. It is not true, as the appellants claim, that an oppression of the right to strike is generated, since the ILO and the Political Constitution admit the possibility of restriction and even prohibition in sectors where affectation of a legal interest such as health occurs; alternatively, measures such as an efficient Conciliation or Arbitration System can be adopted. It should be remembered that although the right to strike is considered by the ILO supervisory bodies as a fundamental right, it is not an absolute right, so its exercise must be harmonized with the fundamental rights of citizens and employers. Thus, the principles of those bodies only protect legitimate strikes, i.e., strikes carried out in accordance with national legislation when it does not undermine the basic guarantees of the right to strike\" (GERNICON, Bernard. Op. cit. p.44). 2. For neither of the two strike cases is the interpretation of the prohibition of the right to strike erroneous. Under this understanding, the unions' conduct violated a fundamental right of the people, namely health, a right that renders the strike movement illegal, since they violate the legitimate interests of the recipients of the public services provided by the centers of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (whether essential or not, public or not) and of the employer who has no influence in the conflict nor any possibility of resolving it.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Illegal strike confirmed", "label_es": "Huelga ilegal confirmada", "summary_en": "The strike by CCSS unions on June 25, 2018, is declared illegal for violating the fundamental right to health of the population, while recognizing the validity of political strikes as a form of social protest.", "summary_es": "Se declara ilegal la huelga de los sindicatos de la CCSS del 25 de junio de 2018 por vulnerar el derecho fundamental a la salud de la población, aunque se reconoce la validez de la huelga política como forma de protesta social." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando IX.5", "quote_en": "the employer is obliged to tolerate that workers exercise the right to strike in cases of social protest; however, that right covering employees is not unrestricted and is deemed exhausted once they have concertedly conveyed their discontent to government bodies, since going beyond this limit would constitute an abusive exercise of the right of comment", "quote_es": "el patrono está en la obligación de soportar que los trabajadores ejerzan el derecho a huelga en casos de protesta social, empero ese derecho que cobija a los asalariados no es irrestricto y se entiende agotado una vez que estos de forma concertada hayan transmitido su descontento a los entes gubernamentales, ya que pretender ir más allá de este límite constituiría un ejercicio abusivo del derecho de comentario" }, { "context": "Considerando IX.5", "quote_en": "because it is an atypical form of strike, applying the requirements of articles 371, 377, and 381 of the Labor Code is pointless, since it would ultimately prevent the materialization of the exercise of the right to freedom of expression", "quote_es": "por tratarse de una forma atípica de huelga, a nada conduce aplicarle los requisitos de las disposiciones 371, 377 y 381 del Código de Trabajo, porque en última instancia impediría la materialización del ejercicio del derecho de libertad de expresión" }, { "context": "Considerando IX.4, citando al Comité de Libertad Sindical de la OIT", "quote_en": "strikes of a purely political nature are not covered by the principles of freedom of association, but trade unions should be able to organize protest strikes, in particular to criticize the government's economic and social policy.", "quote_es": "la huelga de naturaleza puramente política no está cubierta por los principios de la libertad sindical, pero los sindicatos deberían poder organizar huelgas de protesta, en particular para ejercer una crítica contra la política económica y social del gobierno." }, { "context": "Considerando IX.7", "quote_en": "the right to strike is considered by the ILO supervisory bodies as a fundamental right, it is not an absolute right, and its exercise must be harmonized with the fundamental rights of citizens and employers", "quote_es": "el derecho de huelga es considerado por los órganos de control de la OIT como un derecho fundamental, no es un derecho absoluto, por lo que su ejercicio debe armonizarse con los derechos fundamentales de los ciudadanos y de los empleadores" } ], "cites": [ { "id": "norm-871", "citation": "Constitución Política 0 (Asamblea Nacional Constituyente, 07/11/1949)", "title_en": "Right to a Healthy and Ecologically Balanced Environment — Article 50 of the Political Constitution", "title_es": "Derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado — Artículo 50 de la Constitución Política", "doc_type": "constitution", "date": "07/11/1949", "year": "1949" }, { "id": "norm-8045", "citation": "Ley 5089", "title_en": "Labor Code", "title_es": "Código de Trabajo", "doc_type": "law", "date": "29/08/1943", "year": "1943" }, { "id": "norm-80985", "citation": "Ley 9343", "title_en": "Labor Procedural Reform", "title_es": "Reforma Procesal Laboral", "doc_type": "law", "date": "25/01/2016", "year": "2016" }, { "id": "norm-15437", "citation": "", "title_en": "Civil Code of Costa Rica", "title_es": "Código Civil de Costa Rica", "doc_type": null, "date": "01/01/1888", "year": "1888" }, { "id": "norm-33635", "citation": "", "title_en": "Organic Law of the Judiciary", "title_es": "Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial", "doc_type": null, "date": "01/12/1937", "year": "1937" } ], "cited_by": [ { "id": "norm-15437", "citation": "", "title_en": "Civil Code of Costa Rica", "title_es": "Código Civil de Costa Rica", "doc_type": null, "date": "01/01/1888", "year": "1888" }, { "id": "norm-33635", "citation": "", "title_en": "Organic Law of the Judiciary", "title_es": "Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial", "doc_type": null, "date": "01/12/1937", "year": "1937" }, { "id": "norm-8045", "citation": "Ley 5089", "title_en": "Labor Code", "title_es": "Código de Trabajo", "doc_type": "law", "date": "29/08/1943", "year": "1943" }, { "id": "norm-80985", "citation": "Ley 9343", "title_en": "Labor Procedural Reform", "title_es": "Reforma Procesal Laboral", "doc_type": "law", "date": "25/01/2016", "year": "2016" }, { "id": "norm-871", "citation": "Constitución Política 0 (Asamblea Nacional Constituyente, 07/11/1949)", "title_en": "Right to a Healthy and Ecologically Balanced Environment — Article 50 of the Political Constitution", "title_es": "Derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado — Artículo 50 de la Constitución Política", "doc_type": "constitution", "date": "07/11/1949", "year": "1949" } ], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-871", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Constitución Política" }, { "target_id": "norm-8045", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Código de Trabajo" }, { "target_id": "norm-80985", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Reforma Procesal Laboral" } ], "external": [ { "ref_id": "norm-15437", "url": "https://pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_norma.aspx?param1=NRM&nValor1=1&nValor2=15437&strTipM=FN", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Código Civil", "norm_id": "15437" }, { "ref_id": "norm-33635", "url": "https://pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_norma.aspx?param1=NRM&nValor1=1&nValor2=33635&strTipM=FN", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial (1937)", "norm_id": "33635" } ] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-268406", "tier": 2, "is_environmental": false, "_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": [ { "art_num": "61", "art_scij": "4909", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-871", "norm_fecha": "07 Nov 1949", "norm_name": "Constitución Política", "norm_num": "0", "norm_ver": "117266", "tipo_norma": "Constitución Política" }, { "art_num": "105", "art_scij": "4953", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-871", "norm_fecha": "07 Nov 1949", "norm_name": "Constitución Política", "norm_num": "0", "norm_ver": "117266", "tipo_norma": "Constitución Política" }, { "art_num": "121", "art_scij": "4969", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-871", "norm_fecha": "07 Nov 1949", "norm_name": "Constitución Política", "norm_num": "0", "norm_ver": "117266", "tipo_norma": "Constitución Política" }, { "art_num": "153", "art_scij": "5001", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-871", "norm_fecha": "07 Nov 1949", "norm_name": "Constitución Política", "norm_num": "0", "norm_ver": "117266", "tipo_norma": "Constitución Política" }, { "art_num": "371", "art_scij": "47398", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "norm_fecha": "27 Ago 1943", "norm_name": "Código de Trabajo", "norm_num": "2", "norm_ver": "117500", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "376", "art_scij": "47403", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "norm_fecha": "27 Ago 1943", "norm_name": "Código de Trabajo", "norm_num": "2", "norm_ver": "117500", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "377", "art_scij": "47404", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "norm_fecha": "27 Ago 1943", "norm_name": "Código de Trabajo", "norm_num": "2", "norm_ver": "117500", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "379", "art_scij": "47406", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "norm_fecha": "27 Ago 1943", "norm_name": "Código de Trabajo", "norm_num": "2", "norm_ver": "117500", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "381", "art_scij": "47408", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "norm_fecha": "27 Ago 1943", "norm_name": "Código de Trabajo", "norm_num": "2", "norm_ver": "117500", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "384", "art_scij": "47411", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "norm_fecha": "27 Ago 1943", "norm_name": "Código de Trabajo", "norm_num": "2", "norm_ver": "117500", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "385", "art_scij": "47412", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "norm_fecha": "27 Ago 1943", "norm_name": "Código de Trabajo", "norm_num": "2", "norm_ver": "117500", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "386", "art_scij": "47413", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "norm_fecha": "27 Ago 1943", "norm_name": "Código de Trabajo", "norm_num": "2", "norm_ver": "117500", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "661", "art_scij": "205473", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "norm_fecha": "27 Ago 1943", "norm_name": "Código de Trabajo", "norm_num": "2", "norm_ver": "117500", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "666", "art_scij": "205478", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "norm_fecha": "27 Ago 1943", "norm_name": "Código de Trabajo", "norm_num": "2", "norm_ver": "117500", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "667", "art_scij": "205479", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "norm_fecha": "27 Ago 1943", "norm_name": "Código de Trabajo", "norm_num": "2", "norm_ver": "117500", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "22", "art_scij": "88917", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-15437", "norm_fecha": "28 Sep 1887", "norm_name": "Código Civil", "norm_num": "63", "norm_ver": "106999", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "1", "art_scij": "152214", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-33635", "norm_fecha": "29 Nov 1937", "norm_name": "Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial (1937)", "norm_num": "8", "norm_ver": "114826", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "2", "art_scij": "3", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-80985", "norm_fecha": "25 Ene 2016", "norm_name": "Reforma Procesal Laboral", "norm_num": "9343", "norm_obser": "Observaciones Ver artículo 420, 428.", "norm_ver": "103105", "tipo_norma": "Ley" } ], "cited_norms_inverted": [ { "doc_id": "norm-15437", "norm_num": "", "norm_name": "Código Civil de Costa Rica", "tipo_norma": "", "norm_fecha": "01/01/1888" }, { "doc_id": "norm-33635", "norm_num": "", "norm_name": "Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial", "tipo_norma": "", "norm_fecha": "01/12/1937" }, { "doc_id": "norm-8045", "norm_num": "5089", "norm_name": "Código de Trabajo", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "29/08/1943" }, { "doc_id": "norm-80985", "norm_num": "9343", "norm_name": "Reforma Procesal Laboral", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "25/01/2016" }, { "doc_id": "norm-871", "norm_num": "0", "norm_name": "Derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado — Artículo 50 de la Constitución Política", "tipo_norma": "Constitución Política", "norm_fecha": "07/11/1949" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [ { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Ilegalidad de huelga del Sindicato de Profesionales en Ciencias Médicas de la CCSS e instituciones afines, por constituir la atención a la salud un servicio público esencial" }, { "id": 2, "nombre": "Requisitos y modalidades de huelga, consideraciones acerca de la huelga política con trascendencia laboral y aplicación de los principios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad" }, { "id": 3, "nombre": "Momentos en los que puede ser solicitada la calificación de la huelga e inaplicabilidad de la técnica del servicio mínimo de funcionamiento" } ], "id": 1, "nombre": "Huelga" }, { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Ilegalidad de huelga del Sindicato de Profesionales en Ciencias Médicas de la CCSS e instituciones afines, por constituir la atención a la salud un servicio público esencial" }, { "id": 2, "nombre": "Requisitos y modalidades de huelga, consideraciones acerca de la huelga política con trascendencia laboral y aplicación de los principios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad" }, { "id": 3, "nombre": "Momentos en los que puede ser solicitada e inaplicabilidad de la técnica del servicio mínimo de funcionamiento" } ], "id": 3, "nombre": "Calificación de la huelga" }, { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Ilegalidad de huelga del Sindicato de Profesionales en Ciencias Médicas de la CCSS e instituciones afines, por constituir la atención a la salud un servicio público esencial" }, { "id": 2, "nombre": "Requisitos y modalidades de huelga, consideraciones acerca de la huelga política con trascendencia laboral y aplicación de los principios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad" }, { "id": 3, "nombre": "Momentos en los que puede ser solicitada la calificación de la huelga e inaplicabilidad de la técnica del servicio mínimo de funcionamiento" } ], "id": 2, "nombre": "Huelga ilegal" }, { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Ilegalidad de huelga del Sindicato de Profesionales en Ciencias Médicas de la CCSS e instituciones afines, por constituir la atención a la salud un servicio público esencial" }, { "id": 2, "nombre": "Requisitos y modalidades de huelga, consideraciones acerca de la huelga política con trascendencia laboral y aplicación de los principios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad" }, { "id": 3, "nombre": "Momentos en los que puede ser solicitada la calificación de la huelga e inaplicabilidad de la técnica del servicio mínimo de funcionamiento" } ], "id": 4, "nombre": "Derecho a la salud" } ], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "* * * * * * * * * * * * * \"IX. [...] 3. Rechazo improcedente de la excepción de falta de interés: Señala UNDECA, que al haber durado tan sólo un día el movimiento huelguístico y haberse incorporado los trabajadores al día siguiente, carecía de todo interés el proceso de calificación. Con la Reforma Procesal Laboral, se plantean tres momentos en las que* puede ser solicitada la Calificación de Huelga. El artículo 661 del Código de Trabajo establece el procedimiento para la calificación de* los movimientos huelguístico, dice en lo de interés:* “La calificación debe pedirse en cualquier tiempo mientras subsista la huelga o el paro, salvo lo dispuesto en el artículo 384” (Negrita no es del original). Mientras, el artículo 384 idem reza: “De la misma forma será facultativo para los trabajadores, las trabajadoras o sus organizaciones sindicales solicitar la declaratoria de legalidad de la huelga, de previo a su iniciación. En este último caso, no podrán iniciar la ejecución de la huelga sin que estuviera firme la declaratoria de huelga legal. Los trabajadores, trabajadoras o el sindicato respectivo también podrán solicitar la calificación de huelga con posterioridad a la ejecución, e incluso luego de su finalización, para efectos de lo establecido en el artículo 386 del Código de Trabajo”. De los artículos citados se tiene que la Calificación de Huelga, puede ser solicitada por los* trabajadores, sindicatos y patronos, mientras subsista el movimiento. La única* excepción dispuesta por el legislador para solicitar en otro momento la* calificación, es en favor de los trabajadores y trabajadoras y los sindicatos, los* cuales pueden solicitarla; antes de iniciar su ejecución, y después de la finalización* de su ejecución. Por lo que en aplicación estricta de esas normas, no tiene* posibilidad jurídica la parte patronal de solicitar la calificación una vez cesado el* movimiento.- Lo anterior, resulta lógico, pues tratándose de una huelga de un sólo* día (25 de junio del 2018), sí se sabía cuándo iba a terminar el movimiento, pero* otras no se sabe cuándo van a finalizar, todo depende de la negociación entre las* partes, por ello es que es una exigencia para el patrono plantear la solicitud de* calificación estando en desarrollo o ejecución el movimiento huelguístico. En la* especie, el patrono interpuso la gestión a las 11:58 horas de ese mismo día, estando el movimiento en suceso. En* virtud de lo anterior, por cumplirse un presupuesto procesal para la procedencia* de la tramitación de la diligencia de declaratoria de ilegalidad de huelga se aprueba el rechazo de la excepción de falta de interés. *\n\n* 4. Sobre la huelga política con trascendencia laboral:* El derecho a huelga es un derecho constitucional consagrado en el artículo 61 de la Carta Magna, esa garantía es* instrumentalizada por el artículo 371 Código de Trabajo que de forma concreta lo* define como: “suspensión concertada y pacífica del trabajo, en una empresa,* institución, establecimiento o centro de trabajo, acordada y ejecutada por una* pluralidad de tres personas trabajadoras, como mínimo, que represente más de la* mitad de los votos emitidos conforme al artículo 381, por los empleados o las* empleadas involucrados en un conflicto colectivo de trabajo, para lo siguiente: / a)* La defensa y promoción de sus intereses económicos y sociales. / b) La defensa de* sus derechos en los conflictos jurídicos colectivos señalados en el artículo 386.”* Ahora bien, es importante mencionar que la huelga como fenómeno del derecho* laboral colectivo según su finalidad no posee una naturaleza unívoca, lo que da pie* a que en la práctica existan diversas modalidades, tal como define el precepto* transcrito cuando hace referencia a la huelga clásica o contractual que se da entre* patronos y asalariados con ocasión de la defensa y promoción de sus intereses* económicos y sociales. La doctrina española nos explica sobre el tema lo siguiente:* “Buena parte de las huelgas laborales de trabajadores responden al más elemental* de los modelos, el contractual. Se trata de huelgas con ocasión de la negociación* colectiva: iniciación de la negociación colectiva; presión durante la negociación en curso; modificación, enriquecimiento o interpretación de los pactos colectivos* en vigor; creación de una nueva unidad de negociación, y un largo etcétera.* Teniendo en cuenta, además, que la negociación colectiva tiene cada vez más* productos: convenios colectivos estatutarios, convenios extraestatutarios,* acuerdos marcos, acuerdos de empresa en defecto del convenio, acuerdos de* descuelgue, acuerdos de reorganización empresarial…En estas huelgas* contractuales es donde con mayor frecuencia se alcanza el acuerdo de fin de* huelga y donde reviste enorme importancia la concreta eficacia jurídica que se le* dé al mismo.”(Vivero Serrano, Juan et al. “La Eficacia de los Acuerdos de Fin de* Huelga” en “Estudios sobre Negociación y Convenios Colectivos”, Madrid,* Ramón Areces S.A., 2003, pp. 215). *\n\n* En efecto, en el caso de estudio, no se trata sobre este tipo de* huelga, como bien lo puntan* los recurrentes, sino que estamos frente a una* huelga con connotaciones políticas y sociales en las que las organizaciones de* trabajadores protestan por una política tributaria del Estado. El profesor Van der* Laat Echevería explicaba sobre el tema: “Generalmente ha sido definida como una* acción tendiente a ejercer presión sobre los poderes públicos y en la que las* reinvindicaciones no se dirigen contra el patrono sino contra el Estado.* Precisamente con base en el destinatario de la acción es que se* establece las diferencias entre la huelga económica y la política, pues si las reivindicaciones perseguidas están en la esfera de decisión del patrón, se está ante la modalidad de la huelga económica, en tanto que si mediante la abstención se intenta presionar a los poderes públicos, será clasificada como política” (Van der Laat Echeverría, Bernardo. “La huelga y el paro en Costa Rica”, San José, Editorial Juricentro, pp. 99). En esta clase de movimientos confluyen otros aspectos que rebasan la libertad sindical, por cuanto están en juego por ejemplo la libertad de expresión y la defensa de los principios democráticos sobre los que se cierne el Estado de Derecho, es decir se trata de una protesta social ejercida por medio de las organizaciones gremiales. Dicho motivo ha sido catalogado como válido para el ejercicio del derecho a huelga por los órganos de control de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo, veamos la posición del Comité de Libertad Sindical: “Si bien las huelgas de naturaleza* puramente política no están cubiertas por los* principios de la libertad sindical, los sindicatos deberían poder organizar huelgas* de protesta, en particular para ejercer una crítica contra la política económica y* social del gobierno. Las organizaciones sindicales deberían tener la posibilidad de* recurrir a huelgas de protesta, en particular con miras a ejercer una crítica con* respecto a la política económica y social de los gobiernos.” (Oficina Internacional* del Trabajo. “La Libertad Sindical”, OIT, Ginebra, 2006, pp. 117). *\n\n* 5. Sobre la aplicación de requisitos de la huelga contractual a otro tipo de huelgas (artículo 377 y otros del Código de Trabajo): Mientras ANPE dice que sí se agotaron los procedimientos conciliatorios con el diálogo público y notorio que los Sindicatos intentaron con el gobierno, UNDECA, SINAE Y SIPROCIMECA, sostienen una errónea e indebida aplicación del artículo 377 del Código de Trabajo así como de los numerales 371 y 381. *\n\n* A efecto de la solicitud de calificación que se hace mediante este proceso, el primer punto a tener en cuenta y en concreto con el agravio sobre inaplicabilidad de los requisitos de la huelga contractual, es que en efecto la redacción* del Código de Trabajo no regula este tipo de huelga, pero tampoco la prohíbe. Se somete a valoración del juzgador, una situación que no se encuentra debidamente regulada en la ley, pero sobre la cual debe dar una solución con base en lo dispuesto en el artículo 153 de la Constitución Política y 1 de la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial. *\n\n* En el mismo sentido, el artículo 420 del Código Procesal dispone: \"En la jurisdicción de trabajo, establecida en el artículo 70 de la Constitución Política, se dirimirán los conflictos individuales y colectivos, cuya solución requiera la aplicación de normas de derecho de trabajo y seguridad social, y los principios que lo informan, así como los asuntos conexos a las relaciones sustanciales propias de ese derecho\". *\n\n* Desde esta perspectiva, la aplicación del Convenio 87 de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo* denominado “sobre la libertad sindical y la protección del derecho de sindicación”* en su punto 3º, da libertad a las organizaciones sindicales para establecer su* plan de acción, por ende debe entenderse que se trata de una razón justificada para ejercer* esta modalidad de huelga, que si bien tiene como finalidad la protección de intereses de índole económica y social, difiere en otros elementos o presupuestos de la huelga típica o contractual, como lo son los sujetos potencialmente obligados a dar solución al conflicto, pues aunque la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social es un ente del Estado, la política salarial que se pretende en el proyecto de Ley No.20850, excede en sus alcances la teoría del Patrono único, por el Poder conferido en los artículos 105 y 121 de la Constitución Política a la Asamblea Legislativa, de ahí la resistencia del Estado que desencadenó la manifestación según lo refiere ANPE en su recurso de Apelación. Por lo que mal hizo el juzgado en analizar la legalidad de esta huelga al amparo de los artículos 371 y siguientes del Código de Trabajo. *\n\n* Con base en lo expuesto, en particular sobre los requisitos de la huelga, este Tribunal ha sido del criterio que por tratarse de una forma atípica de huelga, a nada* conduce aplicarle los requisitos de las disposiciones 371, 377 y 381 del Código de* Trabajo, porque en última instancia impediría la materialización del ejercicio del* derecho de libertad de expresión, nótese que en casos como estos, el agotamiento* de las vías de conciliación se torna virtualmente imposible y además, el* ordenamiento jurídico no prevé mecanismos de solución, como sí lo dispone en la* hipótesis de la huelga contractual.* A partir de estas consideraciones, hemos de* concluir que como consecuencia de nuestro sistema de gobierno y los principios* democráticos que rigen las instituciones de nuestro país, el patrono está en la* obligación de soportar que los trabajadores ejerzan el derecho a huelga en casos de* protesta social, empero ese derecho que cobija a los asalariados no es irrestricto y* se entiende agotado una vez que estos de forma concertada hayan transmitido su* descontento a los entes gubernamentales, ya que pretender ir más allá de este límite* constituiría un ejercicio abusivo del derecho de comentario (artículo 22 del Código* Civil). *\n\n* 6. Sobre los presupuestos de legalidad o ilegalidad de una huelga política con trascendencia laboral. Razonabilidad y proporcionalidad: Revisada la normativa atinente y hecho el estudio del caso, se llegó a la conclusión de que la doctrina, establece* parámetros certeros respecto a los límites externos de* la huelga que nos ocupa, es necesario recurrir a los principios de razonabilidad y* proporcionalidad consignados en los Principios de la Huelga de la OIT. Lo razonable y proporcional no está librado a la voluntad* subjetiva de quien aplica el derecho, ya que por el contrario, intervienen una serie* de ejercicios mentales con base en tres criterios de interpretación. El primero de* ellos es el de idoneidad, una medida será idónea cuando dentro del catálogo de* posibles soluciones que puedan asignarse a un problema, sea la que brinde una* respuesta con mayor eficacia. Por otro lado, se topa con el criterio de necesidad.* No basta que una medida sea eficaz, sino que además debe ser la que menos* afectación cause al bien jurídico que se vea potencialmente involucrado.* Finalmente, interviene el juicio de proporcionalidad en sentido estricto, del cual* habla Sapag de la siguiente manera: “de acuerdo con una concepción bastante* extendida, se trata de una ponderación entre los principios en juego; [Nombre1] diseñó,* para este test, unas reglas de ponderación de carácter matemático, por las cuales* se analiza y cuantifica el peso abstracto de los principios en juego, y el peso* concreto en el caso a los efectos de determinar la validez o inconstitucionalidad. Según la visión que se adapta aquí, este subprincipio requiere, en realidad, que la* medida mantenga una “relación razonable” con la finalidad: se examina la* relación costo-beneficio de la medida con respecto a su finalidad, es decir, entre lo* obtenido mediante la medida y lo que se impide por ello. Sin embargo, y como ya* se ha señalado, para un examen completo de razonabilidad debe insertarse aquí el* juicio de alteración o afectación del contenido esencial. / Los juicios del control de* razonabilidad pueden ser desglosados en siete preguntas que el operador jurídico* debe plantearse: / a) ¿Cuáles son las finalidades mediatas e inmediatas de la* norma?/ b) La finalidad, ¿es constitucional?/ c) La finalidad, ¿es socialmente* relevante?/ d) ¿Es adecuado el medio empleado? / e) ¿Es necesario, o* indispensable, el medio empleado? / f) ¿Es proporcionada la medida con respecto* a los fines? g) ¿Respeta el contenido esencial de los derechos en juego?” (Sapag,* Mariano. El principio de proporcionalidad y de razonablidad como límite* constitucional al poder del Estado: un estudio comparado. Documento disponible* en: “http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=72011607008”). *\n\n* 7. De la razón de ilegalidad de la huelga del 25 de junio de 2018 en la CCSS. Interpretación de la prohibición: A juicio de este Tribunal, la acción de los sindicatos demandados inició con un fin amparable por el* ordenamiento jurídico y fue ejecutado por medios pacíficos; sin embargo en su* desarrollo vulneró el principio de razonabilidad desde el criterio de necesidad, porque si bien el mensaje de* descontento social fue transmitido de forma efectiva en un día del movimiento, dado que fue un hecho público y notorio que durante ese período* en la ciudad de San José y otros partes de Costa Rica se llevaron a cabo grandes* concentraciones de personas que marcharon con consignas en contra* del* expediente legislativo N.º 20.580, los manifestantes representados por los Sindicatos aquí demandados, son trabajadores del sector salud, bien jurídico que se vio potencialmente involucrado, tal como se desprende de las actas notariales presentadas por la CCSS en su solicitud - imágenes 25 a 27-, donde se indica que en el Hospital San Juan de Dios, en el servicio de Operaciones, de 15 salas sólo 6 abrieron, de 57 cirugías programadas se suspendieron 37, cuando la lista de espera de pacientes es de 10.000,00. En el servicio de Nutrición, de 46 funcionarios 18 están en huelga, en Laboratorio, de 140 funcionarios del primer turno, 29 están en huelga. En ginecología, Neonatología y Obstetricia todas las cirugías se cancelaron, en total 10. En enfermería 55 funcionarios están en huelga, Farmacia consulta externa de 26 técnicos del turno 18 están en huelga incluyendo al que los trae del almacen. Lo anterior, pese a las directrices emanadas en el oficio GM-7975-2018-GA0938-2018 del 20 de junio de 2018 - imagen 38- que giró las siguientes instrucciones para garantizar la continuidad del servicio: poner en marcha los planes de emergencia que garanticen la prestación de servicios al menos en los servicios críticos como: a. atención de emergencias, b. realización de cirugías de emergencia y servicios de recuperación, c. unidades de terapia intensiva y neonatología, d. sala de hemodinamia, e. sala de partos, f. atención de pacientes que permanezcan hospitalizados, f. servicios de apoyo esenciales como laboratorio, banco de sangre, radiología e imágenes médicas, farmacia tanto de hospital como de consulta externa, nutrición, redes, otros que reúnan tal característica, g. conservación de la cadena de frío. También se instruyó la continuidad en los servicios con impacto inmediato: lavandería, producción y distribución de alimentos, insumos y soluciones parenterales; a la GIT también se instruyó para garantizar la transmisión de información y funcionamiento de la plataforma institucional (EDUS, SICERE, correo electrónico, internet, plataforma de almacenamiento), a las direcciones de sedes administrativas para minizar el impacto. *\n\n* Nos encontramos en este parámetro de necesidad, un contenido cuyo análisis sí puede ser realizado mediante la técnica de analogía que permite el artículo 428 del Código Procesal Laboral cuando no existen normas procesales previstas para un caso o situación concreta como lo es la discusión de si esta huelga es la medida con menos* afectación para el bien jurídico de la salud, lo cual se hace desde criterios similares con respecto al carácter de servicio esencial desarrollado en la sentencia apelada.*\n\n* Aquí es de suma importancia que quede claro, que no se está aplicando el artículo 376 inciso d) del Código de Trabajo, sino que el principio para ambos casos (huelga contratual y huelga política con trascendencia laboral), es la protección de un bien jurídico: la salud, optando en una por el criterio de menor afectación y en la otra por el de servicio esencial o servicio mínimo. Veamos: Para el caso de la huelga política con trascencencia laboral, debe partirse del concepto salud. Según la Organización Mundial de la Salud, es un estado completo de bienestar, físico, mental y social y no solamente la ausencia de afectaciones o enfermedades (https://www.who.int/es/about/who-we-are/frequently-asked-questions). Interpetando en forma amplia y literal este concepto, la salud abarca tanto las acciones preventivas como las curativas. Nuestro sistema de salud, está organizado en varios niveles de atención que va desde los puestos de visita periódica (Nivel de atención I) con atención en servicios de cinco programas de atención integral dirigidos a niños, adolescentes, mujeres, adultos y adulto mayor; hasta los Hospitales Nacionales (Nivel de atención III) que es la atención especializada así como tratamientos médicos y quirúrgicos complejos, pasando por el Nivel II que son servicios de consulta especializada, internamiento y tratamiento médico y quirúrgico de las especialidades básicas de medicina interna, pediatría, ginecología y obstetricia y, cirugía (http://www.bvs.sa.cr/php/situacion/perfil.pdf) y por ley le corresponde a la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social la provisión de los servicios públicos de salud, la cual imparte en esos diferentes niveles. Partiendo de esta organización, resulta difícil pensar en una dependencia de esta institución, cuya suspensión de labores por motivo de una huelga política con trascendencia laboral, no implique una afectación en el bien jurídico de la salud, porque todos los servicios: farmacia, nutrición, enfermería, cirugías, lavandería, emergencias, consulta externa, especialidades, laboratorios, incluso los servicios informáticos y administrativos, son importantes para proveer salud en todos los niveles. Tales servicios son de un carácter absolutamente indispensables para mantener el funcionamiento de los servicios por estar engranados en escalafón y mediar dependencia entre ellos para la provisión del servicio, es decir, la atención médica está distribuida de tal manera, que la ausencia de un servicio afecta la integralidad de la prestación, por requerirse de varias personas para su correcto funcionamiento. La suspensión de los mismos, puede provocar no sólo daños inmediatos sino graves en la salud de las personas, como sería por ejemplo la adquisición de una bacteria de un paciente de recuperación por falta de lavandería o higiene, la complicación de una enfermedad por falta de entrega de medicamentos aún cuando el médico del servicio de consulta externa o emergencias haya brindado el servicio Ahora, bien, el representante de la CCSS, aportó lista de funcionarios sumados al movimiento de huelga, las que son visibles en imágenes 47a 183, como se aprecia una cantidad considerable de personas, lo que evidencia la afectación de los servicios, tal como también se adelantó, se indicó en las actas notariales. Cabe agregar, que contrario a lo que expone UNDECA en su recurso, no aplica para el caso la técnica del servicio mínimo. Sobre el término indica GERNICON: \"Antes de proseguir este capítulo será útil aclarar ciertas cuestiones terminológicas, ya que de otro modo puede producirse una comprensión inadecuada de los principios de los órganos de control sobre los denominados servicios esenciales. En ciertos países, la noción de servicios esenciales se utiliza en la legislación para designar los servicios en que no se prohíbe la huelga pero puede imponerse un servicio mínimo de funcionamiento; en otros países, la noción de servicios esenciales se utiliza para justificar restricciones importantes, incluida la prohibición de la huelga, y éste es precisamente el significado de la expresión «servicios esenciales» para los órganos de control de la OIT cuando la utilizan al formular sus principios. Como se verá más adelante, entre servicios esenciales (donde se puede prohibir la huelga) y los servicios no esenciales (donde no se puede prohibir), los órganos de control de la OIT utilizan un concepto intermedio que es el concepto de servicios de « importancia trascendental» (terminología del Comité de Libertad Sindical) o de «utilidad pública» (terminología de la Comisión de Expertos), que son servicios no esenciales donde a juicio de los órganos de control de la OIT no se puede prohibir la huelga, pero sí imponerse un servicio mínimo de funcionamiento en la empresa o institución de que se trate. A este respecto, la Comisión de Expertos ha señalado que, debido a la diversidad de términos utilizados en las legislaciones nacionales y en los textos sobre este asunto, surge a veces cierta confusión entre los conceptos de servicio mínimo y de servicios esenciales; por consiguiente, es importante definirlos con precisión\" GERNICON, Bernard. CORDERO, Albert. GUIDO Horacio. (2000). Principios de la OIT sobre el derecho de huelga. [Nombre2], [Nombre3]. pp.22-23). *\n\n* El servicio mínimo se \"da en las situaciones en que no parece justificada una limitación importante o la prohibición total de la huelga y en que, sin poner en tela de juicio el derecho de huelga de la gran mayoría de los trabajadores, podría tratarse de asegurar la satisfacción de las necesidades básicas de los usuarios o el funcionamiento continuo y en condiciones de seguridad de las instalaciones\" (GERNICON, Bernard, Op. cit. p. 23). Se trata de todos los casos de huelga cuando tienen como finalidad respetar la seguridad de las personas, la prevención de accidentes y la seguridad de las instalaciones. El esencial queda reservado para los casos en que la suspensión pone en peligro la vida o salud de las personas. *\n\n* Analógicamente, no puede concluirse como lo dicen los Sindicatos en sus recursos, que no pueden considerarse todos los servicios de la Caja como esenciales, porque desde el análisis de la huelga política con trascendencia social, se entienden como aquellos cuya interrupción puede poner en peligro la vida, la seguridad personal o la salud de la totalidad o parte de la población. En ese orden de ideas para estos casos expone GERNICON: \"... la prohibición de la huelga sólo podría ser aceptable, con respecto a los funcionarios públicos, que ejercen funciones de autoridad en nombre del Estado o con respecto a los trabajadores de los servicios esenciales en el sentido estricto del término (es decir, aquellos servicios cuya interrupción podría poner en peligro la vida, la seguridad o la salud de la persona en toda o parte de la población)\" (Op cit. p.15). Sin que excluya otras posibilidades. En casos como el de estudio, la OIT ha considerado los servicios hospitalarios, de electricidad, de abastecimiento, telefonía, control del tráfico aéreo dentro de los que se pueden incluso prohibir (GERNICON, Bernard. Op. cit. p.20). *\n\n* Dos importantes conclusiones surgen de lo expuesto: 1. No es cierto como lo dicen los recurrentes que se genere una opresión del derecho de huelga, pues la OIT y la Constitución Política admiten la posibilidad de restricción incluso de prohibición en sectores donde se produzca afectación de un bien jurídico como lo es la salud, alternativamente se pueden adoptar medidas como un Sistema de Conciliación o de Arbitraje eficiente. Es preciso recordar que si bien el derecho de huelga es considerado por los órganos de control de la OIT como un derecho fundamental, no es un derecho absoluto, por lo que su ejercicio debe armonizarse con los derechos fundamentales de los ciudadanos y de los empleadores. Así, los principios de dichos órganos sólo amparan las huelgas legítimas, es decir, las huelgas que se realicen de conformidad con la legislación nacional cuando ésta no menoscabe las garantías básicas del derecho de huelga\" ([Nombre4], Bernard. Op. cit. p.44). 2. Para ninguno de los casos de huelga, es errónea la interpretación de la prohibición del derecho de huelga. Bajo esta inteligencia, las conductas de los Sindicatos violentaron un derecho fundamental de las personas como lo es la salud, derecho que convierte en ilegal el movimiento de huelga, ya que se están violentando los legítimos intereses de los destinatarios de los servicios* públicos que brindan los centros de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (sean esenciales o* no, públicos o no) y del empleador quien, no tiene incidencia en el conflicto ni* tampoco posibilidad alguna de solucionarlo. *\n\n* Tampoco se considera que la sentencia violente los principios de progresidad y pro homine. Si se echa mano a la historia de la huelga, ha sido la principal forma de expresión de la lucha de clases (CABANELLAS. (1979). Los conflictos Colectivos de trabajo, En [Nombre5] y [Nombre6] . Los conflictos de trabajo y su solución. pp. 7-82. Buenos Aires. Editorial Heliasta S.R.L., citado por AMORETTI OROZCO, Luis Héctor. (2007). Los conflictos Colectivos de carácter económico y social, sus medios de solución en el derecho costarricense. Litografía e Imprenta Lil S.A, San José, Costa Rica. p.166), que en la Constituyente del 49 permitió una clara visión social demócrata de los derechos fundamentales como el de huelga, explica Fernando Bolaños, que tanto la existencia de un Proyecto de Constitución alternativo como el de una nueva clase política y social produjeron interesantes discusiones que afirman que la huelga regulada en el Código de Trabajo no se corresponde armoniosamente con el derecho de huelga de la Constitución. No obstante entendido ahora el concepto de servicios públicos como el de servicios esenciales ([Nombre7] , Fernando. (2002. Alcances de la libertad sindical. Editorial Guayacán, San José, Costa Rica, p. 250-251). Anteriormente, la huelga era considerada un delito y la restricción a ciertos servicios se da desde su consagración en la Constitución Política, lo que se mantiene hoy día, por ello se considera no hay tal violación a los principios señalados aún cuando el objeto sea una huelga política con trascendencia laboral. *\n\n* 8. Valoración de la prueba y Falta de fundamentación de la sentencia: SINAE alega que se omitió la audiencia de los artículos 664 y 667 del Código de Trabajo, pero de los documentos presentados con la solicitud de calificación los demandados se manifestaron en sus contestaciones, en resolución de las las catorce horas y treinta y* cinco minutos del diecinueve de* setiembre del año dos mil* dieciocho, la jueza rechazó la prueba testimonial al estimar era prueba inconducente e impertinente, asimismo, el medio elegido no* resulta idóneo para demostrar el hecho que se pretende y de* conformidad con el artículo 666 del Código de Trabajo, por no* considerarse estrictamente necesaria para la resolución del caso* sometido a conocimiento de este despacho lo que hace innecesaria la audiencia del numeral 667 del Código de Trabajo. Del resto de prueba se pronunció con las razones pertinentes por lo que no ameritaba mayor razonamiento en la sentencia. *\n\n* X: CONSIDERACIÓN FINAL: Como consecuencia de este fallo, la aplicación de sanciones* disciplinarias y rebajos salariales de conformidad con el ordinal 379 y 385 del Código de Trabajo* no podrán realizarse de forma retroactiva, únicamente a futuro y a partir de la firmeza de esta* sentencia, una vez operado el aviso de 24 horas previsto por la legislación procesal para efectos* de concertar el reinicio de las actividades", "body_en_text": "* * * * * * * * * * * * * \"IX. [...] 3. Improper rejection of the lack of interest exception (excepción de falta de interés): UNDECA argues that, since the strike movement lasted only one day and the workers returned to work the following day, the qualification process was entirely devoid of interest. With the Labor Procedural Reform, three moments are set forth in which a Strike Qualification may be requested. Article 661 of the Labor Code establishes the procedure for the qualification of strike movements, stating insofar as relevant: 'The qualification must be requested at any time while the strike or lockout persists, except as provided in Article 384' (Bold not in original). Meanwhile, Article 384 thereof reads: 'In the same manner, it shall be optional for workers or their trade union organizations to request a declaration of legality of the strike, prior to its commencement. In this latter case, they may not begin the execution of the strike without the declaration of a legal strike being final. The workers or the respective union may also request the strike qualification after its execution, and even after its conclusion, for the purposes set forth in Article 386 of the Labor Code.' From the cited articles, it follows that the Strike Qualification may be requested by workers, unions, and employers while the movement persists. The sole exception provided by the legislator for requesting the qualification at another time is in favor of workers and unions, who may request it: before beginning its execution, and after the conclusion of its execution. Therefore, in strict application of these norms, the employer has no legal possibility of requesting the qualification once the movement has ceased. The foregoing is logical, since in the case of a one-day strike (June 25, 2018), it was known when the movement would end, but in others it is not known when they will end; everything depends on the negotiation between the parties, which is why it is a requirement for the employer to file the qualification request while the strike movement is in progress or execution. In the present case, the employer filed the petition at 11:58 a.m. on that same day, while the movement was in progress. By virtue of the foregoing, because a procedural prerequisite for the admissibility of the processing of the proceeding for a declaration of illegality of the strike is met, the rejection of the lack of interest exception (excepción de falta de interés) is approved.\n\n* 4. Regarding the political strike with labor implications: The right to strike is a constitutional right enshrined in Article 61 of the Magna Carta; this guarantee is implemented by Article 371 of the Labor Code, which concretely defines it as: 'the concerted and peaceful suspension of work, in a company, institution, establishment, or workplace, agreed upon and executed by a plurality of at least three workers, representing more than half of the votes cast pursuant to Article 381, by the employees involved in a collective labor dispute, for the following: / a) The defense and promotion of their economic and social interests. / b) The defense of their rights in the collective juridical disputes indicated in Article 386.' Now, it is important to mention that the strike, as a phenomenon of collective labor law, does not possess a univocal nature according to its purpose, which gives rise to the existence of various modalities in practice, as the transcribed precept defines when referring to the classic or contractual strike that occurs between employers and wage earners on the occasion of the defense and promotion of their economic and social interests. Spanish doctrine explains the following on the subject: 'A good part of the labor strikes of workers respond to the most elementary of models, the contractual one. These are strikes on the occasion of collective bargaining: initiation of collective bargaining; pressure during ongoing negotiation; modification, enrichment, or interpretation of collective agreements in force; creation of a new bargaining unit, and a long etcetera. Taking into account, moreover, that collective bargaining has increasingly more products: statutory collective agreements, extra-statutory agreements, framework agreements, company agreements in the absence of an agreement, opt-out agreements, business reorganization agreements... In these contractual strikes is where the end-of-strike agreement is most frequently reached and where the specific legal effectiveness given to it is of enormous importance.' (Vivero Serrano, Juan et al. 'The Effectiveness of End-of-Strike Agreements' in 'Studies on Negotiation and Collective Agreements,' Madrid, Ramón Areces S.A., 2003, pp. 215).\n\n* Indeed, in the case under study, this is not about this type of strike, as the appellants correctly point out, but rather we are faced with a strike with political and social connotations in which workers' organizations protest a tax policy of the State. Professor Van der Laat Echeverría explained on the subject: 'It has generally been defined as an action tending to exert pressure on public authorities and in which the claims are not directed against the employer but against the State. It is precisely based on the recipient of the action that the differences between the economic and the political strike are established, since if the claims pursued are within the sphere of decision of the employer, one is dealing with the modality of the economic strike, whereas if through the abstention one attempts to pressure the public authorities, it will be classified as political' (Van der Laat Echeverría, Bernardo. 'The Strike and the Lockout in Costa Rica,' San José, Editorial Juricentro, pp. 99). In this class of movements, other aspects converge that go beyond freedom of association, since at stake are, for example, freedom of expression and the defense of the democratic principles upon which the Rule of Law is based; that is, it is a social protest exercised through trade union organizations. This motive has been cataloged as valid for the exercise of the right to strike by the supervisory bodies of the International Labour Organization; let us see the position of the Committee on Freedom of Association: 'Although strikes of a purely political nature are not covered by the principles of freedom of association, trade unions should be able to organize protest strikes, particularly to exercise criticism against the economic and social policy of the government. Trade union organizations should have the possibility of resorting to protest strikes, particularly with a view to exercising criticism regarding the economic and social policy of governments.' (International Labour Office. 'Freedom of Association,' ILO, Geneva, 2006, pp. 117).\n\n* 5. Regarding the application of contractual strike requirements to other types of strikes (Article 377 and others of the Labor Code): While ANPE says that the conciliation procedures were exhausted through the public and notorious dialogue that the Unions attempted with the government, UNDECA, SINAE, and SIPROCIMECA maintain an erroneous and improper application of Article 377 of the Labor Code as well as of numerals 371 and 381.\n\n* For the purpose of the qualification request made through this process, the first point to bear in mind, and specifically regarding the grievance concerning the inapplicability of the contractual strike requirements, is that indeed the wording of the Labor Code does not regulate this type of strike, but neither does it prohibit it. A situation that is not duly regulated in the law is submitted for the judge's assessment, but concerning which a solution must be provided based on the provisions of Article 153 of the Political Constitution and Article 1 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch.\n\n* In the same vein, Article 420 of the Procedural Code provides: \"Within the labor jurisdiction, established in Article 70 of the Political Constitution, individual and collective disputes shall be resolved, the solution of which requires the application of norms of labor law and social security, and the principles that inform it, as well as matters related to the substantial relationships characteristic of that law.\"\n\n* From this perspective, the application of Convention 87 of the International Labour Organization, called 'concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise,' in its point 3, gives freedom to trade union organizations to establish their plan of action; therefore, it must be understood that this constitutes a justified reason for exercising this modality of strike, which, although its purpose is the protection of interests of an economic and social nature, differs in other elements or prerequisites of the typical or contractual strike, such as the subjects potentially obligated to provide a solution to the conflict, because although the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social) is a State entity, the salary policy intended in Bill No. 20850 exceeds in its scope the theory of the Single Employer, by virtue of the Power conferred in Articles 105 and 121 of the Political Constitution to the Legislative Assembly, hence the resistance of the State that triggered the demonstration as stated by ANPE in its Appeal. Therefore, the trial court erred in analyzing the legality of this strike under the protection of Articles 371 and following of the Labor Code.\n\n* Based on the foregoing, particularly regarding the requirements of the strike, this Tribunal has been of the opinion that, since it is an atypical form of strike, applying the requirements of provisions 371, 377, and 381 of the Labor Code leads nowhere, because ultimately it would prevent the materialization of the exercise of the right to freedom of expression; note that in cases such as these, the exhaustion of conciliation channels becomes virtually impossible and, furthermore, the legal system does not provide for settlement mechanisms, as it does provide in the hypothesis of the contractual strike. Based on these considerations, we must conclude that as a consequence of our system of government and the democratic principles that govern the institutions of our country, the employer is obliged to tolerate that workers exercise the right to strike in cases of social protest; however, this right that protects wage earners is not unrestricted and is understood to be exhausted once they have, in a concerted manner, transmitted their discontent to government entities, since attempting to go beyond this limit would constitute an abusive exercise of the right of comment (Article 22 of the Civil Code).\n\n* 6. Regarding the prerequisites for legality or illegality of a political strike with labor implications. Reasonableness and proportionality: Upon review of the relevant regulations and after studying the case, the conclusion was reached that doctrine establishes precise parameters regarding the external limits of the strike that concerns us; it is necessary to resort to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality enshrined in the ILO Principles on the Right to Strike. What is reasonable and proportional is not left to the subjective will of the person applying the law, since, on the contrary, a series of mental exercises intervene based on three criteria of interpretation. The first of these is that of suitability; a measure will be suitable when, within the catalog of possible solutions that can be assigned to a problem, it is the one that provides the most effective response. On the other hand, one encounters the criterion of necessity. It is not enough for a measure to be effective; it must also be the one that causes the least impact on the legal interest potentially involved. Finally, the judgment of proportionality in the strict sense intervenes, about which Sapag speaks in the following manner: 'according to a fairly widespread conception, it is a weighing between the principles at stake; [Name1] designed, for this test, some mathematical weighing rules, by which the abstract weight of the principles at stake and the concrete weight in the case are analyzed and quantified for the purpose of determining the validity or unconstitutionality. According to the view adopted here, this subprinciple requires, in reality, that the measure maintain a \"reasonable relationship\" with the purpose: the cost-benefit relationship of the measure with respect to its purpose is examined, that is, between what is obtained through the measure and what is prevented by it. However, and as has already been pointed out, for a complete reasonableness examination, the judgment of alteration or impact on the essential content must be inserted here. / The judgments of reasonableness control can be broken down into seven questions that the legal operator must pose: / a) What are the mediate and immediate purposes of the norm? / b) Is the purpose constitutional? / c) Is the purpose socially relevant? / d) Is the means employed adequate? / e) Is the means employed necessary, or indispensable? / f) Is the measure proportional with respect to the ends? g) Does it respect the essential content of the rights at stake?' (Sapag, Mariano. The principle of proportionality and reasonableness as a constitutional limit on the power of the State: a comparative study. Document available at: 'http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=72011607008').\n\n* 7. Of the reason for the illegality of the strike of June 25, 2018, in the CCSS. Interpretation of the prohibition: In the judgment of this Tribunal, the action of the defendant unions began with a purpose protectable by the legal system and was executed by peaceful means; however, in its development, it violated the principle of reasonableness from the criterion of necessity, because although the message of social discontent was effectively transmitted in one day of the movement, given that it was a public and notorious fact that during that period in the city of San José and other parts of Costa Rica large concentrations of people took place who marched with slogans against legislative file No. 20,580, the demonstrators represented by the Unions sued here are workers in the health sector, a legal interest that was potentially involved, as is evident from the notarial records presented by the CCSS in its request - images 25 to 27 -, where it is indicated that at the San Juan de Dios Hospital, in the Operations service, out of 15 operating rooms only 6 opened, out of 57 scheduled surgeries, 37 were suspended, when the patient waiting list is 10,000. In the Nutrition service, out of 46 employees, 18 are on strike; in the Laboratory, out of 140 employees on the first shift, 29 are on strike. In Gynecology, Neonatology, and Obstetrics, all surgeries were canceled, 10 in total. In Nursing, 55 employees are on strike; Outpatient Pharmacy, out of 26 technicians on the shift, 18 are on strike, including the one who brings them from the warehouse. The foregoing, despite the directives issued in official letter GM-7975-2018-GA0938-2018 of June 20, 2018 - image 38 - which issued the following instructions to guarantee the continuity of the service: to implement emergency plans that guarantee the provision of services at least in critical services such as: a. emergency care, b. performance of emergency surgeries and recovery services, c. intensive care units and neonatology, d. hemodynamics room, e. delivery room, f. care of patients who remain hospitalized, f. essential support services such as laboratory, blood bank, radiology and medical imaging, pharmacy both hospital and outpatient, nutrition, networks, others that meet such characteristic, g. preservation of the cold chain. Continuity was also instructed in services with immediate impact: laundry, production and distribution of food, supplies, and parenteral solutions; GIT was also instructed to guarantee the transmission of information and functioning of the institutional platform (EDUS, SICERE, email, internet, storage platform), to the directorates of administrative headquarters to minimize the impact.\n\n* We find ourselves in this parameter of necessity, a content whose analysis can indeed be carried out through the technique of analogy permitted by Article 428 of the Labor Procedural Code when there are no procedural norms provided for a specific case or situation, such as the discussion of whether this strike is the measure with the least impact on the legal interest of health, which is done based on similar criteria with respect to the character of essential service (servicio esencial) developed in the appealed judgment.\n\n* It is of utmost importance here to be clear that Article 376 subsection d) of the Labor Code is not being applied, but rather that the principle for both cases (contractual strike and political strike with labor implications) is the protection of a legal interest: health, opting in one for the criterion of least impact and in the other for that of essential service or minimum service. Let us see: For the case of the political strike with labor implications, one must start from the concept of health. According to the World Health Organization, it is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of afflictions or diseases (https://www.who.int/es/about/who-we-are/frequently-asked-questions). Interpreting this concept broadly and literally, health encompasses both preventive and curative actions. Our health system is organized into various levels of care ranging from periodic visit posts (Level I Care) with care in services of five comprehensive care programs aimed at children, adolescents, women, adults, and the elderly; to National Hospitals (Level III Care) which is specialized care as well as complex medical and surgical treatments, passing through Level II which are specialized consultation, hospitalization, and medical and surgical treatment services of the basic specialties of internal medicine, pediatrics, gynecology and obstetrics, and surgery (http://www.bvs.sa.cr/php/situacion/perfil.pdf), and by law the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social) is responsible for the provision of public health services, which it provides at these different levels. Based on this organization, it is difficult to imagine a unit of this institution whose suspension of work due to a political strike with labor implications does not imply an impact on the legal interest of health, because all the services: pharmacy, nutrition, nursing, surgeries, laundry, emergencies, outpatient consultation, specialties, laboratories, and even computer and administrative services, are important for providing health at all levels. Such services are of an absolutely indispensable character to maintain the functioning of the services, as they are geared in a hierarchy and there is dependence among them for the provision of the service; that is, medical care is distributed in such a way that the absence of one service affects the comprehensiveness of the provision, because several persons are required for its proper functioning. The suspension of the same can cause not only immediate but serious harm to people's health, such as, for example, the acquisition of a bacterium by a recovery patient due to lack of laundry or hygiene, the complication of a disease due to lack of delivery of medications even though the doctor in the outpatient consultation or emergency service has provided the service. Now, the representative of the CCSS provided a list of employees who joined the strike movement, which are visible in images 47 to 183; as can be seen, a considerable number of people, which demonstrates the impact on the services, as was also anticipated and indicated in the notarial records. It should be added that, contrary to what UNDECA states in its appeal, the technique of minimum service (servicio mínimo) does not apply in this case. Regarding the term, GERNICON indicates: 'Before continuing this chapter, it will be useful to clarify certain terminological questions, since otherwise an inadequate understanding of the principles of the supervisory bodies on so-called essential services may occur. In certain countries, the notion of essential services is used in legislation to designate services in which the strike is not prohibited but a minimum operating service may be imposed; in other countries, the notion of essential services is used to justify significant restrictions, including the prohibition of the strike, and this is precisely the meaning of the expression \"essential services\" for the ILO supervisory bodies when they use it in formulating their principles. As will be seen below, between essential services (where the strike can be prohibited) and non-essential services (where it cannot be prohibited), the ILO supervisory bodies use an intermediate concept, which is the concept of services of \"transcendental importance\" (terminology of the Committee on Freedom of Association) or of \"public utility\" (terminology of the Committee of Experts), which are non-essential services where, in the judgment of the ILO supervisory bodies, the strike cannot be prohibited, but a minimum operating service can be imposed in the company or institution in question. In this regard, the Committee of Experts has pointed out that, due to the diversity of terms used in national legislations and in texts on this matter, some confusion sometimes arises between the concepts of minimum service and essential services; therefore, it is important to define them precisely.' GERNICON, Bernard. CORDERO, Albert. GUIDO, Horacio. (2000). ILO Principles on the Right to Strike. [Name2], [Name3]. pp.22-23).\n\n* The minimum service (servicio mínimo) 'occurs in situations where a significant limitation or total prohibition of the strike does not seem justified and where, without calling into question the right to strike of the vast majority of workers, it might be a matter of ensuring the satisfaction of the basic needs of users or the continuous and safe operation of the facilities' (GERNICON, Bernard, Op. cit. p. 23). This applies to all cases of strikes when their purpose is to respect the safety of persons, the prevention of accidents, and the safety of installations. The essential service (servicio esencial) is reserved for cases where the suspension endangers the life or health of persons.\n\n* Analogically, it cannot be concluded, as the Unions say in their appeals, that all the services of the Caja cannot be considered essential, because from the analysis of the political strike with social implications, they are understood as those whose interruption could endanger the life, personal safety, or health of the entire population or part of it. In this vein, for these cases GERNICON states: '... the prohibition of the strike could only be acceptable with respect to public officials who exercise authority functions in the name of the State or with respect to workers in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, those services whose interruption could endanger the life, safety, or health of the person in all or part of the population)' (Op. cit. p.15). Without excluding other possibilities. In cases such as the one under study, the ILO has considered hospital services, electricity, water supply, telephony, and air traffic control among those that can even be prohibited (GERNICON, Bernard. Op. cit. p.20).\n\n* Two important conclusions arise from the foregoing: 1. It is not true, as the appellants say, that an oppression of the right to strike is generated, since the ILO and the Political Constitution admit the possibility of restriction, even prohibition, in sectors where an impact on a legal interest such as health occurs; alternatively, measures such as an efficient Conciliation or Arbitration System can be adopted. It is necessary to recall that although the right to strike is considered by the ILO supervisory bodies as a fundamental right, it is not an absolute right, so its exercise must be harmonized with the fundamental rights of citizens and employers. Thus, the principles of said bodies only protect legitimate strikes, that is, strikes carried out in accordance with national legislation when it does not undermine the basic guarantees of the right to strike' ([Name4], Bernard. Op. cit. p.44). 2. For none of the cases of strike is the interpretation of the prohibition of the right to strike erroneous. Under this understanding, the conduct of the Unions violated a fundamental right of persons, such as health, a right that renders the strike movement illegal, since the legitimate interests of the recipients of the public services provided by the centers of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social) (whether essential or not, public or not) and of the employer, who has no influence on the conflict nor any possibility of resolving it, are being violated.\n\n* Nor is it considered that the judgment violates the principles of progressivity and pro homine. If one looks to the history of the strike, it has been the main form of expression of the class struggle (CABANELLAS. (1979). Collective Labor Conflicts, In [Name5] and [Name6]. Labor Conflicts and their Solution. pp. 7-82. Buenos Aires. Editorial Heliasta S.R.L., cited by AMORETTI OROZCO, Luis Héctor. (2007). Collective Conflicts of an Economic and Social Nature, their Means of Solution in Costa Rican Law. Litografía e Imprenta Lil S.A, San José, Costa Rica. p.166), which in the Constituent Assembly of '49 allowed a clear social-democratic vision of fundamental rights such as the right to strike; Fernando Bolaños explains that both the existence of an alternative Constitution Project and that of a new political and social class produced interesting discussions affirming that the strike regulated in the Labor Code does not correspond harmoniously with the right to strike in the Constitution. However, now understood the concept of public services as that of essential services ([Name7], Fernando. (2002). Scope of Freedom of Association. Editorial Guayacán, San José, Costa Rica, p. 250-251). Previously, the strike was considered a crime, and the restriction on certain services has existed since its enshrinement in the Political Constitution, which is maintained today; therefore, it is considered that there is no such violation of the indicated principles even when the object is a political strike with labor implications.\n\n* 8. Assessment of evidence and Lack of substantiation of the judgment: SINAE alleges that the hearing of Articles 664 and 667 of the Labor Code was omitted, but regarding the documents presented with the qualification request, the defendants expressed themselves in their responses; in a resolution at two thirty-five in the afternoon on September nineteenth of the year two thousand eighteen, the judge rejected the testimonial evidence, considering it was improper and irrelevant evidence; likewise, the chosen means does not prove ideal for demonstrating the intended fact, and in accordance with Article 666 of the Labor Code, because it was not considered strictly necessary for the resolution of the case submitted to the knowledge of this office, making the hearing of numeral 667 of the Labor Code unnecessary. Regarding the rest of the evidence, she pronounced with the pertinent reasons, so it did not merit further reasoning in the judgment.\n\n* X. FINAL CONSIDERATION: As a consequence of this ruling, the application of disciplinary sanctions and salary deductions in accordance with articles 379 and 385 of the Labor Code may not be carried out retroactively, only prospectively and as of the finality of this judgment, once the 24-hour notice provided for by procedural legislation for the purpose of arranging the resumption of activities has taken effect.\n\n\"IX. [...] 3. Improper rejection of the exception of lack of interest: UNDECA argues that since the strike movement lasted only one day and the workers returned to work the following day, the certification process lacked all interest. With the Labor Procedural Reform, three moments are established in which the Certification of a Strike may be requested. Article 661 of the Labor Code establishes the procedure for the certification of strike movements, and states, in the pertinent part: **\"The certification must be requested at any time while the strike or lockout persists, except as provided in article 384\"** (Bold text is not from the original). Meanwhile, article 384 of the same code reads: *\"In the same manner, it shall be optional for the workers or their trade union organizations to request the declaration of legality of the strike, prior to its commencement. In this latter case, they may not begin the execution of the strike without the declaration of legality being final. The workers or the respective trade union may also request the certification of a strike after its execution, and even after its completion, for the purposes established in article 386 of the Labor Code.\"* From the cited articles, it follows that the Certification of a Strike may be requested by the workers, unions, and employers, while the movement persists. The only exception established by the legislator for requesting the certification at another time is in favor of the workers and the unions, who may request it; before initiating its execution, and after the completion of its execution. Therefore, in strict application of these norms, the employer has no legal possibility to request the certification once the movement has ceased.- The foregoing is logical, because in the case of a one-day strike (June 25, 2018), it was known when the movement would end, but for others, it is not known when they will end, as everything depends on the negotiation between the parties; for this reason, it is a requirement for the employer to file the request for certification while the strike movement is in progress or execution. In this particular case, the employer filed the petition at 11:58 a.m. on that same day, while the movement was ongoing. By virtue of the foregoing, since a procedural prerequisite for the admissibility of the procedure for the declaration of illegality of a strike was met, the rejection of the exception of lack of interest is approved.\n\n4. On the political strike with labor implications: The right to strike is a constitutional right enshrined in article 61 of the Magna Carta; this guarantee is implemented by article 371 of the Labor Code, which concretely defines it as: *\"a concerted and peaceful suspension of work, in a company, institution, establishment, or workplace, agreed upon and executed by a plurality of at least three workers, representing more than half of the votes cast in accordance with article 381, by the employees involved in a collective labor conflict, for the following: / a) The defense and promotion of their economic and social interests. / b) The defense of their rights in the collective legal conflicts indicated in article 386.\"* Now, it is important to mention that the strike, as a phenomenon of collective labor law, does not possess a univocal nature based on its purpose, which gives rise to the existence of various modalities in practice, as is defined by the transcribed precept when it refers to the classic or contractual strike that occurs between employers and employees on the occasion of the defense and promotion of their economic and social interests. Spanish legal doctrine explains the following on the subject: *\"A good part of workers' labor strikes respond to the most elementary of models, the contractual one. These are strikes on the occasion of collective bargaining: initiation of collective bargaining; pressure during ongoing bargaining; modification, enrichment, or interpretation of current collective agreements; creation of a new bargaining unit, and a long etcetera. Taking into account, furthermore, that collective bargaining has increasingly more products: statutory collective agreements, extra-statutory agreements, framework agreements, company agreements in the absence of a collective agreement, opt-out agreements, corporate restructuring agreements... In these contractual strikes, the strike-ending agreement is most frequently reached, and where the specific legal efficacy given to it is enormously important.\"* (Vivero Serrano, Juan et al. \"The Efficacy of Strike-Ending Agreements\" in \"Studies on Negotiation and Collective Agreements\", Madrid, Ramón Areces S.A., 2003, pp. 215).\n\nIndeed, in the case under study, this is not the type of strike in question, as the appellants correctly point out, but rather we are facing a strike with political and social connotations in which workers' organizations are protesting a State tax policy. Professor Van der Laat Echeverría explained on the subject: *\"It has generally been defined as an action tending to exert pressure on the public authorities and in which the demands are not directed against the employer but against the State. It is precisely based on the recipient of the action that the differences between the economic and the political strike are established, for if the pursued demands are within the employer's sphere of decision, one is dealing with the economic strike modality, whereas if the abstention is intended to pressure the public authorities, it will be classified as political.\"* (Van der Laat Echeverría, Bernardo. \"The strike and the lockout in Costa Rica\", San José, Editorial Juricentro, pp. 99). In this type of movement, other aspects beyond trade union freedom converge, as, for instance, freedom of expression and the defense of the democratic principles upon which the Rule of Law is founded are at stake; that is, it involves a social protest exercised through trade union organizations. Said motive has been classified as valid for the exercise of the right to strike by the supervisory bodies of the International Labour Organization. Let us examine the position of the Committee on Freedom of Association: *\"While purely political strikes are not covered by the principles of freedom of association, trade unions should be able to organize protest strikes, particularly to exercise criticism against the government's economic and social policy. Trade union organizations should have the possibility of resorting to protest strikes, particularly with a view to exercising criticism with respect to the economic and social policy of governments.\"* (International Labour Office. \"Freedom of Association\", ILO, Geneva, 2006, pp. 117).\n\n5. On the application of requirements of the contractual strike to other types of strikes (article 377 and others of the Labor Code): While ANPE states that the conciliation procedures were indeed exhausted through the public and notorious dialogue that the Unions attempted with the government, UNDECA, SINAE, and SIPROCIMECA argue an erroneous and improper application of article 377 of the Labor Code, as well as articles 371 and 381.\n\nFor the purpose of the request for certification made through this proceeding, the first point to consider, specifically regarding the grievance about the inapplicability of the requirements of the contractual strike, is that, in effect, the wording of the Labor Code does not regulate this type of strike, but neither does it prohibit it. A situation is submitted for the judge's assessment that is not properly regulated by law, but for which a solution must be provided based on the provisions of article 153 of the Political Constitution and article 1 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch.\n\nIn the same vein, article 420 of the Procedural Code states: *\"In the labor jurisdiction, established in article 70 of the Political Constitution, individual and collective conflicts whose resolution requires the application of labor law and social security norms, and the principles that inform them, as well as matters connected to the substantial relationships inherent to that law, shall be settled.\"*\n\nFrom this perspective, the application of Convention 87 of the International Labour Organization called \"on freedom of association and protection of the right to organize\" in its point 3, grants trade union organizations the freedom to establish their action plan; therefore, it must be understood that this constitutes a justified reason to exercise this type of strike, which, although it aims at the protection of economic and social interests, differs in other elements or prerequisites from the typical or contractual strike, such as the subjects potentially obligated to resolve the conflict. For although the Costa Rican Social Security Fund is a State entity, the salary policy pursued in Bill No. 20850 exceeds in its scope the theory of a single employer, due to the Power conferred by articles 105 and 121 of the Political Constitution to the Legislative Assembly, hence the State's resistance that triggered the protest as referred to by ANPE in its Appeal. Therefore, the trial court was wrong to analyze the legality of this strike under articles 371 et seq. of the Labor Code.\n\nBased on the foregoing, particularly regarding the requirements of the strike, this Tribunal has been of the opinion that since this is an atypical form of strike, applying the requirements of provisions 371, 377, and 381 of the Labor Code serves no purpose, because it would ultimately impede the materialization of the exercise of the right to freedom of expression. Note that in cases such as this, exhausting conciliation channels becomes virtually impossible, and furthermore, the legal system does not provide mechanisms for resolution, as it does in the hypothesis of the contractual strike. From these considerations, we must conclude that as a consequence of our system of government and the democratic principles governing our country's institutions, the employer is obligated to tolerate the workers exercising their right to strike in cases of social protest. However, this right that protects the employees is not unrestricted and is understood to be exhausted once they have, in a concerted manner, conveyed their discontent to the governmental bodies, since attempting to go beyond this limit would constitute an abusive exercise of the right of expression (article 22 of the Civil Code).\n\n6. On the prerequisites for the legality or illegality of a political strike with labor implications. Reasonableness and proportionality: Having reviewed the relevant regulations and studied the case, the conclusion was reached that legal doctrine establishes precise parameters regarding the external limits of the strike in question. It is necessary to resort to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality set forth in the ILO Principles on the Right to Strike. What is reasonable and proportional is not left to the subjective will of whoever applies the law, since, on the contrary, a series of mental exercises based on three interpretation criteria intervene. The first of these is **suitability**; a measure will be suitable when, within the catalog of possible solutions that can be assigned to a problem, it is the one that provides a more effective response.\n\nOn the other hand, it encounters the criterion of necessity.* It is not enough that a measure is effective; it must also be the one that causes the least* affectation to the legal right that is potentially involved.* Finally, the judgment of proportionality in the strict sense intervenes, of which* Sapag speaks in the following manner: “according to a fairly widespread conception, it involves a balancing between the principles at stake; [Nombre1] designed, for this test, some mathematical balancing rules, through which the abstract weight of the principles at stake, and the concrete weight in the case, are analyzed and quantified for the purpose of determining validity or unconstitutionality. According to the view adopted here, this sub-principle actually requires that the measure maintain a “reasonable relationship” with the purpose: the cost-benefit relationship of the measure with respect to its purpose is examined, that is, between what is obtained through the measure and what is thereby prevented. However, and as already noted, for a complete examination of reasonableness, the judgment of alteration or affectation of the essential content must be inserted here. / The judgments of the control of reasonableness can be broken down into seven questions that the legal operator must pose: / a) What are the mediate and immediate purposes of the norm?/ b) Is the purpose constitutional?/ c) Is the purpose socially relevant?/ d) Is the means employed adequate? / e) Is the means employed necessary, or indispensable? / f) Is the measure proportional with respect to the ends? g) Does it respect the essential content of the rights at stake?” (Sapag,* Mariano. El principio de proporcionalidad y de razonablidad como límite* constitucional al poder del Estado: un estudio comparado. Documento disponible* en: “http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=72011607008”). *

* 7. Of the reason for the illegality of the strike of June 25, 2018 at the CCSS. Interpretation of the prohibition: In the judgment of this Tribunal, the action of the defendant unions began with a purpose protectable by the* legal system and was executed by peaceful means; however, in its* development, it violated the principle of reasonableness under the criterion of necessity, because although the message of* social discontent was transmitted effectively in one day of the movement, given that it was a public and notorious fact that during that period* in the city of San José and other parts of Costa Rica large* concentrations of people took place who marched with slogans against* the* legislative file No. 20.580, the protesters represented by the Unions sued here are workers in the health sector, a legal right that was potentially involved, as is evident from the notarial deeds presented by the CCSS in its request - images 25 to 27 -, where it is indicated that in the Hospital San Juan de Dios, in the Operations service, of 15 rooms only 6 opened, of 57 scheduled surgeries 37 were suspended, when the patient waiting list is 10,000.00.  In the Nutrition service, of 46 officials 18 are on strike, in the Laboratory, of 140 officials of the first shift, 29 are on strike.  In gynecology, Neonatology and Obstetrics, all surgeries were canceled, 10 in total. In nursing, 55 officials are on strike, Outpatient Pharmacy  of 26 technicians of the shift, 18 are on strike including the one who brings them from the warehouse.  The foregoing, despite the directives issued in official letter GM-7975-2018-GA0938-2018 of June 20, 2018 - image 38 - which issued the following instructions to guarantee the continuity of the service: implement emergency plans that guarantee the provision of services at least in critical services such as: a. emergency care, b. performance of emergency surgeries and recovery services, c. intensive care and neonatology units, d. hemodynamics room, e. delivery room, f. care of patients who remain hospitalized, f. essential support services such as laboratory, blood bank, radiology and medical imaging, pharmacy for both hospital and outpatient care, nutrition, networks, others that have such characteristic, g. conservation of the cold chain. Continuity was also instructed in services with immediate impact: laundry, production and distribution of food, supplies and parenteral solutions; the GIT was also instructed to guarantee the transmission of information  and operation of the institutional platform (EDUS, SICERE, email, internet, storage platform), to the addresses of administrative headquarters to minimize the impact. *

* We find ourselves in this parameter of necessity, a content whose analysis can indeed be carried out through the technique of analogy permitted by article 428 of the Labor Procedure Code when there are no procedural rules provided for a specific case or situation, such as the discussion of whether this strike is the measure with the least* affectation for the legal right of health, which is done based on similar criteria with respect to the nature of an essential service developed in the appealed sentence.*

* Here it is of utmost importance that it be clear that article 376 subsection d) of the Labor Code is not being applied, but rather that the principle for both cases (contractual strike and political strike with labor transcendence) is the protection of a legal right: health, opting in one for the criterion of least affectation and in the other for that of essential service or minimum service. Let us see: For the case of the political strike with labor transcendence, one must start from the concept of health.  According to the World Health Organization, it is a complete state of physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of affections or diseases (https://www.who.int/es/about/who-we-are/frequently-asked-questions). Interpreting this concept broadly and literally, health encompasses both preventive and curative actions.  Our health system is organized into several levels of care ranging from periodic visit posts (Care Level I) with care in services of five comprehensive care programs aimed at children, adolescents, women, adults, and the elderly; to National Hospitals (Care Level III) which is specialized care as well as complex medical and surgical treatments, passing through Level II which are specialized consultation services, hospitalization, and medical and surgical treatment of the basic specialties of internal medicine, pediatrics, gynecology and obstetrics, and surgery (http://www.bvs.sa.cr/php/situation/perfil.pdf) and by law, the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social is responsible for the provision of public health services, which it provides at these different levels. Starting from this organization, it is difficult to think of a dependency of this institution, the suspension of whose work due to a political strike with labor transcendence does not imply an affectation of the legal right of health, because all services: pharmacy, nutrition, nursing, surgeries, laundry, emergencies, outpatient consultation, specialties, laboratories, even computer and administrative services, are important to provide health at all levels. Such services are of an absolutely indispensable nature to maintain the functioning of the services because they are geared in a ladder system and there is dependence between them for the provision of the service, that is, medical care is distributed in such a way that the absence of one service affects the integrality of the provision, as it requires several persons for its correct functioning.  The suspension of these can cause not only immediate but serious damage to people's health, such as for example a recovery patient acquiring bacteria due to lack of laundry or hygiene, the complication of an illness due to lack of delivery of medications even when the doctor of the outpatient consultation or emergency service has provided the service.  Now, well, the representative of the CCSS provided a list of officials who joined the strike movement, which are visible in images 47 to 183, as a considerable number of people can be seen, which evidences the affectation of the services, as was also advanced, and indicated in the notarial deeds.  It should be added that, contrary to what UNDECA states in its appeal, the minimum service technique does not apply to the case.  Regarding the term, GERNICON indicates: \"Before proceeding with this chapter, it will be useful to clarify certain terminological issues, since otherwise an inadequate understanding of the principles of the supervisory bodies on so-called essential services may arise. In certain countries, the notion of essential services is used in legislation to designate services in which the strike is not prohibited but a minimum operating service may be imposed; in other countries, the notion of essential services is used to justify important restrictions, including the prohibition of the strike, and this is precisely the meaning of the expression ‘essential services’ for the ILO supervisory bodies when they use it in formulating their principles. As will be seen later, between essential services (where the strike can be prohibited) and non-essential services (where it cannot be prohibited), the ILO supervisory bodies use an intermediate concept which is the concept of services of ‘transcendental importance’ (terminology of the Committee on Freedom of Association) or of ‘public utility’ (terminology of the Committee of Experts), which are non-essential services where, in the opinion of the  ILO supervisory bodies, the strike cannot be prohibited, but a minimum operating service can be imposed in the company or institution in question. In this regard, the Committee of Experts has pointed out that, due to the diversity of terms used in national legislations and in texts on this matter, some confusion sometimes arises between the concepts of minimum service and essential services; therefore, it is important to define them precisely\" GERNICON, Bernard. CORDERO, Albert.  GUIDO Horacio. (2000). Principios de la OIT sobre el derecho de huelga. [Nombre2], [Nombre3]. pp.22-23).  *

* The minimum service \"occurs in situations where a significant limitation or total prohibition of the strike does not seem justified and where, without calling into question the right to strike of the great majority of workers, it might be a matter of ensuring the satisfaction of the basic needs of users or the continuous and safe operation of facilities\" (GERNICON, Bernard, Op. cit. p. 23).  It deals with all cases of strike when their purpose is to respect the safety of persons, the prevention of accidents, and the safety of facilities.  The essential one is reserved for cases where the suspension endangers the life or health of persons. *

* Analogically, it cannot be concluded, as the Unions say in their appeals, that all the services of the Caja cannot be considered as essential, because from the analysis of the political strike with social transcendence, they are understood as those whose interruption may endanger the life, personal safety or health of all or part of the population.  In that order of ideas for these cases, GERNICON states: \"... the prohibition of the strike could only be acceptable, with respect to public officials who exercise authority functions in the name of the State or with respect to workers of essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, those services whose interruption could endanger the life, safety or health of the person in all or part of the population)\"  (Op cit. p.15).  Without excluding other possibilities.  In cases like the one under study, the ILO has considered hospital services, electricity, water supply, telephony, and air traffic control among those in which strikes can even be prohibited  (GERNICON, Bernard. Op. cit. p.20). *

* Two important conclusions arise from the foregoing: 1. It is not true, as the appellants say, that an oppression of the right to strike is generated, since the ILO and the Political Constitution admit the possibility of restriction, including prohibition, in sectors where there is an affectation of a legal right such as health; alternatively, measures such as an efficient Conciliation or Arbitration System can be adopted.  It is necessary to remember that although the right to strike is considered by the ILO supervisory bodies as a fundamental right, it is not an absolute right, so its exercise must be harmonized with the fundamental rights of citizens and employers. Thus, the principles of said bodies only protect legitimate strikes, that is, strikes carried out in accordance with national legislation when it does not undermine the basic guarantees of the right to strike\" ([Nombre4], Bernard. Op. cit. p.44). 2. For none of the cases of strike is the interpretation of the prohibition of the right to strike erroneous. Under this understanding, the conduct of the Unions violated a fundamental right of persons such as health, a right that makes the strike movement illegal, since the legitimate interests of the recipients of the services are being violated.* public services provided by the centers of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (whether essential or* not, public or not) and of the employer who has no influence on the conflict nor* any possibility of solving it. *

* Nor is it considered that the sentence violates the principles of progressivity and pro homine.  If one looks to the history of the strike, it has been the main form of expression of the class struggle (CABANELLAS. (1979). Los conflictos Colectivos de trabajo, En [Nombre5]  y [Nombre6]  . Los conflictos de trabajo y su solución. pp. 7-82.  Buenos Aires. Editorial Heliasta S.R.L., cited by AMORETTI OROZCO, Luis Héctor. (2007). Los conflictos Colectivos de carácter económico y social, sus medios de solución en el derecho costarricense. Litografía e Imprenta Lil S.A, San José, Costa Rica. p.166), that in the Constituent Assembly of '49 allowed a clear social democratic vision of fundamental rights such as the right to strike, Fernando Bolaños explains that both the existence of an alternative Constitution Project and that of a new political and social class produced interesting discussions that affirm that the strike regulated in the Labor Code does not harmoniously correspond with the right to strike in the Constitution.  However, now understanding the concept of public services as that of essential services ([Nombre7] , Fernando. (2002. Alcances de la libertad sindical. Editorial Guayacán, San José, Costa Rica, p. 250-251). Previously, the strike was considered a crime and the restriction on certain services arises from its enshrinement in the Political Constitution, which is maintained today, therefore it is considered that there is no such violation of the principles indicated even when the object is a political strike with labor transcendence. *

* 8. Assessment of evidence and Lack of grounding of the sentence: SINAE alleges that the hearing of articles 664 and 667 of the Labor Code was omitted, but from the documents submitted with the qualification request, the defendants expressed themselves  in their replies, in a resolution of fourteen hours and thirty-* five minutes on September* nineteenth of the year two thousand* eighteen, the judge rejected the testimonial evidence deeming it was inconducive and impertinent evidence, likewise, the chosen means is not* suitable to demonstrate the fact intended and in* accordance with article 666 of the Labor Code, as it is not* considered strictly necessary for the resolution of the case* submitted to the knowledge of this office, which makes the hearing of numeral 667 of the Labor Code unnecessary.*

\n\nWith respect to the rest of the evidence, it ruled with the pertinent reasoning, and therefore it did not merit further analysis in the judgment. *

* X: FINAL CONSIDERATION: As a consequence of this ruling, the application of disciplinary sanctions* and salary deductions in accordance with sections 379 and 385 of the Labor Code* may not be carried out retroactively, only prospectively and as of the finality of this* judgment, once the 24-hour notice provided for by procedural legislation for the purpose* of agreeing on the resumption of activities has taken effect

\n\nIn this class of movements, other aspects that transcend freedom of association converge, since what is at stake, for example, are freedom of expression and the defense of the democratic principles upon which the Rule of Law is founded; that is, it is a social protest carried out through trade union organizations. This motive has been classified as valid for the exercise of the right to strike by the supervisory bodies of the International Labour Organization. Let us examine the position of the Committee on Freedom of Association: \"While strikes of a purely political nature are not covered by the principles of freedom of association, trade unions should be able to organize protest strikes, particularly to criticize the economic and social policy of the government. Trade union organizations should have the possibility of resorting to protest strikes, particularly with a view to criticizing the economic and social policy of governments.\" (International Labour Office. \"Freedom of Association\", ILO, Geneva, 2006, pp. 117).\n\n5. On the application of contractual strike requirements to other types of strikes (Article 377 and others of the Labour Code): While ANPE states that the conciliation procedures were indeed exhausted through the public and notorious dialogue that the Unions attempted with the government, UNDECA, SINAE, and SIPROCIMECA argue for an erroneous and improper application of Article 377 of the Labour Code, as well as numerals 371 and 381.\n\nFor the purpose of the qualification request made through this proceeding, the first point to consider, and specifically regarding the grievance about the inapplicability of contractual strike requirements, is that the wording of the Labour Code indeed does not regulate this type of strike, but neither does it prohibit it. A situation is submitted for the judge's assessment that is not duly regulated in law, but for which a solution must be provided based on the provisions of Article 153 of the Political Constitution and Article 1 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch.\n\nIn the same vein, Article 420 of the Procedural Code states: \"In the labour jurisdiction, established in Article 70 of the Political Constitution, individual and collective disputes shall be resolved, the solution of which requires the application of labour law and social security norms, and the principles that inform them, as well as matters connected to the substantial relations inherent to that right.\"\n\nFrom this perspective, the application of Convention 87 of the International Labour Organization, entitled \"concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise,\" in its point 3, grants freedom to trade union organizations to establish their action plan. Therefore, it must be understood that this constitutes a justified reason to exercise this modality of strike, which, although it aims to protect economic and social interests, differs in other elements or presuppositions from the typical or contractual strike, such as the subjects potentially obligated to resolve the conflict. For although the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social is a State entity, the salary policy intended in Bill No. 20850 exceeds, in its scope, the theory of the single Employer, due to the Power conferred by Articles 105 and 121 of the Political Constitution to the Legislative Assembly; hence the State's resistance that triggered the demonstration, as ANPE refers to it in its Appeal. Therefore, the lower court erred in analyzing the legality of this strike under Article 371 and following of the Labour Code.\n\nBased on the foregoing, particularly regarding the strike requirements, this Tribunal has held the view that, since this is an atypical form of strike, applying the requirements of provisions 371, 377, and 381 of the Labour Code serves no purpose, because it would ultimately prevent the materialization of the exercise of the right to freedom of expression. Note that in cases such as these, exhausting conciliation channels becomes virtually impossible, and furthermore, the legal system does not provide solution mechanisms, as it does in the hypothesis of a contractual strike. From these considerations, we must conclude that as a consequence of our system of government and the democratic principles governing our country's institutions, the employer is obligated to tolerate workers exercising the right to strike in cases of social protest. However, this right that protects employees is not unrestricted and is understood to be exhausted once they have jointly transmitted their discontent to governmental bodies, since attempting to go beyond this limit would constitute an abusive exercise of the right of comment (Article 22 of the Civil Code).\n\n6. On the premises of legality or illegality of a political strike with labour implications. Reasonableness and Proportionality: Having reviewed the relevant regulations and studied the case, the conclusion was reached that the doctrine establishes precise parameters regarding the external limits of the strike in question. It is necessary to resort to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality enshrined in the ILO Principles concerning Strikes. What is reasonable and proportional is not left to the subjective will of the person applying the law, since, on the contrary, a series of mental exercises intervene based on three criteria of interpretation. The first of these is suitability. A measure will be suitable when, from the catalogue of possible solutions that can be assigned to a problem, it is the one that provides a response with the greatest effectiveness. Next, one encounters the criterion of necessity. It is not enough for a measure to be effective; it must also be the one that causes the least impact on the legal right potentially involved. Finally, the judgment of proportionality in the strict sense intervenes, which Sapag discusses as follows: “according to a fairly widespread conception, it is a balancing between the principles at stake; [Nombre1] designed, for this test, some mathematical balancing rules, by which the abstract weight of the principles at stake and the concrete weight in the case are analyzed and quantified for the purpose of determining validity or unconstitutionality. According to the view adopted here, this sub-principle requires, in reality, that the measure maintain a “reasonable relationship” with the purpose: the cost-benefit relationship of the measure with respect to its purpose is examined, that is, between what is obtained through the measure and what is prevented by it. However, and as has already been pointed out, for a complete examination of reasonableness, the judgment of alteration or impact on the essential content must be inserted here. / The judgments of reasonableness review can be broken down into seven questions that the legal operator must pose: / a) What are the mediate and immediate purposes of the norm?/ b) Is the purpose constitutional?/ c) Is the purpose socially relevant?/ d) Is the means employed adequate? / e) Is the means employed necessary, or indispensable? / f) Is the measure proportional with respect to the ends? g) Does it respect the essential content of the rights at stake?” (Sapag, Mariano. The principle of proportionality and reasonableness as a constitutional limit to State power: a comparative study. Document available at: “http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=72011607008”).\n\n7. On the reason for the illegality of the strike of June 25, 2018, at the CCSS. Interpretation of the prohibition: In the judgment of this Tribunal, the action of the defendant unions began with an aim protectable by the legal system and was executed by peaceful means. However, in its development, it violated the principle of reasonableness under the criterion of necessity, because while the message of social discontent was effectively transmitted on one day of the movement, given that it was a public and notorious fact that during that period in the city of San José and other parts of Costa Rica, large concentrations of people marched with slogans against legislative file No. 20.580, the demonstrators represented by the Unions sued here are health sector workers. This is a legal right that was potentially involved, as evidenced by the notarial acts presented by the CCSS in its request - images 25 to 27 -, where it is indicated that at the Hospital San Juan de Dios, in the Surgery service, of 15 operating rooms only 6 opened, of 57 scheduled surgeries 37 were suspended, when the patient waiting list is 10,000.00. In the Nutrition service, of 46 employees, 18 are on strike; in the Laboratory, of 140 employees on the first shift, 29 are on strike. In gynecology, Neonatology, and Obstetrics, all surgeries were cancelled, 10 in total. In nursing, 55 employees are on strike; in the Outpatient Pharmacy, of 26 technicians on the shift, 18 are on strike, including the one who brings them from the warehouse. The foregoing occurred despite the directives issued in official letter GM-7975-2018-GA0938-2018 of June 20, 2018 - image 38 - which issued the following instructions to guarantee service continuity: implement emergency plans that guarantee the provision of services, at least in critical services such as: a. emergency care, b. performing emergency surgeries and recovery services, c. intensive care and neonatology units, d. hemodynamics room, e. delivery room, f. care of patients remaining hospitalized, f. essential support services such as laboratory, blood bank, radiology and medical imaging, hospital and outpatient pharmacy, nutrition, networks, and others with such characteristics, g. preservation of the cold chain. Continuity was also instructed in services with immediate impact: laundry, food production and distribution, supplies, and parenteral solutions; the GIT was also instructed to guarantee information transmission and operation of the institutional platform (EDUS, SICERE, email, internet, storage platform), and the administrative headquarters departments were instructed to minimize the impact.\n\nWe find ourselves, within this parameter of necessity, with a content whose analysis can indeed be carried out through the technique of analogy permitted by Article 428 of the Labour Procedural Code when there are no procedural norms provided for a specific case or situation, such as the discussion of whether this strike is the measure with the least impact on the legal right of health, which is done using similar criteria with respect to the essential service character developed in the appealed ruling.\n\nHere it is of utmost importance to make clear that Article 376 paragraph d) of the Labour Code is not being applied. Rather, the principle for both cases (contractual strike and political strike with labour implications) is the protection of a legal right: health, opting in one case for the criterion of least impact and in the other for that of essential service or minimum service. Let us see: For the case of the political strike with labour implications, one must start from the concept of health. According to the World Health Organization, it is a complete state of physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of afflictions or diseases (https://www.who.int/es/about/who-we-are/frequently-asked-questions). Interpreting this concept broadly and literally, health encompasses both preventive and curative actions. Our health system is organized into various levels of care, ranging from periodic visit posts (Care Level I) with attention in five comprehensive care programs aimed at children, adolescents, women, adults, and older adults; up to National Hospitals (Care Level III) which handle specialized care as well as complex medical and surgical treatments, passing through Level II which consists of specialized consultation services, hospitalization, and medical and surgical treatment of basic specialties such as internal medicine, pediatrics, gynecology and obstetrics, and surgery (http://www.bvs.sa.cr/php/situacion/perfil.pdf). By law, the provision of public health services corresponds to the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, which provides them at these different levels. Based on this organization, it is difficult to conceive of a dependency of this institution whose suspension of work due to a political strike with labour implications does not entail an impact on the legal right of health, because all services—pharmacy, nutrition, nursing, surgeries, laundry, emergencies, outpatient consultation, specialties, laboratories, including computer and administrative services—are important for providing health at all levels. Such services are of an absolutely indispensable nature to maintain the functioning of the services because they are interlinked in a hierarchy, and there is dependence among them for service provision. That is, medical care is distributed in such a way that the absence of one service affects the comprehensiveness of the provision, as several people are required for its proper functioning. Their suspension can cause not only immediate but also serious harm to people's health, such as, for example, a patient in recovery acquiring a bacterium due to a lack of laundry or hygiene, or the complication of an illness due to the failure to deliver medications even when the doctor in the outpatient or emergency service provided the care. Now, the CCSS representative provided a list of employees who joined the strike movement, which are visible in images 47 to 183; as can be seen, a considerable number of people, which evidences the impact on services, as was also previously indicated in the notarial acts. It should be added that, contrary to what UNDECA states in its appeal, the minimum service technique does not apply in this case. Regarding the term, GERNICON states: \"Before continuing with this chapter, it will be useful to clarify certain terminological issues, since otherwise an inadequate understanding may arise of the supervisory bodies' principles concerning so-called essential services. In certain countries, the notion of essential services is used in legislation to designate services where the strike is not prohibited but a minimum operating service may be imposed; in other countries, the notion of essential services is used to justify important restrictions, including the prohibition of the strike, and this is precisely the meaning of the expression ‘essential services’ for the ILO supervisory bodies when they use it to formulate their principles. As will be seen later, between essential services (where the strike can be prohibited) and non-essential services (where it cannot be prohibited), the ILO supervisory bodies use an intermediate concept, which is the concept of services of ‘transcendental importance’ (terminology of the Committee on Freedom of Association) or of ‘public utility’ (terminology of the Commission of Experts), which are non-essential services where, in the judgment of the ILO supervisory bodies, the strike cannot be prohibited, but a minimum operating service in the company or institution in question may be imposed. In this regard, the Commission of Experts has pointed out that, due to the diversity of terms used in national legislations and in texts on this subject, some confusion sometimes arises between the concepts of minimum service and essential services; consequently, it is important to define them precisely.\" GERNICON, Bernard. CORDERO, Albert. GUIDO Horacio. (2000). ILO Principles on the Right to Strike. [Nombre2], [Nombre3].\n\npp.22-23). *

* The minimum service is \"provided in situations where a significant limitation or a total prohibition of the strike does not appear justified and where, without calling into question the right to strike of the vast majority of workers, it might be a matter of ensuring the satisfaction of the basic needs of users or the continuous and safe operation of the facilities\" (GERNICON, Bernard, Op. cit. p. 23). This concerns all strike cases when their purpose is to respect personal safety, accident prevention, and the safety of the facilities. Essential service is reserved for cases in which the suspension endangers the life or health of persons. *

* Analogously, it cannot be concluded, as the Unions state in their appeals, that all services of the Caja cannot be considered essential, because from the analysis of the political strike with social transcendence, they are understood as those whose interruption may endanger the life, personal safety, or health of the whole or part of the population. In that vein, for these cases GERNICON states: \"... the prohibition of the strike could only be acceptable, with respect to public officials who exercise authority functions in the name of the State or with respect to workers of essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, those services whose interruption could endanger the life, safety, or health of the person in all or part of the population)\" (Op cit. p.15). Without excluding other possibilities. In cases such as the one under study, the ILO has considered hospital, electricity, supply, telephone, and air traffic control services among those that may even be prohibited (GERNICON, Bernard. Op. cit. p.20). *

* Two important conclusions arise from the foregoing: 1. It is not true, as the appellants claim, that an oppression of the right to strike is generated, since the ILO and the Political Constitution admit the possibility of restriction, even prohibition, in sectors where a legal interest such as health is affected, alternatively, measures such as an efficient Conciliation or Arbitration System may be adopted. It is necessary to remember that although the right to strike is considered by the ILO supervisory bodies as a fundamental right, it is not an absolute right, and therefore its exercise must be harmonized with the fundamental rights of citizens and employers. Thus, the principles of those bodies only protect legitimate strikes, that is, strikes carried out in accordance with national legislation when it does not undermine the basic guarantees of the right to strike\" ([Name4], Bernard. Op. cit. p.44). 2. For none of the strike cases is the interpretation of the prohibition of the right to strike erroneous. Under this understanding, the Unions' conduct violated a fundamental right of persons, namely health, a right that makes the strike movement illegal, since it is violating the legitimate interests of the recipients of the public services* provided by the centers of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (whether essential or* not, public or not) and of the employer who has no influence on the conflict nor* any possibility of solving it. *

* Nor is it considered that the judgment violates the principles of progressivity and pro homine. If one turns to the history of the strike, it has been the principal form of expression of the class struggle (CABANELLAS. (1979). Los conflictos Colectivos de trabajo, In [Name5] y [Name6] . Los conflictos de trabajo y su solución. pp. 7-82. Buenos Aires. Editorial Heliasta S.R.L., cited by AMORETTI OROZCO, Luis Héctor. (2007). Los conflictos Colectivos de carácter económico y social, sus medios de solución en el derecho costarricense. Litografía e Imprenta Lil S.A, San José, Costa Rica. p.166), which in the 1949 Constituent Assembly allowed a clear social democratic vision of fundamental rights such as the right to strike, Fernando Bolaños explains that both the existence of an alternative Constitution Project and that of a new political and social class produced interesting discussions that affirm that the strike regulated in the Labor Code does not correspond harmoniously with the right to strike in the Constitution. However, now understanding the concept of public services as that of essential services ([Name7] , Fernando. (2002. Alcances de la libertad sindical. Editorial Guayacán, San José, Costa Rica, p. 250-251). Previously, the strike was considered a crime and the restriction on certain services has existed since its enshrinement in the Political Constitution, which continues today, therefore it is considered there is no such violation of the principles indicated even when the object is a political strike with labor transcendence. *

* 8. Assessment of Evidence and Lack of Reasoning in the Judgment: SINAE alleges that the hearing under articles 664 and 667 of the Labor Code was omitted, but from the documents presented with the classification request, the defendants expressed themselves in their responses, in a resolution at fourteen thirty-* five minutes on the nineteenth of* September of the year two thousand* eighteen, the judge rejected the testimonial evidence deeming it to be inconsequential and irrelevant evidence, likewise, the chosen means was not* suitable to demonstrate the fact intended and in* accordance with article 666 of the Labor Code, for not* being considered strictly necessary for the resolution of the case* submitted to the knowledge of this office, which makes the hearing of numeral 667 of the Labor Code unnecessary. Regarding the rest of the evidence, it ruled with the pertinent reasons, so it did not warrant further reasoning in the judgment. *

* X: FINAL CONSIDERATION: As a consequence of this ruling, the application of disciplinary sanctions* and salary deductions in accordance with ordinance 379 and 385 of the Labor Code* may not be carried out retroactively, only prospectively and as of the finality of this* judgment, once the 24-hour notice provided by procedural legislation for the purposes* of arranging the resumption of activities has been effected

\"" }