{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-569002", "citation": "Res. 00059-2013 Sala Segunda de la Corte", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Procedencia del sobresueldo por operaciones de alto riesgo para guardacostas", "title_en": "Eligibility of hazard pay for coast guard officers", "summary_es": "En esta resolución, la Sala Segunda de la Corte Suprema de Justicia revisa en casación una sentencia laboral que había denegado a un miembro del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas el pago de diferencias salariales y del sobresueldo por operaciones de alto riesgo. El actor alegaba que desde su traslado a la Dirección Nacional de Guardacostas en 2000 y al desempeñar funciones como jefe de escuadra, se le debía remunerar conforme a un cargo superior (Sub-Oficial Guardacostas II) y reconocerle el plus por alto riesgo. La Sala desestima las diferencias salariales por recargo de funciones al no existir en el manual de puestos el cargo invocado ni ser equiparables las tareas. Sin embargo, revoca el fallo en cuanto al sobresueldo por alto riesgo: aunque la Ley de Creación del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas (Ley 8000) es posterior al acuerdo de la Autoridad Presupuestaria que creó el incentivo, la Sala aplica los principios de igualdad de razón y causa (Art. 33 Constitución Política, Arts. 11 y 12 Código Civil) por existir identidad sustancial de riesgo entre los guardacostas y los demás cuerpos policiales cubiertos (Guardia Civil y Guardia de Asistencia Rural, conforme a los Arts. 21 y 22 de la Ley General de Policía). Condena al Estado al pago del plus por todos los lapsos en que el actor cumplió funciones de guardacostas sin recibirlo, más diferencias en otros rubros e intereses. Las costas se imponen al Estado.", "summary_en": "This ruling by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court reviews a labor cassation appeal concerning a coast guard officer who was denied salary differentials and hazard pay. The employee argued that after his transfer to the National Coast Guard Service in 2000 and while serving as squad leader, he should have been paid as a higher rank (Sub-Official Guardacostas II) and received the hazard pay incentive. The Chamber rejects the salary differentials because the claimed position did not exist in the official job classification manual and the tasks were not equivalent. However, it overturns the denial of hazard pay: although the Coast Guard Service was created after the Budgetary Authority's agreement establishing the incentive (which explicitly referred to the Civil Guard and Rural Assistance Guard under Arts. 21 and 22 of the General Police Law), the Chamber applies the principles of equality of reason and cause (Art. 33 Constitution, Arts. 11 and 12 Civil Code) given the substantial identity of risk faced by coast guard officers. The State is ordered to pay the hazard pay for all periods the officer served without it, plus consequential differentials and interest, with costs against the State.", "court_or_agency": "Sala Segunda de la Corte", "date": "23/01/2013", "year": "2013", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "sobresueldo por operaciones de alto riesgo", "plus salarial", "Guardacostas", "Ley General de Policía", "Ley 8000", "igualdad de razón y causa" ], "article_citations": [], "keywords_es": [ "Sobresueldo por operaciones de alto riesgo", "plus salarial operaciones de alto riesgo", "Guardacostas", "Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas", "Riesgo policial", "equiparación salarial policial", "Ley General de Policía Art. 21 y 22", "Ley 8000", "Guardia Civil", "Guardia de Asistencia Rural", "principio de igualdad de razón y causa", "diferencia salarial", "recargo de funciones", "Sala Segunda de la Corte" ], "keywords_en": [ "hazard pay", "operations bonus", "coast guard", "National Coast Guard Service", "police risk", "salary equalization police", "General Police Law Arts. 21 and 22", "Law 8000", "Civil Guard", "Rural Assistance Guard", "equality of reason and cause", "wage differential", "job overload", "Second Chamber Supreme Court" ], "excerpt_es": "A la luz de esta relación de normas, es fácil visualizar que los oficiales del servicio de guardacostas cuentan con las atribuciones y poderes necesarios para llevar a cabo las mismas funciones que la legislación dispuso para la Guardia Civil y la Guardia de Asistencia Rural, es decir, sus labores se encuentran enmarcadas en el canon 22 de la Ley General de Policía. De ahí que, la argumentación que empleó el tribunal para desestimar el extremo no sea acertada, pues entre estos cuerpos existe una compatibilidad de tareas, que simplemente se diferencian por la modalidad en que son ejecutadas, a saber, la guardia rural y civil en tierra firme y, el servicio de guardacostas en las aguas del Estado. Por otra parte, es un hecho público y notorio, que los guardacostas enfrentan en la actualidad grandes peligros en el desempeño de sus funciones, propiciados por la lucha contra el narcotráfico y la defensa de los recursos naturales del país. De tal manera, que también, se encuentren expuestos a un riesgo semejante al previsto para los restantes funcionarios policiales del país. También, que este cuerpo no fue contemplado de manera expresa por el acuerdo de la Secretaria Técnica de la Autoridad Presupuestaria, ya que su ley de creación (Ley n° 8000) entró en vigencia con posterioridad a su promulgación. Sin embargo, si observamos los motivos de esa norma, es claro que los juicios de hecho y de derecho, que dieron pie a esa disposición, son análogos a las condiciones de trabajo del accionante. De este modo, al presentarse igualdad de razón y causa (aplicación de los cánones 33 de la Carta Magna, 11 y 12 del Código Civil), por existir equidad de condiciones entre los miembros de los cuerpos policiales de la guardia de asistencia rural, guardia pública y el servicio de guardacostas, debe reconocerse a favor del gestionante el plus por Operaciones de Alto Riesgo.", "excerpt_en": "In light of this set of rules, it is easy to see that coast guard officers have the necessary powers and authority to perform the same functions that the law established for the Civil Guard and the Rural Assistance Guard; that is, their functions fall within Article 22 of the General Police Law. Hence, the reasoning used by the lower court to dismiss this claim is unfounded, because these police bodies share compatible duties that differ only in how they are performed—the rural and civil guards on land, and the coast guard service in state waters. Furthermore, it is a public and well‑known fact that coast guard officers currently face great danger in performing their duties, driven by the fight against drug trafficking and the defense of the country's natural resources. Thus, they are also exposed to a risk similar to that foreseen for other police officers in the country. The agreement of the Budgetary Authority's Technical Secretariat did not explicitly cover this body because its enabling law (Law No. 8000) came into force after the agreement was issued. Nevertheless, looking at the rationale behind that rule, it is clear that the factual and legal reasons that gave rise to it are analogous to the working conditions of the appellant. Therefore, given the equality of reason and cause (applying Articles 33 of the Constitution and 11 and 12 of the Civil Code), and the equal conditions among the members of the rural assistance guard, the civil guard, and the coast guard service, the hazard‑pay bonus must be granted to the appellant.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Partially granted", "label_es": "Parcialmente con lugar", "summary_en": "The appealed ruling is overturned only as to the denial of hazard pay, ordering the State to pay it; the denial of salary differentials is upheld.", "summary_es": "Se revoca la sentencia únicamente en cuanto denegó el sobresueldo por operaciones de alto riesgo, condenando al Estado a pagarlo; se confirma la denegatoria de diferencias salariales." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando V", "quote_en": "Therefore, given the equality of reason and cause (applying Articles 33 of the Constitution and 11 and 12 of the Civil Code), and the equal conditions among the members of the rural assistance guard, the civil guard, and the coast guard service, the hazard‑pay bonus must be granted to the appellant.", "quote_es": "De este modo, al presentarse igualdad de razón y causa (aplicación de los cánones 33 de la Carta Magna, 11 y 12 del Código Civil), por existir equidad de condiciones entre los miembros de los cuerpos policiales de la guardia de asistencia rural, guardia pública y el servicio de guardacostas, debe reconocerse a favor del gestionante el plus por Operaciones de Alto Riesgo." }, { "context": "Considerando V", "quote_en": "It is a public and well‑known fact that coast guard officers currently face great danger in performing their duties, driven by the fight against drug trafficking and the defense of the country's natural resources.", "quote_es": "Es un hecho público y notorio, que los guardacostas enfrentan en la actualidad grandes peligros en el desempeño de sus funciones, propiciados por la lucha contra el narcotráfico y la defensa de los recursos naturales del país." } ], "cites": [ { "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-47634", "citation": "Ley 8000", "title_en": "National Coast Guard Service Creation Law", "title_es": "Ley de Creación del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas", "doc_type": "law", "date": "05/05/2000", "year": "2000" }, { "id": "norm-66525", "citation": "Ley 7410", "title_en": "General Police Law", "title_es": "Ley General de Policía", "doc_type": "law", "date": "26/05/1994", "year": "1994" }, { "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-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" } ], "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-47634", "citation": "Ley 8000", "title_en": "National Coast Guard Service Creation Law", "title_es": "Ley de Creación del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas", "doc_type": "law", "date": "05/05/2000", "year": "2000" }, { "id": "norm-66525", "citation": "Ley 7410", "title_en": "General Police Law", "title_es": "Ley General de Policía", "doc_type": "law", "date": "26/05/1994", "year": "1994" }, { "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-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": [], "external": [ { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-1153143", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-1153143" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-593687", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-593687" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-650063", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-650063" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-666256", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-666256" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-696483", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-696483" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-727227", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-727227" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-738636", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-738636" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-739762", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-739762" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-744060", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-744060" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-893450", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-893450" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-902382", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-902382" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-925719", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-925719" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-939918", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-939918" } ] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0034-569002", "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": [], "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-47634", "norm_num": "8000", "norm_name": "Ley de Creación del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "05/05/2000" }, { "doc_id": "norm-66525", "norm_num": "7410", "norm_name": "Ley General de Policía", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "26/05/1994" }, { "doc_id": "norm-8045", "norm_num": "5089", "norm_name": "Código de Trabajo", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "29/08/1943" }, { "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": [ "sen-1-0034-1153143", "sen-1-0034-593687", "sen-1-0034-650063", "sen-1-0034-666256", "sen-1-0034-696483", "sen-1-0034-727227", "sen-1-0034-738636", "sen-1-0034-739762", "sen-1-0034-744060", "sen-1-0034-893450", "sen-1-0034-902382", "sen-1-0034-925719", "sen-1-0034-939918" ], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "*093000630197LA*\n\n*[Placa2]*\n\n \n\nCorte Suprema de Justicia\n\nSALA SEGUNDA\n\n \n\nExp: 09-300063-0197-LA \n\nRes: 2013-000059\n\nSALA SEGUNDA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las diez horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del veintitrés de enero de dos mil trece.\n\n Proceso ordinario establecido ante el Juzgado de Trabajo del Primer Circuito Judicial de San José, sede Puriscal, por [Nombre1] , guardacostas II, contra el ESTADO, representado por su procurador adjunto el licenciado Guillermo Huezo Stancari. Figura como apoderada especial judicial del actor la licenciada Rita Gerardina Díaz Amador de calidades no indicadas. Todos mayores, casados y vecinos de San José, con la excepción indicada.\n\nRESULTANDO:\n\n 1.- El actor, en escrito fechado cinco de junio de dos mil nueve, promovió la presente acción para que en sentencia se condenara al demandado al pago de diferencias salariales, días feriados, incentivo por alto riesgo, aguinaldo y bono escolar, cuotas obrero patronales, daños y perjuicios, intereses, costas del proceso y diferencias salariales desde setiembre de 2008 hasta la actualidad al estar laborando como jefe de escuadra, plaza la cual es la de un Sub-Oficial Guardacostas II, cancelándose el salario en la actualidad de acuerdo a la plaza que tiene en propiedad [Placa1] .\n\n 2.- La representación estatal contestó en los términos que indicó en el memorial de fecha once de agosto de dos mil nueve y opuso la excepción de falta de derecho.\n\n 3.- La jueza, licenciada Lilliana Azofeifa Azofeifa, por sentencia de las nueve horas del primero de noviembre de dos mil diez, dispuso: \"De conformidad con lo expuesto, normas legales y jurisprudencia aplicada y artículos 317 del del Código Procesal Civil, 492 siguientes y concordantes del Código de Trabajo, fallo: se declara sin lugar en todos sus extremos la demanda laboral establecida por [Nombre1] , contra el ESTADO representado por el licenciado Guillermo Huezo Stancari. Se acoge la excepción de prescripción. Son ambas costas a cargo del actor, fijándose las personales en el quince por ciento de la absolutoria...\".\n\n 4.- La parte actora apeló y el Tribunal de Trabajo, Sección Primera, del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, integrado por los licenciados Óscar Ugalde Miranda, Eugenie Salas Chavarría y Ana Ruth Fallas Gómez, por sentencia de las diez horas veinte minutos del nueve de marzo de dos mil doce, resolvió: En la tramitación de este asunto, no se observan defectos u omisiones capaces de producir nulidad o indefensión a las partes. Se confirma el fallo recurrido. \n\n5.- La parte accionante formuló recurso para ante esta Sala en memorial de data veintitrés de mayo de dos mil doce, el cual se fundamenta en los motivos que se dirán en la parte considerativa.\n\n 6.- En los procedimientos se han observado las prescripciones de ley.\n\nRedacta el Magistrado Vega Robert; y,\n\nCONSIDERANDO:\n\n I.- ANTECEDENTES: El accionante estableció demanda ordinaria contra el Estado. Adujo en su libelo que había empezado a laborar como guardia civil para el Ministerio de Seguridad Pública desde el 6 de setiembre de 1991. Agregó que a partir de 21 de junio de 2000 ha estado cumpliendo sus funciones en el servicio de guardacostas, primero como oficial de guardia y, a partir del mes de octubre de ese mismo año como marinero ambiental, en la estación de Quepos. Aseguró que con la creación del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas, se le trasladó a ese cuerpo policial y se le dio la plaza interina de [Dirección1] y luego, en marzo de 2001 se le asignó la [Dirección2] , también de manera interina. Narró que el 1° de abril de 2007 se le nombró como agente de guardacostas II en propiedad y en el año 2007 fue nombrado de manera interina como Jefe de Escuadra, puesto que, a su juicio, debía ser remunerado como sub oficial guardacostas II. Arguyó que hizo una solicitud para que se le cancelasen diferencias salariales desde su traslado a la Dirección Nacional de Guardacostas en el año 2000, además del pago del rubro por “alto riesgo”, que se les cancela a todos los funcionarios que cumplen labores policiales. Con base en lo anterior requirió el pago de diferencias salariales, días feriados, incentivo por alto riesgo, diferencias de aguinaldo y bono escolar, diferencias en las cuotas obrero patronales, daños y perjuicios, intereses legales y costas del proceso (folios 111 a 117). La Procuraduría General de la República contestó de forma negativa y opuso la excepción de falta de derecho (folios 122 a 141). La sentencia de primera instancia n° 63-2010 de las 9:00 horas del 1° de noviembre de 2010 desestimó la demanda y condenó al accionante al pago de costas, fijando las personales en el 15% de la absolutoria (folios 435 a 443). El gestionante apeló el fallo (folios 457 a 459) y el tribunal lo confirmó (folios 476 a 479).\n\n II.- AGRAVIOS DEL RECURSO: Recurre ante esta Sala el litigante y expresa los siguientes agravios. Discute que desde el inicio del proceso ha alegado que laboró desde el año 2000 al 2007 como policía guardacostas sin el salario correspondiente. Agrega que se demostró en el debate, que en la estructura del servicio nacional de guardacostas no existen puestos o plazas de raso de policía o agente de policía. Considera que se le trasladó de la guardia civil al servicio de guardacostas al contar con los requisitos solicitados, pero nunca perteneció a ninguna estructura anterior que fuera modificada. Infiere que el incentivo por “alto riesgo” es un plus salarial pagado por las funciones policiales realizadas. Considera que se ha cometido un abuso en su contra, pues se le mantuvo realizando funciones distintas a las suyas. Razona que si se le exigieron más requisitos académicos para ostentar el cargo de guardacostas, se le debe pagar mejor que a un agente de policía. Agrega que desde que ingresó a la Dirección Nacional de Guardacostas se le pidieron más requisitos y conocimientos, además se le asignaron otra clase de obligaciones. Discute que no existe razón para que no se le pagase el sobresueldo por alto riesgo. Cita en defensa de su tesis el voto n° 2009-0879 de esta Sala y, argumenta que no se le ha cancelado su salario conforme a la plaza que ha venido ocupando. Aduce que en la institución donde labora no existe el puesto de raso de policía, sino de guardacostas. Argumenta que el servicio de guardacostas es un cuerpo policial integrante de la fuerza pública, con las mismas competencias y facultades de los demás cuerpos integrantes del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública. En calidad de prueba para mejor proveer aporta la copia de la bitácora de actividades diarias realizadas por funcionarios de la estación de guardacostas de Quepos. Con base en lo anterior, solicita la revocatoria de la sentencia (folios 483 a 489).\n\n III.- RESPECTO A LA PRUEBA PARA MEJOR PROVEER: El ordinal 561 del Código de Trabajo refiere: “Ante la Sala de Casación, no podrá proponerse ninguna prueba, ni le será permitido al Tribunal ordenar pruebas para mejor proveer, salvo el caso de que éstas fueren absolutamente indispensables para decidir con acierto el punto o puntos controvertidos”. En el sub júdice, el actor ofrece la documental de folios 489 a 514 para que sea valorada en esta sede como prueba, sin embargo, analizado ese material debe descartarse tal ofrecimiento, toda vez que no reúne los requisitos reseñados por la norma recién transcrita.\n\n IV.- SOBRE EL PAGO DE DIFERENCIAS SALARIALES POR EL RECARGO DE FUNCIONES: Con la demanda el actor pretendió el pago de diferencias salariales desde su traslado a la Dirección Nacional de Guardacostas, el 21 de junio de 2000, en donde –dijo- le asignaron labores para las cuales se le pide tener requisitos y una serie de conocimientos en el campo técnico náutico policial a las cuales no está sujeto un policía administrativo. Según se tuvo por acreditado, mediante resolución n° . 1307-2000 TI-DRH de 8:52 horas de 19 de junio de 2000, al actor se le comunicó la reubicación de su puesto de Raso Policía, n° CED1. que desempeñaba en la Subcomisaría de Alajuelita, a la Base Naval Quepos, manteniendo el mismo puesto, salario y funciones, a partir del 21 de junio de 2000 (ver folio 261). De los autos ha resultado evidente que ese traslado fue motivado por la promulgación de la Ley n.° 8000 del 5 de mayo de 2000, “Creación del Servicio de Guardacostas”. A través de esa ley se creó el Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas como un cuerpo policial integrante de la Fuerza Pública, encargado de resguardar las aguas territoriales, la plataforma continental, el zócalo insular y los mares adyacentes del Estado costarricense. Su artículo 3° dispuso: El personal del Servicio para desarrollar sus funciones tendrá en tierra las mismas competencias y facultades policiales que los otros cuerpos definidos en la Ley General de Policía, n° . 7410, del 26 de mayo de 1994. También, creó un estatuto laboral propio para ese servicio. El reglamento de esa ley fue publicado el 13 de diciembre de 2000, y dentro de este se contempló los puestos que constituirían el personal técnico policial. Expresamente dispuso dentro de su t ransitorio: \n\n“A partir de la vigencia de este Reglamento, los funcionarios del Servicio, conforme cumplan con los requisitos establecidos, se incorporarán a la nueva clasificación de puestos, una vez avalada por la Autoridad Presupuestaria del Ministerio de Hacienda, el Manual de Puestos y Funciones del Servicios Nacional de Guardacostas” (folio 31) .\n\nEl mencionado Manual se terminó de confeccionar el 28 de noviembre de 2002 y fue remitido a la Secretaría Técnica de la Autoridad Presupuestaria el 22 de enero de 2003, para su aprobación. Por su parte, la citada dependencia impartió su criterio en torno a la mencionada valoración de clases del Sistema Nacional de Guardacostas, mediante oficios STAP-0377-04 de 31 de marzo; y n° . 0675-04 de 8 de junio , ambos de 2004 (ver folios 6 al 12 del expediente administrativo). Una vez aprobado el citado instrumento o manual de cargos y clase policiales del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas ello necesariamente ameritaba un estudio integral de los puestos policiales de esa dependencia, a fin de ubicar en las nuevas clases a los servidores que contaban con los requisitos académicos y legales establecidos en las mismas, lo que impedía el estudio de las reasignaciones particulares que se hubieran planteado, según lo establecido por el Decreto Ejecutivo n° . 31089-H “Procedimiento para aplicación directrices y regulaciones de política salarial, empleo y clasificación de puestos de los ministerios, demás órganos según corresponda entidades públicas cubiertas por el ámbito de la autoridad Presupuestaria para año 2004”, en su artículo 16, inciso a, según el cual, durante la elaboración de los estudios integrales de puestos, la entidad no podrá efectuar estudios individuales de reasignaciones de puesto. A folio 68 del expediente administrativo consta un comunicado emitido por la jefatura del Departamento de Análisis y Evaluación de Puestos de la Dirección de Recursos Humanos del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, quien le informa a esa Dirección, del avance logrado hasta esa fecha, en el estudio de ubicación por reestructuración de las plazas policiales del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas y en el que se lee: \n\n“Este departamento elaboró el Informe n° . AE-002-2006-UR del 2 de enero de 2006, aprobado por la Secretaría Técnica de la Autoridad Presupuestaria, según STAP NO. 1195-06 del 18 de mayo de 2006. En dicho informe se analizó la situación de sesenta y cinco (65) puestos, de los cuales quince (15) quedaron ubicados por reestructuración en las nuevas clases policiales del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas y los restantes cincuenta (50) quedaron pendiente, debido a que sus ocupantes no reunían los requisitos exigidos para las nuevas clases.\n\nPor otra parte, en los meses de setiembre y octubre del año 2006, se realizaron giras a las diferentes estaciones de guardacostas, con la finalidad de explicar el procedimiento a seguir en el estudio de ubicación por reestructuración, recopilación de la infrmoación sobre las tareas ejecutadas en los puestos mediante la aplicación del cuestionario para análisis ocupaciones, presentación de atestados académicos (copias debidamente confrontadas), aclarar inquietudes relacionadas con el estudio, entre otras actividades.\n\nEn el segundo estudio a presentar en el mes de febrero o mediados del mes de marzo del año en curso, se espera incluir aproximadamente (70) plazas, las cuales en su mayoría estaban pendientes de cambio de código presupuestario, que se hizo efectivo a partir de enero de este año…” (ver folios 68 al 71).\n\nCon base en esos antecedentes y los estudios respectivos, la administración del demandado finalmente, mediante oficio AE-440-2007 de 8 de marzo de 2007, resolvió:\n\n“… este Departamento elaboró el Informe No. AE-001-2007-UR del 29 de enero de 2007, determinándose que en el puesto No. 053757, clase Raso de Policía, código CED2 , se ejecutan labores propias del cargo Marinero Ambiental, correspondiente a la clase Agente de Guardacostas II. \n\nAsimismo, según estudio de expediente personal que mantiene la Dirección de Recursos Humanos y otra documentación aportada a este Departamento, se constató que Usted cumple con todos los requisitos exigidos para ocupar la clase recomendada.\n\nPor lo tanto, de acuerdo con los artículos No. 14 y No. 15 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 32976-H se procede a reubicar por reestructuración el puesto No. 053757, cargo MARINERO AMBIENTAL, a la clase AGENTE DE GUARDACOSTAS II, con fecha rige para todos los efectos: 1° de abril de 2007” (folios 78- 79 del expediente administrativo). \n\nEs decir, que no fue sino hasta el mes de junio de 2004 que la administración del demandado contó con el instrumento administrativo de clasificación y valoración de puestos del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas; por lo que antes de ello no existe ninguna posibilidad de acordarle al demandado diferencias salariales, luego de su reubicación en la Base Naval de Quepos, respecto de un puesto y una retribución inexistentes en ese momento. Es decir, la petición del actor para que se le reconozcan diferencias salariales a partir de su reubicación en la Base Naval Quepos, por haber ocupado a partir de esa fecha funciones policiales en control, prevención y protección de los recursos marinos costeros, piratería, control portuario, inmigración narcotráfico, etc… no es procedente en tanto para ese momento, la administración no contaba con un instrumento jurídico que estableciera un sistema de clasificación y valoración de esas otras funciones. Y ya se ha dicho por parte de esta Sala que los tribunales no tienen ninguna posibilidad de suplantar la función administrativa de los órganos del Estado, en materia de clasificación y valoración de puestos. La inexistencia de ese instrumento, para ese momento, imposibilita admitir el argumento del actor de que las funciones desempeñadas deban ser retribuidas con un salario distinto al cargo en el que estuvo nombrado, pues antes de su nombramiento como Agente de Guardacostas II, el 1° de abril de 2007, siempre estuvo nombrado en el cargo de Raso de Policía. En este sentido, en el expediente no se logró encontrar ninguna prueba que fundamentara la aseveración del actor en el sentido de que a partir del año 2001 fuera nombrado en una plaza interina como [Dirección3] . Por el contrario, la prueba allegada al expediente por el propio actor (ver acciones de personal de folios 61 al 63; así como la certificación visible de folios 106 al 109) refleja que su nombramiento, aún luego de su traslado, se mantuvo como Raso de Policía. En lo concerniente al pago de diferencias por ocupar el cargo de jefe de escuadra, debe decirse lo siguiente. Conforme a la prueba testimonial, el petente en varios períodos de su relación de trabajo sirvió como jefe de escuadra, cargo que correspondía a un recargo de tareas administrativas, mas no estaba establecido formalmente en el manual descriptivo de puestos. Veamos lo dicho por el testigo [Nombre2] : “Pocos días de ingresar a guardacostas fue él asignado a ese puesto de Jefe de Escuadra. El ingreso en guardacostas (sic) igual que yo, él unos días antes que yo. Yo ingresé el cinco de agosto del dos mil y él se había venido días antes le habían dado el traslado para guardacostas de Quepos, no preciso la fecha. En el puesto de Jefe de Escuadra, además de las funciones meramente operaciones tiene la responsabilidad de velar por el cumplimiento de labores de los demás compañeros, llevar informes, así como verificar la asistencia, lo correspondiente a vacaciones de los compañeros que tiene a cargo, o sea, tiene funciones meramente administrativas. El me comentó que primero estuvo de marinero y luego al de Jefe de Escuadra, que siempre sigue siendo de marinero pero con ese recargo de funciones administrativas. (…). El superior de [Nombre1] sería el biólogo. (…). 1.- Escuadra, es un término policial, un grupo de personas que ingresa (sic) a laborar en equis fecha y que tiene que ser relevada por otro grupo de personas, en la cual tiene que existir un Jefe de escuadra porque el Jefe inmediato no puede estar todo el tiempo trabajando, se convertiría en un robot, entonces el jefe delega funciones a los Jefes de Escuadra como coordinadores de trabajo y en prácticas administrativas en relación a la preparación de documentación de todo el trabajo que se realiza. 2.- Estas escuadras trabajan en tierra y en altamar, con labores determinadas en cada una de ellas. 3.- Funciones operativas normales como cualquier otro funcionario, pero además debe realizar informes y papelería que tienen que hacer, el jefe de escuadra los hace éste o no el Jefe Inmediato, que a veces le ayuda en esa labor, pero casi siempre el jefe inmediato nada mas se limita a firmar los papeles (sic)” (folios 272 y 273). En similares términos depuso el señor [Nombre3] : “En el caso de [Nombre1], por ser personal de los más viejos, también ha asumido el puesto de Jefe de Escuadra, en ocasiones o sea por períodos cortos y en el último año asumió una de las escuadras. (…). 1.- El trabajar por escuadras siempre ha existido en el servicio guarda costas (sic), esto desde que yo entre (sic) en el año mil novecientos noventa y seis. 2.- En las estaciones siempre ha habido un responsable, dentro del departamento ambiental existe un biologo (sic) u oficial ambiental que es el encargado de las escuadras y por debajo de él estan los jefes de escuadra, en este caso yo soy Jefe de Escuadra A, que es la que ahora esta en servicio (sic). 3.- En estos casos se le ha otorgado ese puesto a las personas que tienen mas experiencia (sic), usualmente quién lo designa es el oficial ambiental que es el jefe de los departamentos ambientales que también es bióloga marina. (…). Si planea, supervisa el trabajo de un grupo de compañeros, como antes lo indique el jefe de escuadra realiza ordenes de servicio, distribución de personal de acuerdo a tareas, planificación, darle seguimiento a los trabajos que realizan los demás compañero yo siento que si es un recargo, porque debemos trabajar activamente en los trabajos, se nos recarga la parte administrativa, tenemos que hacer bitácoras, informes de cierre de servicio, hacer estadística, igual ante nuestros jefes el oficial ambiental somos los responsables de la unidad de lo que pase, o sea del grupo de compañeros o escuadra” (folios 274 a 277). La idea del accionante es que esas tareas sean remuneradas como sub oficial guardacostas II. Al tenor de la documental traída al proceso las tareas del puesto citado son las siguientes: “Gobernar y operar embarcaciones con dos motores de borda, o bien, uno a dos motores intraborda. / Leer e interpretar cartas de navegación y trazar los rumbos correspondientes a los viajes programados. / Asignar y supervisar las labores del personal de apoyo a cargo y velar porque las actividades se ejecuten eficientemente y oportunamente. / Trazar sobre una carta náutica las posiciones, rumbos y demás actualizaciones necesarias para ubicar las diferentes embarcaciones de servicio público y/o privado. / Utilizar los diferentes instrumentos electrónicos, tales como: radar, ecosonda, navegador por satélite, radiogoniómetro, entre otros, para interpretar la información suministrada. /Velar por el buen funcionamiento, uso y mantenimiento de la embarcación asignada. / Conocer, interpretar y aplicar la legislación vigente nacional e internacional para la regulación de las actividades marítimas. / Presenta al superior los reportes de los viajes y anotar en la bitácora la información relevante de los viajes. / Asumir los deberes y responsabilidades del Oficial Capitán de Guardacostas, en ausencia del mismo. /Participar en la coordinación de los operativos policiales llevado a cabo en la zona marítimo-costera, la zona económicamente exclusiva y aguas interiores. / Asistir al Oficial Capitán de Guardacostas en actividades operacionales, técnicas y administrativas de acuerdo con las competencias del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas, en ausencia del mismo. /Participar en operativos policiales – náuticos e inspecciones dentro del mar territorial y la zona económica exclusiva. / Formar parte de los equipos de abordaje e inspección, los cuales se encargan de realizar revisiones dentro de las embarcaciones que navegan por las aguas jurisdiccionales del país, con el fin de buscar drogas, artículos de contrabando, personas indocumentadas entre otros. / Verificar que las embarcaciones que navegan en las aguas jurisdiccionales del país, que desarrollan actividades comerciales, tales como: pesca, recreación, cabotaje, entre otros, cuenten con el respectivo permiso para ejecutarlas. /Detener embarcaciones que navegan en las aguas jurisdiccionales del país, que desarrollan actividades comerciales, tales como: pesca, recreación, cabotaje, entre otras, cuentan con el respectivo permiso para ejecutarlas. / Detener embarcaciones y aprehender personas que han violentado las leyes nacionales e internacionales, en las siguientes actividades: pesca, navegación, migración, contrabando de artículos, narcotráfico, piratería, daños al medio ambiente, entre otros. / Participar en las labores de rescate de personas y embarcaciones, así como en actividades de bien social. / Participar en actividades de capacitación como instructor en el campo de competencia, en la Academia Nacional de Guardacostas o donde el Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas lo requiera. / Preparar el material didáctico y de apoyo requerido para desarrollar las clases teórico-prácticas. / Evaluar el rendimiento académico de los estudiantes, de acuerdo con la metodología establecida por la Academia del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas. / Velar por el cumplimiento de las leyes, reglamentos, disposiciones y las directrices internas del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas. / Sustituir al personal de mayor nivel (clase inmediata) por vacaciones, permisos, enfermedad, entre otros. / Mantener informado al superior inmediato sobre las actividades encomendadas, manteniendo una comunicación fluida o por medio de informes periódicos. /Asistir a giras a diferentes lugares del país para desempeñar labores propias del cargo. / Realizar labores administrativas que se derivan de la actividad sustantiva. / Ejecutar otras labores propias del cargo” (folios 223 a 225). Como puede observarse, no es factible equiparar las labores del jefe de escuadra a las dispuestas para el cargo de sub oficial guardacostas II. Debe reconocerse que en anteriores ocasiones este órgano ha declarado el derecho de la persona trabajadora del sector público a ser remunerada conforme a las funciones que de hecho ha venido realizando, en este tema conviene traer a colación el voto 2008-000879 de las 9:40 horas del 10 de octubre de 2008 en cuanto en este se dijo: “el principio de legalidad que ha invocado la Administración para no reasignar a la actora, no puede sustentar al mismo tiempo la violación al justo salario de la trabajadora, también de carácter fundamental. El artículo 57 de la Constitución Política consagra la igualdad de salario en iguales condiciones de trabajo y eficiencia; principio desarrollado por el numeral 167 del Código de Trabajo. No reconocer ese derecho en un caso como el presente significaría legitimar una conducta abusiva del empleador, quien, sin promover a la trabajadora por las razones dichas a un puesto de mayor categoría, la hace ejecutar las tareas propias de éste, remunerándole con un salario menor, lo cual provoca un enriquecimiento injusto para la Administración”. Sin embargo, en este caso, no se presenta el supuesto necesario para el reconocimiento de diferencias, puesto que el cargo de jefe de escuadra no es un puesto que existiese en el manual de clasificación de puestos. Además como fue dicho, las funciones o recargos que se reclaman no pueden ser equiparables a las de sub oficial guardacostas II. Procede aclarar que en conflictos de naturaleza jurídica, el juez sólo está en posibilidad de aplicar las normas de derecho vigente, mas de ningún modo puede arrogarse la potestad de crear nuevas disposiciones, como sería en el sub júdice establecer una plaza no vislumbrada por el ordenamiento jurídico. \n\n V.- ACERCA DEL SOBRESUELDO POR OPERACIONES DE ALTO RIESGO: El tribunal en su sentencia determinó que no le correspondía al actor el pago del plus por operaciones de alto riesgo, dado que este no se encontraba dentro de los funcionarios contemplados por los numerales 21 y 22 de la Ley n° 7410. Según consta, el incentivo que solicita el actor, fue creado por la Secretaria Técnica de la Autoridad Presupuestaria en su acuerdo n° 5878 de la sesión extraordinaria 03-200 del 10 de abril de 2000, con base en las siguientes motivaciones: “Que los miembros de la fuerza pública efectúan funciones que consisten en el mantenimiento del orden, seguridad ciudadana y/o represión delictiva. / 2. Que se requiere que los miembros de la fuerza pública participen en operaciones de alto riesgo como allanamientos, situaciones de crisis, acciones antiterroristas, protección de figuras públicas o visitantes oficiales, entre otras, en las que el funcionario expone en forma directa su vida y su integridad física. / 3. Que estos miembros de la fuerza pública deben cumplir con la atención de contingencias que atentan contra la Seguridad Nacional en forma oportuna y eficaz. /4. Que existen diferencias salariales en el mercado de trabajo a favor de los agentes de seguridad de la empresa privada, lo que provoca una alta rotación de persona e inestabilidad en el servicio. / 5. Que en virtud del riesgo y peligro implícitos en las funciones efectuados por los funcionarios de la fuerza pública, procede autorizar un incentivo denominado de “OPERACIONES DE ALTO RIESGO”, a los efectos de cumplir con las responsabilidades vinculadas a la Seguridad Nacional. / 6. Que el incentivo aquí creado debe considerarse diferente al denominado “Riesgo Policial” cuyo fin es garantizar la seguridad nacional del bienes (sic) así como el respeto de los derechos y libertades de los ciudadanos” (folio 112 del expediente administrativo). El plus salarial en discusión se delineó para fomentar la incorporación de efectivos en las fuerzas policiales y al mismo tiempo, retribuirlos adicionalmente por el peligro intrínseco al cumplimiento de sus funciones. Por último, el citado acuerdo dispuso sus afectos para aquellos oficiales cuyas competencias y funciones estuviesen inmersas en los artículos 21 y 22 de la Ley General de Policía. Las normas invocadas por el acuerdo, regulan las labores y atribuciones de la Guardia Civil y la Guardia de Asistencia Rural. Así, esas disposiciones en concreto nos hablan lo siguiente: “artículo 21. / La Guardia Civil y la Guardia de Asistencia Rural son cuerpos especialmente encargados de la vigilancia general y la seguridad ciudadana; ejercerán sus funciones en todo el país, de conformidad con la determinación técnica sobre la naturaleza rural o urbana que señalen las instituciones públicas correspondientes. Para ello, se establecerán unidades de mando organizadas según la división regional que el ministerio respectivo determine. / artículo 22. / Son atribuciones de la Guardia Civil y la Guardia de Asistencia Rural: / a) Asegurar el ejercicio de las garantías constitucionales, la protección del orden constitucional, la seguridad ciudadana, la soberanía nacional y la integridad territorial. / b) Mantener la tranquilidad y el orden público. / c) Velar por la seguridad y la integridad de las personas y los bienes de los habitantes de la República. / d) Mantener el respeto por las propiedades y los demás derechos de los habitantes de la República. / e) Prevenir y reprimir la comisión de infracciones punibles dentro del territorio nacional”. Como puede verse, la intención de cubrir con un sobresueldo a los miembros de estos dos cuerpos policiales, viene en función de la naturaleza de sus tareas, pues es innegable que estos funcionarios son quienes en primera instancia comprometen su integridad personal y vida, con el fin de mantener el orden público y garantizar la de seguridad de los habitantes del país. La Ley n° 8000 denominada “Creación del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas” estableció ese departamento como un cuerpo integrante de la fuerza pública, especializado en el resguardo de las aguas territoriales, la plataforma continental, el zócalo insular y los mares adyacentes (art. 1). Respecto a las competencias establecidas para ese cuerpo, la legislación citada nos explica en su canon 2°: “Son competencias del Servicio: / a) Vigilar y resguardar las fronteras marítimas del Estado y las aguas marítimas, jurisdiccionales, definidas en el artículo 6° de la Constitución Política y la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar. / b) Vigilar y resguardar las aguas interiores navegables del Estado. / c) Velar por el legítimo aprovechamiento y la protección de los recursos naturales existentes en las aguas marítimas jurisdiccionales y en las aguas interiores del Estado, según la legislación vigente, nacional e internacional. / d) Velar por la seguridad del tráfico portuario y marítimo, tanto de naves nacionales como extrajeras en las aguas jurisdiccionales del Estado. / e) Desarrollar los operativos necesarios para rescatar a personas extraviadas o en situaciones de peligro en las aguas nacionales y para localizar embarcaciones extraviadas. / f) Velar por el cumplimiento efectivo del ordenamiento jurídico nacional sobre las aguas interiores y las aguas marítimas jurisdiccionales del Estado, en coordinación con las autoridades nacionales competentes. / g) Colaborar con las autoridades, administrativas y judiciales encargadas de proteger los recursos naturales, luchar contra el tráfico ilícito de estupefacientes, drogas, sustancias sicotrópicas y actividades conexas, así como la migración ilegal, el tráfico de armar y otras actividades ilícitas. / h) Todas las acciones necesarias para el fiel cumplimiento de sus fines legales y reglamentarios”. Del mismo modo, ese conjunto de disposiciones equiparó las competencias y facultades del servicio de guardacostas a las de los restantes cuerpos instaurados por la Ley General de Policía. En este sentido conviene traer a colación lo establecido en el ordinal 3°: “El personal del Servicio, para desarrollar sus funciones, tendrá en tierra las mismas competencias y facultades policiales que los otros cuerpos definidos en la Ley General de Policía, n ° 7410. del 26 de mayo de 1994” . A la luz de esta relación de normas, es fácil visualizar que los oficiales del servicio de guardacostas cuentan con las atribuciones y poderes necesarios para llevar a cabo las mismas funciones que la legislación dispuso para la Guardia Civil y la Guardia de Asistencia Rural, es decir, sus labores se encuentran enmarcadas en el canon 22 de la Ley General de Policía. De ahí que, la argumentación que empleó el tribunal para desestimar el extremo no sea acertada, pues entre estos cuerpos existe una compatibilidad de tareas, que simplemente se diferencian por la modalidad en que son ejecutadas, a saber, la guardia rural y civil en tierra firme y, el servicio de guardacostas en las aguas del Estado. Por otra parte, es un hecho público y notorio, que los guardacostas enfrentan en la actualidad grandes peligros en el desempeño de sus funciones, propiciados por la lucha contra el narcotráfico y la defensa de los recursos naturales del país. De tal manera, que también, se encuentren expuestos a un riesgo semejante al previsto para los restantes funcionarios policiales del país. También, que este cuerpo no fue contemplado de manera expresa por el acuerdo de la Secretaria Técnica de la Autoridad Presupuestaria, ya que su ley de creación (Ley n° 8000) entró en vigencia con posterioridad a su promulgación. Sin embargo, si observamos los motivos de esa norma, es claro que los juicios de hecho y de derecho, que dieron pie a esa disposición, son análogos a las condiciones de trabajo del accionante. De este modo, al presentarse igualdad de razón y causa (aplicación de los cánones 33 de la Carta Magna, 11 y 12 del Código Civil), por existir equidad de condiciones entre los miembros de los cuerpos policiales de la guardia de asistencia rural, guardia pública y el servicio de guardacostas, debe reconocerse a favor del gestionante el plus por Operaciones de Alto Riesgo.\n\n VI.- CONSIDERACIONES FINALES: En mérito de lo que viene expuesto debe revocarse la sentencia recurrida, en cuanto desestimó el pago del sobresueldo por operaciones de alto riesgo. En su defecto, procede acoger esa pretensión y, condenar al Estado al pago de ese plus por todos aquellos lapsos en que el accionante cumpliera sus funciones para el servicio nacional de guardacostas sin recibir ese complemento salarial. De igual forma, deberá la parte accionada cancelar las diferencias que se hubiesen generado por la omisión de pago de ese rubro, en los restantes extremos derivados de su remuneración. La cuantía de esos montos se calculará en sede administrativa o en su defecto, en la etapa de ejecución de sentencia. Las sumas resultantes, devengarán intereses legales de conformidad con el ordinal 1163 del Código Civil, desde el preciso momento en que cada una de ellas eran exigibles. Conforme lo ordena el ordinal 494 del Código de Trabajo son las costas a cargo de la accionada, procede estimar la personales en el 20% de la condenatoria. En lo demás objeto de recurso, debe darse confirmatoria al fallo.\n\nPOR TANTO\n\n Se revoca la sentencia recurrida, en cuanto desestimó el pago del sobresueldo por operaciones de alto riesgo. En su lugar, se acoge esa pretensión y, se condena al Estado al pago de ese plus por todos aquellos lapsos en que el accionante cumpliera sus funciones para el servicio nacional de guardacostas sin recibir ese complemento salarial. También, la parte accionada cancelará las diferencias que se hubiesen generado por la omisión de pago de ese rubro, en los restantes extremos derivados de la remuneración del litigante. La cuantía de esos montos se calculará en sede administrativa o en su defecto, en la etapa de ejecución de sentencia. Las sumas resultantes, devengarán intereses legales desde el momento en que cada una de ellas eran exigibles. Son las costas a cargo de la accionada, se fijan las personales en el veinte por ciento de la condenatoria. En lo demás objeto de recurso, se confirma el fallo.\n\n \n\n \n\n[Nombre4] \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n[Nombre5] [Nombre6] \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n[Nombre7] [Nombre8] \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\ncgutic\n\n 2 \n\nEXP: 09-300063-0197-LA\n\n \n\n Teléfonos: 2295-3671, 2295-3676, 2295-3675 y 2295-4406. Facsímile: 2257-55-94. Correos Electrónicos: [...]. y mbrenesm @poder-judicial.go.cr", "body_en_text": "*093000630197LA*\n\n*[Placa2]*\n\nSupreme Court of Justice\n\nSECOND CHAMBER\n\nExp: 09-300063-0197-LA\nRes: 2013-000059\n\nSECOND CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at ten hours forty-five minutes on the twenty-third of January, two thousand thirteen.\n\nOrdinary proceeding filed before the Labor Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, Puriscal venue, by [Nombre1] , guardacostas II, against the STATE, represented by its deputy procurator, attorney Guillermo Huezo Stancari. Attorney Rita Gerardina Díaz Amador, whose qualifications are not indicated, appears as the plaintiff's special judicial representative. All are of legal age, married, and residents of San José, with the indicated exception.\n\nWHEREAS:\n\n1.- The plaintiff, in a brief dated the fifth of June, two thousand nine, filed this action seeking a judgment condemning the defendant to the payment of salary differences, holiday pay, high-risk incentive, year-end bonus (aguinaldo) and school bonus, employer-employee contributions, damages, interest, costs of the proceeding, and salary differences from September 2008 to the present, having been working as a squad leader (jefe de escuadra), a position that is that of a Sub-Official Guardacostas II (Sub-Oficial Guardacostas II), while currently receiving a salary according to the position he holds in property [Placa1] .\n\n2.- The state representation answered in the terms indicated in the brief dated the eleventh of August, two thousand nine, and raised the defense of lack of right (falta de derecho).\n\n3.- Judge Lilliana Azofeifa Azofeifa, by judgment at nine o'clock on the first of November, two thousand ten, ordered: \"In accordance with the foregoing, applicable legal norms and case law, and articles 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 492 and following and concordant articles of the Labor Code, I rule: the labor lawsuit filed by [Nombre1] against the STATE, represented by attorney Guillermo Huezo Stancari, is declared without merit in all its claims. The statute of limitations (prescripción) defense is upheld. Both costs are to be borne by the plaintiff, with personal costs set at fifteen percent of the acquittal...\"\n\n4.- The plaintiff party appealed, and the Labor Tribunal, First Section, of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, composed of attorneys Óscar Ugalde Miranda, Eugenie Salas Chavarría, and Ana Ruth Fallas Gómez, by judgment at ten hours twenty minutes on the ninth of March, two thousand twelve, resolved: In the processing of this matter, no defects or omissions capable of causing nullity or defenselessness (indefensión) to the parties are observed. The appealed ruling is confirmed.\n\n5.- The plaintiff party formulated an appeal before this Chamber in a brief dated the twenty-third of May, two thousand twelve, which is based on the grounds to be stated in the recitals section.\n\n6.- In the proceedings, the prescriptions of law have been observed.\n\nDrafted by Magistrate Vega Robert; and,\n\nRECITALS:\n\nI.- BACKGROUND: The plaintiff filed an ordinary lawsuit against the State. He alleged in his complaint that he had begun working as a civil guard for the Ministry of Public Security since September 6, 1991. He added that as of June 21, 2000, he has been performing his duties in the guardacostas service, first as duty officer and, as of October of that same year, as environmental mariner (marinero ambiental), at the Quepos station. He asserted that with the creation of the National Guardacostas Service (Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas), he was transferred to that police corps and given the interim position of [Dirección1] and then, in March 2001, he was assigned the [Dirección2] , also on an interim basis. He stated that on April 1, 2007, he was permanently appointed as a coast guard officer II (agente de guardacostas II), and in 2007, he was appointed on an interim basis as a Squad Leader (Jefe de Escuadra), a position that, in his opinion, should be remunerated as a sub official guardacostas II (sub oficial guardacostas II). He argued that he made a request for salary differences to be paid from his transfer to the National Directorate of Guardacostas (Dirección Nacional de Guardacostas) in the year 2000, in addition to the payment of the item for “high risk” (“alto riesgo”), which is paid to all officials who perform police duties. Based on the foregoing, he demanded payment of salary differences, holiday pay, high-risk incentive, differences in year-end bonus (aguinaldo) and school bonus, differences in employer-employee contributions, damages, legal interest, and costs of the proceeding (files 111 to 117). The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic answered in the negative and raised the defense of lack of right (folios 122 to 141). First instance judgment No. 63-2010 at 9:00 a.m. on November 1, 2010, dismissed the lawsuit and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs, setting personal costs at 15% of the acquittal (folios 435 to 443). The plaintiff appealed the ruling (folios 457 to 459), and the tribunal confirmed it (folios 476 to 479).\n\nII.- GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL: The litigant appeals before this Chamber and expresses the following grievances. He argues that from the beginning of the process, he has alleged that he worked from the year 2000 to 2007 as a guardacostas police officer without the corresponding salary. He adds that it was demonstrated in the debate that in the structure of the national guardacostas service, there are no positions or posts for police private (raso de policía) or police agent (agente de policía). He considers that he was transferred from the civil guard to the guardacostas service because he met the requested requirements, but he never belonged to any previous structure that was modified. He infers that the “high risk” incentive is a salary supplement paid for the police functions performed. He considers that an abuse has been committed against him, as he was kept performing functions different from his own. He reasons that if more academic requirements were demanded of him to hold the guardacostas position, he should be paid better than a police agent. He adds that since he joined the National Directorate of Guardacostas, more requirements and knowledge were asked of him, and another class of obligations were assigned to him. He argues that there is no reason for him not to have been paid the extra pay for high risk. He cites in defense of his thesis vote No. 2009-0879 of this Chamber and argues that his salary has not been paid according to the position he has been occupying. He contends that in the institution where he works, the position of police private does not exist, but rather that of guardacostas. He argues that the guardacostas service is a police corps that is part of the public force (Fuerza Pública), with the same competences and faculties as the other corps that make up the Ministry of Public Security. As evidence for better provision, he provides a copy of the logbook of daily activities carried out by officials of the Quepos guardacostas station. Based on the foregoing, he requests the reversal of the judgment (folios 483 to 489).\n\nIII.- REGARDING THE EVIDENCE FOR BETTER PROVISION: Article 561 of the Labor Code states: “Before the Court of Cassation, no evidence may be proposed, nor shall the Tribunal be allowed to order evidence for better provision, except in the event that such evidence is absolutely indispensable to correctly decide the point or points in dispute.” In the instant case, the plaintiff offers the documentary evidence on files 489 to 514 to be assessed in this venue as evidence; however, after analyzing this material, such an offer must be dismissed, since it does not meet the requirements outlined by the newly transcribed norm.\n\nIV.- ON THE PAYMENT OF SALARY DIFFERENCES FOR THE EXTRA BURDEN OF FUNCTIONS: With the lawsuit, the plaintiff sought the payment of salary differences from his transfer to the National Directorate of Guardacostas, on June 21, 2000, where – he said – he was assigned tasks for which he was required to have requirements and a series of knowledge in the nautical police technical field to which an administrative police officer is not subject. As was proven, by resolution No. 1307-2000 TI-DRH at 8:52 a.m. on June 19, 2000, the plaintiff was notified of the relocation of his position of Police Private (Raso Policía), No. CED1. , which he held at the Alajuelita Sub-station, to the Quepos Naval Base, maintaining the same position, salary, and functions, effective June 21, 2000 (see file 261). It has been evident from the case file that this transfer was motivated by the enactment of Law No. 8000 of May 5, 2000, “Creation of the Guardacostas Service” (“Creación del Servicio de Guardacostas”). Through that law, the National Guardacostas Service was created as a police corps that is part of the Public Force (Fuerza Pública), responsible for safeguarding the territorial waters, the continental shelf, the insular shelf, and the adjacent seas of the Costa Rican State. Its Article 3 provided: The personnel of the Service, to carry out their functions on land, shall have the same police competences and faculties as the other corps defined in the General Police Law (Ley General de Policía), No. 7410, of May 26, 1994. It also created its own labor statute for that service. The regulation for that law was published on December 13, 2000, and within it, the positions that would constitute the technical police personnel were contemplated. It expressly provided within its transitional provision:\n\n“As of the entry into force of this Regulation, the officials of the Service, as they meet the established requirements, shall be incorporated into the new classification of positions, once the Manual of Positions and Functions of the National Guardacostas Service (Manual de Puestos y Funciones del Servicios Nacional de Guardacostas) is endorsed by the Budgetary Authority (Autoridad Presupuestaria) of the Ministry of Finance” (file 31).\n\nThe aforementioned Manual was finalized on November 28, 2002, and was sent to the Technical Secretariat of the Budgetary Authority on January 22, 2003, for its approval. For its part, the cited office issued its opinion on the aforementioned assessment of classes of the National Guardacostas System, through official letters STAP-0377-04 of March 31; and No. 0675-04 of June 8, both of 2004 (see files 6 to 12 of the administrative file). Once the cited instrument or manual of police positions and classes of the National Guardacostas Service was approved, this necessarily warranted a comprehensive study of the police positions of that agency, in order to place in the new classes those servers who met the academic and legal requirements established therein, which prevented the study of particular reassignments that might have been raised, as established by Executive Decree No. 31089-H “Procedure for applying guidelines and regulations on salary policy, employment and classification of positions of the ministries, other corresponding bodies, public entities covered by the scope of the Budgetary Authority for the year 2004”, in its article 16, subsection a), according to which, during the preparation of comprehensive studies of positions, the entity may not carry out individual studies of position reassignments. On file 68 of the administrative file, there is a communication issued by the head of the Department of Analysis and Evaluation of Positions (Departamento de Análisis y Evaluación de Puestos) of the Directorate of Human Resources (Dirección de Recursos Humanos) of the Ministry of Public Security, who informs that Directorate of the progress achieved up to that date in the placement study due to restructuring of the police positions of the National Guardacostas Service, and in which it reads:\n\n“This department prepared Report No. AE-002-2006-UR of January 2, 2006, approved by the Technical Secretariat of the Budgetary Authority, according to STAP NO. 1195-06 of May 18, 2006. In said report, the situation of sixty-five (65) positions was analyzed, of which fifteen (15) were placed by restructuring in the new police classes of the National Guardacostas Service and the remaining fifty (50) remained pending, because their occupants did not meet the requirements demanded for the new classes.\n\nOn the other hand, in the months of September and October of 2006, tours were made to the different guardacostas stations, with the purpose of explaining the procedure to be followed in the placement study due to restructuring, collecting information on the tasks performed in the positions through the application of the questionnaire for occupational analysis, presenting academic credentials (duly compared copies), clarifying concerns related to the study, among other activities.\n\nIn the second study to be presented in February or mid-March of the current year, it is expected to include approximately (70) positions, most of which were pending a change of budget code, which became effective as of January of this year…” (see files 68 to 71).\n\nBased on these antecedents and the respective studies, the defendant's administration finally, through official letter AE-440-2007 of March 8, 2007, resolved:\n\n“… this Department prepared Report No. AE-001-2007-UR of January 29, 2007, determining that in position No. 053757, class Police Private (Raso de Policía), code CED2 , tasks inherent to the position of Environmental Mariner (Marinero Ambiental), corresponding to the class Coast Guard Officer II (Agente de Guardacostas II), are performed.\n\nLikewise, according to a study of the personal file maintained by the Directorate of Human Resources and other documentation provided to this Department, it was verified that you meet all the requirements demanded to hold the recommended class.\n\nTherefore, in accordance with articles No. 14 and No. 15 of Executive Decree No. 32976-H, position No. 053757, position ENVIRONMENTAL MARINER, is hereby reclassified by restructuring to the class COAST GUARD OFFICER II, with an effective date for all purposes: April 1, 2007” (files 78-79 of the administrative file).\n\nThat is to say, it was not until the month of June 2004 that the defendant's administration had the administrative instrument for the classification and valuation of positions of the National Guardacostas Service; therefore, before that, there is no possibility of granting the defendant salary differences, after his relocation to the Quepos Naval Base, with respect to a position and a remuneration that did not exist at that time. That is, the plaintiff's petition to be recognized salary differences from his relocation to the Quepos Naval Base, for having held from that date police functions in control, prevention, and protection of coastal marine resources, piracy, port control, immigration, drug trafficking, etc… is not admissible since, at that time, the administration did not have a legal instrument establishing a classification and valuation system for those other functions. And this Chamber has already stated that the courts have no possibility of supplanting the administrative function of the State's organs in matters of classification and valuation of positions. The non-existence of that instrument, at that time, makes it impossible to admit the plaintiff's argument that the functions performed must be compensated with a salary different from that of the position to which he was appointed, since before his appointment as Coast Guard Officer II (Agente de Guardacostas II) on April 1, 2007, he was always appointed to the position of Police Private (Raso de Policía). In this regard, no evidence was found in the file to support the plaintiff's assertion that, starting in 2001, he was appointed to an interim position as [Dirección3] . On the contrary, the evidence submitted to the file by the plaintiff himself (see personnel actions on files 61 to 63; as well as the certification visible on files 106 to 109) reflects that his appointment, even after his transfer, remained as Police Private (Raso de Policía). Concerning the payment of differences for holding the position of squad leader (jefe de escuadra), the following must be stated. According to the testimonial evidence, the petitioner, in various periods of his employment relationship, served as squad leader (jefe de escuadra), a position that corresponded to an extra burden of administrative tasks, but was not formally established in the descriptive manual of positions. Let us see what was said by witness [Nombre2] : \"A few days after joining guardacostas, he was assigned to that position of Squad Leader (Jefe de Escuadra). He joined guardacostas the same as me, he a few days before me. I joined on the fifth of August, two thousand, and he had come days before, he had been transferred to guardacostas of Quepos, I am not precise about the date. In the position of Squad Leader (Jefe de Escuadra), in addition to purely operational functions, he has the responsibility of ensuring the fulfillment of the work of the other colleagues, keeping reports, as well as verifying attendance, matters corresponding to vacations of the colleagues under his charge, that is, he has purely administrative functions. He told me that he was first a mariner and then a Squad Leader (Jefe de Escuadra), that he always continues to be a mariner but with that extra burden of administrative functions. (...). [Nombre1]'s superior would be the biologist. (...). 1.- Squad (Escuadra), is a police term, a group of people who start working on a certain date and who have to be relieved by another group of people, in which there must be a Squad Leader (Jefe de escuadra) because the immediate boss cannot be working all the time, he would become a robot, so the boss delegates functions to the Squad Leaders (Jefes de Escuadra) as work coordinators and in administrative practices in relation to the preparation of documentation for all the work performed. 2.- These squads work on land and on the high seas, with specific tasks in each of them. 3.- Normal operational functions like any other official, but he must also prepare reports and paperwork that needs to be done, the squad leader (jefe de escuadra) does them whether or not the Immediate Boss does, who sometimes helps him in that task, but almost always the immediate boss just limits himself to signing the papers\" (files 272 and 273). In similar terms, Mr. [Nombre3] testified: \"In the case of [Nombre1], being one of the most senior personnel, he has also assumed the position of Squad Leader (Jefe de Escuadra), on occasions, that is, for short periods, and in the last year he assumed one of the squads. (...). 1.- Working in squads has always existed in the guardacostas service, this since I joined in the year nineteen ninety-six. 2.- In the stations, there has always been a person in charge, within the environmental department there is a biologist or environmental officer who is the person in charge of the squads and below him are the squad leaders (jefes de escuadra), in this case, I am Squad Leader A (Jefe de Escuadra A), which is the one currently on duty. 3.- In these cases, this position has been given to the people with the most experience, usually who designates it is the environmental officer who is the head of the environmental departments, who is also a marine biologist. (...). Yes, he plans, supervises the work of a group of colleagues, as I indicated before, the squad leader (jefe de escuadra) prepares service orders, distribution of personnel according to tasks, planning, following up on the work performed by the other colleagues, I feel that it is an extra burden, because we must actively work on the tasks, the administrative part is loaded onto us, we have to make logbooks (bitácoras), end-of-service reports, do statistics, likewise before our bosses, the environmental officer, we are responsible for the unit for whatever happens, that is, for the group of colleagues or squad\" (files 274 to 277). The plaintiff's idea is that these tasks be remunerated as a sub official guardacostas II. According to the documentary evidence brought to the process, the tasks of the cited position are the following: \"Steer and operate vessels with two outboard motors, or, one to two inboard motors. / Read and interpret navigation charts and plot the corresponding courses for scheduled trips. / Assign and supervise the tasks of the assigned support staff and ensure that activities are executed efficiently and in a timely manner. / Plot on a nautical chart the positions, courses, and other necessary updates to locate the different public and/or private service vessels. / Use different electronic instruments, such as: radar, echo sounder, satellite navigator, radio direction finder, among others, to interpret the information provided. / Ensure the proper functioning, use, and maintenance of the assigned vessel. / Know, interpret, and apply the current national and international legislation for the regulation of maritime activities. / Present trip reports to the superior and note relevant trip information in the logbook (bitácora). / Assume the duties and responsibilities of the Official Captain of Guardacostas (Oficial Capitán de Guardacostas), in his/her absence. / Participate in the coordination of police operations carried out in the maritime-coastal zone, the exclusive economic zone, and internal waters. / Assist the Official Captain of Guardacostas (Oficial Capitán de Guardacostas) in operational, technical, and administrative activities according to the competences of the National Guardacostas Service, in his/her absence. / Participate in police-nautical operations and inspections within the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone. / Be part of the boarding and inspection teams, which are responsible for carrying out inspections within the vessels navigating in the jurisdictional waters of the country, in order to search for drugs, contraband articles, undocumented persons, among others. / Verify that the vessels navigating in the jurisdictional waters of the country, that carry out commercial activities, such as: fishing, recreation, cabotage, among others, have the respective permit to execute them. / Detain vessels navigating in the jurisdictional waters of the country, that carry out commercial activities, such as: fishing, recreation, cabotage, among others, and have the respective permit to execute them. / Detain vessels and apprehend persons who have violated national and international laws, in the following activities: fishing, navigation, migration, contraband of articles, drug trafficking, piracy, environmental damage, among others. / Participate in rescue operations for persons and vessels, as well as in activities for social good. / Participate in training activities as an instructor in the field of competence, at the National Academy of Guardacostas (Academia Nacional de Guardacostas) or wherever the National Guardacostas Service requires. / Prepare the didactic and support material required to develop theoretical-practical classes. / Evaluate the academic performance of the students, according to the methodology established by the Academy of the National Guardacostas Service. / Ensure compliance with the laws, regulations, provisions, and internal guidelines of the National Guardacostas Service. / Substitute higher-level personnel (immediate class) for vacations, leaves, illness, among others. / Keep the immediate superior informed about the entrusted activities, maintaining fluid communication or through periodic reports. / Attend tours to different places in the country to perform tasks inherent to the position. / Perform administrative tasks derived from the substantive activity. / Execute other tasks inherent to the position\" (files 223 to 225). As can be observed, it is not feasible to equate the tasks of the squad leader (jefe de escuadra) with those established for the position of sub official guardacostas II (sub oficial guardacostas II). It must be recognized that on previous occasions, this body has declared the right of the worker in the public sector to be remunerated according to the functions they have actually been performing. On this topic, it is appropriate to cite vote 2008-000879 at 9:40 a.m. on October 10, 2008, insofar as it stated: “the principle of legality that the Administration has invoked for not reassigning the plaintiff cannot simultaneously justify the violation of the worker's fair wage, which is also of a fundamental nature. Article 57 of the Political Constitution enshrines equal pay for equal work under equal conditions of efficiency; a principle developed by article 167 of the Labor Code. Not recognizing that right in a case like the present one would mean legitimizing abusive conduct by the employer, who, without promoting the worker for the reasons stated to a higher category position, makes her execute the tasks of that position, paying her a lower salary, which causes unjust enrichment for the Administration”. However, in this case, the necessary assumption for the recognition of differences is not present, since the position of squad leader (jefe de escuadra) is not a position that existed in the manual for the classification of positions. Furthermore, as was said, the functions or extra burdens claimed cannot be equated to those of sub official guardacostas II. It is appropriate to clarify that in conflicts of a legal nature, the judge is only in a position to apply the norms of current law, but can in no way assume the power to create new provisions, as would be in the instant case to establish a position not envisioned by the legal system.\n\nV.- CONCERNING THE EXTRA PAY FOR HIGH-RISK OPERATIONS: The tribunal in its judgment determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to the payment of the supplement for high-risk operations, given that he was not among the officials contemplated by articles 21 and 22 of Law No. 7410. According to the record, the incentive requested by the plaintiff was created by the Technical Secretariat of the Budgetary Authority in its agreement No. 5878 of the extraordinary session 03-200 of April 10, 2000, based on the following motivations: “That members of the public force (fuerza pública) perform functions consisting of maintaining order, citizen security, and/or criminal repression. / 2. That members of the public force are required to participate in high-risk operations such as raids, crisis situations, anti-terrorist actions, protection of public figures or official visitors, among others, in which the official directly exposes their life and physical integrity. / 3. That these members of the public force must attend to contingencies that threaten National Security in a timely and efficient manner. / 4. That there are salary differences in the labor market in favor of security agents in the private sector, which causes high personnel turnover and instability in the service. / 5. That by virtue of the risk and implicit danger in the functions performed by officials of the public force, it is appropriate to authorize an incentive called “HIGH-RISK OPERATIONS” (“OPERACIONES DE ALTO RIESGO”), in order to fulfill the responsibilities linked to National Security. / 6. That the incentive created here must be considered different from the so-called “Police Risk” (“Riesgo Policial”) whose purpose is to guarantee the national security of goods as well as respect for the rights and freedoms of citizens” (file 112 of the administrative file). The salary supplement in dispute was designed to encourage the recruitment of personnel into the police forces and, at the same time, to additionally compensate them for the danger intrinsic to the fulfillment of their duties. Finally, the cited agreement provided for its effects on those officers whose competences and functions were immersed in articles 21 and 22 of the General Police Law. The norms invoked by the agreement regulate the tasks and attributions of the Civil Guard and the Rural Assistance Guard. Thus, these specific provisions tell us the following: “Article 21. / The Civil Guard and the Rural Assistance Guard are corps especially entrusted with general surveillance and citizen security; they shall exercise their functions throughout the country, in accordance with the technical determination on the rural or urban nature indicated by the corresponding public institutions. For this purpose, command units shall be established, organized according to the regional division determined by the respective ministry. / Article 22. / The attributions of the Civil Guard and the Rural Assistance Guard are: / a) To ensure the exercise of constitutional guarantees, the protection of the constitutional order, citizen security, national sovereignty, and territorial integrity. / b) To maintain public tranquility and order. / c) To watch over the security and integrity of persons and property of the inhabitants of the Republic. / d) To maintain respect for the properties and other rights of the inhabitants of the Republic. / e) To prevent and repress the commission of punishable offenses within the national territory”. As can be seen, the intention of covering the members of these two police corps with an extra salary is based on the nature of their tasks, as it is undeniable that these officials are the ones who, in the first instance, compromise their personal integrity and life, in order to maintain public order and guarantee the security of the country's inhabitants.\n\nAct No. 8000, entitled “Creation of the National Coast Guard Service” (“Creación del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas”), established that department as a corps forming part of the public force, specialized in safeguarding the territorial waters, the continental shelf, the insular shelf, and the adjacent seas (Article 1). With respect to the jurisdiction established for that corps, the cited legislation explains in its Article 2: “The jurisdiction of the Service shall be: / a) To monitor and safeguard the maritime borders of the State and the jurisdictional maritime waters, defined in Article 6 of the Political Constitution and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. / b) To monitor and safeguard the navigable internal waters of the State. / c) To ensure the legitimate use and protection of the natural resources existing in the jurisdictional maritime waters and in the internal waters of the State, in accordance with current national and international legislation. / d) To ensure the safety of port and maritime traffic, of both national and foreign vessels in the jurisdictional waters of the State. / e) To carry out the necessary operations to rescue missing persons or persons in danger in national waters and to locate missing vessels. / f) To ensure the effective compliance with the national legal system regarding the internal waters and the jurisdictional maritime waters of the State, in coordination with the competent national authorities. / g) To collaborate with the administrative and judicial authorities responsible for protecting natural resources, combating the illicit trafficking of narcotics, drugs, psychotropic substances, and related activities, as well as illegal migration, arms trafficking, and other illicit activities. / h) All actions necessary for the faithful fulfillment of its legal and regulatory purposes.” Likewise, that set of provisions equated the jurisdiction and powers of the coast guard service to those of the other corps established by the General Police Law. In this regard, it is pertinent to cite the provision set forth in Article 3: “The Service personnel, in carrying out their functions, shall have on land the same police jurisdiction and powers as the other corps defined in the General Police Law, No. 7410, of May 26, 1994.” In light of this set of norms, it is easy to see that the officers of the coast guard service possess the attributions and powers necessary to carry out the same functions that the legislation provided for the Civil Guard (Guardia Civil) and the Rural Assistance Guard (Guardia de Asistencia Rural); that is, their tasks are framed within Article 22 of the General Police Law. Hence, the reasoning employed by the court to dismiss this claim is incorrect, since there is a compatibility of tasks between these corps, which are simply differentiated by the manner in which they are executed, namely, the rural and civil guards on land, and the coast guard service in the waters of the State. Furthermore, it is a public and notorious fact that coast guard personnel currently face great dangers in the performance of their duties, arising from the fight against drug trafficking and the defense of the country's natural resources. Thus, they are also exposed to a risk similar to that foreseen for the remaining police officers of the country. Also, this corps was not expressly contemplated by the agreement of the Technical Secretariat of the Budgetary Authority (Secretaría Técnica de la Autoridad Presupuestaria), since its creation law (Act No. 8000) came into force after its promulgation. However, if we observe the grounds for that norm, it is clear that the findings of fact and law that gave rise to that provision are analogous to the working conditions of the plaintiff. Therefore, given equality of reason and cause (application of Articles 33 of the Magna Carta, 11 and 12 of the Civil Code), as there is equity of conditions among the members of the police corps of the Rural Assistance Guard, the public guard, and the coast guard service, the High-Risk Operations bonus (plus por Operaciones de Alto Riesgo) must be recognized in favor of the petitioner.\n\nVI.- FINAL CONSIDERATIONS: By virtue of the foregoing, the appealed judgment must be reversed insofar as it dismissed the payment of the high-risk operations supplementary salary (sobresueldo por operaciones de alto riesgo). In its place, that claim is to be granted, and the State is ordered to pay that bonus for all those periods in which the plaintiff performed his duties for the National Coast Guard Service without receiving that salary supplement. Likewise, the defendant party must pay any differences that may have arisen due to the omission of payment of that item, in the other components derived from his remuneration. The amount of those sums shall be calculated in administrative proceedings or, failing that, in the judgment enforcement stage. The resulting sums shall accrue legal interest in accordance with Article 1163 of the Civil Code, from the precise moment each of them became due. As ordered by Article 494 of the Labor Code, costs are to be borne by the defendant; personal costs are to be estimated at 20% of the amount awarded. As for the remaining matters subject to appeal, the judgment is to be upheld.\n\nPOR TANTO\n\nThe appealed judgment is reversed insofar as it dismissed the payment of the high-risk operations supplementary salary (sobresueldo por operaciones de alto riesgo). In its place, that claim is granted, and the State is ordered to pay that bonus for all those periods in which the plaintiff performed his duties for the National Coast Guard Service without receiving that salary supplement. Also, the defendant party shall pay any differences that may have arisen due to the omission of payment of that item, in the other components derived from the litigant's remuneration. The amount of those sums shall be calculated in administrative proceedings or, failing that, in the judgment enforcement stage. The resulting sums shall accrue legal interest from the moment each of them became due. Costs are to be borne by the defendant; personal costs are set at twenty percent of the amount awarded. As for the remaining matters subject to appeal, the judgment is upheld.\n\n[Nombre4]\n\n[Nombre5] [Nombre6]\n\n[Nombre7] [Nombre8]\n\ncgutic\n\n2\n\nEXP: 09-300063-0197-LA\n\nTelephones: 2295-3671, 2295-3676, 2295-3675 and 2295-4406. Fax: 2257-55-94. Emails: [...]. and mbrenesm @poder-judicial.go.cr\n\nBased on the foregoing, he requests the revocation of the judgment (folios 483 to 489).\n\n**III.- REGARDING THE EVIDENCE TO BETTER RESOLVE THE MATTER**: Article 561 of the Labor Code states: “*Before the Court of Cassation, no evidence may be proposed, nor shall the Court be permitted to order evidence to better provide, except in the case that it is absolutely indispensable to correctly decide the disputed point or points*”. In the sub judice, the plaintiff offers the documentary evidence at folios 489 to 514 to be evaluated as evidence in this venue; however, upon analyzing that material, such offer must be dismissed, as it does not meet the requirements set forth in the provision just transcribed.\n\n**IV.- REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF WAGE DIFFERENTIALS FOR THE ADDITIONAL DUTIES OF FUNCTIONS**: With the complaint, the plaintiff sought the payment of wage differentials from his transfer to the National Coast Guard Directorate (Dirección Nacional de Guardacostas) on June 21, 2000, where –he said– he was assigned duties requiring qualifications and a series of nautical police technical knowledge to which an administrative police officer is not subject. As was duly accredited, through Resolution No. 1307-2000 TI-DRH of 8:52 a.m. on June 19, 2000, the plaintiff was notified of the reassignment (reubicación) of his position of Police Private (Raso de Policía), No. CED1, which he held at the Alajuelita Substation (Subcomisaría de Alajuelita), to the Quepos Naval Base, maintaining the same position, salary, and functions (manteniendo el mismo puesto, salario y funciones), effective June 21, 2000 (see folio 261). From the case file, it is evident that this transfer was motivated by the enactment of Law No. 8000 of May 5, 2000, “Creation of the Coast Guard Service” (“Creación del Servicio de Guardacostas”). Through that law, the National Coast Guard Service was created as a police corps forming part of the Public Force (Fuerza Pública), tasked with safeguarding the territorial waters, the continental shelf, the insular shelf, and the adjacent seas of the Costa Rican State. Its Article 3 provided: The personnel of the Service, in carrying out their functions on land, shall have the same police competencies and powers as the other corps defined in the General Police Law, No. 7410, of May 26, 1994. It also created a separate labor statute for that service. The regulation of that law was published on December 13, 2000, and within it, the positions that would constitute the technical police personnel were contemplated. It expressly provided in its transitory provision:\n\n> “As of the effective date of this Regulation, the officials of the Service, as they meet the established requirements, shall be incorporated into the new position classification (nueva clasificación de puestos), once the Manual of Positions and Functions of the National Coast Guard Service (Manual de Puestos y Funciones del Servicios Nacional de Guardacostas) has been endorsed by the Budgetary Authority of the Ministry of Finance (Autoridad Presupuestaria del Ministerio de Hacienda)” (folio 31).\n\nThe aforementioned Manual was completed on November 28, 2002, and was submitted to the Technical Secretariat of the Budgetary Authority on January 22, 2003, for its approval. For its part, the cited office issued its opinion regarding the mentioned class valuation (valoración de clases) of the National Coast Guard System, through official letters STAP-0377-04 of March 31; and No. 0675-04 of June 8, both of 2004 (see folios 6 to 12 of the administrative file). Once the cited instrument or manual of police positions and classes of the National Coast Guard Service was approved, this necessarily warranted a comprehensive study of the police positions of that office, in order to place into the new classes those employees who met the academic and legal requirements established therein, which prevented the study of individual reassignments that might have been raised, as established by Executive Decree No. 31089-H “Procedure for the application of salary policy, employment, and position classification directives and regulations of the ministries, other organs as appropriate, public entities covered by the scope of the Budgetary Authority for the year 2004” (Decreto Ejecutivo N°. 31089-H “Procedimiento para aplicación directrices y regulaciones de política salarial, empleo y clasificación de puestos de los ministerios, demás órganos según corresponda entidades públicas cubiertas por el ámbito de la autoridad Presupuestaria para año 2004”), in its Article 16, subsection a, according to which, during the preparation of comprehensive position studies, the entity may not carry out individual studies of position reassignments. At folio 68 of the administrative file, there is a communication issued by the head of the Department of Position Analysis and Evaluation of the Human Resources Directorate of the Ministry of Public Security, informing that Directorate of the progress achieved to that date in the relocation study by restructuring (estudio de ubicación por reestructuración) of the police positions of the National Coast Guard Service, which reads:\n\n> “*This department prepared Report No. AE-002-2006-UR of January 2, 2006, approved by the Technical Secretariat of the Budgetary Authority, according to STAP NO. 1195-06 of May 18, 2006. In said report, the situation of sixty-five (65) positions was analyzed, of which fifteen (15) were relocated by restructuring (ubicados por reestructuración) into the new police classes of the National Coast Guard Service and the remaining fifty (50) remained pending, because their incumbents did not meet the requirements demanded for the new classes.*\n>\n> *On the other hand, in the months of September and October of 2006, visits were made to the different coast guard stations, for the purpose of explaining the procedure to follow in the relocation by restructuring study, collecting information on the tasks performed in the positions through the application of the occupational analysis questionnaire, presentation of academic credentials (duly compared copies), clarifying concerns related to the study, among other activities.*\n>\n> *In the second study to be presented in the month of February or mid-March of the current year, it is expected to include approximately (70) positions, most of which were pending a budget code change, which became effective as of January of this year…*” (see folios 68 to 71).\n\nBased on this background and the respective studies, the defendant’s administration finally, through official letter AE-440-2007 of March 8, 2007, resolved:\n\n> “*… this Department prepared Report No. AE-001-2007-UR of January 29, 2007, determining that in position No. 053757, class* ***Police Private, code CED2*** *(Raso de Policía, código CED2), duties proper to the position of* ***Environmental Sailor*** *(Marinero Ambiental) are performed, corresponding to the class* ***Coast Guard Agent II*** *(Agente de Guardacostas II).*\n>\n> *Likewise, according to a study of the personal file maintained by the Human Resources Directorate and other documentation provided to this Department, it was verified that You meet all the requirements demanded to occupy the recommended class.*\n>\n> *Therefore, in accordance with Articles No. 14 and No. 15 of Executive Decree No. 32976-H, we proceed to relocate by restructuring position No. 053757, position* ***ENVIRONMENTAL SAILOR*** *(MARINERO AMBIENTAL), to the class* ***COAST GUARD AGENT II*** *(AGENTE DE GUARDACOSTAS II), with an effective date for all purposes of: April 1, 2007*” (folios 78-79 of the administrative file).\n\nThat is to say, it was not until the month of June 2004 that the defendant’s administration had the administrative instrument for the classification and valuation of positions of the National Coast Guard Service; therefore, prior to that, there is no possibility of awarding the plaintiff wage differentials, after his reassignment (reubicación) to the Quepos Naval Base, with respect to a position and remuneration that were non-existent at that time. That is, the plaintiff's request to be recognized wage differentials as of his reassignment to the Quepos Naval Base, for having occupied, from that date, police functions in control, prevention, and protection of coastal marine resources, piracy, port control, immigration, drug trafficking, etc… is not admissible insofar as, at that time, the administration did not have a legal instrument establishing a system for the classification and valuation of those other functions. And this Chamber has already stated that the courts have no possibility of supplanting the administrative function of the State organs in matters of position classification and valuation. The non-existence of that instrument at that time makes it impossible to admit the plaintiff's argument that the functions performed should be remunerated with a salary different from that of the position to which he was appointed, since before his appointment as Coast Guard Agent II on April 1, 2007, he was always appointed in the position of Police Private (Raso de Policía). In this regard, no evidence was found in the case file to support the plaintiff's assertion that as of the year 2001 he was appointed to an interim position as [Dirección3]. On the contrary, the evidence brought to the case by the plaintiff himself (see personnel actions at folios 61 to 63; as well as the certification visible at folios 106 to 109) reflects that his appointment, even after his transfer, remained as Police Private. Regarding the payment of differentials for occupying the position of squad leader (jefe de escuadra), the following must be stated. According to the testimonial evidence, the petitioner, in various periods of his employment relationship, served as squad leader, a position that corresponded to additional administrative tasks (recargo de tareas administrativas), but was not formally established in the descriptive manual of positions. Let us see what witness [Nombre2] stated: “*A few days after joining the coast guard, he was assigned to that position of Squad Leader. He joined the coast guard (sic) just like me, a few days before me. I joined on August fifth of the year two thousand and he had come days before, they had given him the transfer to the Quepos coast guard, I cannot specify the date. In the position of Squad Leader, in addition to purely operational functions, he has the responsibility of ensuring the fulfillment of the duties of the other colleagues, keeping reports, as well as verifying attendance, matters concerning the vacations of the colleagues under his charge, that is, he has purely administrative functions. He told me that he was first a sailor and then the Squad Leader, that he remains a sailor but with that additional administrative functions (recargo de funciones administrativas) overload. (…). [Nombre1]'s superior would be the biologist. (…).* ***1.-*** *Squad (Escuadra), is a police term, a group of people who enter (sic) to work on a certain date and must be relieved by another group of people, in which there must be a Squad Leader because the immediate supervisor cannot be working all the time, he would become a robot, so the boss delegates functions to the Squad Leaders as work coordinators and in administrative practices related to the preparation of documentation for all the work performed.* ***2.-*** *These squads work on land and at high sea, with specific duties in each.* ***3.-*** *Normal operational functions like any other official, but in addition, he must prepare reports and paperwork that must be done, the squad leader does them whether or not the Immediate Supervisor does, who sometimes helps him in that task, but almost always the immediate supervisor just limits himself to signing the papers (sic)*” (folios 272 and 273). In similar terms, Mr. [Nombre3] testified: “*In the case of [Nombre1], because he is one of the most senior personnel, he has also assumed the position of Squad Leader, on occasions, that is, for short periods, and in the last year he assumed one of the squads. (…).* ***1.-*** *Working by squads has always existed in the coast guard service (sic), this since I entered (sic) in the year nineteen ninety-six.* ***2.-*** *In the stations, there has always been a person in charge, within the environmental department there is a biologist (sic) or environmental officer who is in charge of the squads and below him are the squad leaders, in this case, I am Squad Leader A, which is the one now in service (sic).* ***3.-*** *In these cases, that position has been granted to people who have more experience (sic), usually the one who appoints them is the environmental officer, who is the head of the environmental departments, who is also a marine biologist. (…). If he plans, supervises the work of a group of colleagues, as I indicated before, the squad leader issues service orders, distributes personnel according to tasks, plans, follows up on the work performed by the other colleagues; I feel that it is an overload (recargo), because we must actively work on the tasks, the administrative part is overloaded on us, we have to make logbooks, end-of-service reports, do statistics, and before our bosses, the environmental officer, we are responsible for the unit, for whatever happens, that is, for the group of colleagues or squad*” (folios 274 to 277). The plaintiff's idea is that those tasks be remunerated as Coast Guard Sub-Officer II (Sub Oficial Guardacostas II). According to the documentary evidence brought to the process, the duties of the cited position are the following: “*Steer and operate vessels with two outboard motors, or one to two inboard motors. / Read and interpret navigational charts and plot the courses corresponding to scheduled voyages. / Assign and supervise the work of the support staff under his charge and ensure that activities are executed efficiently and in a timely manner. / Plot on a nautical chart the positions, courses, and other necessary updates to locate the different public and/or private service vessels. / Use various electronic instruments, such as: radar, echo sounder, satellite navigator, radio direction finder, among others, to interpret the information provided. / Ensure the proper functioning, use, and maintenance of the assigned vessel. / Know, interpret, and apply the current national and international legislation for the regulation of maritime activities./ Present voyage reports to the superior and record relevant voyage information in the logbook. / Assume the duties and responsibilities of the Official Coast Guard Captain, in his absence. /Participate in coordinating police operations carried out in the maritime-coastal zone, the exclusive economic zone, and internal waters. / Assist the Official Coast Guard Captain in operational, technical, and administrative activities according to the competencies of the National Coast Guard Service, in his absence. /Participate in police-nautical operations and inspections within the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone. / Be part of the boarding and inspection teams, which are responsible for conducting searches within vessels navigating the jurisdictional waters of the country, in order to find drugs, contraband articles, undocumented persons, among others. / Verify that vessels navigating the jurisdictional waters of the country, which engage in commercial activities, such as: fishing, recreation, cabotage, among others, hold the respective permit to carry them out. /Detain vessels navigating the jurisdictional waters of the country, which engage in commercial activities, such as: fishing, recreation, cabotage, among others, if they do not hold the respective permit to carry them out. / Detain vessels and apprehend persons who have violated national and international laws in the following activities: fishing, navigation, migration, contraband of articles, drug trafficking, piracy, damage to the environment, among others. / Participate in rescue operations for persons and vessels, as well as in social welfare activities. / Participate in training activities as an instructor in the field of competence, at the National Coast Guard Academy or wherever the National Coast Guard Service requires. / Prepare the didactic and support material required to develop theoretical-practical classes. / Evaluate the academic performance of the students, according to the methodology established by the Academy of the National Coast Guard Service. / Ensure compliance with laws, regulations, provisions, and internal directives of the National Coast Guard Service. / Substitute higher-level personnel (immediate class) for vacations, leaves, illness, among others. / Keep the immediate superior informed about the entrusted activities, maintaining fluid communication or through periodic reports. /Participate in field trips to different parts of the country to perform duties inherent to the position. / Perform administrative tasks arising from the substantive activity. / Execute other duties inherent to the position*” (folios 223 to 225). As can be observed, it is not feasible to equate the duties of the squad leader with those provided for the position of Coast Guard Sub-Officer II. It must be recognized that on previous occasions, this body has declared the right of the public sector worker to be remunerated according to the functions actually performed; on this topic, it is worth citing ruling 2008-000879 of 9:40 a.m. on October 10, 2008, in which it was stated: “*the principle of legality that the Administration has invoked to not reassign the plaintiff cannot simultaneously support the violation of the worker's fair wage, also of a fundamental nature. Article 57 of the Political Constitution enshrines the equality of wages under equal conditions of work and efficiency; a principle developed by numeral 167 of the Labor Code. Not recognizing that right in a case like the present one would mean legitimizing an abusive conduct by the employer, who, without promoting the worker for the stated reasons to a higher category position, makes her perform the tasks proper to that position, remunerating her with a lower salary, which causes unjust enrichment for the Administration*”. However, in this case, the necessary assumption for the recognition of differentials is not present, since the position of squad leader is not a position that existed in the position classification manual. Furthermore, as was stated, the functions or additional duties (recargos) claimed cannot be equated to those of Coast Guard Sub-Officer II. It is appropriate to clarify that in conflicts of a legal nature, the judge is only capable of applying the rules of current law, but can in no way arrogate the power to create new provisions, as would be the case in the sub judice to establish a position not contemplated by the legal system.\n\n**V.- REGARDING THE ADDITIONAL SALARY FOR HIGH-RISK OPERATIONS (SOBRESUELDO POR OPERACIONES DE ALTO RIESGO)**: The court in its judgment determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to the payment of the high-risk operations bonus, given that he was not among the officials contemplated by numerals 21 and 22 of Law No. 7410. As recorded, the incentive requested by the plaintiff was created by the Technical Secretariat of the Budgetary Authority in its Agreement No. 5878 of the extraordinary session 03-200 of April 10, 2000, based on the following motivations: “*That members of the public force perform functions consisting of maintaining order, citizen security, and/or crime suppression. / 2. That members of the public force are required to participate in high-risk operations such as raids, crisis situations, anti-terrorist actions, protection of public figures or official visitors, among others, in which the official directly exposes his life and physical integrity. / 3. That these members of the public force must attend to contingencies that threaten National Security in a timely and efficient manner. /4. That there are wage differentials in the labor market in favor of private company security agents, which causes high staff turnover and instability in the service. / 5.\n\nThat, by virtue of the risk and danger implicit in the functions performed by public force (fuerza pública) officers, it is appropriate to authorize an incentive called “HIGH-RISK OPERATIONS,” for the purpose of fulfilling the responsibilities linked to National Security. / 6. That the incentive created herein must be considered different from the one called “Police Risk,” whose purpose is to guarantee the national security of property as well as respect for the rights and freedoms of citizens” (folio 112 of the administrative file). The wage supplement (plus salarial) under discussion was designed to encourage the recruitment of personnel into the police forces and, at the same time, to compensate them additionally for the danger intrinsic to the performance of their duties. Lastly, the cited agreement established its effects for those officers whose competencies and functions fell within articles 21 and 22 of the General Police Law (Ley General de Policía). The rules invoked by the agreement regulate the tasks and powers of the Civil Guard (Guardia Civil) and the Rural Assistance Guard (Guardia de Asistencia Rural). Thus, these specific provisions tell us the following: “article 21. / The Civil Guard and the Rural Assistance Guard are bodies specially charged with general surveillance and citizen security; they shall exercise their functions throughout the entire country, in accordance with the technical determination regarding the rural or urban nature indicated by the corresponding public institutions. For this purpose, command units shall be established, organized according to the regional division determined by the respective ministry. / article 22. / The powers of the Civil Guard and the Rural Assistance Guard are: / a) To ensure the exercise of constitutional guarantees, the protection of the constitutional order, citizen security, national sovereignty, and territorial integrity. / b) To maintain public tranquility and order. / c) To safeguard the security and integrity of persons and the property of the inhabitants of the Republic. / d) To maintain respect for the property and other rights of the inhabitants of the Republic. / e) To prevent and suppress the commission of punishable offenses within the national territory”. As can be seen, the intention to cover the members of these two police bodies with a supplementary salary comes as a function of the nature of their tasks, since it is undeniable that these officers are those who, in the first instance, risk their personal integrity and life in order to maintain public order and guarantee the security of the country's inhabitants. Law No. 8000, called “Creation of the National Coast Guard Service (Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas),” established that department as a body forming part of the public force, specialized in the safeguarding of territorial waters, the continental shelf, the insular shelf, and the adjacent seas (art. 1). Regarding the competencies established for that body, the cited legislation explains in its article 2: “The competencies of the Service are: / a) To monitor and safeguard the maritime borders of the State and the jurisdictional maritime waters, defined in article 6 of the Political Constitution and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. / b) To monitor and safeguard the navigable inland waters of the State. / c) To ensure the legitimate use and protection of the natural resources existing in the jurisdictional maritime waters and in the inland waters of the State, in accordance with current national and international legislation. / d) To ensure the security of port and maritime traffic, of both national and foreign vessels in the jurisdictional waters of the State. / e) To develop the necessary operations to rescue persons who are lost or in danger in national waters and to locate lost vessels. / f) To ensure the effective compliance with the national legal system regarding the inland waters and the jurisdictional maritime waters of the State, in coordination with the competent national authorities. / g) To collaborate with the administrative and judicial authorities charged with protecting natural resources, combating the illicit trafficking of narcotics, drugs, psychotropic substances, and related activities, as well as illegal migration, arms trafficking, and other illicit activities. / h) All actions necessary for the faithful fulfillment of its legal and regulatory purposes.” In the same way, that set of provisions equated the competencies and powers of the coast guard service to those of the other bodies established by the General Police Law. In this sense, it is appropriate to bring up what is established in article 3: “The personnel of the Service, to carry out their functions, shall have on land the same police competencies and powers as the other bodies defined in the General Police Law, No. 7410 of May 26, 1994.” In light of this set of rules, it is easy to see that the officials of the coast guard service possess the powers and authorities necessary to perform the same functions that the legislation provided for the Civil Guard and the Rural Assistance Guard; that is, their tasks are framed within article 22 of the General Police Law. Hence, the reasoning employed by the lower court to dismiss this claim is not correct, since there exists a compatibility of tasks among these bodies, which differ simply by the manner in which they are executed, namely, the rural and civil guard on solid ground and the coast guard service in the State's waters. Furthermore, it is a public and notorious fact that coast guard officers currently face great dangers in the performance of their duties, caused by the fight against drug trafficking and the defense of the country's natural resources. Thus, they are also exposed to a risk similar to that foreseen for the country's other police officers. Also, this body was not expressly contemplated by the agreement of the Technical Secretariat of the Budgetary Authority (Secretaria Técnica de la Autoridad Presupuestaria), since its creating law (Law No. 8000) entered into force subsequent to its enactment. However, if we examine the reasons for that norm, it is clear that the factual and legal judgments that gave rise to that provision are analogous to the working conditions of the claimant. In this way, given an equality of reason and cause (application of articles 33 of the Magna Carta, 11 and 12 of the Civil Code), because an equity of conditions exists among the members of the police bodies of the rural assistance guard, public guard, and the coast guard service, the High-Risk Operations bonus must be recognized in favor of the applicant.\n\n                              \n\n**VI.- FINAL CONSIDERATIONS**: By virtue of what has been set forth, the appealed judgment must be reversed insofar as it rejected the payment of the supplementary salary (sobresueldo) for high-risk operations. Instead, it is appropriate to grant that claim and to order the State to pay that bonus for all those periods in which the claimant performed his functions for the national coast guard service without receiving that salary supplement. Likewise, the defendant party must pay the differences that may have arisen due to the omission of payment of that item, in the other components derived from his remuneration. The amount of those sums shall be calculated in the administrative venue or, failing that, in the execution-of-judgment stage. The resulting sums shall accrue legal interest in accordance with article 1163 of the Civil Code, from the precise moment each of them was due. As ordered by article 494 of the Labor Code, costs are to be borne by the defendant; it is appropriate to assess personal costs at 20% of the total award. Regarding the remainder subject to appeal, the ruling must be confirmed.\n\n**POR TANTO**\n\n                       \n\nThe appealed judgment is reversed insofar as it rejected the payment of the supplementary salary for high-risk operations. In its place, that claim is granted, and the State is ordered to pay that bonus for all those periods in which the claimant performed his functions for the national coast guard service without receiving that salary supplement. Also, the defendant party shall pay the differences that may have arisen due to the omission of payment of that item, in the other components derived from the litigant's remuneration. The amount of those sums shall be calculated in the administrative venue or, failing that, in the execution-of-judgment stage. The resulting sums shall accrue legal interest from the moment each of them was due. Costs are to be borne by the defendant; personal costs are set at twenty percent of the total award. Regarding the remainder subject to appeal, the ruling is confirmed.\n\n \n\n \n\n***[Nombre4]***   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n***[Nombre5]***                                             ***[Nombre6]***    \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n***[Nombre7]***                                             ***[Nombre8]***   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n***cgutic***\n\n 2 \n\nEXP: 09-300063-0197-LA\n\n \n\n Teléfonos: 2295-3671, 2295-3676, 2295-3675 y 2295-4406. Facsímile: 2257-55-94. Correos Electrónicos: [...].\n\n**IV.- REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF SALARY DIFFERENTIALS FOR THE OVERLOAD OF DUTIES**: With the lawsuit, the plaintiff sought the payment of salary differentials from his transfer to the Dirección Nacional de Guardacostas, on June 21, 2000, where –he said– they assigned him tasks that require having requirements and a series of knowledge in the technical nautical police field to which an administrative police officer is not subject. As was established, through resolution No. 1307-2000 TI-DRH of 8:52 a.m. on June 19, 2000, the plaintiff was notified of the relocation (reubicación) of his position of Police Private (Raso Policía), No. CED1, which he held at the Alajuelita Substation, to the Quepos Naval Base, maintaining the same position, salary, and duties, effective June 21, 2000 (see folio 261). From the case record, it has been evident that this transfer was motivated by the enactment of Law No. 8000 of May 5, 2000, \"Creation of the Coast Guard Service\" (Creación del Servicio de Guardacostas). Through this law, the Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas was created as a police body forming part of the Fuerza Pública, charged with guarding the territorial waters, continental shelf, insular shelf, and adjacent seas of the Costa Rican State. Its Article 3 provided: The Service's personnel, in carrying out their functions, shall have the same police competencies and powers on land as the other bodies defined in the Ley General de Policía, No. 7410, of May 26, 1994. It also created its own labor statute for that service. The regulation for that law was published on December 13, 2000, and it included the positions that would constitute the technical police personnel. It expressly provided within its transitional provision:\n\n\"As of the effective date of this Regulation, the Service officials, as they meet the established requirements, shall be incorporated into the new classification of positions, once the Manual of Positions and Functions for the Servicios Nacional de Guardacostas has been endorsed by the Budgetary Authority (Autoridad Presupuestaria) of the Ministry of Finance\" (folio 31).\n\nThe aforementioned Manual was completed on November 28, 2002, and was sent to the Technical Secretariat of the Budgetary Authority (Secretaría Técnica de la Autoridad Presupuestaria) on January 22, 2003, for its approval. For its part, the cited office issued its opinion regarding the aforementioned class assessment of the Sistema Nacional de Guardacostas, through official letters STAP-0377-04 of March 31; and No. 0675-04 of June 8, both of 2004 (see folios 6 to 12 of the administrative record). Once the aforementioned instrument or manual of police positions and classes for the Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas was approved, it necessarily merited a comprehensive study of the police positions of that office, in order to place the servants who met the academic and legal requirements established therein into the new classes, which prevented the study of particular reassignments that might have been filed, as established by Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31089-H \"Procedure for the application of directives and regulations of salary, employment, and position classification policy of the ministries, other organs as applicable, public entities covered by the scope of the Budgetary Authority for the year 2004\" (Procedimiento para aplicación directrices y regulaciones de política salarial, empleo y clasificación de puestos de los ministerios, demás órganos según corresponda entidades públicas cubiertas por el ámbito de la autoridad Presupuestaria para año 2004), in its Article 16, paragraph a, according to which, during the preparation of comprehensive position studies, the entity may not carry out individual studies of position reassignments. At folio 68 of the administrative record, there is a communication issued by the head of the Department of Position Analysis and Evaluation of the Directorate of Human Resources of the Ministry of Public Security, who informs that Directorate of the progress achieved to date, in the relocation study by restructuring of the police positions of the Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas and in which it reads:\n\n\"This department prepared Report No. AE-002-2006-UR of January 2, 2006, approved by the Technical Secretariat of the Budgetary Authority, according to STAP NO. 1195-06 of May 18, 2006. In said report, the situation of sixty-five (65) positions was analyzed, of which fifteen (15) were relocated by restructuring into the new police classes of the Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas and the remaining fifty (50) were left pending, because their occupants did not meet the requirements demanded for the new classes.\n\nOn the other hand, in the months of September and October 2006, trips were made to the different coast guard stations, with the purpose of explaining the procedure to be followed in the relocation by restructuring study, compilation of information on the tasks performed in the positions through the application of the questionnaire for occupational analysis, presentation of academic certifications (duly collated copies), clarifying concerns related to the study, among other activities.\n\nIn the second study to be presented in the month of February or mid-March of the current year, it is expected to include approximately (70) positions, most of which were pending a budget code change, which became effective as of January of this year…\" (see folios 68 to 71).\n\nBased on that background and the respective studies, the defendant's administration finally, through official letter AE-440-2007 of March 8, 2007, resolved:\n\n\"… this Department prepared Report No. AE-001-2007-UR of January 29, 2007, determining that in position No. 053757, class Police Private (Raso de Policía), code CED2, tasks inherent to the post of Environmental Sailor (Marinero Ambiental) are performed, corresponding to the class Coast Guard Agent II (Agente de Guardacostas II).\n\nLikewise, according to a study of the personal file maintained by the Directorate of Human Resources and other documentation provided to this Department, it was verified that you meet all the requirements demanded to occupy the recommended class.\n\nTherefore, in accordance with Articles No. 14 and No. 15 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 32976-H, we proceed to relocate by restructuring position No. 053757, post ENVIRONMENTAL SAILOR (MARINERO AMBIENTAL), to the class COAST GUARD AGENT II (AGENTE DE GUARDACOSTAS II), with an effective date for all purposes: April 1, 2007\" (folios 78-79 of the administrative record).\n\nThat is, it was not until the month of June 2004 that the defendant's administration had the administrative instrument for the classification and evaluation of posts of the Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas; therefore, before that, there is no possibility of granting the defendant salary differentials, after his relocation to the Quepos Naval Base, with respect to a position and remuneration that did not exist at that time. That is, the plaintiff's request to be recognized salary differentials from his relocation to the Quepos Naval Base, for having occupied from that date police functions in control, prevention, and protection of coastal marine resources, piracy, port control, immigration, drug trafficking, etc.… is not appropriate inasmuch as at that time, the administration did not have a legal instrument that established a classification and evaluation system for those other functions. And this Chamber has already stated that the courts have no possibility of supplanting the administrative function of the State organs, in matters of classification and evaluation of posts. The non-existence of that instrument, at that time, makes it impossible to admit the plaintiff's argument that the duties performed should be remunerated with a salary different from the position to which he was appointed, since before his appointment as Coast Guard Agent II on April 1, 2007, he was always appointed to the post of Police Private (Raso de Policía). In this regard, no evidence was found in the case record to support the plaintiff's assertion that as of 2001, he was appointed to a temporary position as [Dirección1]. On the contrary, the evidence adduced to the record by the plaintiff himself (see personnel actions from folios 61 to 63; as well as the certification visible from folios 106 to 109) reflects that his appointment, even after his transfer, remained as Police Private. Regarding the payment of differentials for occupying the post of squad leader (jefe de escuadra), the following must be said. According to the testimonial evidence, the petitioner in various periods of his employment relationship served as squad leader, a post that corresponded to an overload of administrative tasks, but was not formally established in the descriptive manual of positions. Let us see what was said by witness [Nombre1]: \"A few days after joining the coast guard, he was assigned to that post of Squad Leader. He joined the coast guard (sic) just like me, he a few days before me. I joined on August 5, two thousand, and he had come days before, they had given him the transfer to the Quepos coast guard, I am not precise about the date. In the post of Squad Leader, in addition to the purely operational duties, he has the responsibility of ensuring the fulfillment of tasks by the other colleagues, keeping reports, as well as verifying attendance, matters regarding vacations of the colleagues in his charge, that is, he has purely administrative functions. He told me that he was first a sailor and then a Squad Leader, that he always continues to be a sailor but with that overload of administrative functions. (…). [Nombre2]'s superior would be the biologist. (…). 1.- Squad, is a police term, a group of people who start (sic) to work on a certain date and who must be relieved by another group of people, in which there must be a Squad Leader because the Immediate Superior cannot be working all the time, he would become a robot, so the superior delegates functions to the Squad Leaders as work coordinators and in administrative practices in relation to the preparation of documentation for all the work that is carried out. 2.- These squads work on land and on the high seas, with specific tasks in each one of them. 3.- Normal operational duties like any other official, but he must also produce reports and paperwork that have to be done, the squad leader does them whether or not the Immediate Superior does, who sometimes helps him in that work, but almost always the immediate superior merely limits himself to signing the papers (sic)\" (folios 272 and 273). In similar terms, Mr. [Nombre3] testified: \"In [Nombre2]'s case, because he is one of the most senior personnel, he has also assumed the post of Squad Leader, on occasions, that is, for short periods, and in the last year he assumed one of the squads. (…). 1.- Working in squads has always existed in the coast guard service (sic), this since I joined (sic) in the year nineteen ninety-six. 2.- In the stations there has always been a person responsible, within the environmental department there is a biologist (sic) or environmental officer who is the person in charge of the squads and below him are the squad leaders, in this case I am Squad Leader A, which is the one currently on service (sic).\n\n**3.-** In these cases, that position has been given to the people with the most experience (sic), usually designated by the environmental officer who is the head of the environmental departments, who is also a marine biologist. (…). Yes, he plans, supervises the work of a group of colleagues, as I indicated before, the squad leader carries out service orders, distribution of personnel according to tasks, planning, following up on the work performed by the other colleagues, I feel that it is indeed an additional burden (recargo), because we must actively work on the tasks, we are burdened with the administrative part, we have to keep logbooks, service completion reports, compile statistics, and before our bosses the environmental officer we are responsible for the unit, for whatever happens, that is, for the group of colleagues or squad” (folios 274 to 277). The claimant's idea is that these tasks should be remunerated as Sub Official Guardacostas II. According to the documentary evidence brought to the process, the tasks of the cited position are the following: “Steering and operating vessels with two outboard motors, or one to two inboard motors. / Reading and interpreting navigational charts and plotting the corresponding courses for scheduled voyages. / Assigning and supervising the work of the subordinate support personnel and ensuring that activities are executed efficiently and timely. / Plotting on a nautical chart the positions, courses, and other necessary updates to locate the different public and/or private service vessels. / Utilizing different electronic instruments, such as: radar, echo sounder, satellite navigator, radio direction finder, among others, to interpret the information provided. / Ensuring the proper functioning, use, and maintenance of the assigned vessel. / Knowing, interpreting, and applying current national and international legislation for the regulation of maritime activities. / Presenting voyage reports to the superior and noting in the logbook relevant information from the voyages. / Assuming the duties and responsibilities of the Officer Captain of Guardacostas, in their absence. / Participating in the coordination of police operations carried out in the maritime-coastal zone, the exclusive economic zone, and internal waters. / Assisting the Officer Captain of Guardacostas in operational, technical, and administrative activities in accordance with the competencies of the Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas, in their absence. / Participating in police-nautical operations and inspections within the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone. / Being part of the boarding and inspection teams, which are responsible for carrying out inspections inside vessels navigating the country's jurisdictional waters, in order to search for drugs, contraband articles, undocumented persons, among others. / Verifying that vessels navigating the country's jurisdictional waters, which carry out commercial activities, such as: fishing, recreation, cabotage, among others, have the respective permit to execute them. / Detaining vessels that have violated national and international laws, in the following activities: fishing, navigation, migration, contraband of articles, drug trafficking, piracy, environmental damage, among others. / Participating in the rescue of persons and vessels, as well as in social welfare activities. / Participating in training activities as an instructor in the field of competence, at the Academia Nacional de Guardacostas or wherever the Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas requires. / Preparing the didactic and support material required to develop the theoretical-practical classes. / Evaluating the academic performance of the students, in accordance with the methodology established by the Academy of the Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas. / Ensuring compliance with the laws, regulations, provisions, and internal directives of the Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas. / Substituting for higher-level personnel (immediate class) for vacations, leaves, illness, among others. / Keeping the immediate superior informed about the tasks assigned, maintaining fluid communication or through periodic reports. / Attending field trips to different parts of the country to perform duties inherent to the position. / Performing administrative tasks that derive from the substantive activity. / Executing other duties inherent to the position” (folios 223 to 225). As can be observed, it is not feasible to equate the tasks of the squad leader to those established for the position of Sub Official Guardacostas II. It must be recognized that on previous occasions this body has declared the right of the public sector worker to be remunerated according to the functions they have in fact been performing; on this topic it is worth citing Voto 2008-000879 of 9:40 a.m. on October 10, 2008, wherein it stated: “the principle of legality that the Administration has invoked to not reassign the plaintiff cannot simultaneously sustain the violation of the worker's right to a fair wage, also of a fundamental nature. Article 57 of the Political Constitution enshrines equal pay for equal conditions of work and efficiency; a principle developed by numeral 167 of the Labor Code. Not recognizing that right in a case like the present would mean legitimizing abusive conduct by the employer, who, without promoting the worker to a higher-category position for the reasons stated, makes them perform the tasks inherent to it, remunerating them with a lower salary, which causes unjust enrichment for the Administration”. However, in this case, the necessary premise for the recognition of differences is not present, since the position of squad leader was not a position that existed in the position classification manual. Furthermore, as was said, the functions or additional burdens (recargos) claimed cannot be equated to those of Sub Official Guardacostas II. It is appropriate to clarify that in conflicts of a legal nature, the judge is only in a position to apply the rules of current law, but may in no way arrogate the power to create new provisions, as would be the case in sub júdice to establish a position not contemplated by the legal system.\n\n**V.- REGARDING THE ADDITIONAL PAY (SOBRESUELDO) FOR HIGH-RISK OPERATIONS**: The court in its judgment determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to the payment of the bonus for high-risk operations, given that he was not among the officials contemplated by numerals 21 and 22 of Law No. 7410. As is on record, the incentive requested by the plaintiff was created by the Technical Secretariat of the Budgetary Authority in its agreement No. 5878 of extraordinary session 03-200 of April 10, 2000, based on the following motivations: “That members of the public force perform functions consisting of maintaining order, citizen security, and/or criminal suppression. / 2. That members of the public force are required to participate in high-risk operations such as raids, crisis situations, anti-terrorist actions, protection of public figures or official visitors, among others, in which the official directly exposes their life and physical integrity. / 3. That these members of the public force must attend to contingencies that threaten National Security in a timely and effective manner. / 4. That there are wage differentials in the labor market in favor of private company security agents, which causes high personnel turnover and instability in the service. / 5. That by virtue of the risk and danger implicit in the functions performed by the officials of the public force, it is appropriate to authorize an incentive called ‘HIGH-RISK OPERATIONS’, for the purpose of fulfilling the responsibilities linked to National Security. / 6. That the incentive created here must be considered different from the so-called ‘Police Risk’ whose purpose is to guarantee the national security of goods (sic) as well as respect for the rights and freedoms of citizens” (folio 112 of the administrative file). The salary bonus in dispute was outlined to encourage the incorporation of personnel into the police forces and, at the same time, to compensate them additionally for the danger intrinsic to fulfilling their functions. Finally, the cited agreement stipulated its effects for those officers whose competencies and functions were immersed in articles 21 and 22 of the General Police Law. The norms invoked by the agreement regulate the tasks and attributions of the Civil Guard and the Rural Assistance Guard. Thus, those provisions specifically tell us the following: “article 21. / The Civil Guard and the Rural Assistance Guard are bodies specially charged with general surveillance and citizen security; they shall exercise their functions throughout the entire country, in accordance with the technical determination on the rural or urban nature indicated by the corresponding public institutions. For this purpose, command units shall be established organized according to the regional division that the respective ministry determines. / article 22. / These are attributions of the Civil Guard and the Rural Assistance Guard: / a) To ensure the exercise of constitutional guarantees, the protection of the constitutional order, citizen security, national sovereignty, and territorial integrity. / b) To maintain tranquility and public order. / c) To ensure the security and integrity of persons and the property of the inhabitants of the Republic. / d) To maintain respect for the properties and other rights of the inhabitants of the Republic. / e) To prevent and suppress the commission of punishable offenses within the national territory”. As can be seen, the intention to cover the members of these two police bodies with additional pay (sobresueldo) is a function of the nature of their tasks, since it is undeniable that these officials are the ones who, in the first instance, compromise their personal integrity and life, in order to maintain public order and guarantee the security of the country's inhabitants. Law No. 8000, called “Creation of the Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas,” established that department as an integral body of the public force, specialized in safeguarding the territorial waters, the continental shelf, the insular shelf, and the adjacent seas (art. 1). Regarding the competencies established for that body, the cited legislation explains to us in its canon 2: “The competencies of the Service are: / a) To watch over and safeguard the maritime borders of the State and the jurisdictional maritime waters, defined in article 6 of the Political Constitution and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. / b) To watch over and safeguard the navigable internal waters of the State. / c) To ensure the legitimate use and protection of the natural resources existing in the jurisdictional maritime waters and in the internal waters of the State, according to current national and international legislation. / d) To ensure the security of port and maritime traffic, both of national and foreign vessels in the jurisdictional waters of the State. / e) To develop the operations necessary to rescue lost persons or those in danger situations in national waters and to locate lost vessels. / f) To ensure effective compliance with the national legal system regarding the internal waters and jurisdictional maritime waters of the State, in coordination with the competent national authorities. / g) To collaborate with the administrative and judicial authorities charged with protecting natural resources, fighting against the illicit trafficking of narcotics, drugs, psychotropic substances, and related activities, as well as illegal migration, arms trafficking, and other illicit activities. / h) All necessary actions for the faithful fulfillment of its legal and regulatory purposes.” In the same manner, that set of provisions equated the competencies and faculties of the guardacostas service to those of the remaining bodies established by the General Police Law. In this sense, it is worth citing what is established in ordinal 3: “The personnel of the Service, to carry out their functions, shall have on land the same police competencies and faculties as the other bodies defined in the General Police Law, No. 7410 of May 26, 1994.” In light of this relationship of norms, it is easy to visualize that the officers of the guardacostas service possess the attributions and powers necessary to carry out the same functions that the legislation established for the Civil Guard and the Rural Assistance Guard, that is, their tasks are framed within canon 22 of the General Police Law. Hence, the argumentation that the court used to dismiss this claim is not correct, since among these bodies there exists a compatibility of tasks, which are simply differentiated by the modality in which they are executed, namely, the rural and civil guard on land and the guardacostas service in the State's waters. On the other hand, it is a public and notorious fact that guardacostas currently face great dangers in the performance of their functions, brought about by the fight against drug trafficking and the defense of the country's natural resources. In such a way, they are also exposed to a risk similar to that foreseen for the rest of the country's police officials. Also, this body was not expressly contemplated by the agreement of the Technical Secretariat of the Budgetary Authority, since its creation law (Law No. 8000) came into force after its enactment. However, if we observe the motives behind that norm, it is clear that the judgments of fact and law that gave rise to that provision are analogous to the working conditions of the claimant. In this way, given equality of reason and cause (application of canons 33 of the Magna Carta, 11 and 12 of the Civil Code), as equity of conditions exists among the members of the police bodies of the rural assistance guard, civil guard, and the guardacostas service, the bonus for High-Risk Operations must be recognized in favor of the petitioner.\n\n**VI.- FINAL CONSIDERATIONS**: By virtue of what has been set forth, the appealed judgment must be reversed insofar as it dismissed the payment of additional pay for high-risk operations. In its place, it is appropriate to grant that claim and, condemn the State to pay that bonus for all those periods in which the plaintiff fulfilled his functions for the Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas without receiving that salary supplement. Similarly, the defendant party must pay the differences that may have been generated by the omission of payment of that item, in the remaining components derived from his remuneration. The amount of those sums shall be calculated in the administrative venue or, failing that, in the execution of judgment stage. The resulting sums shall accrue legal interest in accordance with ordinal 1163 of the Civil Code, from the precise moment each of them was payable. As ordered by ordinal 494 of the Labor Code, costs are to be borne by the defendant; it is appropriate to assess personal costs at 20% of the judgment amount. In all other matters subject to appeal, the ruling must be upheld.\n\nAppearing as special judicial representative of the plaintiff is Rita Gerardina Díaz Amador, whose qualifications are not indicated. All are of legal age, married, and residents of San José, with the exception noted.\n\n**WHEREAS:**\n\n**1.-** The plaintiff, in a filing dated June 5, 2009, brought this action so that the judgment would order the defendant to pay wage differences, holiday pay, high-risk incentive pay (incentivo por alto riesgo), year-end bonus (aguinaldo) and school bonus (bono escolar), employer-worker contributions, damages, interest, costs of the proceeding, and wage differences from September 2008 to the present, since he has been working as squad leader (jefe de escuadra), a position which is that of a Sub-Oficial Guardacostas II, his salary currently being paid in accordance with the permanent position he holds [Placa1].\n\n**2.-** The State's representation answered in the terms indicated in the brief dated August 11, 2009, and raised the defense of lack of right.\n\n**3.-** The judge, Lilliana Azofeifa Azofeifa, by judgment rendered at 9:00 a.m. on November 1, 2010, **ordered**: \"In accordance with the foregoing, applicable legal rules and case law, and articles 317 of the Civil Procedure Code, 492 and following and concordant articles of the Labor Code, I rule: the labor lawsuit filed by **[Name1]** against the **STATE**, represented by Guillermo Huezo Stancari, is hereby **dismissed** in its entirety. The statute of limitations defense is upheld. Costs are the responsibility of the plaintiff, with personal costs set at fifteen percent of the acquittal...\"\n\n**4.-** The plaintiff appealed, and the Labor Tribunal, First Section, of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, composed of Óscar Ugalde Miranda, Eugenie Salas Chavarría, and Ana Ruth Fallas Gómez, by judgment rendered at 10:20 a.m. on March 9, 2012, **resolved**: In the processing of this matter, no defects or omissions capable of causing nullity or defenselessness to the parties are observed. The appealed judgment is confirmed.\n\n**5.-** The plaintiff filed an appeal before this Chamber in a brief dated May 23, 2012, which is based on the grounds that will be stated in the considerative part.\n\n**6.-** The legal requirements have been observed in the proceedings.\n\n**Drafted by Judge Vega Robert; and,**\n\n**WHEREAS:**\n\n**I.- BACKGROUND:** The plaintiff filed an ordinary lawsuit against the State. He alleged in his complaint that he had begun working as a civil guard (guardia civil) for the Ministry of Public Security on September 6, 1991. He added that as of June 21, 2000, he has been fulfilling his duties in the coast guard service (servicio de guardacostas), first as duty officer and, as of October of that same year, as environmental sailor (marinero ambiental), at the Quepos station. He asserted that with the creation of the National Coast Guard Service (Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas), he was transferred to that police force and given the interim position of [Dirección1] and then, in March 2001, he was assigned the [Dirección2], also on an interim basis. He narrated that on April 1, 2007, he was appointed as a permanent Agente de Guardacostas II, and in 2007 he was appointed on an interim basis as Squad Leader (Jefe de Escuadra), a position that, in his opinion, should be remunerated as Sub Oficial Guardacostas II. He argued that he made a request for the payment of wage differences from his transfer to the National Coast Guard Directorate (Dirección Nacional de Guardacostas) in 2000, in addition to the payment of the \"high risk\" item (alto riesgo), which is paid to all officials performing police duties. Based on the foregoing, he requested payment of wage differences, holiday pay, high-risk incentive pay, differences in year-end bonus and school bonus, differences in employer-worker contributions, damages, statutory interest, and costs of the proceeding (folios 111 to 117). The Office of the Attorney General (Procuraduría General de la República) answered in the negative and raised the defense of lack of right (folios 122 to 141). The first-instance judgment No. 63-2010 of 9:00 a.m. on November 1, 2010, dismissed the lawsuit and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs, setting personal costs at 15% of the acquittal (folios 435 to 443). The petitioner appealed the judgment (folios 457 to 459) and the tribunal confirmed it (folios 476 to 479).\n\n**II.- GRIEVANCES OF THE APPEAL:** The litigant appeals before this Chamber and expresses the following grievances. He argues that from the beginning of the process he has alleged that he worked from 2000 to 2007 as a coast guard police officer (policía guardacostas) without the corresponding salary. He adds that it was demonstrated in the debate that, in the structure of the National Coast Guard Service, there are no positions of police private (raso de policía) or police agent. He considers that he was transferred from the civil guard to the coast guard service since he met the requested requirements, but he never belonged to any previous structure that was modified. He infers that the \"high risk\" incentive is a salary supplement paid for the police functions performed. He considers that an abuse has been committed against him, as he was kept performing functions different from his own. He reasons that if he was required to have more academic requirements to hold the coast guard position, he should be paid better than a police agent. He adds that since he joined the National Coast Guard Directorate, more requirements and knowledge were demanded of him, and he was also assigned other types of obligations. He argues that there is no reason for him not to have been paid the high-risk bonus. He cites in defense of his thesis vote No. 2009-0879 of this Chamber and argues that his salary has not been paid in accordance with the position he has been occupying. He claims that in the institution where he works, the position of police private does not exist, but rather that of coast guard. He argues that the coast guard service is a police force forming part of the public force, with the same competencies and powers as the other bodies that are part of the Ministry of Public Security. As evidence for better provision, he provides a copy of the daily activity log kept by officials of the Quepos coast guard station. Based on the foregoing, he requests the reversal of the judgment (folios 483 to 489).\n\n**III.- REGARDING THE EVIDENCE FOR BETTER PROVISION:** Article 561 of the Labor Code states: *\"Before the Court of Cassation, no evidence may be proposed, nor shall the Tribunal be permitted to order evidence for better provision, except when such evidence is absolutely indispensable to correctly decide the point or points in dispute.\"* In the case at bar, the plaintiff offers the documentary evidence on folios 489 to 514 to be assessed as evidence in this venue; however, upon analyzing that material, such an offer must be rejected, since it does not meet the requirements outlined by the rule just transcribed.\n\n**IV.- REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF WAGE DIFFERENCES FOR THE OVERLOAD OF FUNCTIONS:** In the lawsuit, the plaintiff sought the payment of wage differences from his transfer to the National Coast Guard Directorate on June 21, 2000, where – he said – he was assigned tasks for which he is required to have qualifications and a series of knowledge in the nautical police technical field to which an administrative police officer is not subject. As was deemed accredited, through resolution No. 1307-2000 TI-DRH of 8:52 a.m. on June 19, 2000, the plaintiff was notified of the *relocation* of his position as Police Private (Raso Policía), No. CED1, which he held at the Alajuelita Sub-Police Station, to the Quepos Naval Base, *maintaining the same position, salary, and functions,* as of June 21, 2000 (see folio 261). It has been evident from the record that this transfer was motivated by the enactment of Law No. 8000 of May 5, 2000, \"Creation of the Coast Guard Service.\" Through this law, the National Coast Guard Service was created as a police force that is part of the Public Force, responsible for safeguarding the territorial waters, the continental shelf, the insular shelf, and the adjacent seas of the Costa Rican State. Article 3 thereof provided: The personnel of the Service, in carrying out their functions, shall have on land the same police competencies and powers as the other bodies defined in the General Police Law, No. 7410, of May 26, 1994. It also created its own labor statute for that service. The regulation of that law was published on December 13, 2000, and it included the positions that would constitute the technical police personnel. It expressly provided within its transitory provision:\n\n“Upon the entry into force of this Regulation, the officials of the Service, as they meet the established requirements, shall be incorporated into the new classification of positions, once the Manual of Positions and Functions of the National Coast Guard Service has been endorsed by the Budget Authority of the Ministry of Finance” (folio 31).\n\nThe aforementioned Manual was completed on November 28, 2002, and was sent to the Technical Secretariat of the Budget Authority on January 22, 2003, for its approval. For its part, the cited agency issued its opinion regarding the aforementioned class evaluation of the National Coast Guard System, through official communications STAP-0377-04 of March 31; and No. 0675-04 of June 8, both of 2004 (see folios 6 to 12 of the administrative file). Once the cited instrument or manual of police positions and classes of the National Coast Guard Service was approved, this necessarily warranted a comprehensive study of the police positions of that agency, in order to place the servers who met the academic and legal requirements established therein into the new classes, which prevented the study of individual reassignments that may have been raised, as established by Executive Decree No. 31089-H \"Procedure for the application of directives and regulations on salary policy, employment, and classification of positions of the ministries, other bodies as applicable, public entities covered by the scope of the Budget Authority for the year 2004,\" in its article 16, subsection a, according to which, during the preparation of comprehensive position studies, the entity may not conduct individual studies of position reassignments. Folio 68 of the administrative file contains a communication issued by the head of the Department of Analysis and Evaluation of Positions of the Human Resources Directorate of the Ministry of Public Security, informing that Directorate of the progress achieved to that date in the study of placement due to restructuring of the police positions of the National Coast Guard Service, in which it reads:\n\n*\"This department prepared Report No. AE-002-2006-UR of January 2, 2006, approved by the Technical Secretariat of the Budget Authority, according to STAP NO. 1195-06 of May 18, 2006. In said report, the situation of sixty-five (65) positions was analyzed, of which fifteen (15) were placed due to restructuring into the new police classes of the National Coast Guard Service and the remaining fifty (50) remained pending, because their occupants did not meet the requirements demanded for the new classes.*\n\n*On the other hand, in the months of September and October of 2006, visits were made to the different coast guard stations, with the purpose of explaining the procedure to be followed in the placement study due to restructuring, gathering information on the tasks performed in the positions through the application of the questionnaire for occupational analysis, presentation of academic credentials (duly compared copies), clarifying concerns related to the study, among other activities.*\n\n*In the second study to be presented in February or mid-March of this year, it is expected to include approximately (70) positions, most of which were pending a budget code change, which took effect as of January of this year…\" (see folios 68 to 71).*\n\nBased on these antecedents and the respective studies, the defendant's administration finally, through official communication AE-440-2007 of March 8, 2007, resolved:\n\n*\"… this Department prepared Report No. AE-001-2007-UR of January 29, 2007, determining that in position No. 053757, class **Police Private, code CED2**, duties inherent to the position of **Environmental Sailor** are performed, corresponding to the class **Agente de Guardacostas II.***\n\n*Likewise, according to a study of the personal file maintained by the Human Resources Directorate and other documentation provided to this Department, it was verified that you meet all the requirements demanded to occupy the recommended class.*\n\n*Therefore, in accordance with articles No. 14 and No. 15 of Executive Decree No. 32976-H, position No. 053757, position of **ENVIRONMENTAL SAILOR**, is hereby reclassified due to restructuring to the class of **AGENTE DE GUARDACOSTAS II**, with an effective date for all purposes of: April 1, 2007\"* *(folios 78-79 of the administrative file).*\n\nThat is to say, it was not until the month of June 2004 that the defendant's administration had the administrative instrument for the classification and evaluation of positions of the National Coast Guard Service; therefore, before that time, there is no possibility of granting the defendant wage differences, after his relocation to the Quepos Naval Base, with respect to a position and remuneration that were non-existent at that time. That is, the plaintiff's petition for the recognition of wage differences from the time of his relocation to the Quepos Naval Base, for having held as of that date police functions in control, prevention, and protection of coastal marine resources, piracy, port control, immigration, drug trafficking, etc.... is not admissible because, at that time, the administration did not have a legal instrument that established a system for the classification and evaluation of those other functions. And this Chamber has already stated that the courts have no possibility of supplanting the administrative function of the State's organs in matters of classification and evaluation of positions.\n\nThe nonexistence of that instrument, at that time, makes it impossible to admit the plaintiff's argument that the functions performed must be remunerated with a salary different from the position to which he was appointed, because before his appointment as Coast Guard Agent II, on April 1, 2007, he was always appointed to the position of Police Private. In this regard, no evidence was found in the case file to support the plaintiff's assertion that as of 2001 he was appointed to an interim position as [Dirección3]. On the contrary, the evidence added to the case file by the plaintiff himself (see personnel actions on folios 61 to 63; as well as the certification visible on folios 106 to 109) reflects that his appointment, even after his transfer, remained as Police Private.\n\nRegarding the payment of differences for holding the position of squad leader (jefe de escuadra), the following must be stated. According to the testimonial evidence, the petitioner, during various periods of his employment relationship, served as a squad leader (jefe de escuadra), a position that corresponded to an additional assignment of administrative tasks, but was not formally established in the descriptive job manual. Let us see what witness [Nombre2] stated: “A few days after entering the Coast Guard, he was assigned to that position of Squad Leader (Jefe de Escuadra). The entry into the Coast Guard (sic) same as me, he a few days before me. I entered on the fifth of August, two thousand, and he had come days before, they had given him the transfer to the Quepos Coast Guard, I do not specify the date. In the position of Squad Leader (Jefe de Escuadra), in addition to purely operational functions, he has the responsibility of ensuring the fulfillment of the work of the other colleagues, keeping reports, as well as verifying attendance, matters relating to vacations of the colleagues under his charge, that is to say, he has purely administrative functions. He told me that he was first a sailor (marinero) and then a Squad Leader (Jefe de Escuadra), that he always remains a sailor (marinero) but with that additional assignment of administrative functions. (…). [Nombre1]’s superior would be the biologist. (…). 1.- Squad (Escuadra), is a police term, a group of people who enters (sic) to work on a certain date and must be relieved by another group of people, in which there must be a Squad leader (Jefe de escuadra) because the immediate superior cannot be working all the time, they would become a robot, so the superior delegates functions to the Squad Leaders (Jefes de Escuadra) as work coordinators and in administrative practices in relation to the preparation of documentation of all the work that is carried out. 2.- These squads work on land and on the high seas, with specific tasks in each of them. 3.- Normal operational functions like any other official, but also must carry out reports and paperwork that must be done, the squad leader (jefe de escuadra) does them whether or not the Immediate Superior does, who sometimes helps in this task, but almost always the immediate superior only limits themselves to signing the papers (sic)” (folios 272 and 273). In similar terms, Mr. [Nombre3] testified: “In [Nombre1]’s case, being one of the most senior personnel, he has also assumed the position of Squad Leader (Jefe de Escuadra), on occasions, that is, for short periods, and in the last year he assumed one of the squads. (…). 1.- Working by squads has always existed in the Coast Guard service (sic), this since I entered (sic) in the year nineteen ninety-six. 2.- In the stations there has always been a responsible person, within the environmental department there exists a biologist (sic) or environmental officer who is in charge of the squads and below him are the squad leaders (jefes de escuadra), in this case I am Squad Leader A (Jefe de Escuadra A), which is the one currently in service (sic). 3.- In these cases, that position has been granted to people who have more experience (sic), usually the one who designates it is the environmental officer who is the head of the environmental departments, who is also a marine biologist. (…). If he plans, supervises the work of a group of colleagues, as I indicated before, the squad leader (jefe de escuadra) carries out service orders, distribution of personnel according to tasks, planning, follow-up on the work performed by the other colleagues. I feel that it is indeed an additional assignment (recargo), because we must work actively in the tasks, the administrative part is an additional burden for us, we have to make logbooks (bitácoras), service closure reports, do statistics, likewise before our superiors, the environmental officer, we are responsible for the unit for whatever happens, that is, for the group of colleagues or squad” (folios 274 to 277). The plaintiff’s idea is that those tasks be remunerated as Coast Guard Sub-officer II. According to the documentary evidence brought to the proceedings, the tasks of the cited position are the following: “Navigate and operate vessels with two outboard motors, or, one to two inboard motors. / Read and interpret navigation charts and plot the corresponding courses for scheduled trips. / Assign and supervise the work of the support personnel in charge and ensure that activities are executed efficiently and in a timely manner. / Plot on a nautical chart the positions, courses, and other necessary updates to locate the different public and/or private service vessels. / Use different electronic instruments, such as: radar, echosounder, satellite navigator, radio direction finder, among others, to interpret the information provided. / Ensure the proper functioning, use, and maintenance of the assigned vessel. / Know, interpret, and apply current national and international legislation for the regulation of maritime activities. / Present trip reports to the superior and record relevant trip information in the logbook (bitácora). / Assume the duties and responsibilities of the Officer Captain of the Coast Guard, in their absence. /Participate in the coordination of police operations carried out in the maritime-coastal zone, the exclusive economic zone, and internal waters. / Assist the Officer Captain of the Coast Guard in operational, technical, and administrative activities in accordance with the competencies of the National Coast Guard Service, in their absence. /Participate in police-nautical operations and inspections within the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone. / Be part of the boarding and inspection teams, which are responsible for carrying out inspections of vessels navigating the jurisdictional waters of the country, in order to search for drugs, contraband articles, undocumented persons, among others. / Verify that vessels navigating the country's jurisdictional waters, which carry out commercial activities, such as: fishing, recreation, cabotage, among others, have the respective permit to execute them. /Detain vessels navigating the country's jurisdictional waters, which carry out commercial activities, such as: fishing, recreation, cabotage, among others, that have the respective permit to execute them. / Detain vessels and apprehend persons who have violated national and international laws, in the following activities: fishing, navigation, migration, contraband of articles, drug trafficking, piracy, environmental damage, among others. / Participate in rescue operations for persons and vessels, as well as in social welfare activities. / Participate in training activities as an instructor in the field of competence, at the National Coast Guard Academy or where the National Coast Guard Service requires it. / Prepare the didactic and support material required to develop theoretical-practical classes. / Evaluate the academic performance of students, in accordance with the methodology established by the Academy of the National Coast Guard Service. / Ensure compliance with laws, regulations, provisions, and internal guidelines of the National Coast Guard Service. / Substitute higher-level personnel (immediate class) for vacations, leaves, illness, among others. / Keep the immediate superior informed about the assigned activities, maintaining fluid communication or through periodic reports. / Attend field trips to different parts of the country to perform duties inherent to the position. / Perform administrative tasks derived from the substantive activity. / Execute other duties inherent to the position” (folios 223 to 225). As can be observed, it is not feasible to equate the tasks of the squad leader (jefe de escuadra) with those set out for the position of Coast Guard Sub-officer II. It must be recognized that on previous occasions this body has declared the right of a public sector worker to be remunerated according to the functions they have actually been performing. On this subject, it is appropriate to bring up vote 2008-000879 of 9:40 a.m. on October 10, 2008, in which it was stated: “the principle of legality that the Administration has invoked not to reassign the plaintiff, cannot at the same time support the violation of the worker's right to a fair salary, which is also of a fundamental nature. Article 57 of the Political Constitution enshrines equal salary for equal conditions of work and efficiency; a principle developed by numeral 167 of the Labor Code. Not recognizing that right in a case like the present one would mean legitimizing an abusive conduct by the employer, who, without promoting the worker to a higher-category position for the reasons stated, makes her execute the tasks proper to it, remunerating her with a lower salary, which causes unjust enrichment for the Administration.” However, in this case, the required condition for the recognition of differences is not present, since the position of squad leader (jefe de escuadra) is not a position that existed in the job classification manual. Furthermore, as stated, the functions or additional assignments (recargos) claimed cannot be equated to those of Coast Guard Sub-officer II. It is necessary to clarify that in conflicts of a legal nature, the judge is only able to apply current legal rules, but can in no way arrogate the power to create new provisions, as would occur in the sub judice case by establishing a position not contemplated by the legal system.\n\n**V.- REGARDING THE EXTRA PAY FOR HIGH-RISK OPERATIONS**: The court in its judgment determined that the payment of the bonus for high-risk operations was not due to the plaintiff, given that he was not among the officials contemplated by numerals 21 and 22 of Law No. 7410. According to the record, the incentive requested by the plaintiff was created by the Technical Secretariat of the Budgetary Authority in its agreement No. 5878 of the extraordinary session 03-200 of April 10, 2000, based on the following grounds: “That the members of the public force perform functions consisting of maintaining order, citizen security, and/or criminal repression. / 2. That the members of the public force are required to participate in high-risk operations such as raids, crisis situations, counter-terrorist actions, protection of public figures or official visitors, among others, in which the official directly exposes their life and physical integrity. / 3. That these members of the public force must attend to contingencies that threaten National Security in a timely and effective manner. / 4. That there are salary differences in the labor market in favor of private company security agents, which causes high personnel turnover and instability in the service. / 5. That by virtue of the implicit risk and danger in the functions performed by the officials of the public force, it is appropriate to authorize an incentive called “HIGH-RISK OPERATIONS”, for the purpose of fulfilling the responsibilities linked to National Security. / 6. That the incentive created here must be considered different from the one called “Police Risk” whose purpose is to guarantee the national security of assets (sic) as well as respect for the rights and freedoms of citizens” (folio 112 of the administrative file). The salary bonus in dispute was outlined to encourage the incorporation of personnel into the police forces and, at the same time, to additionally compensate them for the intrinsic danger in the fulfillment of their functions. Finally, the cited agreement provided its effects for those officers whose competencies and functions were encompassed in articles 21 and 22 of the General Police Law. The rules invoked by the agreement regulate the tasks and powers of the Civil Guard and the Rural Assistance Guard. Thus, those specific provisions tell us the following: “article 21. / The Civil Guard and the Rural Assistance Guard are bodies especially charged with general surveillance and citizen security; they shall exercise their functions throughout the entire country, in accordance with the technical determination on the rural or urban nature indicated by the corresponding public institutions. For this purpose, command units shall be established, organized according to the regional division determined by the respective ministry. / article 22. / The powers of the Civil Guard and the Rural Assistance Guard are: / a) To ensure the exercise of constitutional guarantees, the protection of constitutional order, citizen security, national sovereignty, and territorial integrity. / b) To maintain tranquility and public order. / c) To watch over the security and integrity of persons and the property of the inhabitants of the Republic. / d) To maintain respect for the property and other rights of the inhabitants of the Republic. / e) To prevent and repress the commission of punishable infractions within the national territory.” As can be seen, the intention of covering the members of these two police bodies with an extra salary is a function of the nature of their tasks, since it is undeniable that these officials are the ones who, in the first instance, compromise their personal integrity and life in order to maintain public order and guarantee the security of the country's inhabitants. Law No. 8000 called “Creation of the National Coast Guard Service” established that department as a body forming part of the public force, specialized in safeguarding the territorial waters, the continental shelf, the insular shelf, and the adjacent seas (art. 1). Regarding the competencies established for that body, the cited legislation explains in its canon 2: “The competencies of the Service are: / a) To watch over and safeguard the maritime borders of the State and the jurisdictional maritime waters, defined in article 6 of the Political Constitution and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. / b) To watch over and safeguard the navigable internal waters of the State. / c) To ensure the legitimate use and protection of the natural resources existing in the jurisdictional maritime waters and in the internal waters of the State, according to current national and international legislation. / d) To ensure the security of port and maritime traffic, of both national and foreign vessels in the jurisdictional waters of the State. / e) To carry out the necessary operations to rescue lost persons or persons in situations of danger in the national waters and to locate lost vessels. / f) To ensure the effective compliance with the national legal system on the internal waters and the jurisdictional maritime waters of the State, in coordination with the competent national authorities. / g) To collaborate with the administrative and judicial authorities responsible for protecting natural resources, fighting against the illicit traffic of narcotic drugs, drugs, psychotropic substances and related activities, as well as illegal migration, arms trafficking, and other illicit activities. / h) All actions necessary for the faithful fulfillment of its legal and regulatory purposes.” Likewise, that set of provisions equated the competencies and powers of the Coast Guard Service with those of the other bodies established by the General Police Law. In this regard, it is appropriate to bring up what is established in ordinal 3: “The Service personnel, to develop their functions, shall have on land the same police competencies and powers as the other bodies defined in the General Police Law, No. 7410, of May 26, 1994.” In light of this relationship of norms, it is easy to visualize that the officers of the Coast Guard Service have the powers and authorities necessary to carry out the same functions that the legislation provided for the Civil Guard and the Rural Assistance Guard, that is to say, their tasks are framed within canon 22 of the General Police Law. Hence, the reasoning used by the court to dismiss this claim is not correct, because among these bodies there exists a compatibility of tasks, which are simply differentiated by the modality in which they are executed, namely, the rural and civil guard on solid ground and the Coast Guard Service in the State's waters. On the other hand, it is a public and notorious fact that the Coast Guard currently faces great dangers in the performance of their duties, brought about by the fight against drug trafficking and the defense of the country's natural resources. In such a way that they are also exposed to a risk similar to that foreseen for the other police officials of the country. Also, this body was not expressly contemplated by the agreement of the Technical Secretariat of the Budgetary Authority, as its creation law (Law No. 8000) came into force after its promulgation. However, if we observe the grounds for that regulation, it is clear that the factual and legal assessments that gave rise to that provision are analogous to the working conditions of the plaintiff. Thus, in the presence of equality of reason and cause (application of canons 33 of the Magna Carta, 11 and 12 of the Civil Code), because there exists equity of conditions among the members of the police bodies of the Rural Assistance Guard, Public Guard, and the Coast Guard Service, the bonus for High-Risk Operations must be recognized in favor of the petitioner.\n\n**VI.- FINAL CONSIDERATIONS**: By virtue of what has been set forth, the appealed judgment must be reversed insofar as it dismissed the payment of the extra pay for high-risk operations. In its place, it is appropriate to uphold that claim and to order the State to pay that bonus for all those periods in which the plaintiff performed his functions for the National Coast Guard Service without receiving that salary supplement. Likewise, the defendant party must pay the differences that may have been generated by the omission of payment of that item, in the other components derived from his remuneration. The amount of those sums shall be calculated in administrative proceedings or, failing that, in the judgment execution stage. The resulting sums shall accrue legal interest in accordance with ordinal 1163 of the Civil Code, from the precise moment each of them became due. As ordered by ordinal 494 of the Labor Code, costs are to be borne by the defendant; it is appropriate to assess the personal costs at 20% of the judgment amount. Regarding the rest of the matter under appeal, the judgment must be confirmed.\n\n**THEREFORE**\n\nThe appealed judgment is reversed insofar as it dismissed the payment of the extra pay for high-risk operations. In its place, this claim is upheld, and the State is ordered to pay that bonus for all those periods in which the plaintiff performed his functions for the National Coast Guard Service without receiving that salary supplement. Also, the defendant party shall pay the differences that may have been generated by the omission of payment of that item, in the other components derived from the litigant's remuneration. The amount of those sums shall be calculated in administrative proceedings or, failing that, in the judgment execution stage. The resulting sums shall accrue legal interest from the moment each of them became due. Costs are to be borne by the defendant; personal costs are set at twenty percent of the judgment amount.\n\nAs for the remaining matters subject to appeal, the judgment is affirmed.\n\n[Nombre4]\n\n[Nombre5] [Nombre6]\n\n[Nombre7] [Nombre8]\n\ncgutic\n\n2\n\nEXP: 09-300063-0197-LA\n\nTelephones: 2295-3671, 2295-3676, 2295-3675 and 2295-4406. Fax: 2257-55-94. Electronic Mail: [...]. and mbrenesm @poder-judicial.go.cr" }