{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-607370", "citation": "Res. 00025-2014 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección V", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Ius variandi y jornada laboral en la policía de fronteras", "title_en": "Ius variandi and working hours in border police", "summary_es": "La Sección Quinta del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo rechaza la demanda de seis oficiales de la Fuerza Pública destacados en Sarapiquí, quienes reclamaban el pago de horas extraordinarias, la reinstalación en un rol de trabajo de 10x10 y la condena en costas contra el Estado. El tribunal determina que la variación del rol de servicio entre abril y noviembre de 2012 obedeció a una situación especial de interés público y defensa de la soberanía nacional en la zona fronteriza norte, lo que justificó el ejercicio del ius variandi por parte de la administración. Los actores no lograron acreditar que hubieran laborado jornada extraordinaria, pues su horario no superó las doce horas diarias, ni demostraron que el cambio fuera abusivo. La sentencia acoge la defensa estatal de falta de derecho, declara sin lugar la demanda en todos sus extremos y exonera a los demandantes del pago de costas por considerar que tuvieron motivo suficiente para litigar.", "summary_en": "The Fifth Section of the Administrative Appeals Court dismisses the lawsuit filed by six Public Force officers stationed in Sarapiquí, who sought payment of overtime, reinstatement of a 10-day work/10-day rest schedule, and costs against the State. The court finds that the change in duty rotations between April and November 2012 was prompted by a special situation of public interest and protection of national sovereignty in the northern border zone, justifying the administration's exercise of ius variandi. The plaintiffs failed to prove they worked overtime, as their shifts did not exceed twelve hours a day, nor did they demonstrate the change was abusive. The court upholds the State's defense of lack of right, dismisses the complaint in its entirety, and exempts the plaintiffs from paying costs on the grounds they had sufficient reason to litigate.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección V", "date": "2014", "year": "2014", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "ius variandi", "jornada laboral", "Fuerza Pública", "policía de fronteras", "soberanía nacional", "interés público", "falta de derecho", "roles de servicio" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 58", "law": "Constitución Política" }, { "article": "Art. 23", "law": "Ley 7410" }, { "article": "Art. 24", "law": "Ley 7410" }, { "article": "Art. 76 inciso c", "law": "Ley 7410" }, { "article": "Art. 180", "law": "Decreto Ejecutivo 36366" }, { "article": "Art. 193", "law": "Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo" } ], "keywords_es": [ "ius variandi", "jornada laboral", "Fuerza Pública", "policía de fronteras", "soberanía nacional", "interés público", "horas extraordinarias", "falta de derecho", "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo", "Decreto 36366", "Constitución Política Art. 58", "roles de servicio", "Sarapiquí" ], "keywords_en": [ "ius variandi", "work day", "Public Force", "border police", "national sovereignty", "public interest", "overtime", "lack of right", "Administrative Appeals Court", "Decree 36366", "Constitution Article 58", "duty rotations", "Sarapiquí" ], "excerpt_es": "Si bien, ha quedado acreditado que existió una variación de la jornada laboral durante los meses de abril a noviembre de 2012, ello se debió a una situación especial, de marcado interés público y de defensa de la soberanía nacional, en la zona fronteriza norte, además fue una situación temporal, que obligó a modificar el rol de servicio; reforzando la vigilancia tanto con más personal de la Fuerza Pública, como en sus horarios laborales, sin que conste acreditado en este proceso que se hubiere laborado una jornada extraordinaria, pues el horario laboral no rebasaba las doce horas; además que el cambio de rol lo fue por la situación especial acontecida, cambios de rol, que constituyen parte de la potestad de modificación del patrono a través del ius variandi, sin que se hubiere acreditado un uso abusivo de esta potestad, en este sentido debe tenerse en consideración que si bien los actores tenían un rol de 10 x10, diez días laborados por diez de descanso, tal situación no puede alegarse como un derecho adquirido, pues los roles se establecen en función de un interés público y sujeto a posibilidades de variación, máxime tratándose de la policía fronteriza.", "excerpt_en": "While it has been proven that there was a variation in the work schedule during the months of April to November 2012, this was due to a special situation of clear public interest and defense of national sovereignty in the northern border zone; it was also a temporary situation that required modifying the duty rotation, reinforcing surveillance with both more Public Force personnel and adjusted working hours, without it being proven in this proceeding that an extraordinary workday was worked, since the work schedule did not exceed twelve hours; furthermore, the change in rotation was due to the special situation that occurred—changes in rotation that form part of the employer's power to modify through ius variandi, without an abusive exercise of this power having been proven. In this regard, it must be considered that although the plaintiffs had a 10x10 role (ten days worked, ten days off), such a situation cannot be claimed as an acquired right, since the roles are established based on a public interest and are subject to possibilities of variation, especially in the case of border police.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Denied", "label_es": "Sin lugar", "summary_en": "The court dismisses the officers' claim, upholds the State's lack-of-right defense, and exempts them from paying costs.", "summary_es": "Se declara sin lugar la demanda de los oficiales; se acoge la defensa de falta de derecho y se les exonera del pago de costas." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando VII — Sobre el caso concreto", "quote_en": "… there is no doubt in this Court that the plaintiffs, as police officers of the Cantonal Delegation of Sarapiquí, were subordinate to the Caribbean Regional Directorate … and that the Commissioner was required to enforce the duty rotations communicated to him through the Department of Plans and Operations of the Ministry of Public Security.", "quote_es": "… no queda duda a esta Cámara que los actores como funcionarios de la policía de la Delegación Cantonal de Sarapiquí, estaban subordinados a la Dirección Regional Caribe … y que éste debía hacer cumplir los roles de servicio que le fueran comunicados a través del Departamento de Planes y Operaciones del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública." }, { "context": "Considerando VII — Sobre el caso concreto", "quote_en": "… although the plaintiffs had a 10x10 schedule—ten days worked, ten days off—such a situation cannot be claimed as an acquired right, since the duty rotations are established based on public interest and subject to variation, especially in the case of border police.", "quote_es": "… si bien los actores tenían un rol de 10 x10, diez días laborados por diez de descanso, tal situación no puede alegarse como un derecho adquirido, pues los roles se establecen en función de un interés público y sujeto a posibilidades de variación, máxime tratándose de la policía fronteriza." }, { "context": "Considerando V — Sobre el ius variandi abusivo", "quote_en": "… ius variandi is understood as the power normally held by the employer to unilaterally modify the conditions of the contractual relationship (place, time and function) … this power … may be exercised as long as the measures adopted do not undermine the essential conditions of the employment contract or diminish the worker's benefits.", "quote_es": "… se entiende como ius variandi la potestad que normalmente ostenta el empleador para modificar, en forma unilateral las condiciones de la relación contractual (lugar, tiempo y función) … esta facultad … se puede ejercer en el tanto las medidas que se adopten no atenten contra las condiciones esenciales del contrato de trabajo, ni menoscaben los beneficios de la persona trabajadora." }, { "context": "Considerando VIII — Sobre las excepciones", "quote_en": "… the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the right that would entitle them to claim what was sought in this proceeding.", "quote_es": "… no demostraron los demandantes el derecho que les asiste para reclamar lo pretendido en este proceso." } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-66525", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 7410 Art. 23" } ], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0034-607370", "tier": 2, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "Proceso de conocimiento\n\nEXPEDIENTE No. 13-002246-1027-CA\n\nACTOR: Nombre113126 , Carlos Aburto Muñoz, Freddy Alvarez Mora y otros \n\nDEMANDADO: El Estado. Lic. Guillermo Huezo Stancari\n\n \n\nN° 25-2014-V\n\nSECCIÓN QUINTA DEL TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. ANEXO A. II Circuito Judicial de San José, a las trece horas del ocho de abril del dos mil catorce.- \n\n Proceso de conocimiento interpuesto por Nombre113126 , mayor, casado, oficial de policía, cédula de identidad número CED89512, vecino de Dirección13118 , ; Nombre113127 , mayor, vecino de Palmichal de Acosta, mayor, divorciado, cédula de identidad número CED89513; Robert Artavia Cordero, mayor, vecino de Dirección13746 , , cédula de identidad número CED89514; Nombre113128 , mayor, soltero, vecino de Dirección13747 , , cédula de identidad número CED89515; Carlos Aburto Muñoz, mayor, vecino de Dirección13748 , , , cédula de identidad número CED89516; y Freddy Alvarez Mora, mayor, vecino de Horquetas de Sarapiquí, cédula de identidad número CED89517; contra el Estado, representado por el procurador adjunto Guillermo Huezo Stancari, mayor, casado, abogado, vecino de San José. Interviene como apoderado especial judicial de los actores, el licenciado Roberto Garita Chinchilla, mayor, casado, vecino de la Virgen de Sarapiquí, cédula de identidad número CED89518. \n\n \n\nRESULTANDO\n\n 1.- Según los hechos que expone y el derecho en el que se fundamenta, este proceso es interpuesto por los actores para que en sentencia se conceda la siguiente petitoria, la cual fue reformulada en la audiencia preliminar y en la etapa de juicio de la siguiente forma: \"1.- Que se ordene el pago del tiempo extraordinario laborado durante los meses de abril a noviembre de 2012; más sus intereses; 2.- Que se nos reinstale en las condiciones que siempre hemos laborado, sea con un horario de diez días laborados y diez días de descanso; 3.- Que se condene al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública al pago de ambas costas de esta acción.\" \n\n2.- El representante del Estado, contestó en forma negativa y opuso la defensa de falta de derecho y solicita se declare sin lugar la demanda y se condene a los actores al pago de ambas costas. \n\n3.- El día quince de octubre de dos mil trece se efectúo la audiencia preliminar (ver minuta a folios 278 y 279 del expediente judicial). \n\n 4.- El día trece de marzo de dos mil catorce, se realizó el juicio oral y público de este proceso (ver grabación del juicio en soporte digital). \n\n 5.-Que según acuerdo del Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, Sesión Nº 18-14, de veintisiete de febrero de dos mil catorce, la Jueza Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas, quien figura como ponente en este asunto, contó con permiso para formar parte del Tribunal Evaluador de Juez 4 Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda del 18 al 21 de marzo de dos mil catorce. Lo anterior para entender automáticamente prorrogado el plazo para dictar sentencia.- \n\n6.- En los procedimientos se han observado las prescripciones de ley, no existen defectos capaces de producir nulidad y se dicta esta resolución dentro del término establecido en el artículo 111.1 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, para los asuntos complejos, previa deliberación y por unanimidad.\n\n \n\n Redacta la Jueza Vargas Vargas. \n\nCONSIDERANDO\n\n I.- HECHOS PROBADOS: 1.- Los señores Nombre113126 , Nombre113127 , Robert Artavia Cordero, Nombre113128 , Carlos Aburto Muñoz y Freddy Alvarez Mora, son oficiales de la Fuerza Pública de Costa Rica, y laboran en la Delegación Regional de Sarapiquí, Caribe doce, con más de cinco años de laborar para el Ministerio de Seguridad pública (hecho primero de la demanda, copia de las certificaciones del Departamento de control y Documentación de la Dirección de Recursos Humanos del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública a folios 40 a 47 del expediente judicial); 2.-Mediante Directriz #100-2008-DGFP, de fecha 30 de mayo de 2008, la Dirección General de la Fuerza Pública del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, comunica a todos los Comisionados de las diferentes Direcciones Regionales del país, a fin de que lo hagan extensivo a las diferentes unidades a su cargo, que en razón del interés público institucional y con el objeto de uniformar los roles a todo el personal policial se establecen una serie de roles a fin de que sean aplicados en las diferentes unidades y se dispone un rol de servicio de 10 x10 para puestos de avanzada de fronteras, por la naturaleza de su función(ver copia de la Directriz a folio 30 del expediente judicial); 3.- Que según Directriz #124-2008-DGFP de 23 de junio de 2008, la Dirección General de la Fuerza Pública comunica a todos los Comisionados de la diversas Direcciones Regionales del país, que en ampliación y corrección a la Directriz #100-2008-DGFP, se han establecido los siguientes roles para que sean implementados en las Direcciones Regionales y sus unidades y con respecto al rol de servicio de 10 x10 se determinó como de uso exclusivo de las zonas fronterizas del país, que por razones geográficas impiden realizar relevos constantes, sólo implica los puestos de avanzada de difícil acceso (copia de la directriz a folio 31 del expediente judicial); 4.- Que por medio de Directriz #144-2008-DGFP, de 27 de junio de 2008, la Dirección General de la Fuerza Pública, comunica a los Comisionados de la Direcciones Regionales del país, y reitera que a través de la Directriz 124-2008-DGFP, se determinaron los roles de servicio que deben respetar las distintas direcciones regionales y unidades policiales de la Fuerza pública y se determina que la finalidad de esta nueva Directriz es “unificar hasta un máximo de 12 horas, las jornadas de trabajo de la Fuerza Pública, conforme lo establece el numeral 58 in fine de la Constitución Política y la jurisprudencia de la Sala Constitucional”. (ver copia de la Directriz a folio 38 del expediente judicial); 5.- Mediante directriz #095-2010-DGFP de fecha 25 de junio 2010, la Dirección General de la Fuerza Pública comunica a los diferentes Comisionados de las Direcciones Regionales del país, con respecto a los “Roles de Servicio”: “Se les reitera que las Directrices N°100-2008-DGFP, 124-2008-DGFP y 144-2008-DGFP, sobre roles de servicio se mantienen vigentes y su cumplimiento es obligatorio” (ver copia de la Directriz a folio 37 del expediente judicial); 6.- Por Directriz #028-2012-DGFP de fecha 16 de agosto de 2012, la Dirección General de la Fuerza Pública comunica a los Comisionados de las diferentes Direcciones Regionales respecto a los Roles de servicio que: “para su conocimiento y hacer exten sivo a las Unidades policiales a su cargo, les informo, que de acuerdo al interés público e institucional y con el objeto de uniformar los roles aplicables al personal policial se ha determinado hacer incapié a los roles de servicio, con el fin de que sean implementados tanto en las Direcciones Regionales como en las unidades policiales a su cargo. Esta Directriz unifica lo establecido en las Directrices 100-2008-DGFP, 124-2008-DGFP, 144-2008-DGFP y 095-2010-DGRP, hasta un máximo de 12 horas, las jornadas de trabajo de la Fuerza Pública, conforme lo establece el numeral 58 in fine de la Constitución Política y la jurisprudencia de la Sala Constitucional”. (copia de Directriz a folio 33 del expediente judicial); 7.- Mediante Circular N°26-2012-DO-PYO, de fecha 12 de abril de 2012, el Jefe del Departamento de Planes y Operaciones del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública comunica a Comisionados de diferentes Direcciones Regionales, entre ellas, al Comisionado de la Dirección Regional Caribe, José Domingo Cruz López, los Relevos de la Región Caribe, en donde se les indica que se adjuntan los calendarios correspondientes a abril, mayo, junio y julio, de los relevos que se realizan hacia región Caribe (copia de la circular a folios 16 y 50, copia del calendario de relevos a folio 51, todos del expediente judicial, declaración de José Domingo Cruz López); 8.-Por medio de Circular N°0043-2012-DO-PYO de fecha 09 de agosto de 2012, el Jefe del Departamento de Planes y Operaciones del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, comunica a los Comisionados de las diferentes Direcciones Regionales, entre ellas, al Comisionado de la Dirección Regional Caribe, José Domingo Cruz López, los relevos de la Región Frontera Caribe, y se adjunta un calendario correspondiente a los meses de agosto, setiembre, noviembre y diciembre, de los relevos que se realiza hacia región Frontera Caribe (copia de la Circular a folio 61, copia del rol de relevos a folio 61 vto, del expediente judicial, declaración de José Domingo Cruz López); 9.- Que la finalidad de las directrices es que se cumpla el rol de servicio establecido y unificar la jornada de trabajo de los oficiales de la Fuerza Pública hasta un máximo de doce horas (ver copia de las directrices a folios 33 a 39 del expediente judicial, declaración de José Domingo Cruz López); 10.- Que el rol de servicio varió para los actores durante los meses de abril a noviembre de 2012, fue una situación temporal, sin que su jornada de trabajo superara las doce horas, manteniéndose sus condiciones laborales de salario (ver copia del rol de relevos de la Dirección Regional Frontera Caribe a folios 51y 61 vto del expediente judicial, declaración de Nombre113129 , Nombre113130 y José Domingo Cruz López).\n\n II.- HECHOS NO PROBADOS: 1.- Que los actores hubieren laborado jornada extraordinaria (no se acreditó su existencia); 2.- Que existiere un ius variandi abusivo ( no fue acreditado), \n\nIII.- ALEGATOS DE LAS PARTES:\n\nArgumentos de los actores: El representante de los demandantes afirma que en este caso se ha dado un ius variandi perjudicial, en contra de sus representados, señala que durante cinco años, tuvieron un rol de trabajo de 10 x10, de abril a noviembre de 2012, se dio una alteración, según lo manifestó de forma injustificada sus derechos como trabajadores. Según dice la situación que se presentaba era más beneficiosa para unos y perjudicial para otros. Manifiesta que hubo una circular que tenía razón de ser porque tenía que trasladar personal, pero sus representados no tenían que verse afectados en su rol de trabajo, pues ellos no gozaban del beneficio del traslado. Según dice, ellos se trasladaban por sus propios medios hasta donde estaba su relevo. Sostiene que después del error en el rol de servicio ellos no sabían que no les tocaba trasladarse no lo sabían. Sin embargo, asevera, a partir de ahí el Comando de Sarapiquí los envía donde sea, con medio de transporte del Estado. Los señores de esos grupos de apoyo si recibían traslados en busetas, del Estado y se movilizaban hacia los puestos en que estaban destacados. Agrega, que en razón de esa afectación se produjo un ius variandi abusivo. Continúa manifestando que tal y como consta en los hechos, los actores realizaron los trámites a nivel administrativo pero nunca recibieron respuesta y señalan que es por eso que interpusieron la presente; a pesar, según dice que tenían temor a ser perseguidos, ya que fueron destacados en lugares remotos. \n\nArgumentos del Estado: Señala el personero estatal que es un hecho cierto y real que la situación de la zona fronteriza norte, particularmente en Calero, se sensibilizó más por cuestiones históricas. Agrega que eso motivó que estando en una labor noble, delicada y sensible, se requirió de traslado de personal, era necesario reforzar y proteger. Es así, continúa que surge un ius variandi que obliga a variar las condiciones existentes en cuanto al personal, dotación del mismo y por ello, dice, era necesario variar los roles, variación que tiene una justificación ante una situación ajena a la nacionalidad que motivó el reforzamiento de la seguridad en resguardo de la soberanía . Afirma que si hubo una variación en los roles de servicio. Fue una situación de emergencia, y un deber de auxilio. Además indica que se trató de una situación temporal, durante la cual si bien se tuvo que sacrificar en algunas ocasiones los descansos. La variación en los roles, asevera, aumentó las horas laborales, el Estado dice, admite la situación de hecho, en la que se hizo una variación de jornada y de los roles de servicio. Sin embargo, esa variación emerge de la normalidad ante situaciones justificantes. Sostiene el representante del Estado que no se pone en duda la prueba en cuanto a los roles de servicio, el Estado está en la mejor disposición de pago de las horas de más laboradas, siempre que se demuestre que se ejecutó una labor fuera de la jornada laboral.\n\nIV.- SOBRE EL ARTICULO 58 DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN POLÍTICA Y LA JORNADA LABORAL\n\nEn este numeral se encuentra elevado a rango constitucional el derecho de todo trabajador a una jornada máxima de trabajo. Esa norma establece \"la jornada de trabajo diurno no podrá exceder de ocho horas diarias y cuarenta y ocho a la semana. La jornada ordinaria de trabajo nocturno no podrá exceder de seis horas diarias y treinta y seis a la semana. El trabajo en horas extraordinarias deberá ser remunerado con un cincuenta por ciento más de los sueldos o salarios estipulados. Sin embargo, estas disposiciones no se aplicarán en los casos de excepción muy calificados que determine la ley\". Por su parte, en el capítulo II, del Título III, del Código de Trabajo, encontramos el tratamiento legal de la jornada de trabajo y los rangos horarios que comprenden las jornadas diurna y nocturna (artículo 136), reiterándose los límites fijados en la referida norma constitucional, más allá de los cuales no es posible obligar al trabajador a laborar, salvo los casos de excepción que ahí se indican y que, como tales, en tanto vienen a ampliar la jornada de trabajo, deben ser interpretados en forma restrictiva, en atención a los intereses del trabajador. A su vez, el artículo 140 del mismo cuerpo normativo, en relación con la norma constitucional dispone que la jornada extraordinaria, sumada a la ordinaria, no podrá exceder de doce horas, salvo que por siniestro ocurrido o riesgo inminente peligren las personas, los establecimientos, las máquinas o instalaciones, los plantíos, los productos o cosechas y que, sin evidente perjuicio, no puedan sustituirse los trabajadores o suspenderse las labores de los que están trabajando. Además el artículo 143 del mismo Código dispone: \"Quedarán excluídos de la limitación de la jornada de trabajo, los gerentes, administradores, apoderados y todos aquellos empleados que trabajan sin fiscalización superior inmediata; los trabajadores que ocupan puestos de confianza; los agentes comisionistas y empleados similares que no cumplan su cometido en el local del establecimiento; los que desempeñan funciones discontinuas o que requieran su sola presencia; y las personas que realizan labores que por su indudable naturaleza no están sometidas a jornada de trabajo. Sin embargo, estas personas no estarán obligadas a permanecer más de doce horas diarias en su trabajo y tendrán derecho, dentro de esa jornada, a un descanso mínimo de una hora y media. \n\nV.- SOBRE EL IUS VARIANDI ABUSIVO\n\nSe entiende como ius variandi la potestad que normalmente ostenta el empleador para modificar, en forma unilateral las condiciones de la relación contractual (lugar, tiempo y función), en el ejercicio de sus poderes de mando, dirección, organización, fiscalización y disciplina,esta facultad del empleador o patrono se puede ejercer en el tanto las medidas que se adopten no atenten contra las condiciones esenciales del contrato de trabajo, ni menoscaben los beneficios de la persona trabajadora. Si, por el contrario, el empleador o patrono ejerce su facultad en forma abusiva o en forma arbitraria en perjuicio de los intereses del trabajador, queda éste facultado para dar por terminada la relación laboral con responsabilidad patronal. De manera que debe ser analizada en cada caso la modificación que se pretende introducir, a fin de determinar si el patrono ha ejercido sus potestades de dirección en forma razonable o si se ha excedido, alterando con ello las condiciones esenciales del contrato de trabajo en perjuicio de la parte trabajadora. \n\nVI.- SOBRE LA LEY GENERAL DE POLICÍA 7410. REGLAMENTO DE ORGANIZACIÓN DEL MINISTERIO DE SEGURIDAD PÚBLICA. DECRETO EJECUTIVO # 36366.\n\nEl artículo 23 de la Ley General de Policía, establece la Creación de la policía de Fronteras de la siguiente forma: \"Créase la Policía de Fronteras, para resguardar la soberanía territorial\", de seguido en el numeral 24, se señalan sus atribuciones así: \"Son atribuciones de la Policía de Fronteras: a) Vigilar y resguardar las fronteras terrestres, las marítimas y las aéreas, incluídas las edificaciones públicas donde se realizan actividades aduanales y migratorias; b) Velar por el respeto a la Constitución Política, los tratados internacionales y las leyes garantes de la integridad del territorio nacional, las aguas territoriales, la plataforma continental, el mar patrimonial o la zona económica exclusiva, el espacio aéreo y el ejercicio de los derechos correspondientes al Estado\". Por otra parte, el artículo 76 inciso c), establece como deberes de los miembros de las fuerzas de policía, además de los deberes ético jurídicos consignados en esta ley, las siguientes obligaciones específicas \"... c) ajustarse a los horarios definidos por reglamento, sin perjuicio de las obligaciones derivadas de la disponibilidad para el servicio y de las movilizaciones\". Por su parte, el Reglamento de Organización del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, Decreto Ejecutivo 36366, define los órganos de apoyo de la Dirección General de la Fuerza Pública, de la siguiente forma: \" Artículo 139: La Dirección General de la Fuerza Pública tendrá en forma permanente, como órganos de apoyo, al Consejo de Directores (as) de la Fuerza Pública, La Inspección General, la Guardia Presidencial y las Direcciones Regionales\"(lo suplido no es del original). Es el numeral 176, del mencionado Reglamento el que establece las funciones de las Direcciones Regionales, así: \"Cada Dirección Regional dependerá de la Dirección General de la Fuerza Pública y su número y ubicación estarán determinados por las necesidades del servicio policial. Sin perjuicio de las funciones establecidas para la Fuerza Pública, cada Dirección Regional de la Fuerza Pública cumplirá con las siguientes funciones: 1) Realizar acciones para promover intensamente la prevención y represión del delito; 2) Planear y ejecutar estrategias y operativos preventivos ordinarios y de reacción, según las necesidades regionales, con el propósito de mantener el orden público y la seguridad de los (as) habitantes, sus bienes y el respeto de sus derechos y libertades fundamentales. ... 4) Proteger objetivos especiales por decisión del (de la) Ministro (a) de Seguridad Pública...7) Velar por el cumplimiento de la normativa ambiental, ejerciendo labores de vigilancia, protección y conservación del ambiente y denunciando ante los órganos administrativos y judiciales competentes aquellos actos y omisiones que contravengan esa normativa\" (lo suplido no es del original). Por su parte el artículo 177 señala cuál va a ser la estructura de las Direcciones Regionales al disponer: \"Cada Dirección Regional contará con su respectiva Unidad Administrativa, La Unidad Operativa y las delegaciones policiales cantonales y distritales que corresponda\". Y con respecto a las funciones de las Delegaciones Cantonales Policiales el ordinal 180 señala las siguientes: \" Cada Delegación Cantonal estará subordinada a su respectiva Dirección Regional de la Fuerza Pública y tendrá las siguientes funciones generales: ...2) Desarrollar acciones efectivas de prevención y control de la criminalidad a través de servicios de patrullaje y vigilancia; ...6) Participar en el desarrollo de operaciones y acciones en que intervienen los cuerpos policiales especializados en su área de responsabilidad; 7) Auxiliar a las comunidades, las municipalidades y organizaciones de servicio público y colaborar con ellas en casos de emergencia nacional o conmoción pública; 11) Cumplir con las órdenes de operaciones y de servicio emanadas por la Dirección Regional\" (lo suplido no es del original). \n\nVII.- SOBRE EL CASO CONCRETO\n\nSegún los hechos que esta Cámara ha tenido por acreditados, desde el año 2008, La Dirección General de la Fuerza Pública del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública ha emitido diferentes Directrices, a fin de que las Unidades Regionales tengan conocimiento y lo hagan saber a las diferentes Unidades Policiales Cantonales, que por existir un interés público institucional y a fin de dar uniformidad a todos los roles de servicio, que son aplicados en las diferentes unidades, se dispuso un rol de servicio de 10 x10, para puestos de fronteras, por la naturaleza de su función; en este sentido las Directrices #100-2008-DGFP, de 30 de mayo de 2008 y la #124-2008-DGFP de 23 de junio de 2008. Posteriormente, el 27 de junio de 2008, La Dirección General de la Fuerza Pública mediante Directriz #144-2008-DGFP, reitera lo dispuesto en la Directriz 124-2008, en cuanto al acatamiento y respeto a los roles de servicio y establece como finalidad de esta nueva Directriz \"unificar hasta un máximo de doce horas las jornadas de trabajo de la Fuerza Pública, conforme lo establece el numeral 58 in fine de la Constitución Política y la jurisprudencia de la Sala Constitucional\". Luego, por Directriz #095-2010-DGFP de fecha 25 de junio de 2010, la Dirección General de la Fuerza Pública reiteró las Directrices #100-2008-DGFP, 124-2008-DGFP y 144-2008-DGFP, e indicó que los roles de servicio se mantienen vigentes y su cumplimiento es obligatorio. Es con la Directriz #028-2012-DGFP de fecha 16 de agosto de 2012 que la Dirección General de la Fuerza Pública comunicó respecto a los roles de servicio, que éstos deberían ser implementados tanto en las Direcciones Regionales, como en las Unidades Policiales a su cargo. Además esta Directriz unifica lo establecido en las Directrices 100-2008-DGFP; 124-2008-DGFP; 144-2008-DGFP y 095-2010-DGFP, estableciendo que la jornada laboral de la Fuerza Pública tiene un máximo de doce horas, según lo establece el numeral 58 de la Constitución Política. Por otra parte, según consta en la Circular N°26-2012-DO-PYO, de fecha 12 de abril de 2012, el Jefe del Departamento de Planes y Operaciones del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública comunicó a los Comisionados de diferentes Direcciones Regionales entre ellas, al Comisionado de la Dirección Regional Caribe, José Domingo Cruz López, los relevos de de la Región Caribe, y allí se adjuntan los calendarios correspondientes a abril, mayo, junio y julio de 2012 y luego, un calendario que corresponde a los meses de agosto, setiembre, noviembre y diciembre, de los relevos que se realizan hacia la región Caribe. Ahora bien, teniendo en consideración que el artículo 180 del Reglamento de Organización del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, Decreto Ejecutivo 36366, tal y como se indicó supra; establece que cada Delegación Cantonal estará subordinada a su respectiva Dirección Regional de la Fuerza Pública y que dentro de sus funciones está la de cumplir con las órdenes de operaciones y de servicio emanadas de la Dirección Regional; no queda duda a esta Cámara que los actores como funcionarios de la policía de la Delegación Cantonal de Sarapiquí, estaban subordinados a la Dirección Regional Caribe, a cargo del Comisionado José Domingo Cruz López y que éste debía hacer cumplir los roles de servicio que le fueran comunicados a través del Departamento de Planes y Operaciones del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública. Según estos roles de servicio en algunas ocasiones laboraban once días y descansaban nueve, o laboraban diez y descansaban diez. Si bien, ha quedado acreditado que existió una variación de la jornada laboral durante los meses de abril a noviembre de 2012, ello se debió a una situación especial, de marcado interés público y de defensa de la soberanía nacional, en la zona fronteriza norte, además fue una situación temporal, que obligó a modificar el rol de servicio; reforzando la vigilancia tanto con más personal de la Fuerza Pública, como en sus horarios laborales, sin que conste acreditado en este proceso que se hubiere laborado una jornada extraordinaria, pues el horario laboral no rebasaba las doce horas; además que el cambio de rol lo fue por la situación especial acontecida, cambios de rol, que constituyen parte de la potestad de modificación del patrono a través del ius variandi, sin que se hubiere acreditado un uso abusivo de esta potestad, en este sentido debe tenerse en consideración que si bien los actores tenían un rol de 10 x10, diez días laborados por diez de descanso, tal situación no puede alegarse como un derecho adquirido, pues los roles se establecen en función de un interés público y sujeto a posibilidades de variación, máxime tratándose de la policía fronteriza. \n\nVIII.- SOBRE LAS EXCEPCIONES\n\nEl personero del Estado opuso la defensa de falta de derecho, la que estima esta Cámara debe ser acogida en razón de que no demostraron los demandantes el derecho que les asiste para reclamar lo pretendido en este proceso\n\n IX.- SOBRE LAS COSTAS\n\n En cuanto a este rubro, al amparo del numeral 193 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, y en razón de la naturaleza de las cuestiones debatidas estima este órgano colegiado que los actores han tenido motivo suficiente para litigar por lo que se les exonera del pago de las costas\n\n \n\n \n\nPOR TANTO\n\nSe acoge la defensa de falta de derecho. Se declara sin lugar en todos sus extremos la demanda interpuesta por Nombre113126 , Nombre113127 , Robert Artavia Cordero, Nombre113128 , Carlos Aburto Muñoz y Freddy Alvarez Mora contra el Estado. Se dicta esta resolución sin especial condenatoria en costas.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nAna Isabel Vargas Vargas \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n Nombre32222\n\nNombre32222 Juan Luis Giusti Soto", "body_en_text": "Proceso de conocimiento\n\nEXPEDIENTE No. 13-002246-1027-CA\n\nACTOR: Nombre113126 , Carlos Aburto Muñoz, Freddy Alvarez Mora y otros \n\nDEMANDADO: El Estado. Lic. Guillermo Huezo Stancari\n\n \n\nN° 25-2014-V\n\nSECCIÓN QUINTA DEL TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. ANEXO A. II Circuito Judicial de San José, at thirteen hours on the eighth of April of two thousand fourteen.- \n\n Ordinary proceeding (Proceso de conocimiento) filed by Nombre113126 , of legal age, married, police officer, identity card number CED89512, resident of Dirección13118 , ; Nombre113127 , of legal age, resident of Palmichal de Acosta, of legal age, divorced, identity card number CED89513; Robert Artavia Cordero, of legal age, resident of Dirección13746 , , identity card number CED89514; Nombre113128 , of legal age, single, resident of Dirección13747 , , identity card number CED89515; Carlos Aburto Muñoz, of legal age, resident of Dirección13748 , , , identity card number CED89516; and Freddy Alvarez Mora, of legal age, resident of Horquetas de Sarapiquí, identity card number CED89517; against the State (Estado), represented by the deputy procurator (procurador adjunto) Guillermo Huezo Stancari, of legal age, married, attorney, resident of San José. Appearing as special judicial representative (apoderado especial judicial) of the plaintiffs, attorney Roberto Garita Chinchilla, of legal age, married, resident of la Virgen de Sarapiquí, identity card number CED89518. \n\n \n\nRESULTANDO\n\n 1.- According to the facts set forth and the law on which it is based, this proceeding is filed by the plaintiffs so that in judgment the following petition is granted, which was reformulated at the preliminary hearing and at the trial stage in the following manner: \"1.- That payment be ordered for the overtime (tiempo extraordinario) worked during the months of April to November 2012, plus the interest thereon; 2.- That we be reinstated to the conditions under which we have always worked, that is, with a schedule of ten days worked and ten days of rest; 3.- That the Ministry of Public Security (Ministerio de Seguridad Pública) be ordered to pay the costs of both phases of this action.\" \n\n2.- The representative of the State answered in the negative and asserted the defense of lack of right (falta de derecho), and requests that the claim be declared without merit and that the plaintiffs be ordered to pay the costs of both phases. \n\n3.- On the fifteenth of October of two thousand thirteen, the preliminary hearing was held (see minutes at folios 278 and 279 of the judicial file). \n\n 4.- On the thirteenth of March of two thousand fourteen, the oral and public trial of this proceeding was held (see the trial recording on digital media). \n\n 5.- That, according to the agreement of the Superior Council of the Judiciary (Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial), Session No. 18-14, of the twenty-seventh of February of two thousand fourteen, Judge Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas, who serves as the reporting judge (ponente) in this matter, had leave to form part of the Evaluation Tribunal for Juez 4 Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda from the 18th to the 21st of March of two thousand fourteen. The foregoing is for the purpose of automatically considering the deadline for issuing judgment to have been extended.-\n\n6.- The prescriptions of law have been observed in the proceedings, there are no defects capable of causing nullity, and this resolution is issued within the term established in Article 111.1 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, for complex matters, after deliberation and unanimously.\n\n \n\n Judge Vargas Vargas drafts.\n\nCONSIDERANDO\n\n I.- PROVEN FACTS: 1.- Messrs. Nombre113126 , Nombre113127 , Robert Artavia Cordero, Nombre113128 , Carlos Aburto Muñoz, and Freddy Alvarez Mora are officers of the Fuerza Pública of Costa Rica, and work at the Regional Delegation of Sarapiquí, Caribe doce, having worked for the Ministry of Public Security (Ministerio de Seguridad pública) for more than five years (first fact of the claim, copy of the certifications from the Department of Control and Documentation of the Human Resources Directorate (Dirección de Recursos Humanos) of the Ministry of Public Security at folios 40 to 47 of the judicial file); 2.-Through Directive (Directriz) #100-2008-DGFP, dated 30 May 2008, the General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública (Dirección General de la Fuerza Pública) of the Ministry of Public Security communicates to all Commissioners of the different Regional Directorates (Direcciones Regionales) of the country, so that they may extend it to the different units under their charge, that by reason of the institutional public interest and with the object of standardizing the duty rosters for all police personnel, a series of duty rosters are established for application in the different units, and a 10 x 10 service roster is provided for advanced border posts, due to the nature of their function (see copy of the Directive at folio 30 of the judicial file); 3.- That according to Directive #124-2008-DGFP of 23 June 2008, the General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública communicates to all Commissioners of the various Regional Directorates of the country, that in amplification and correction to Directive #100-2008-DGFP, the following duty rosters have been established for implementation in the Regional Directorates and their units, and with respect to the 10 x 10 service roster, it was determined as being for the exclusive use of the border zones of the country, which for geographical reasons prevent constant reliefs, and only applies to advanced posts of difficult access (copy of the directive at folio 31 of the judicial file); 4.- That by means of Directive #144-2008-DGFP, of 27 June 2008, the General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública communicates to the Commissioners of the Regional Directorates of the country, and reiterates that through Directive 124-2008-DGFP, the service rosters that the different regional directorates and police units of the Fuerza pública must respect were determined, and it is determined that the purpose of this new Directive is to \"unify the working hours of the Fuerza Pública to a maximum of 12 hours, in accordance with the provisions of numeral 58 in fine of the Constitución Política and the jurisprudence of the Sala Constitucional\". (see copy of the Directive at folio 38 of the judicial file); 5.- Through Directive #095-2010-DGFP dated 25 June 2010, the General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública communicates to the different Commissioners of the Regional Directorates of the country, with respect to the \"Service Rosters\": \"You are reiterated that Directives No. 100-2008-DGFP, 124-2008-DGFP, and 144-2008-DGFP, regarding service rosters remain in force and their compliance is mandatory\" (see copy of the Directive at folio 37 of the judicial file); 6.- Through Directive #028-2012-DGFP dated 16 August 2012, the General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública communicates to the Commissioners of the different Regional Directorates regarding the Service Rosters that: \"for your knowledge and to extend it to the Police Units under your charge, I inform you that, in accordance with the institutional public interest and with the object of standardizing the rosters applicable to police personnel, it has been determined to emphasize the service rosters, so that they are implemented both in the Regional Directorates and in the police units under your charge. This Directive unifies that established in Directives 100-2008-DGFP, 124-2008-DGFP, 144-2008-DGFP, and 095-2010-DGRP, unifying the working hours of the Fuerza Pública to a maximum of 12 hours, in accordance with the provisions of numeral 58 in fine of the Constitución Política and the jurisprudence of the Sala Constitucional\". (copy of Directive at folio 33 of the judicial file); 7.- Through Circular No. 26-2012-DO-PYO, dated 12 April 2012, the Chief of the Department of Plans and Operations (Departamento de Planes y Operaciones) of the Ministry of Public Security communicates to Commissioners of different Regional Directorates, among them, to the Commissioner of the Regional Directorate Caribe, José Domingo Cruz López, the Reliefs of the Caribe Region, where they are informed that the calendars corresponding to April, May, June, and July are attached, regarding the reliefs being carried out to the Caribe Region (copy of the circular at folios 16 and 50, copy of the relief calendar at folio 51, all from the judicial file, testimony of José Domingo Cruz López); 8.-By means of Circular No. 0043-2012-DO-PYO dated 09 August 2012, the Chief of the Department of Plans and Operations of the Ministry of Public Security communicates to the Commissioners of the different Regional Directorates, among them, to the Commissioner of the Regional Directorate Caribe, José Domingo Cruz López, the reliefs of the Frontera Caribe Region, and a calendar corresponding to the months of August, September, November, and December is attached, regarding the reliefs being carried out to the Frontera Caribe Region (copy of the Circular at folio 61, copy of the relief roster at back of folio 61, of the judicial file, testimony of José Domingo Cruz López); 9.- That the purpose of the directives is that the established service roster be complied with and to unify the working hours of the officers of the Fuerza Pública to a maximum of twelve hours (see copy of the directives at folios 33 to 39 of the judicial file, testimony of José Domingo Cruz López); 10.- That the service roster varied for the plaintiffs during the months of April to November 2012, it was a temporary situation, without their working hours exceeding twelve hours, maintaining their salary-based working conditions (see copy of the relief roster of the Regional Directorate Frontera Caribe at folios 51 and back of 61 of the judicial file, testimony of Nombre113129 , Nombre113130 , and José Domingo Cruz López).\n\n II.- UNPROVEN FACTS: 1.- That the plaintiffs worked overtime (jornada extraordinaria) (its existence was not accredited); 2.- That there existed an abusive ius variandi ( it was not accredited), \n\nIII.- PARTY ALLEGATIONS:\n\nArguments of the plaintiffs: The representative of the claimants affirms that in this case a prejudicial ius variandi has occurred against his represented parties, pointing out that for five years, they had a work roster of 10 x 10, [and that] from April to November 2012, an alteration occurred, according to what he stated, unjustifiably affecting their rights as workers. He says the situation presented was more beneficial for some and prejudicial for others. He states that there was a circular that had reason to be because it had to transfer personnel, but his represented parties did not have to be affected in their work roster, since they did not enjoy the benefit of transfer. He says they transported themselves by their own means to where their relief was. He maintains that after the error in the service roster, they did not know that they were not supposed to be transferred, they did not know it. However, he asserts, from that point on, the Sarapiquí Command sends them anywhere, with State transportation. The members of those support groups did receive transfers in State minibuses and were mobilized to the posts where they were assigned. He adds that, by reason of that impact, an abusive ius variandi occurred. He continues stating that as recorded in the facts, the plaintiffs carried out the procedures at the administrative level but never received a response, and they indicate that this is why they filed the present claim; despite, according to him, being afraid of being persecuted, since they were assigned to remote locations. \n\nArguments of the State: The state representative indicates that it is a certain and real fact that the situation of the northern border zone, particularly in Calero, became more sensitized due to historical issues. He adds that this motivated the need to transfer personnel, while engaged in a noble, delicate, and sensitive task; it was necessary to reinforce and protect. It is thus, he continues, that an ius variandi arises which obliges varying the existing conditions regarding personnel, its allocation, and for that reason, he says, it was necessary to vary the rosters, a variation that has justification in a situation beyond nationality that motivated the reinforcement of security in safeguarding sovereignty. He affirms that there was a variation in the service rosters. It was an emergency situation, and a duty of aid. He also indicates that it was a temporary situation, during which, although rest days had to be sacrificed on some occasions. The variation in the rosters, he asserts, increased the working hours, the State says, admits the factual situation, in which a variation of the working day and of the service rosters occurred. However, that variation emerges from normality in the face of justifying situations. The representative of the State maintains that the evidence regarding the service rosters is not in doubt, the State is in the best disposition to pay for the hours worked in excess, provided that it is demonstrated that work was performed outside the working day.\n\nIV.- REGARDING ARTICLE 58 OF THE CONSTITUCIÓN POLÍTICA AND THE WORKING DAY\n\nIn this numeral, the right of every worker to a maximum working day is elevated to constitutional rank. That norm establishes \"the daytime working day may not exceed eight hours a day and forty-eight per week. The ordinary nighttime working day may not exceed six hours a day and thirty-six per week. Overtime work must be remunerated at fifty percent more than the stipulated wages or salaries. However, these provisions shall not apply in highly qualified cases of exception as determined by law.\" For its part, in Chapter II, Title III, of the Código de Trabajo, we find the legal treatment of the working day and the hourly ranges comprising the daytime and nighttime working days (Article 136), reiterating the limits set forth in the referenced constitutional norm, beyond which it is not possible to oblige the worker to work, except in the cases of exception indicated therein, and which, as such, insofar as they extend the working day, must be interpreted restrictively, in attention to the interests of the worker. In turn, Article 140 of the same normative body, in relation to the constitutional norm, provides that overtime (jornada extraordinaria), added to the ordinary working day, may not exceed twelve hours, except when, due to an occurred disaster or imminent risk, persons, establishments, machines or installations, plants, products, or harvests are endangered, and, without evident detriment, the workers cannot be substituted or the labors of those who are working cannot be suspended. Furthermore, Article 143 of the same Code provides: \"The limitation of the working day shall not apply to managers, administrators, legal representatives, and all those employees who work without immediate superior supervision; workers who occupy positions of trust; commission agents and similar employees who do not perform their duty on the premises of the establishment; those who perform discontinuous functions or functions that require their mere presence; and persons who perform tasks that by their undoubted nature are not subject to a working day. However, these persons shall not be obliged to remain more than twelve hours a day at their work and shall have the right, within that workday, to a minimum rest of one and a half hours.\" \n\nV.- REGARDING ABUSIVE IUS VARIANDI (IUS VARIANDI ABUSIVO)\n\nIus variandi is understood as the power normally held by the employer to unilaterally modify the conditions of the contractual relationship (place, time, and function), in the exercise of their powers of command, direction, organization, supervision, and discipline. This faculty of the employer may be exercised insofar as the measures adopted do not undermine the essential conditions of the employment contract, nor impair the benefits of the worker. If, on the contrary, the employer exercises their faculty abusively or arbitrarily to the detriment of the worker's interests, the latter is empowered to terminate the employment relationship with employer liability. Therefore, the modification intended to be introduced must be analyzed in each case, in order to determine if the employer has exercised their management powers reasonably or if they have exceeded them, thereby altering the essential conditions of the employment contract to the detriment of the worker. \n\nVI.- REGARDING THE LEY GENERAL DE POLICÍA 7410. REGLAMENTO DE ORGANIZACIÓN DEL MINISTERIO DE SEGURIDAD PÚBLICA. DECRETO EJECUTIVO # 36366.\n\nArticle 23 of the Ley General de Policía establishes the Creation of the Border Police (policía de Fronteras) in the following manner: \"The Border Police is created, to safeguard territorial sovereignty\", following in numeral 24, its attributions are indicated thus: \"The attributions of the Border Police are: a) To monitor and safeguard land, maritime, and air borders, including public buildings where customs and immigration activities are carried out; b) To ensure respect for the Constitución Política, international treaties, and laws guaranteeing the integrity of the national territory, territorial waters, the continental shelf, the patrimonial sea or exclusive economic zone, the air space, and the exercise of the rights corresponding to the State\". On the other hand, Article 76 subsection c), establishes as duties of the members of the police forces, in addition to the ethical-legal duties set forth in this law, the following specific obligations \"... c) to adjust to the schedules defined by regulation, without prejudice to the obligations derived from availability for service and mobilizations\". For its part, the Reglamento de Organización del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, Decreto Ejecutivo 36366, defines the support bodies of the General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública in the following manner: \" Article 139: The General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública shall have permanently, as support bodies, the Council of Directors of the Fuerza Pública, the General Inspectorate, the Presidential Guard, and the Regional Directorates\" (the supplied part is not from the original). It is numeral 176 of the aforementioned Reglamento that establishes the functions of the Regional Directorates, thus: \"Each Regional Directorate shall depend on the General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública, and their number and location shall be determined by the needs of the police service. Without prejudice to the functions established for the Fuerza Pública, each Regional Directorate of the Fuerza Pública shall fulfill the following functions: 1) Carry out actions to intensely promote crime prevention and repression; 2) Plan and execute ordinary preventive and reactive strategies and operations, according to regional needs, with the purpose of maintaining public order and the safety of the inhabitants, their property, and respect for their fundamental rights and freedoms. ... 4) Protect special objectives by decision of the Minister of Public Security...7) Ensure compliance with environmental regulations, carrying out tasks of surveillance, protection, and conservation of the environment and denouncing before the competent administrative and judicial bodies those acts and omissions that contravene said regulations\" (the supplied part is not from the original). For its part, Article 177 indicates what the structure of the Regional Directorates will be, providing: \"Each Regional Directorate shall have its respective Administrative Unit, the Operative Unit, and the corresponding cantonal and district police delegations.\" And with respect to the functions of the Cantonal Police Delegations, ordinal number 180 indicates the following: \" Each Cantonal Delegation shall be subordinate to its respective Regional Directorate of the Fuerza Pública and shall have the following general functions: ...2) Develop effective actions for the prevention and control of criminality through patrol and surveillance services; ...6) Participate in the development of operations and actions in which the specialized police bodies intervene in their area of responsibility; 7) Assist communities, municipalities, and public service organizations and collaborate with them in cases of national emergency or public commotion; 11) Comply with the operation and service orders issued by the Regional Directorate\" (the supplied part is not from the original). \n\nVII.- REGARDING THE SPECIFIC CASE\n\nAccording to the facts that this Chamber has deemed accredited, since 2008, the General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública of the Ministry of Public Security has issued different Directives, so that the Regional Units are aware of and make known to the different Cantonal Police Units, that due to an institutional public interest and in order to give uniformity to all the service rosters, which are applied in the different units, a 10 x 10 service roster was established for border posts, due to the nature of their function; in this sense, Directives #100-2008-DGFP, of 30 May 2008 and #124-2008-DGFP of 23 June 2008. Subsequently, on 27 June 2008, the General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública, through Directive #144-2008-DGFP, reiterates the provisions of Directive 124-2008, regarding the observance and respect of the service rosters, and establishes as the purpose of this new Directive \"to unify the working hours of the Fuerza Pública to a maximum of twelve hours, in accordance with the provisions of numeral 58 in fine of the Constitución Política and the jurisprudence of the Sala Constitucional.\" Later, through Directive #095-2010-DGFP dated 25 June 2010, the General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública reiterated Directives #100-2008-DGFP, 124-2008-DGFP, and 144-2008-DGFP, and indicated that the service rosters remain in force and their compliance is mandatory. It is with Directive #028-2012-DGFP dated 16 August 2012 that the General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública communicated regarding the service rosters, that these should be implemented both in the Regional Directorates and in the Police Units under their charge. Furthermore, this Directive unifies what was established in Directives 100-2008-DGFP; 124-2008-DGFP; 144-2008-DGFP, and 095-2010-DGFP, establishing that the working day of the Fuerza Pública has a maximum of twelve hours, as established in numeral 58 of the Constitución Política. On the other hand, as recorded in Circular No. 26-2012-DO-PYO, dated 12 April 2012, the Chief of the Department of Plans and Operations of the Ministry of Public Security communicated to the Commissioners of different Regional Directorates, among them, to the Commissioner of the Regional Directorate Caribe, José Domingo Cruz López, the reliefs of the Caribe Region, and attached there are the calendars corresponding to April, May, June, and July 2012, and subsequently, a calendar corresponding to the months of August, September, November, and December, of the reliefs being carried out to the Caribe region. Now, taking into consideration that Article 180 of the Reglamento de Organización del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, Decreto Ejecutivo 36366, as indicated supra, establishes that each Cantonal Delegation shall be subordinate to its respective Regional Directorate of the Fuerza Pública and that among its functions is to comply with the operation and service orders emanating from the Regional Directorate; this Chamber has no doubt that the plaintiffs, as police officers of the Cantonal Delegation of Sarapiquí, were subordinate to the Regional Directorate Caribe, under the charge of Commissioner José Domingo Cruz López, and that the latter had to enforce the service rosters communicated to him through the Department of Plans and Operations of the Ministry of Public Security. According to these service rosters, on some occasions they worked eleven days and rested nine, or worked ten and rested ten. While it has been proven that there was a variation in the working day during the months of April to November 2012, this was due to a special situation, of marked public interest and defense of national sovereignty, in the northern border zone; moreover, it was a temporary situation, which necessitated modifying the service roster, reinforcing surveillance both with more personnel of the Fuerza Pública and in their work schedules, without it being proven in this proceeding that overtime (jornada extraordinaria) was worked, since the work schedule did not exceed twelve hours; furthermore, that the roster change was due to the special situation that occurred, roster changes which constitute part of the employer's power of modification through the ius variandi, without it having been proven that there was an abusive use of this power. In this sense, it must be taken into consideration that although the plaintiffs had a 10 x 10 roster, ten days worked for ten of rest, such a situation cannot be claimed as a vested right, since the rosters are established based on public interest and subject to possibilities of variation, especially when dealing with the border police. \n\nVIII.- REGARDING THE EXCEPTIONS\n\nThe State's representative raised the defense of lack of right (falta de derecho), which this Chamber deems must be upheld on the grounds that the claimants did not demonstrate the right that assists them to claim what is sought in this proceeding.\n\n IX.- REGARDING COSTS\n\n Regarding this item, under numeral 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, and due to the nature of the issues debated, this collegiate body deems that the plaintiffs have had sufficient cause to litigate, and therefore they are exonerated from the payment of costs.\n\n \n\n \n\nPOR TANTO\n\nThe defense of lack of right is upheld. The claim filed by Nombre113126 , Nombre113127 , Robert Artavia Cordero, Nombre113128 , Carlos Aburto Muñoz, and Freddy Alvarez Mora against the State is declared without merit in all its aspects. This resolution is issued without special condemnation for costs.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nAna Isabel Vargas Vargas \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n Nombre32222\n\nNombre32222 Juan Luis Giusti Soto\n\nII Judicial Circuit of San José, at thirteen hours on April eight, two thousand fourteen.-\n\nProcess of cognition filed by Nombre113126 , of legal age, married, police officer, identity card number CED89512, resident of Dirección13118 , ; Nombre113127 , of legal age, resident of Palmichal de Acosta, of legal age, divorced, identity card number CED89513; Robert Artavia Cordero, of legal age, resident of Dirección13746 , , identity card number CED89514; Nombre113128 , of legal age, single, resident of Dirección13747 , , identity card number CED89515; Carlos Aburto Muñoz, of legal age, resident of Dirección13748 , , , identity card number CED89516; and Freddy Alvarez Mora, of legal age, resident of Horquetas de Sarapiquí, identity card number CED89517; against the State, represented by the deputy procurator Guillermo Huezo Stancari, of legal age, married, attorney, resident of San José. The licensed attorney Roberto Garita Chinchilla, of legal age, married, resident of la Virgen de Sarapiquí, identity card number CED89518, intervenes as special judicial representative of the plaintiffs.\n\n**RESULTANDO**\n\n**1.-** According to the facts set forth and the law on which it is based, this process is filed by the plaintiffs so that the judgment grants the following petition, which was reformulated at the preliminary hearing and at the trial stage as follows: \"1.- *That payment of the extraordinary time worked during the months of April to November 2012 be ordered; plus interest; 2.- That we be reinstated to the conditions under which we have always worked, that is, with a schedule of ten days worked and ten days of rest; 3.- That the Ministry of Public Security be condemned to pay both costs of this action.*\"\n\n**2.-** The representative of the State responded in the negative and raised the defense of lack of right and requests that the claim be declared without merit and the plaintiffs be condemned to pay both costs.\n\n**3.-** On October fifteen, two thousand thirteen, the preliminary hearing was held (see minutes on folios 278 and 279 of the judicial file).\n\n**4.-** On March thirteen, two thousand fourteen, the oral and public trial of this process was held (see recording of the trial on digital media).\n\n**5.-** That according to the agreement of the Superior Council of the Judiciary, Session No. 18-14, of February twenty-seven, two thousand fourteen, Judge Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas, who acts as rapporteur in this matter, had leave to form part of the Evaluating Tribunal for Judge 4 of Administrative Litigation and Civil Treasury from March 18 to 21, two thousand fourteen. The foregoing is to automatically understand the period for issuing judgment as extended.-\n\n**6.-** In the proceedings, the prescriptions of law have been observed, there are no defects capable of producing nullity, and this resolution is issued within the term established in Article 111.1 of the Code of Administrative Litigation Procedure, for complex matters, after deliberation and unanimously.\n\nDrafted by Judge Vargas Vargas.\n\n**CONSIDERANDO**\n\n**I.- PROVEN FACTS: 1.-** The gentlemen Nombre113126 , Nombre113127 , Robert Artavia Cordero, Nombre113128 , Carlos Aburto Muñoz, and Freddy Alvarez Mora, are officers of the Fuerza Pública of Costa Rica, and work at the Regional Delegation of Sarapiquí, Caribe twelve, having worked for the Ministry of Public Security for more than five years (first fact of the claim, copy of the certifications from the Control and Documentation Department of the Human Resources Directorate of the Ministry of Public Security on folios 40 to 47 of the judicial file); **2.-** By means of Directive #100-2008-DGFP, dated May 30, 2008, the General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública of the Ministry of Public Security communicates to all Commissioners of the different Regional Directorates of the country, so that they extend it to the different units under their charge, that by reason of institutional public interest and with the object of standardizing the rosters for all police personnel, a series of rosters are established to be applied in the different units and a service roster of 10 x10 is provided for border outposts, due to the nature of their function (see copy of the Directive on folio 30 of the judicial file); **3.-** That according to Directive #124-2008-DGFP of June 23, 2008, the General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública communicates to all Commissioners of the various Regional Directorates of the country, that in amplification and correction to Directive #100-2008-DGFP, the following rosters have been established to be implemented in the Regional Directorates and their units, and with respect to the 10 x10 service roster, it was determined for exclusive use in the country's border zones, which for geographic reasons prevent constant reliefs, and only involves outposts with difficult access (copy of the directive on folio 31 of the judicial file); **4.-** That through Directive #144-2008-DGFP, of June 27, 2008, the General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública communicates to the Commissioners of the Regional Directorates of the country, and reiterates that through Directive 124-2008-DGFP, the service rosters that the various regional directorates and police units of the Fuerza Pública must respect were determined, and it is determined that the purpose of this new Directive is *\"to unify the work shifts of the Fuerza Pública to a maximum of 12 hours, as established by numeral 58 in fine of the Political Constitution and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber\"*. (see copy of the Directive on folio 38 of the judicial file); **5.-** Through directive #095-2010-DGFP dated June 25, 2010, the General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública communicates to the different Commissioners of the Regional Directorates of the country, with respect to the \"Service Rosters\": *\"You are reiterated that Directives No. 100-2008-DGFP, 124-2008-DGFP and 144-2008-DGFP, regarding service rosters remain in force and their compliance is mandatory\"* (see copy of the Directive on folio 37 of the judicial file); **6.-** By Directive #028-2012-DGFP dated August 16, 2012, the General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública communicates to the Commissioners of the different Regional Directorates regarding the Service Rosters that: *\"for your knowledge and to be extended to the Police Units under your charge, I inform you, that according to the public and institutional interest and with the object of standardizing the rosters applicable to police personnel, it has been determined to emphasize the service rosters, in order that they be implemented both in the Regional Directorates and in the police units under your charge. This Directive unifies what was established in Directives 100-2008-DGFP, 124-2008-DGFP, 144-2008-DGFP and 095-2010-DGRP, to a maximum of 12 hours, the work shifts of the Fuerza Pública, as established by numeral 58 in fine of the Political Constitution and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber\"*. (copy of Directive on folio 33 of the judicial file); **7.-** By means of Circular No. 26-2012-DO-PYO, dated April 12, 2012, the Head of the Plans and Operations Department of the Ministry of Public Security communicates to Commissioners of different Regional Directorates, among them, to the Commissioner of the Regional Directorate Caribe, José Domingo Cruz López, the Reliefs of the Caribbean Region, where it is indicated that the calendars corresponding to April, May, June, and July of the reliefs carried out towards the Caribbean region are attached (copy of the circular on folios 16 and 50, copy of the relief calendar on folio 51, all from the judicial file, declaration of José Domingo Cruz López); **8.-** By means of Circular No. 0043-2012-DO-PYO dated August 9, 2012, the Head of the Plans and Operations Department of the Ministry of Public Security communicates to the Commissioners of the different Regional Directorates, among them, to the Commissioner of the Regional Directorate Caribe, José Domingo Cruz López, the reliefs of the Caribbean Border Region, and a calendar corresponding to the months of August, September, November, and December of the reliefs carried out towards the Caribbean Border region is attached (copy of the Circular on folio 61, copy of the relief roster on folio 61 verso, of the judicial file, declaration of José Domingo Cruz López); **9.-** That the purpose of the directives is to ensure compliance with the established service roster and to unify the work shift of the Fuerza Pública officers to a maximum of twelve hours (see copy of the directives on folios 33 to 39 of the judicial file, declaration of José Domingo Cruz López); **10.-** That the service roster varied for the plaintiffs during the months of April to November 2012; it was a temporary situation, without their work shift exceeding twelve hours, maintaining their salary working conditions (see copy of the relief roster of the Border Caribbean Regional Directorate on folios 51 and 61 verso of the judicial file, declaration of Nombre113129 , Nombre113130 and José Domingo Cruz López).\n\n**II.- UNPROVEN FACTS: 1.-** That the plaintiffs had worked extraordinary shifts (its existence was not accredited); **2.-** That there existed an abusive ius variandi (it was not accredited).\n\n**III.- PARTIES' ALLEGATIONS:**\n\n**Plaintiffs' Arguments:** The representative of the plaintiffs affirms that in this case there has been a detrimental ius variandi, against his represented parties, pointing out that for five years, they had a work roster of 10 x10; from April to November 2012, an alteration occurred, according to him unjustifiably regarding their rights as workers. According to him, the situation presented was more beneficial for some and detrimental for others. He states that there was a circular that had a reason for being because personnel had to be transferred, but his represented parties did not have to be affected in their work roster, since they did not enjoy the benefit of the transfer. According to him, they transferred by their own means to where their relief was. He maintains that after the error in the service roster, they did not know that it was not their turn to transfer, they did not know. However, he asserts, from then on the Sarapiquí Command sent them anywhere, with State transport. The gentlemen in those support groups did receive transfers in State minibuses and were mobilized to the posts where they were assigned. He adds that by reason of that affectation, an abusive ius variandi occurred. He continues stating that as recorded in the facts, the plaintiffs carried out the procedures at the administrative level but never received a response and point out that that is why they filed the present action; despite, according to him, being afraid of being persecuted, as they were assigned to remote locations.\n\n**State's Arguments:** The state representative points out that it is a certain and real fact that the situation on the northern border zone, particularly in Calero, became more sensitive due to historical issues. He adds that this motivated, being in a noble, delicate, and sensitive task, the need for personnel transfer; it was necessary to reinforce and protect. Thus, he continues, an ius variandi arises that obliges varying the existing conditions regarding personnel, their allocation, and for this reason, he says, it was necessary to vary the rosters, a variation that has justification in a situation unrelated to nationality that motivated the reinforcement of security in protection of sovereignty. He affirms that yes, there was a variation in the service rosters. It was an emergency situation, and a duty of aid. Furthermore, he indicates that it was a temporary situation, during which, although rest periods had to be sacrificed on some occasions, the variation in the rosters, he asserts, increased the working hours. The State says, admits the de facto situation, in which a variation of the work shift and service rosters was made. However, that variation emerges from normality in the face of justifying situations. The State's representative maintains that the evidence regarding the service rosters is not questioned; the State is in the best disposition to pay for the extra hours worked, provided it is demonstrated that work outside the work shift was performed.\n\n**IV.- REGARDING ARTICLE 58 OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION AND THE WORK SHIFT**\n\nIn this numeral, the right of every worker to a maximum work shift is elevated to constitutional rank. That norm establishes \"the ordinary daytime working shift may not exceed eight hours a day and forty-eight per week. The ordinary nighttime working shift may not exceed six hours a day and thirty-six per week. Work in extraordinary hours must be remunerated at fifty percent more than the stipulated wages or salaries. However, these provisions shall not apply in very qualified exception cases as determined by law\". In turn, in Chapter II, Title III, of the Labor Code, we find the legal treatment of the work shift and the time ranges comprising the daytime and nighttime shifts (Article 136), reiterating the limits set in the referred constitutional norm, beyond which it is not possible to oblige the worker to work, except in the exception cases indicated therein and which, as such, insofar as they extend the work shift, must be restrictively interpreted, in consideration of the worker's interests. In turn, Article 140 of the same normative body, in relation to the constitutional norm provides that the extraordinary shift, added to the ordinary one, may not exceed twelve hours, except when due to an occurred disaster or imminent risk, people, establishments, machines or installations, plantings, products or harvests are endangered, and when, without evident harm, the workers cannot be substituted or the labors of those working suspended. Furthermore, Article 143 of the same Code provides: \"Excluded from the limitation of the work shift shall be managers, administrators, agents, and all those employees who work without immediate superior supervision; workers who occupy positions of trust; commission agents and similar employees who do not fulfill their duty at the establishment's premises; those who perform discontinuous functions or that require their mere presence; and persons who perform labors that by their undoubted nature are not subject to a work shift. However, these persons shall not be obliged to remain more than twelve hours daily at their work and shall have the right, within that shift, to a minimum rest of one and a half hours.\"\n\n**V.- REGARDING ABUSIVE IUS VARIANDI**\n\nIus variandi (ius variandi) is understood as the power normally held by the employer to unilaterally modify the conditions of the contractual relationship (place, time, and function), in the exercise of their powers of command, direction, organization, supervision, and discipline. This faculty of the employer or patron may be exercised insofar as the adopted measures do not violate the essential conditions of the employment contract, nor undermine the benefits of the working person. If, on the contrary, the employer or patron exercises their faculty abusively or arbitrarily to the detriment of the worker's interests, the worker is empowered to terminate the employment relationship with employer liability. Consequently, the modification intended to be introduced must be analyzed in each case, in order to determine whether the employer has exercised their management powers reasonably or has exceeded them, thereby altering the essential conditions of the employment contract to the detriment of the working party.\n\n**VI.- REGARDING THE GENERAL POLICE LAW 7410. REGULATION OF ORGANIZATION OF THE MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SECURITY. EXECUTIVE DECREE # 36366.**\n\nArticle 23 of the General Police Law establishes the Creation of the Border Police as follows: \"The Border Police is created, to protect territorial sovereignty\", followed by numeral 24, which points out its attributions as follows: *\"The attributions of the Border Police are: a) To watch over and protect land, maritime, and air borders, including public buildings where customs and migration activities are carried out; b) To ensure respect for the Political Constitution, international treaties, and laws guaranteeing the integrity of the national territory, territorial waters, the continental shelf, the patrimonial sea or the exclusive economic zone, the airspace, and the exercise of the corresponding rights of the State\"*. On the other hand, Article 76 subsection c), establishes as duties of the members of the police forces, in addition to the ethical-legal duties consigned in this law, the following specific obligations *\"... c) adjust to the schedules defined by regulation, without prejudice to the obligations derived from the availability for service and mobilizations\"*. In turn, the Regulation of Organization of the Ministry of Public Security, Executive Decree 36366, defines the support organs of the General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública, as follows: *\"Article 139: The General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública shall have permanently, as support organs, the Council of Directors of the Fuerza Pública, the General Inspectorate, the Presidential Guard and the Regional Directorates\"* (supplied text not in original). It is numeral 176 of the mentioned Regulation that establishes the functions of the Regional Directorates, thus: *\"Each Regional Directorate shall depend on the General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública and its number and location shall be determined by the needs of the police service. Without prejudice to the functions established for the Fuerza Pública, each Regional Directorate of the Fuerza Pública shall fulfill the following functions: 1) Carry out actions to intensely promote the prevention and repression of crime; 2) Plan and execute preventive ordinary and reaction strategies and operations, according to regional needs, with the purpose of maintaining public order and the safety of the inhabitants, their property, and respect for their fundamental rights and freedoms. ... 4) Protect special objectives by decision of the Minister of Public Security...7) Ensure compliance with environmental regulations, carrying out surveillance, protection, and conservation of the environment and reporting to the competent administrative and judicial bodies those acts and omissions that contravene that regulation\"* (supplied text not in original). In turn, Article 177 indicates what the structure of the Regional Directorates will be, providing: *\"Each Regional Directorate shall have its respective Administrative Unit, the Operational Unit, and the corresponding cantonal and district police delegations.\"* And with respect to the functions of the Cantonal Police Delegations, ordinal 180 points out the following: *\"* *Each Cantonal Delegation shall be subordinated to its respective Regional Directorate of the Fuerza Pública and shall have the following general functions: ...2) Develop effective crime prevention and control actions through patrol and surveillance services; ...6) Participate in the development of operations and actions in which the specialized police forces intervene in their area of responsibility; 7) Assist communities, municipalities, and public service organizations and collaborate with them in cases of national emergency or public commotion; 11) Comply with the operations and service orders emanating from the Regional Directorate\" (supplied text not in original).*\n\n**VII.- REGARDING THE SPECIFIC CASE**\n\nAccording to the facts that this Chamber has held as accredited, since 2008, the General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública of the Ministry of Public Security has issued different Directives, so that the Regional Units are aware and make known to the different Cantonal Police Units, that due to an institutional public interest and in order to give uniformity to all service rosters, which are applied in the different units, a service roster of 10 x10 was provided for border posts, due to the nature of their function; in this sense, Directives #100-2008-DGFP, of May 30, 2008, and #124-2008-DGFP of June 23, 2008. Subsequently, on June 27, 2008, the General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública through Directive #144-2008-DGFP, reiterates what was provided in Directive 124-2008, regarding compliance with and respect for the service rosters and establishes as the purpose of this new Directive *\"to unify the work shifts of the Fuerza Pública to a maximum of twelve hours, as established by numeral 58 in fine of the Political Constitution and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber\".* Then, by Directive #095-2010-DGFP dated June 25, 2010, the General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública reiterated Directives #100-2008-DGFP, 124-2008-DGFP and 144-2008-DGFP, and indicated that the service rosters remain in force and their compliance is mandatory. It is with Directive #028-2012-DGFP dated August 16, 2012, that the General Directorate of the Fuerza Pública communicated regarding the service rosters, that these should be implemented both in the Regional Directorates and in the Police Units under their charge. Furthermore, this Directive unifies what was established in Directives 100-2008-DGFP; 124-2008-DGFP; 144-2008-DGFP and 095-2010-DGFP, establishing that the work shift of the Fuerza Pública has a maximum of twelve hours, as established by numeral 58 of the Political Constitution.\n\nFurthermore, as recorded in Circular No. 26-2012-DO-PYO, dated April 12, 2012, the Head of the Department of Plans and Operations of the Ministry of Public Security informed the Commissioners of various Regional Directorates, among them, the Commissioner of the Caribbean Regional Directorate, José Domingo Cruz López, of the reliefs for the Caribbean Region, and attached are the corresponding schedules for April, May, June, and July of 2012, and later, a schedule corresponding to the months of August, September, November, and December, of the reliefs carried out to the Caribbean region. Now, taking into consideration that Article 180 of the Regulation of Organization of the Ministry of Public Security, Executive Decree 36366, as indicated supra, establishes that each Cantonal Delegation will be subordinate to its respective Regional Directorate of the Public Force and that among its functions is to comply with the operation and service orders issued by the Regional Directorate; there is no doubt in this Chamber that the plaintiffs, as police officers of the Cantonal Delegation of Sarapiquí, were subordinate to the Caribbean Regional Directorate, under the charge of Commissioner José Domingo Cruz López, and that he was to enforce the service schedules communicated to him through the Department of Plans and Operations of the Ministry of Public Security. According to these service schedules, on some occasions they worked eleven days and rested nine, or worked ten and rested ten. Although it has been proven that there was a variation in the working day during the months of April to November of 2012, this was due to a special situation, of marked public interest and defense of national sovereignty, in the northern border zone; moreover, it was a temporary situation that obliged the modification of the service schedule, reinforcing surveillance both with more Public Force personnel and in their working hours, without it being proven in this proceeding that an extraordinary workday had been worked, since the working hours did not exceed twelve hours; furthermore, the change in schedule was due to the special situation that occurred, changes in schedule that constitute part of the employer's power of modification through the ius variandi (ius variandi), without it having been proven that there was an abusive use of this power. In this sense, it must be considered that although the plaintiffs had a 10x10 schedule, ten days worked for ten days of rest, such a situation cannot be claimed as an acquired right, since schedules are established based on a public interest and subject to possibilities of variation, especially in the case of border police.\n\n**VIII.- ON THE DEFENSES**\n\nThe State's legal representative raised the defense of lack of right, which this Chamber deems should be upheld on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate the right that assists them to claim what is sought in this proceeding.\n\n**IX.- ON COSTS**\n\nRegarding this item, under the protection of numeral 193 of the Code of Contentious-Administrative Procedure, and due to the nature of the issues debated, this collegiate body deems that the plaintiffs had sufficient reason to litigate, and therefore they are exonerated from the payment of costs.\n\n**POR TANTO**\n\nThe defense of lack of right is upheld. The lawsuit filed by Nombre113126, Nombre113127, Robert Artavia Cordero, Nombre113128, Carlos Aburto Muñoz and Freddy Alvarez Mora against the State is dismissed in its entirety. This ruling is issued without special condemnation in costs.\n\n**Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas**\n\nNombre32222\n\n**Nombre32222** **Juan Luis Giusti Soto**\n\nFor its part, Chapter II of Title III of the Labor Code contains the legal treatment of the working day and the time ranges that comprise the daytime and nighttime shifts (Article 136), reiterating the limits set forth in the aforementioned constitutional provision, beyond which it is not possible to compel the worker to work, except in the exceptional cases indicated therein and which, as such, insofar as they extend the working day, must be interpreted restrictively, in consideration of the worker’s interests. In turn, Article 140 of the same regulatory body, in relation to the constitutional provision, provides that the overtime (jornada extraordinaria), added to the ordinary working day, may not exceed twelve hours, unless an accident has occurred or there is imminent risk endangering persons, establishments, machinery or installations, plantations, products, or harvests, and unless, without evident harm, the workers cannot be replaced or the work of those already working cannot be suspended. Furthermore, Article 143 of the same Code provides: \"Excluded from the limitation on working hours are managers, administrators, agents, and all those employees who work without immediate superior oversight; workers who hold positions of trust; commission agents and similar employees who do not perform their duties at the establishment's premises; those who perform discontinuous functions or whose mere presence is required; and persons who perform tasks that, by their undeniable nature, are not subject to a working day. However, these persons shall not be obliged to remain at their work for more than twelve hours per day and shall have the right, within that working day, to a minimum rest period of one and a half hours.\"\n\n**V.- ON ABUSIVE IUS VARIANDI**\n\nIus variandi is understood as the power normally held by the employer to unilaterally modify the conditions of the contractual relationship (place, time, and function), in the exercise of their powers of command, direction, organization, oversight, and discipline. This power of the employer may be exercised provided that the measures adopted do not undermine the essential conditions of the employment contract, nor diminish the benefits of the worker. If, on the contrary, the employer exercises their power abusively or arbitrarily to the detriment of the worker's interests, the worker is empowered to terminate the employment relationship with employer liability. Therefore, the modification sought to be introduced must be analyzed in each case, in order to determine whether the employer has exercised their managerial powers reasonably or whether they have exceeded them, thereby altering the essential conditions of the employment contract to the detriment of the worker.\n\n**VI.- ON THE LEY GENERAL DE POLICÍA 7410. REGLAMENTO DE ORGANIZACIÓN DEL MINISTERIO DE SEGURIDAD PÚBLICA. DECRETO EJECUTIVO # 36366.**\n\nArticle 23 of the Ley General de Policía establishes the creation of the Border Police (Policía de Fronteras) as follows: \"The Border Police is hereby created, to safeguard territorial sovereignty,\" and subsequently, in numeral 24, its powers are set forth thus: *\"The powers of the Border Police are: a) To watch over and safeguard land, maritime, and air borders, including public buildings where customs and immigration activities are carried out; b) To ensure respect for the Political Constitution, international treaties, and laws guaranteeing the integrity of the national territory, territorial waters, the continental shelf, the patrimonial sea or exclusive economic zone, the airspace, and the exercise of the rights corresponding to the State\"*. On the other hand, Article 76, subsection c), establishes as duties of the members of the police forces, in addition to the ethical-legal duties set forth in this law, the following specific obligations \"... *c) to adhere to the schedules defined by regulation, without prejudice to the obligations derived from availability for service and from mobilizations\"*. For its part, the Reglamento de Organización del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, Decreto Ejecutivo 36366, defines the support bodies of the Dirección General de la Fuerza Pública, as follows: \"*Article 139: The Dirección General de la Fuerza Pública shall have, on a permanent basis, as support bodies, the Council of Directors of the Fuerza Pública, the Inspectorate General, the Presidential Guard* ***and the Regional Directorates (Direcciones Regionales)***\" (the supplied text is not from the original). It is numeral 176 of the aforementioned Regulation that establishes the functions of the Regional Directorates, as follows: *\"Each Regional Directorate shall be subordinate to the Dirección General de la Fuerza Pública, and their number and location shall be determined by the needs of the police service. Without prejudice to the functions established for the Fuerza Pública, each Regional Directorate of the Fuerza Pública shall fulfill the following functions: 1) To carry out actions to intensely promote the prevention and suppression of crime; 2) To plan and execute ordinary and reactive preventive strategies and operations, according to regional needs, for the purpose of maintaining public order and the safety of the inhabitants, their property, and respect for their fundamental rights and freedoms. ...* ***4) To protect special targets by decision of the Minister of Public Security...7) To ensure compliance with environmental regulations, carrying out surveillance, protection, and conservation of the environment and reporting to the competent administrative and judicial bodies those acts and omissions that contravene said regulations\"*** **(**the supplied text is not from the original). For its part, Article 177 indicates the structure of the Regional Directorates by providing: *\"Each Regional Directorate shall have its respective Administrative Unit, the Operational Unit, and the corresponding cantonal and district police delegations\"*. And with respect to the functions of the Cantonal Police Delegations (Delegaciones Cantonales Policiales), ordinal 180 indicates the following: *\"* ***Each Cantonal Delegation shall be subordinate to its respective Regional Directorate of the Fuerza Pública and shall have the following general functions:** *...2) To develop effective crime prevention and control actions through patrol and surveillance services; ...6) To participate in the development of operations and actions in which specialized police forces intervene within their area of responsibility; 7) To assist communities, municipalities, and public service organizations and collaborate with them in cases of national emergency or public commotion;* ***11) To comply with the operational and service orders issued by the Regional Directorate\" (***the supplied text is not from the original).\n\n**VII.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE**\n\nAccording to the facts that this Chamber has deemed accredited, since 2008, the Dirección General de la Fuerza Pública of the Ministerio de Seguridad Pública has issued various Directives (Directrices), so that the Regional Units are aware of and make known to the different Cantonal Police Units, that due to an institutional public interest and in order to standardize all service rosters (roles de servicio) applied in the different units, a 10x10 service roster was established for border posts, due to the nature of their function; in this regard, Directives #100-2008-DGFP, of May 30, 2008, and #124-2008-DGFP of June 23, 2008. Subsequently, on June 27, 2008, the Dirección General de la Fuerza Pública, through Directive #144-2008-DGFP, reiterated the provisions of Directive 124-2008, regarding compliance with and respect for service rosters and established the purpose of this new Directive as *\"to unify the working shifts (jornadas de trabajo) of the Fuerza Pública up to a maximum of twelve hours, as established by numeral 58 in fine of the Political Constitution and the jurisprudence of the Sala Constitucional\"*. Then, by Directive #095-2010-DGFP dated June 25, 2010, the Dirección General de la Fuerza Pública reiterated Directives #100-2008-DGFP, 124-2008-DGFP, and 144-2008-DGFP, and indicated that the service rosters remain in force and their compliance is mandatory. It is with Directive #028-2012-DGFP dated August 16, 2012, that the Dirección General de la Fuerza Pública communicated, regarding the service rosters, that these should be implemented both in the Regional Directorates and in the Police Units under their charge. Furthermore, this Directive unifies what was established in Directives 100-2008-DGFP; 124-2008-DGFP; 144-2008-DGFP; and 095-2010-DGFP, establishing that the working day of the Fuerza Pública has a maximum of twelve hours, as established by numeral 58 of the Political Constitution. On the other hand, as stated in Circular N°26-2012-DO-PYO, dated April 12, 2012, the Head of the Department of Plans and Operations (Departamento de Planes y Operaciones) of the Ministerio de Seguridad Pública communicated to the Commissioners of different Regional Directorates, among them, the Commissioner of the Dirección Regional Caribe, José Domingo Cruz López, the relief schedules (relevos) for the Caribbean Region, and attached are the calendars corresponding to April, May, June, and July 2012, and later, a calendar corresponding to the months of August, September, November, and December, of the reliefs carried out to the Caribbean region. Now then, taking into consideration that Article 180 of the Reglamento de Organización del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, Decreto Ejecutivo 36366, as indicated supra, establishes that each Cantonal Delegation shall be subordinate to its respective Regional Directorate of the Fuerza Pública and that among its functions is to comply with the operational and service orders emanating from the Regional Directorate; there is no doubt for this Chamber that the plaintiffs, as police officers of the Delegación Cantonal de Sarapiquí, were subordinate to the Dirección Regional Caribe, under the charge of Commissioner José Domingo Cruz López, and that he had to enforce the service rosters that were communicated to him through the Department of Plans and Operations of the Ministerio de Seguridad Pública. According to these service rosters, on some occasions they worked eleven days and rested nine, or worked ten and rested ten. Although it has been accredited that there was a variation of the working day during the months of April to November 2012, this was due to a special situation, of marked public interest and national sovereignty defense, in the northern border zone; furthermore, it was a temporary situation, which required modifying the service roster, reinforcing surveillance with more Fuerza Pública personnel and in their work schedules, without it being accredited in this proceeding that an overtime shift (jornada extraordinaria) had been worked, since the work schedule did not exceed twelve hours; in addition, the roster change was due to the special situation that occurred, roster changes that constitute part of the employer's modification power through ius variandi, without it having been accredited that this power was exercised abusively. In this sense, it must be considered that even if the plaintiffs had a 10x10 roster, ten days worked for ten days of rest, such a situation cannot be claimed as an acquired right, since the rosters are established based on a public interest and subject to possibilities of variation, especially in the case of the border police.\n\n**VIII.- ON THE DEFENSES**\n\nThe State's representative raised the defense of lack of right (falta de derecho), which this Chamber considers must be upheld because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate the right that assists them to claim what is sought in this proceeding.\n\n**IX.- ON COSTS**\n\nRegarding this item, under the protection of numeral 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, and due to the nature of the issues debated, this collegiate body considers that the plaintiffs had sufficient reason to litigate, and therefore they are exempted from the payment of costs.\n\n**POR TANTO**\n\nThe defense of lack of right is upheld. The lawsuit filed by Nombre113126, Nombre113127, Robert Artavia Cordero, Nombre113128, Carlos Aburto Muñoz, and Freddy Alvarez Mora against the State is declared without merit in all its aspects. This resolution is issued without special condemnation regarding costs.\n\n**Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas**\n\nNombre32222\n\n**Nombre32222** **Juan Luis Giusti Soto**" }