Colombia, Constitutional Court, 21 March 2023, Decision T-074-23
Case overview
Country
Case ID
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Deciding body (Original)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Instance
Area
Outcome of the decision
General Summary
The plaintiff filed a protective action against the company that employed him alleging a violation to his right to work. The plaintiff argued that, despite the Covid-19 lockdowns being lifted by the government, his employer had not reinstated him in his workplace (although he was being paid). For the plaintiff, there is no justification behind this decision of not reinstating him, as he was fully capable of returning to work. The Court granted the protection, considering that the circumstances that justified the leave had already been overcome (the state of emergency). According to the Court, the decision, despite being reasonable at the time, was now arbitrary and unjustified. Hence, the company was violating the rights of his employee, specifically his right to work (which included the right to feel useful to society and contribute with his workforce).
Facts of the case
The plaintiff, a 46-year-old man, worked at an illumination company. He was also a member of the company union. On March 19, 2020, the government issued lockdown orders, which meant that the plaintiff could not go to work normally. On January 22, 2021, the plaintiff gave his employer a medical certification that stated that he could normally go to work, as he did not have any medical condition that could risk his health or the health of his peers. The company did not reinstate him or answer his request. The plaintiff filed a protective action against the company. On October 13, 2021, the Court denied the protection, a decision that was appealed on October 19, 2021. On November 23, 2021, the higher Court denied the appeal. On March 21, 2023, the Constitutional Court reviewed the case and granted the protection.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Claimant(s)
Private individualDefendant(s)
Private individual
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
The Court reasoned that, at the beginning of the lockdowns in Colombia, the decision of the employer to put the plaintiff on leave was reasonable and justified. However, as the emergency had been overcome and the lockdowns had been lifted, the decision not to reinstate the plaintiff to his workplace to continue his normal activities was arbitrary.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court concluded that the fundamental right to work of the plaintiff had been violated by the defendant and granted the protection.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
General principle applied
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)
The Court explicitly analyzed whether the decision of the employer of not reinstating the plaintiff to his workplace was reasonable. For the Court, the lockdown had duly justified the decision of the employer to put his employees on leave. However, according to the Court, after the lockdowns were lifted, the decision had become arbitrary and, thus, unreasonable.
