Salary Adjustment to the 40th Percentile of the Single Municipal Salary ScaleEquiparación salarial al percentil 40 de la Escala Salarial Única del Régimen Municipal

IV.- GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.- Before ruling, it is appropriate to break down the following topics of interest: 1.- Regarding the scope of this Tribunal's pronouncement, as a prior antecedent, concerning the Agreement of the Municipal Council of the Municipality of La Unión de Cartago, adopted in Extraordinary Session No. 216 of February 3, 2009, as well as the administrative act issued by the Municipal Mayor through Administrative Resolution No. DA543-09 of August 21, 2009.

Regarding the cited topic, which is closely related to the present case, the Tribunal has pronounced itself, in countless rulings, as follows:

"Pronouncement.- (...). In reality, there is no doubt that the Municipal Council of the Municipality of La Unión de Cartago, in Extraordinary Session No. 216 of February 3, 2009, issued a final administrative act (acto administrativo firme) in which it agreed to standardize the job positions of municipal employees according to the study by the National Union of Local Governments (Unión Nacional de Gobiernos Locales), adopting the salary scale at the 40th percentile.

Literally, the agreement was as follows:

"It is agreed to definitively approve the report of the Finance and Budget Committee, in which a motion is acknowledged to standardize the Municipality's job positions according to the study by the National Union of Local Governments, likewise adopting the salary scale at the 40th percentile. It is recommended that the economic provision be taken in the first extraordinary budget of 2009." Subsequently, in Gaceta No. 117 of June 18, 2009, the National Union of Local Governments published the transcript of the agreement adopted by the Board of Directors of the Union of Local Governments, in Ordinary Session 04-2009 held on Thursday, February 19, 2009, where the Single Salary Scale for the Municipal Regime and the Generic Class Manual for the Municipal Regime were approved. Note, then, that the agreement of the Municipal Council, while absolutely valid and effective, became applicable as of June 18, 2009, when the Single Salary Scale, derived from the Generic Class Manual, was published. An agreement that, upon being declared final by the Municipal Council itself from its adoption, granted subjective rights (derechos subjetivos) to the plaintiff, which can only be reversed through a lesivity proceeding (proceso de lesividad), under the protection of Article 173 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de Administración Pública). It should be noted that the administrative agreement adopted by the Municipal Council in Extraordinary Session No. 216 of February 3, 2009, was executed incorrectly through an administrative resolution issued by the Municipal Mayor, Eng. Julio Rojas Astorga, No. DA543-09 of August 21, 2009, given that, instead of readjusting the base salaries of all municipal employees to the 40th percentile of the new salary scale as of July 18, 2009, it established a temporary graduation in annual stretches, ordering, as of July 1, 2009, to modify the scale to bring it to the 20th percentile; subsequently, on July 1, 2010 or January 1, 2011, depending on the performance of municipal revenues, to apply the 30th percentile; and finally, as of January 1, 2011 or July 1 of that same year, to complete the application bringing it to the 40th percentile. That is, what the Mayor did was to disapply and modify, by his own decision, the agreement of the Municipal Council, a procedure that is contrary to law, because the Mayor does not have the authority ex officio to revoke, modify, or contravene any agreement adopted by the Municipal Council, but simply to execute it, and his only option to disapply it was to promote a lesivity proceeding (proceso de lesividad), given the existence of a presumed absolute, evident, and manifest nullity, harmful to the public interest, arising from an act declaratory of subjective rights, an action he did not undertake.- In the course of the proceedings, the defendant party alleged that it owes no sum to the plaintiff party because it paid, on a semi-annual basis, the cost-of-living increases, according to the consumer price index, detailed in the previous section, which the plaintiff party—since the claim and now in the appeal—acknowledges were actually paid, according to the period claimed (2009-2013). That is, this is not a point of discussion. Also, the defendant party alleged that it owes no sum to the plaintiff party because it recognized the 20th percentile from July 2009 until December 2010, and a 45th percentile from 2011 until December 2013, and even as of January 2014, it recognized a 50th percentile. The appellant, in his appeal, acknowledges that the Municipality approved these percentiles, in the detailed percentages and dates, but criticizes that the defendant never effectively paid the salary differences. It only paid the semi-annual salary increases for cost of living, according to the consumer price index, and effectively, standardized the 50th percentile as of January 2014.- Therefore, the crux of this matter lies in determining whether within the case file there exists any evidence that reliably demonstrates, indubitably, that the Municipality of La Unión effectively paid the salary differences for the application of the 40th percentile, from July 18, 2009, until December 31, 2013. The answer is no. (...) In the Tribunal's opinion, it is absolutely evident that there is no compelling, indubitable, and certain evidence that reliably demonstrates that the Municipality of La Unión effectively paid the plaintiff party the claimed salary differences, arising from the standardization of the base salary to the Single Salary Scale for the Municipal Regime, published in Gaceta No. 117 of June 18, 2009, derived from the final agreement of the Municipal Council, adopted in extraordinary session No. 216 of February 3, 2009, at the rate of the application of the 40th percentile, from July 18, 2009, until December 31, 2013. (...) VI. FINAL CONSIDERATION.- In light of the foregoing and resolved, the plaintiff party's appeal is granted, and the defendant party's appeal is rejected. The first-instance judgment is partially revoked, and the objection of lack of right is rejected. Consequently, the claim is declared well-founded in all its terms. The Municipality of La Unión is ordered to pay all salary differences foregone by the plaintiff party from July 18, 2009, to December 31, 2013, inclusive, corresponding to the difference between the salary base paid and that which was effectively due to be recognized based on the 40th percentile, arising from the standardization of the base salary to the Single Salary Scale for the Municipal Regime, published in Gaceta No. 117 of June 18, 2009, derived from the final agreement of the Municipal Council, adopted in extraordinary session No. 216 of February 3, 2009. (...)" (Case File 16-000101-0641-LA) Therefore, as observed, what the Tribunal resolved, in countless previous cases, has been the recognition of salary differences foregone by municipal workers, from July 18, 2009, to December 31, 2013, inclusive, corresponding to the difference between the salary base paid and that which was effectively due to be recognized based on the 40th percentile, arising from the standardization of the base salary to the Single Salary Scale for the Municipal Regime, published in Gaceta No. 117 of June 18, 2009, derived from the final agreement of the Municipal Council, adopted in extraordinary session No. 216 of February 3, 2009. That is, what was resolved derives from the SPECIFIC breach of the FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE ACT (ACTO ADMINISTRATIVO FIRME), adopted by the Municipal Council, where the 40th percentile of the Salary Scale is recognized in favor of all workers, coming from the Job Manual and salary scale proposed by the Board of Directors of the Union of Local Governments, initially published in Gaceta No. 117 of June 18, 2009, which is updated semi-annually.- But this does not mean that the Tribunal has pronounced itself on the salary adjustment mechanism for municipal employees, in the terms of the law, for the historical moment of the present conflict.- 2.- Regarding the salary adjustment mechanism for municipal employees.- The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República), in its opinion PGR-C-097-2022, on the subject, stated: In accordance with the provisions of Articles 169 and 170 of the Political Constitution, municipalities are autonomous territorial entities in the political, tax, administrative, and regulatory fields, and accordingly, the establishment of the duties assigned to a class within the job manual, as well as the salary policy that will govern in the municipal corporation, is a competence included within the scope of said autonomy. Specifically, Articles 129 and 130 of the Municipal Code establish the obligation of municipalities to adapt and keep the Descriptive Job Manual updated, as it contains a complete and concise description of the typical and supplementary tasks of the positions, the duties, responsibilities, and minimum requirements of each class of positions, as well as other environmental and organizational conditions: “Article 129.- Municipalities shall adapt and keep updated the General Descriptive Job Manual, based on a comprehensive descriptive manual for the municipal regime. It shall contain a complete and concise description of the typical and supplementary tasks of the positions, the duties, responsibilities, and minimum requirements of each class of positions, as well as other environmental and organizational conditions. The design and updating of the general descriptive job manual shall be under the responsibility of the National Union of Local Governments. To prepare and update both the general Manual and the respective adaptations in each municipality, both the National Union of Local Governments and the municipalities may request collaboration from the General Directorate of Civil Service (Dirección General de Servicio Civil). Municipalities may not create positions without the corresponding occupational profiles being included in said manuals.” Article 130.- Municipalities shall keep an updated Organization and Operation Manual, the application of which shall be the responsibility of the municipal mayor.” (The highlighting is not part of the original) On the occasion of the aforementioned, in opinion C-397-2007 of November 8, 2007, it is important to highlight that: “… municipal corporations are obliged to keep the descriptive job manuals updated, attending to the mutability that may arise in the way a certain public service is satisfied. This mutability could entail the modification of the respective job manual or simply the modification of the classification of a certain position within the existing manual.” In accordance with the foregoing, the manuals, therefore, constitute technical instruments that allow defining the functions and requirements that the respective employee must fulfill and, based on that, the salary level to be assigned. In this regard, Article 131 of the aforementioned Code provides: “Article 131.- The salaries and wages of employees protected by this law shall be governed in accordance with the following provisions: a) No employee shall earn a salary lower than the minimum corresponding to the performance of the position they hold. b) The salaries and wages of municipal employees shall be determined by a salary scale, which shall set the minimum and maximum sums corresponding to each category of positions. c) To determine salaries and wages, the budgetary conditions of the municipalities, the cost of living in the different regions, the salaries prevailing in the market for equal positions, and any other legal provisions on salary matters shall be taken into account. To prepare and update the salary scale, the competent bodies may request collaboration from the General Directorate of Civil Service.” Note that it is through a salary scale that the salaries of municipal employees shall be established, taking into account the budgetary conditions of the municipality, the cost of living in the different regions, the salaries prevailing in the market for equal positions, and any other legal provisions on salary matters, for which the ordering of duties and responsibilities in a job manual is essential to determine the corresponding remuneration. (...) The Attorney General's Office adds: "Likewise, it should be warned that municipalities have the obligation to act within the established legal framework. Only thus will their decisions be valid and effective. For this reason, it is not possible to admit that there are assumptions in which they are empowered not to update, or to disapply in specific cases, the respective job manuals. (See opinion PGR-C-061-2022 of March 21, 2022). Therefore, the manuals under study constitute not only an expression of municipal autonomy regarding its organization but also an insurmountable barrier for the action of the territorial entity, being expressly prohibited to create positions not contemplated in it. (See opinion C-029-2013 of March 6, 2013). In that order, the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Segunda de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) in resolution 2001-00024 of 2:40 p.m. on January 10, 2001, indicated: “IV.- In the Public Sector, the Administration has the power-duty to distribute workloads and make salary determinations, according to the descriptive job manuals and salary scales. Likewise, it has the obligation to recognize for the holders of the respective positions the corresponding salary and all salary supplements or components resulting from the law or from validly adopted administrative provisions. In the preparation of the manuals, the setting of the salary scale, and in general classifications, evaluations, and restructurings, there are legitimate margins of discretion. This obeys valid criteria of convenience or opportunity and is a function of the necessary efficiency of the public service. To achieve harmony and consistency, fiscal conditions, the modalities of each type of work, the cost of living, the salaries for the same positions in the private sector, and also the entire organic and functional structure are taken into account. Thus, the manual, once approved, limits the Administration, as it establishes a description of the position's activities, which is taken into account to determine the classification within the organizational structure and the corresponding valuation, always according to a specific salary scale. The manuals can be modified by the hierarchy, not only regarding the content of the activity but also in terms of requirements; likewise, the salary scale can be modified; that is, without prejudice to acquired rights. Salary structures acquire a normative character and form part of a public budget. For this reason, modifications to particular situations are subject to actual budgetary availability and always towards the future, starting from a certain moment, which is already regulated. The set of tools described, plus the applicable laws and normative provisions, make up a part of the so-called principle of legality (bloque de legalidad), from which the specific Administration cannot depart, in accordance with what is established in Article 11 of the Political Constitution and numerals 11 and 13 of the General Law of Public Administration.” (The highlighting is not part of the original) From that perspective, it must be clarified that a salary equity study as such could not substitute, under any circumstances, the salary scale and the job manual; being that what would indeed be admissible within the Municipality's autonomy is that, based on that study, the corresponding modifications to the scale and the manual are managed internally in order to execute their update, provided that the respective approvals and the budgetary content for it are available." In addition, the Tribunal must also mention that it is inferred from the third paragraph of Article 109 of the Municipal Code that the consumer price index (CPI) constitutes a valid parameter for updating the salaries of municipal employees. The regulation states: "Article 109. - (...)The adjustments produced by the negotiation of collective labor agreements or conventions or any others that imply modifying the ordinary budgets shall only proceed when it is proven, in the course of processing the conflicts or in the pertinent procedures, that the cost of living has increased substantially according to the price indices of the Central Bank of Costa Rica and the General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses." Having set forth all of the above, the Tribunal concludes that the Job Manual and Salary Scale, which is prepared and periodically updated by the National Union of Local Governments (UNGL) according to the consumer price index (CPI)—a fact that the appellant himself recognized in his claim—constitutes the minimum regulatory framework of reference, whose purpose is to standardize and universalize the different classes, positions, functions, profiles of municipal employees, and ultimately proposes a salary scale at the national level, determined based on the size of the Municipality (small, medium, or large) and, in turn, is broken down into progressive percentiles. Therefore, according to this Job Manual and its Salary Scale, each Municipality must adopt its size classification and payment percentile, according to its budgetary possibilities and under the protection of its municipal autonomy, a decision that is revisable, always for the future and absolutely subject to technical criteria duly supported by necessity, with the respective balance between the labor rights of its employees and the public interest, protecting their acquired rights and consolidated legal situations, without any possibility of paying less salary than that corresponding to the occupational percentile approved in a specific period, it being possible, evidently, to recognize a greater salary increase if budgetary conditions and sustainability so permit. The foregoing is without prejudice to provisions contained in the Public Finance Strengthening Law, Law No. 9635, and especially the Public Employment Framework Law, Law No. 10159.-" In reality, there is no doubt that the Municipal Council (Consejo Municipal) of the Municipality of La Unión de Cartago, in Extraordinary Session No. 216 of February 3, 2009, issued a final administrative act in which it agreed to equate the job positions of the municipal employees according to the study by the Unión Nacional de Gobiernos Locales, adopting the salary scale of the 40th percentile.

Literally, the agreement was as follows:

"It is agreed to definitively approve the report of the Finance and Budget Commission (Comisión de Hacienda y Presupuesto), in which a motion was considered to equate the job positions of the Municipality according to the study by the Unión Nacional de Gobiernos Locales, and likewise to adopt the salary scale of the 40th percentile. It is recommended that provision be made for the economic allocation in the first extraordinary budget of 2009." Subsequently, in Gaceta nº 117 of June 18, 2009, the Unión Nacional de Gobiernos Locales published the transcript of the agreement adopted by the Board of Directors (Consejo Directivo) of the Unión de Gobiernos Locales, in Ordinary Session 04-2009 held on Thursday, February 19, 2009, where the Unified Salary Scale (Escala de Salarios Única) for the Municipal Regime (Régimen Municipal) and the Generic Class Manual (Manual Genérico de Clases) for the Municipal Regime were approved. Note, then, that really, the agreement of the Municipal Council, although absolutely valid and effective, becomes applicable as of June 18, 2009, when the Unified Salary Scale, derived from the Generic Class Manual, was published. An agreement which, having been declared final by the Municipal Council itself, from its adoption conferred subjective rights (derechos subjetivos) upon the plaintiff, which can only be reversed through a lesividad proceeding (proceso de lesividad), under the protection of Article 173 of the Ley General de Administración Pública. It must be pointed out that the administrative agreement adopted by the Municipal Council, in Extraordinary Session No. 216 of February 3, 2009, was executed incorrectly through administrative resolution issued by the Municipal Mayor (Alcalde Municipal), Eng. Julio Rojas Astorga, No.

DA543-09 of August 21, 2009, given that, instead of readjusting the base salaries of all municipal employees to the 40th percentile of the new salary scale, starting July 18, 2009, it established a temporary graduation in annual stages, providing that, starting July 1, 2009, the scale be modified up to the 20th percentile; subsequently, on July 1, 2010, or January 1, 2011, depending on the performance of municipal revenues, apply the 30th percentile; and finally, from January 1, 2011, or July 1 of that same year, complete the application by bringing it to the 40th percentile. That is, what the Mayor did was to disapply and modify, by his decision, the agreement of the Municipal Council, a proceeding that is contrary to law, because the Mayor, acting ex officio, does not have the power to revoke, modify, or contravene any agreement adopted by the Municipal Council, but simply to execute it, and his only option to disapply it was to promote a lesivity proceeding, given the existence of a presumed absolute, evident, and manifest nullity, harmful to the public interest, on the occasion of an act declaring subjective rights, an action he did not carry out.- In the course of the proceedings, the defendant alleged that it owes no sum whatsoever to the plaintiff because it paid, on a semi-annual basis, the cost-of-living increases, in accordance with the consumer price index, detailed in the preceding section, which the plaintiff —from the complaint and now in the appeal— acknowledges were effectively paid, according to the period claimed (2009-2013). That is, it is not a point of discussion. The defendant also alleged that it owes no sum whatsoever to the plaintiff because it recognized the 20th percentile from July 2009 until December 2010, and a 45th percentile starting in 2011 and until December 2013, and even starting in January 2014, it recognized a 50th percentile. The appellant, in his appeal, acknowledges that the Municipality approved these percentiles, in the detailed percentages and periods, but criticizes that the defendant never effectively paid the salary differences. It only paid the semi-annual salary increases for cost of living, according to the consumer price index, and indeed, equated the 50th percentile starting in January 2014.- Then, the crux of this matter lies in determining whether, within the case file, there exists any evidence that convincingly and indubitably demonstrates that the Municipality of La Unión effectively paid the plaintiff the claimed salary differences, arising from the application of the 40th percentile, from July 18, 2009, until December 31, 2013. The answer is no. (...) In the opinion of the Tribunal, it is absolutely evident that there is no conclusive, indubitable, and certain evidence that convincingly demonstrates that the Municipality of La Unión effectively paid the plaintiff the claimed salary differences, originating from the equalization of the base salary to the Single Salary Scale for the Municipal Regime, published in La Gaceta No. 117 of June 18, 2009, derived from the final agreement of the Municipal Council, adopted in extraordinary session No.

216 of the day of February 3, 2009, due to the application of the 40th percentile, from July 18, 2009 until December 31, 2013. (...) VI. FINAL CONSIDERANDO.- In light of the foregoing and as resolved, the appeal of the plaintiff is granted and the appeal of the defendant is rejected. The first-instance judgment is partially overturned and the exception of lack of right is rejected. Consequently, the lawsuit is declared with merit in all its aspects. The Municipality of La Unión is ordered to pay all salary differences not received by the plaintiff from July 18, 2009 to December 31, 2013 inclusive, corresponding to the difference between the salary base paid and that which should have been effectively recognized based on the 40th percentile, arising from the adjustment of the base salary to the Escala Salarial Unica para el Régimen Municipal, published in Gaceta nº 117 of June 18, 2009, derived from the final agreement of the Municipal Council, adopted in extraordinary session No. 216 of the day of February 3, 2009. (...) (Exp 16-000101-0641-LA) Thus, as observed, what the Court resolved, in countless prior cases, has been the recognition of the salary differences not received by municipal workers, from July 18, 2009 to December 31, 2013 inclusive, corresponding to the difference between the salary base paid and that which should have been effectively recognized based on the 40th percentile, arising from the adjustment of the base salary to the Escala Salarial Unica para el Régimen Municipal, published in Gaceta nº 117 of June 18, 2009, derived from the final agreement of the Municipal Council, adopted in extraordinary session No. 216 of the day of February 3, 2009.

That is, what was resolved derives from the SPECIFIC non-compliance with the FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE ACT, adopted by the Municipal Council, which recognizes in favor of all workers the 40th percentile of the Salary Scale, coming from the Job Manual and salary scale proposed by the Board of Directors of the Unión de Gobiernos Locales, initially published in Gaceta No. 117 of June 18, 2009, which is updated semi-annually. But this does not mean that the Court has pronounced itself on the mechanism for adjusting the salaries of municipal employees, in the terms of the law, for the historical moment of the present conflict.- 2.- Regarding the salary adjustment mechanism for municipal employees.- The Procuraduría General de la República, in its opinion PGR-C-097-2022, on the subject, stated: In accordance with the provisions of articles 169 and 170 of the Political Constitution, municipalities are autonomous territorial entities in the political, tax, administrative, and regulatory fields, and in that order, the establishment of the tasks assigned to a class within the job manual, as well as the salary policy that will govern the municipal corporation, is a competence included within the scope of said autonomy. Specifically, articles 129 and 130 of the Municipal Code establish the obligation that municipalities have to adapt and keep the Descriptive Job Manual updated, as it contains a complete and succinct description of the typical and supplementary tasks of the positions, duties, responsibilities, and minimum requirements of each class of positions, as well as other environmental and organizational conditions: "Article 129.- Municipalities shall adapt and keep updated the General Descriptive Job Manual, based on a comprehensive descriptive manual for the municipal regime. It shall contain a complete and succinct description of the typical and supplementary tasks of the positions, duties, responsibilities, and minimum requirements of each class of positions, as well as other environmental and organizational conditions. The design and updating of the General Descriptive Job Manual shall be under the responsibility of the Unión Nacional de Gobiernos Locales. In order to develop and update both the General Manual and the respective adaptations in each municipality, both the Unión Nacional de Gobiernos Locales and the municipalities may request collaboration from the Dirección General de Servicio Civil. Municipalities may not create positions without the corresponding occupational profiles being included in said manuals". Article 130.- Municipalities shall keep updated an organization and operation manual, the application of which shall be the responsibility of the municipal mayor".

(Highlighting is not part of the original) On the occasion of the aforementioned, in opinion C-397-2007 of November 8, 2007, it is important to highlight that: “… municipal corporations are under the obligation to keep their descriptive job manuals (manuales de puestos descriptivos) updated, in response to the mutability that may arise in the way a particular public service is satisfied. This mutability could entail the modification of the respective job manual (manual de puestos) or simply the modification of the classification of a given position within the existing manual.” In accordance with the foregoing, the manuals, therefore, constitute technical instruments that allow for defining the functions and requirements that the respective official must fulfill and, based on that, the salary level to be assigned.

In this regard, Article 131 of the aforementioned Code provides: “Article 131.- The sueldos and salarios of the servants protected by this law, shall be governed in accordance with the following provisions: a) No employee shall earn a sueldo lower than the minimum corresponding to the performance of the position he occupies. b) The sueldos and salarios of municipal servants shall be determined by a salary scale (escala de sueldos), which shall set the minimum and maximum sums corresponding to each job category (categoría de puestos). c) To determine the sueldos and salarios, budgetary conditions of the municipalities, the cost of living in the different regions, the salaries prevailing in the market for equal positions, and any other legal provisions on salary matters shall be taken into account. To prepare and update the salary scale, the competent bodies may request collaboration from the Dirección General de Servicio Civil.” Note that it is through a salary scale that the salaries of municipal servants shall be established, and that the budgetary conditions of the municipality, the cost of living in the different regions, the salaries prevailing in the market for equal positions, and any other legal provisions on salary matters must be taken into account, for which the ordering of duties and responsibilities in a job manual is essential to determine the remuneration that corresponds to them. (...)

The Procuraduría adds: "Likewise, it should be noted that the municipalities have the obligation to act within the established legal framework. Only then will their decisions be valid and effective. For this reason, it is not possible to admit that there are scenarios in which they are empowered not to update, or to disapply in specific cases, the respective job manuals. (See opinion PGR-C-061-2022 of March 21, 2022). Therefore, the manuals under study constitute not only an expression of municipal autonomy, regarding its organization, but also an impassable barrier for the actions of the territorial entity, it being expressly prohibited to create positions not contemplated therein. (See opinion C-029-2013 of March 6, 2013).

In that order, the Second Chamber (Sala Segunda) of the Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia) in resolution 2001-00024 of 2:40 p.m. on January 10, 2001, indicated: “IV.- In the Public Sector (Sector Público), the Administration has the power-duty to distribute work loads and make salary fixations, in accordance with the descriptive job manuals and the salary scales. Likewise, it has the obligation to recognize for the holders of the respective positions the corresponding sueldo, and all the pluses or salary components that result from the law, or from validly adopted administrative provisions.

In the preparation of manuals, the setting of the salary scale (escala salarial), and in general classifications, evaluations, and restructurings, legitimate margins of discretion are exercised. This is based on valid criteria of suitability or opportunity, and is done in light of the necessary efficiency of the public service. In order to achieve harmony and consistency, consideration is given to fiscal conditions, the modalities of each class of work, the cost of living, the salaries of the same positions in the private sector, and also to the entire organic and functional structure. Thus, the manual, once approved, limits the Administration, since it establishes a description of the position's activities, which is taken into account to determine the classification, within the organizational structure, and the corresponding valuation, always in accordance with a specific salary scale. The manuals may be modified by the hierarchy, not only in terms of the activity's content, but also regarding requirements; likewise, the salary scale may be modified; provided, however, without prejudice to acquired rights. Salary structures acquire a normative character and form part of a public budget. For this reason, modifications to particular situations are subject to actual budgetary availability, and always oriented toward the future, starting from a given moment, which is already regulated. The set of tools described, plus the applicable laws and regulatory provisions, constitute a part of the so-called block of legality, from which the specific Administration cannot depart, in accordance with the provisions of Article 11 of the Constitución Política, and numerals 11 and 13 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. (The highlighting does not belong to the original) From that perspective, it must be clarified that a salary equity study as such could not, under any circumstance, substitute for the salary scale and the position manual; it being that what would indeed be appropriate within the autonomy of the Municipality is that, based on that study, the corresponding modifications to the scale and the manual are processed internally, in order to carry out their update, provided that the respective approvals and the budget content for this exist." In addition, the Tribunal must also mention that it is inferred from the third paragraph of Article 109 of the Código Municipal that the consumer price index (índice de precios al consumidor, IPC) constitutes a valid parameter for the update of municipal employees' salaries. The norm establishes: "Article 109.

(...)The adjustments produced by the negotiation of collective labor conventions or agreements, or any others that imply modifying ordinary budgets, shall only proceed when it is proven, in the course of processing conflicts or pertinent proceedings, that the cost of living has increased substantially according to the price indices of the Banco Central de Costa Rica and the Dirección General de Estadística y Censos." Having set forth all of the above, the Court concludes that the Manual de Puestos y Escala Salarial, periodically prepared and updated by the Unión Nacional de Gobiernos Locales (UNGL), in accordance with the consumer price index (IPC) –a fact which the appellant himself acknowledged in his complaint– constitutes the minimum reference normative framework, whose purpose is to standardize and universalize the different classes, positions, functions, and profiles of municipal employees, and ultimately proposes a national salary scale, determined according to the size of the Municipality (small, medium, or large) and, in turn, broken down into progressive percentiles. Therefore, in accordance with this Manual de Puestos y su Escala Salarial, each Municipality must adopt its size classification and payment percentile, in accordance with its budgetary possibilities and under the protection of its municipal autonomy, a decision that is reviewable, always prospectively and absolutely subject to technical criteria duly supported by necessity, with the respective balance between the labor rights of its servants and the public interest, safeguarding their acquired rights and consolidated legal situations, without any possibility of paying less salary than that corresponding to the occupational percentile approved in a given period, it being evidently possible to recognize a greater salary increase, if the budgetary conditions and sustainability so permit. The foregoing is without prejudice to provisions contained in the Ley de Fortalecimiento de las Finanzas Públicas, Law No. 9635, and especially the Ley Marco de Empleo Público, Law No.

**IV.- GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.-** Before ruling, it is appropriate to break down the following topics of interest: *1.- Regarding the scope of this Court's pronouncement, as a prior precedent, referring to the Agreement of the Municipal Council of the Municipality of La Unión de Cartago, adopted in Extraordinary Session No. 216 of February 3, 2009, as well as the administrative act issued by the Municipal Mayor through Administrative Resolution No. DA543-09 of August 21, 2009.* In relation to the cited topic, which is intimately related to the present case, the Court has ruled, in countless judgments, as follows:

**"Ruling.-** (...). In reality, there is no doubt that the Municipal Council of the Municipality of La Unión de Cartago, in Extraordinary Session No. 216 of **February 3, 2009**, issued a final administrative act in which it agreed to match the job positions of the municipal employees according to the study by the National Union of Local Governments, adopting the salary scale of **percentile 40**.

Literally, the agreement was the following:

*"It is agreed to finally approve the report of the Finance and Budget Commission, in which a motion is heard to match the job positions of the Municipality according to the study by the National Union of Local Governments, likewise adopting the salary scale of percentile 40.* It is recommended that the economic provision be made in the first extraordinary budget of 2009." Subsequently, in Gaceta nº 117 of June 18, 2009, the Unión Nacional de Gobiernos Locales published the transcription of the agreement adopted by the Board of Directors of the Unión de Gobiernos Locales, in Ordinary Session 04-2009 held on Thursday, February 19, 2009, where the Single Salary Scale (Escala de Salarios Única) for the Municipal Regime (Régimen Municipal) and the Generic Class Manual (Manual Genérico de Clases) for the Municipal Regime were approved. Note, then, that the Municipal Council agreement, while absolutely valid and effective, becomes applicable as of June 18, 2009, when the Single Salary Scale, derived from the Generic Class Manual, was published. An agreement that, having been declared final by the Municipal Council itself from its adoption, granted subjective rights to the plaintiff, which can only be reversed through a lesivity proceeding (proceso de lesividad), under the protection of Article 173 of the Ley General de Administración Pública. It should be noted that the administrative agreement adopted by the Municipal Council, in Extraordinary Session No. 216 of February 3, 2009, was executed incorrectly by administrative resolution issued by the Municipal Mayor, Ing. Julio Rojas Astorga, No.

DA543-09 of August 21, 2009, given that, instead of readjusting the base salaries of all municipal employees to the 40th percentile of the new salary scale, as of July 18, 2009, it established a temporary phasing-in in annual tranches, ordering, as of July 1, 2009, to modify the scale up to the 20th percentile; subsequently, on July 1, 2010, or January 1, 2011, depending on the behavior of municipal revenues, to apply the 30th percentile; and lastly, on January 1, 2011, or July 1 of that same year, to complete the application by bringing it to the 40th percentile. That is to say, what the Mayor did was to disapply and modify, by his own decision, the agreement of the Municipal Council, a proceeding that is contrary to law, because, ex officio, the Mayor does not have the power to revoke, modify, or contravene any agreement adopted by the Municipal Council, but simply to execute it, and his only option to disapply it was to bring a lesivity action (proceso de lesividad), given the existence of an alleged absolute, evident, and manifest nullity, harmful to the public interest, on the occasion of a declaratory act of subjective rights, an action which he did not carry out.

In the course of the proceedings, the defendant alleged that it does not owe any sum to the plaintiff because it paid, on a semi-annual basis, the cost-of-living increases, according to the consumer price index, detailed in the previous section, which the plaintiff —from the complaint and now in the appeal— acknowledges its effective payment, for the period claimed (2009-2013). That is, it is not a point under discussion. Also, the defendant alleged that it does not owe any sum to the plaintiff because it recognized the 20th percentile from July 2009 until December 2010, and a 45th percentile starting from the year 2011 until December 2013, and even starting from January 2014, it recognized a 50th percentile. The appellant, in its appeal, acknowledges that the Municipality approved these percentiles, in the detailed percentages and effective dates, but reproaches that the defendant never actually paid the salary differences. It only paid the semi-annual salary increases for cost of living, according to the consumer price index, and indeed, matched the 50th percentile starting from January 2014. So, the crux of this matter lies in determining whether within the case file, there exists any evidence that conclusively demonstrates, in an indubitable manner, that the Municipality of La Unión actually paid the plaintiff the claimed salary differences, arising from the application of the 40th percentile, from July 18, 2009, to December 31, 2013. The answer is no. (...) In the Court's opinion, it is absolutely evident that there is no conclusive, indubitable, and certain evidence that conclusively demonstrates that the Municipality of La Unión, effectively paid the plaintiff the claimed salary differences, arising from the matching of the base salary to the Single Salary Scale for the Municipal Regime (Escala Salarial Única para el Régimen Municipal), published in Gazette No. 117 of June 18, 2009, derived from the firm agreement of the Municipal Council, adopted in extraordinary session No.

216 of the day of February 3, 2009, by reason of the application of the 40th percentile, from July 18, 2009 until December 31, 2013. (...) **VI. FINAL CONSIDERANDO.-** In consideration of the foregoing and resolved, the appeal of the plaintiff is **granted** and the appeal of the defendant is rejected. The judgment of the first instance is **partially revoked** and the exception of lack of right is rejected. Consequently, the **complaint is declared with merit in all its terms.** The Municipality of La Unión is ordered to pay all the salary differences not received by the plaintiff from July 18, 2009 until December 31, 2013 inclusive, corresponding to the difference between the salary base paid and that which should effectively be recognized based on the 40th percentile, arising from the equalization of the base salary to the Escala Salarial Unica para el Régimen Municipal, published in Gaceta nº 117 of June 18, 2009, derived from the firm agreement of the Municipal Council, adopted in the extraordinary session No. 216 of the day of February 3, 2009. (...)" (Exp 16-000101-0641-LA) Therefore, as observed, what the Court resolved, in innumerable prior cases, has been the recognition of the salary differences not received by the municipal workers, from July 18, 2009 until December 31, 2013 inclusive, corresponding to the difference between the salary base paid and that which should effectively be recognized based on the 40th percentile, arising from the equalization of the base salary to the Escala Salarial Unica para el Régimen Municipal, published in Gaceta nº 117 of June 18, 2009, derived from the firm agreement of the Municipal Council, adopted in the extraordinary session No. 216 of the day of February 3, 2009.

That is, what was resolved derives from the SPECIFIC non-compliance with the FIRM ADMINISTRATIVE ACT, adopted by the Municipal Council, which recognizes in favor of all workers the 40th percentile of the Salary Scale, from the Job Manual and salary scale proposed by the Board of Directors of the National Union of Local Governments, initially published in La Gaceta No. 117 of June 18, 2009, which is updated every six months.- But this does not mean that the Tribunal has ruled on the mechanism for adjusting the salaries of municipal employees, in accordance with the law, for the historical moment of this dispute.- 2.- Regarding the salary adjustment mechanism for municipal employees.- The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, in its opinion PGR-C-097-2022, on the subject, stated: In accordance with the provisions of articles 169 and 170 of the Political Constitution, municipalities are autonomous territorial entities in the political, tax, administrative, and regulatory fields, and in that order, the establishment of the tasks assigned to a class within the job manual, as well as the salary policy that will govern in the municipal corporation, is a competence included within the scope of said autonomy. Specifically, articles 129 and 130 of the Municipal Code establish the obligation of municipalities to adapt and keep the Descriptive Job Manual updated, since it contains a complete and succinct description of the typical and supplementary tasks of the positions, the duties, responsibilities, and minimum requirements of each class of positions, as well as other environmental and organizational conditions: "Article 129.- Municipalities shall adapt and keep updated the General Descriptive Job Manual, based on a comprehensive descriptive manual for the municipal regime. It shall contain a complete and succinct description of the typical and supplementary tasks of the positions, the duties, responsibilities, and minimum requirements of each class of positions, as well as other environmental and organizational conditions. The design and updating of the General Descriptive Job Manual shall be under the responsibility of the National Union of Local Governments. To develop and update both the General Manual and the respective adaptations in each municipality, both the National Union of Local Governments and the municipalities may request collaboration from the General Directorate of Civil Service. Municipalities may not create positions without the corresponding occupational profiles being included in said manuals." "Article 130.- Municipalities shall keep updated an organization and functioning manual, the application of which shall be the responsibility of the municipal mayor".

(The highlighting is not part of the original) On the occasion of the aforementioned, in opinion C-397-2007 of November 8, 2007, it is important to highlight that: “… municipal corporations are under the obligation to keep the descriptive job manuals updated, attending to the mutability that may arise in the way a determined public service is satisfied. This mutability could entail the modification of the respective job manual or simply the modification of the classification of a determined job within the existing manual.” In accordance with what has been indicated, the manuals, therefore, constitute technical instruments that allow defining the functions and requirements that the respective official must fulfill and, based on that, the salary level that will be assigned.

In this regard, Article 131 of the aforementioned Code provides:

“Article 131.- The wages and salaries of the servants protected by this law, shall be governed in accordance with the following provisions:

• a)No employee shall earn a salary less than the minimum corresponding to the performance of the position they occupy.
• b)The wages and salaries of municipal servants shall be determined by a salary scale, which shall set the minimum and maximum sums corresponding to each category of jobs.
• c)To determine wages and salaries, the budgetary conditions of the municipalities shall be taken into account, the cost of living in the distinct regions, the salaries that prevail in the market for equal jobs and any other legal provisions on salary matters.

To elaborate and update the salary scale, the competent instances may request collaboration from the Dirección General de Servicio Civil.” Note that it is through a salary scale that the salaries of municipal servants shall be established, and the budgetary conditions of the municipality, the cost of living in the distinct regions, the salaries that prevail in the market for equal jobs and any other legal provisions on salary matters must be taken into account, for which the ordering of the duties and responsibilities in a job manual is essential to determine the remuneration that corresponds to them. (...)

The Procuraduría adds: "Likewise, it is worth noting that the municipalities have the obligation to act within the established legal framework. Only in this way will their decisions be valid and effective. For that reason, it is not possible to admit that there are scenarios in which they are empowered not to update, or to disapply in specific cases, the respective job manuals. (See opinion PGR-C-061-2022 of March 21, 2022).

Therefore, the manuals under study constitute, not only an expression of municipal autonomy, regarding its organization, but also an impassable barrier for the actions of the territorial entity, it being expressly prohibited to create positions not contemplated in it. (See opinion C-029-2013 of March 6, 2013).

In that order, the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in resolution 2001-00024 of 14:40 hours of January 10, 2001, indicated:

“IV.- In the Public Sector, the Administration has the power-duty to distribute the workloads and make salary determinations, in accordance with the descriptive job manuals and the salary scales. Likewise, it has the obligation to recognize to the holders of the respective positions, the corresponding salary, and all the pluses or salary components that result from the law, or from validly adopted administrative provisions.” In the preparation of the manuals, the setting of the salary scale, and in general classifications, evaluations, and restructurings, legitimate margins of discretion are exercised. This responds to valid criteria of convenience or opportunity, and is carried out in function of the necessary efficiency of the public service. In order to achieve harmony and consistency, fiscal conditions, the modalities of each class of work, the cost of living, the salaries of the same positions in private enterprise, and also the overall organic and functional structure are taken into account. Thus, the manual, once approved, limits the Administration, as it establishes a description of the position's activities, which is taken into account to determine the classification, within the organizational structure, and the corresponding evaluation, always in accordance with a specific salary scale. The manuals can be modified by the hierarchy, not only in terms of the content of the activity, but also in terms of requirements; likewise, the salary scale can be modified; **that, however, without prejudice to vested rights.** Salary structures acquire a normative character, and form part of a public budget. For this reason, modifications to particular situations **are made subject to actual budget availability**, and always towards the future, as of a specific moment, which is already regulated. The set of tools described, plus the applicable laws and regulatory provisions, make up a part of the so-called legality block, from which the specific Administration cannot depart, in accordance with what is established by Article 11 of the Constitución Política, and numerals 11 and 13 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública”. (The highlighting is not part of the original) From that perspective, it must be clarified that a salary equity study as such, **could under no circumstances substitute the salary scale and the position manual;** meaning that, what would indeed be appropriate within the Municipality's autonomy, is that, based on that study, the corresponding modifications to the scale and the manual are internally processed, for the purpose of executing their update, **provided that the respective approvals and the budget content for it are available."** In addition, the Tribunal must also mention that, it is inferred from the third paragraph of Article 109 of the Código Municipal, that the consumer price index (índice de precios al consumidor, IPC) constitutes a valid parameter for updating the salaries of municipal employees. The norm establishes: "Artículo 109.

- The adjustments produced by the negotiation of collective labor agreements or conventions or any others that imply modifying ordinary budgets, shall only proceed when it is proven, in the course of processing disputes or in the relevant proceedings, that the cost of living has increased substantially according to the price indices of the Banco Central de Costa Rica and the Dirección General de Estadística y Censos." Having set forth all of the above, the Tribunal concludes that the Manual de Puestos y Escala Salarial, which is prepared and periodically updated by the Unión Nacional de Gobiernos Locales (UNGL), in accordance with the consumer price index (IPC) -a fact which the appellant himself acknowledged in his complaint- constitutes the normative framework, of minimum reference, whose purpose is to standardize and universalize the different classes, positions, functions, and profiles of municipal employees and, ultimately, proposes a national salary scale, determined based on the size of the Municipalidad (small, medium, or large) and, in turn, is broken down into progressive percentiles. Therefore, in accordance with this Manual de Puestos and its Salary Scale, each Municipalidad must adopt its size classification and payment percentile, according to its budgetary possibilities and under the protection of its municipal autonomy, a decision that is reviewable, always prospectively and absolutely subject to technical criteria duly supported by the criterion of necessity, with the respective balance between the labor rights of its employees and the public interest, safeguarding their acquired rights and consolidated legal situations, without any possibility of paying a lower salary than that corresponding to the occupational percentile approved in a given period, it being possible, evidently, to grant a greater salary increase, if the conditions and budgetary sustainability so permit. The foregoing is without prejudice to provisions contained in the Ley de Fortalecimiento de las Finanzas Públicas, Ley No. 9635, and especially the Ley Marco de Empleo Público, Ley No. 10159.-"

"IV.- CONSIDERACIONES GENERALES.- De previo a resolver, conviene desglosar los siguientes tema de interés: 1.- Sobre los alcances del pronunciamiento de este Tribunal, como antecedente previo, referente al Acuerdo del Concejo Municipal de la Municipalidad de La Unión de Cartago, adoptado en Sesión Extraordinaria No. 216 del día 3 de febrero del año 2009, así como el acto administrativo emitido por el Alcalde Municipal mediante Resolución Administrativa No. DA543-09 del 21 de agosto de 2009.

En relación al tema citado, que tiene íntima relación con el presente , el Tribunal se ha pronunciado, en innumerables fallos, de la siguiente manera:

"Pronunciamiento.-(...). En realidad, no existe duda que, el Consejo Municipal de la Municipalidad de La Unión de Cartago, en Sesión Extraordinaria No. 216 del día 3 de febrero del año 2009, emitió un acto administrativo firme en el que acordó equiparar los puestos de trabajo de los empleados municipales de acuerdo al estudio de la Unión Nacional de Gobiernos Locales, adoptando la escala salarial del percentil 40.

Literalmente, el acuerdo fue el siguiente:

"Se acuerda aprobar en firme el informe de la Comisión de Hacienda y Presupuesto, en la cual se conoce moción para equiparar los puestos de trabajo de la Municipalidad de acuerdo al estudio de la Unión Nacional de Gobiernos Locales, así mismo se adopte la escala salarial del percentil 40. Se recomienda que se tome la previsión económica en el primer presupuesto extraordinario del 2009. " Posteriormente, en la Gaceta nº 117 del 18 de junio de 2009, la Unión Nacional de Gobiernos Locales publicó la transcripción del acuerdo que adoptó el Consejo Directivo de la Unión de Gobiernos Locales, en la Sesión Ordinaria 04-2009 celebrada el jueves 19 de febrero de 2009, donde se aprobó la Escala de Salarios Única para el Régimen Municipal y el Manual Genérico de Clases para el Régimen Municipal. Nótese, entonces, que realmente, el acuerdo del Consejo Municipal, si bien es absolutamente válido y eficaz, se torna aplicable a partir del 18 de junio del 2009, cuando se publicó la Escala Salarial Unica, derivada del Manual Genérico de Clases. Acuerdo que, al ser declarado firme, por el propio Consejo Municipal, desde su adopción, otorgó derechos subjetivos a la parte actora, que sólo pueden ser reversados, mediante un proceso de lesividad, al amparo del artículo 173 de la Ley General de Administración Pública. Es de señalar, que el acuerdo administrativo adoptado por el Consejo Municipal, en Sesión Extraordinaria No. 216 del día 3 de febrero del año 2009, fue ejecutado incorrectamente mediante resolución administrativa emitida por el Alcalde Municipal, Ing. Julio Rojas Astorga, No. DA543-09 del 21 de agosto de 2009, dado que, en vez de readecuar los salarios base de todos los empleados municipales al percentil 40 de la nueva escala salarial, a partir del 18 de julio del 2009, estableció una graduación temporal en tractos anuales, disponiendo, a partir del 01 de julio de 2009, modificar la escala hasta llevarla al percentil 20; posteriormente, el 01 de julio de 2010 o bien el 01 de enero de 2011, dependiendo del comportamiento de los ingresos municipales, aplicar el percentil 30; y por último, del 01 de enero de 2011 o bien del 1 de julio de ese mismo año completar la aplicación llevándola al percentil 40. Es decir, lo que el Alcalde hizo fue desaplicar y modificar, por su decisión, el acuerdo del Consejo Municipal, proceder que es contrario a derecho, debido a que, de oficio el Alcalde no tiene la potestad de revocar, modificar o contravenir ningún acuerdo adoptado por el Consejo Municipal, sino simplemente, ejecutarlo y su única opción, para desaplicarlo era promover un proceso de lesividad, ante la existencia de una presunta nulidad absoluta, evidente y manifiesta, lesiva del interés público, con ocasión de un acto declaratorio de derechos subjetivos, acción que no llevó a cabo.-En el devenir del proceso, la parte demandada alegó que no adeuda suma alguna a la parte actora porque canceló, de forma semestral, los incrementos por costo de vida, acorde al índice de precios al consumidor, detallados en el apartado anterior, lo cual, la parte actora -desde la demanda y ahora en el recurso de apelación- reconoce su efectivo pago, conforme al período que reclama (2009-2013). Es decir, que no es un punto objeto de discusión. También, la parte demandada, alegó que no adeuda suma alguna a la parte actora porque reconoció el percentil 20 desde julio del 2009 hasta diciembre del 2010, y un percentil 45 a partir del año 2011 y hasta diciembre del 2013, e inclusive a partir del enero del 2014, reconoció un percentil 50. El apelante, en su recurso, reconoce que la Municipalidad homologó estos percentiles, en los porcentajes y rigen detallados, pero reprocha que la demandada nunca pagó de forma efectiva las diferencias salariales. Unicamente, pagó los incrementos salariales semestrales por costo de vida, acorde el índice de precios al consumidor y efectivamente, equiparó el percentil 50 a partir de enero del 2014.- Entonces, el meollo de este asunto, radica en determinar si dentro del expediente, existe alguna prueba que demuestre fehacientemente, de forma indubitable, que la Municipalidad de la Unión pagó efectivamente las diferencias salariales, por la aplicación del percentil 40, desde el 18 de julio del 2009 hasta el 31 de diciembre del 2013. La respuesta es no. (...) En opinión del Tribunal, resulta absolutamente evidente que no existe una prueba contundente, indubitable y cierta que demuestre fehacientemente que la Municipalidad de la Unión, efectivamente le canceló a la parte actora, las diferencias salariales reclamadas, provenientes de la equiparación del salario base a la Escala Salarial Unica para el Régimen Municipal,publicada en la Gaceta nº 117 del 18 de junio de 2009, derivadas del acuerdo firme, del Consejo Municipal, adoptado en la sesión extraordinaria No. 216 del día 3 de febrero del año 2009, a razón de la aplicación del percentil 40, a partir del 18 de julio del 2009 hasta el 31 de diciembre del 2013. (...) VI. CONSIDERANDO FINAL.- En atención a lo expuesto y resuelto, se acoge el recurso de apelación de la parte actora y se rechaza el recurso de apelación de la parte demandada. Se revoca parcialmente la sentencia de primera instancia y rechaza la excepción de falta de derecho. En consecuencia, se declara con lugar la demanda en todos sus extremos. Se condena a la Municipalidad de la Unión a pagar todas las diferencias salariales dejadas de percibir por la parte actora desde el 18 de julio de 2009 hasta el 31 diciembre de 2013 inclusive, correspondientes a la diferencia entre la base salarial pagada y la que efectivamente correspondía reconocer con base al percentil 40, provenientes de la equiparación del salario base a la Escala Salarial Unica para el Régimen Municipal, publicada en la Gaceta nº 117 del 18 de junio de 2009, derivadas del acuerdo firme, del Consejo Municipal, adoptado en la sesión extraordinaria No. 216 del día 3 de febrero del año 2009. (...)" (Exp 16-000101-0641-LA) Entonces, como se observa, el Tribunal lo que resolvió, en innumerables casos anteriores, ha sido el reconocimiento de las diferencias salariales dejadas de percibir por parte de los trabajadores municipales, desde el 18 de julio de 2009 hasta el 31 diciembre de 2013 inclusive, correspondientes a la diferencia entre la base salarial pagada y la que efectivamente correspondía reconocer con base al percentil 40, provenientes de la equiparación del salario base a la Escala Salarial Unica para el Régimen Municipal, publicada en la Gaceta nº 117 del 18 de junio de 2009, derivadas del acuerdo firme, del Consejo Municipal, adoptado en la sesión extraordinaria No. 216 del día 3 de febrero del año 2009. Es decir, que lo resuelto deriva del incumplimiento ESPECIFICO del ACTO ADMINISTRATIVO FIRME, adoptado por el Consejo Municipal, donde se reconoce a favor de todos los trabajadores del percentil 40 de la Escala Salarial, proveniente del Manual de Puestos y escala salarial propuesta por el Consejo Directivo de la Unión de Gobiernos Locales, publicado inicialmente en la Gaceta nº 117 del 18 de junio de 2009, mismo que semestralmente se actualiza.- Pero ello, no significa que el Tribunal, se ha pronunciado sobre el mecanismo de ajuste de los salarios de los servidores municipales, en los términos de ley, para el momento histórico del presente conflicto.- 2.- Sobre el mecanismo de ajuste salarial de los servidores municipales.- La Procuraduría General de la República, en su dictamen PGR-C-097-2022, sobre el tema, expresó: De conformidad con lo establecido en los artículos 169 y 170 de la Constitución Política, las municipalidades son entes territoriales autónomos en el campo político, tributario, administrativo y normativo y en ese orden, el establecimiento de las labores asignadas a una clase dentro del manual de puestos, así como la política salarial que regirá en la corporación municipal, resulta una competencia incluida dentro del ámbito de dicha autonomía. Concretamente, los artículos 129 y 130 del Código Municipal, establecen la obligación que tienen las municipalidades de adecuar y mantener actualizado el Manual Descriptivo de Puestos, ya que este contiene una descripción completa y sucinta de las tareas típicas y suplementarias de los puestos, los deberes, las responsabilidades y los requisitos mínimos de cada clase de puestos, así como otras condiciones ambientales y de organización: “Artículo 129.- Las municipalidades adecuarán y mantendrán actualizado el Manual Descriptivo de Puestos General, con base en un Manual descriptivo integral para el régimen municipal. Contendrá una descripción completa y sucinta de las tareas típicas y suplementarias de los puestos, los deberes, las responsabilidades y los requisitos mínimos de cada clase de puestos, así como otras condiciones ambientales y de organización. El diseño y la actualización del Manual descriptivo de puestos general estará bajo la responsabilidad de la Unión Nacional de Gobiernos Locales. Para elaborar y actualizar tanto el Manual general como las adecuaciones respectivas en cada municipalidad, tanto la Unión Nacional de Gobiernos Locales como las municipalidades podrán solicitar colaboración a la Dirección General de Servicio Civil. Las municipalidades no podrán crear plazas sin que estén incluidas, en dichos manuales, los perfiles ocupacionales correspondientes". Artículo 130.- Las municipalidades mantendrán actualizado un Manual de organización y funcionamiento, cuya aplicación será responsabilidad del alcalde municipal”. (El resaltado no pertenece al original) Con ocasión de lo mencionado, en el dictamen C-397-2007 del 8 de noviembre del 2007, es importante destacar que: “… las corporaciones municipales están en la obligación de mantener actualizados los manuales de puestos descriptivos, atendiendo a la mutabilidad que pueda presentarse en la forma en que se satisface un determinado servicio público. Esta mutabilidad podría conllevar la modificación del manual de puestos respectivo o simplemente la modificación de la clasificación de un determinado puesto dentro del manual existente”. En concordancia con lo señalado, los manuales, por lo tanto, constituyen instrumentos técnicos que permiten definir las funciones y requisitos que deberá cumplir el respectivo funcionario y a partir de ello, el nivel salarial que será asignado. Al respecto, el artículo 131 del referido Código dispone: “Artículo 131.- Los sueldos y salarios de los servidores protegidos por esta ley, se regirán de conformidad con las siguientes disposiciones: a) Ningún empleado devengará un sueldo inferior al mínimo correspondiente al desempeño del cargo que ocupa. b) Los sueldos y salarios de los servidores municipales serán determinados por una escala de sueldos, que fijará las sumas mínimas y máximas correspondientes a cada categoría de puestos. c) Para determinar los sueldos y salarios, se tomarán en cuenta las condiciones presupuestarias de las municipalidades, el costo de vida en las distintas regiones, los salarios que prevalezcan en el mercado para puestos iguales y cualesquiera otras disposiciones legales en materia salarial. Para elaborar y actualizar la escala de sueldos las instancias competentes podrán solicitar colaboración a la Dirección General de Servicio Civil”. Nótese, que es mediante una escala de sueldos que se establecerán los salarios de los servidores municipales, debiendo tomarse en cuenta las condiciones presupuestarias de la municipalidad, el costo de vida en las distintas regiones, los salarios que prevalezcan en el mercado para puestos iguales y cualesquiera otras disposiciones legales en materia salarial, por lo cual el ordenamiento de las cargas y responsabilidades en un manual de puestos, es primordial para determinar la remuneración que les corresponda. (...) Agrega, la Procuraduría: "Asimismo, cabe advertir que las municipalidades tienen la obligación de actuar dentro del marco legal establecido. Solo así sus decisiones serían válidas y eficaces. Por ese motivo, no es posible admitir que existan supuestos en los cuales estén facultadas para no actualizar, o para desaplicar en casos concretos, los manuales de puestos respectivos. (Ver dictamen PGR-C-061-2022 del 21 de marzo del 2022). Por ende, los manuales en estudio constituyen, no solo una expresión de la autonomía municipal, en lo tocante a su organización, sino también una barrera infranqueable para el actuar del ente territorial, encontrándose expresamente prohibido crear plazas no contempladas en este. (Ver dictamen C-029-2013 del 6 de marzo del 2013). En ese orden, la Sala Segunda de la Corte Suprema de Justicia en la resolución 2001-00024 de las 14:40 horas del 10 de enero del 2001, indicó: “IV.- En el Sector Público, la Administración tiene el poder- deber, de distribuir las cargas de trabajo y hacer las fijaciones salariales, de acuerdo con los manuales descriptivos de puestos y las escalas salariales. Asimismo, tiene la obligación de reconocerle a los titulares de los respectivos puestos, el sueldo correspondiente, y todos los pluses o componentes salariales que resulten de la ley, o de disposiciones administrativas válidamente adoptadas. En la confección de los manuales, la fijación de la escala salarial, y en las calificaciones generales, valoraciones y reestructuraciones, se dan legítimos márgenes de discrecionalidad. Ello, obedece a criterios válidos de conveniencia o de oportunidad, y se da en función de la necesaria eficiencia del servicio público. Con el objeto de lograr armonía y consistencia, se atiende a las condiciones fiscales, las modalidades de cada clase de trabajo, el costo de la vida, los salarios de los mismos puestos en la empresa privada y, también, al conjunto de la estructura orgánica y funcional. Así, el manual, una vez aprobado, limita a la Administración, pues establece una descripción de las actividades del puesto, que se toma en cuenta para determinar la clasificación, dentro de la estructura organizativa, y la correspondiente valoración, siempre de acuerdo con una determinada escala de salarios. Los manuales pueden ser modificados por la jerarquía, no sólo en cuanto al contenido de la actividad, sino también en materia de requisitos; igual, que puede modificarse la escala de salarios; eso sí, sin perjuicio de los derechos adquiridos. Las estructuras salariales adquieren carácter normativo, y forman parte de un presupuesto público. En razón de ello, las modificaciones de las situaciones particulares, se hacen sujetas a una real disponibilidad presupuestaria, y siempre hacia el futuro, a partir de determinado momento, que ya está reglado. El conjunto de herramientas descrito, más las leyes y disposiciones normativas aplicables, conforman una parte del denominado bloque de legalidad, del que la Administración específica, no puede apartarse, de acuerdo con lo que establecen el artículo 11 de la Constitución Política, y los numerales 11 y 13 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública”. (El resaltado no pertenece al original) Desde esa perspectiva , debe aclararse que un estudio de equidad salarial como tal, no podría sustituir bajo ninguna circunstancia a la escala salarial y al manual de puestos; siendo que, lo que sí resultaría procedente dentro de la autonomía de la Municipalidad, es que, con base en ese estudio, se gestionen a lo interno las modificaciones correspondientes a la escala y al manual, a efectos de ejecutar su actualización, siempre y cuando se cuente con las aprobaciones respectivas y el contenido presupuestario para ello." En adición, el Tribunal, también debe mencionar que, se infiere del tercer párrafo del artículo 109 del Código Municipal, que el índice de precios al consumidor (IPC) constituye un parámetro válido, para la actualización de los salarios de los servidores municipales. Establece la norma: "Artículo 109. - (...)Los reajustes producidos por la concertación de convenciones o convenios colectivos de trabajo o cualesquiera otros que impliquen modificar los presupuestos ordinarios, sólo procederán cuando se pruebe, en el curso de la tramitación de los conflictos o en las gestiones pertinentes, que el costo de la vida ha aumentado sustancialmente según los índices de precios del Banco Central de Costa Rica y la Dirección General de Estadística y Censos." Expuesto todo lo anterior, el Tribunal concluye que el Manual de Puestos y Escala Salarial, que elabora y actualiza de forma periódica la Unión Nacional de Gobiernos Locales (UNGL), conforme al índice de precios al consumidor (IPC) -hecho que en sí mismo reconoció el apelante en su demanda- constituye el marco normativo, de referencia mínimo, que tiene como finalidad estandarizar y universalizar las distintas clases, puestos, funciones, perfiles de los empleados municipales y en definitiva, propone una escala salarial a nivel nacional, determinada en función del tamaño de la Municipalidad (pequeña, mediana o grande) y a su vez, se desglosa en percentiles progresivos. Entonces, conforme a este Manual de Puestos y su Escala Salarial, cada Municipalidad deberá adoptar, su ubicación de tamaño y percentil de pago, conforme a sus posibilidades presupuestarias y bajo el amparo de su autonomía municipal, decisión que es revisable, siempre a futuro y absolutamente sometida a criterios técnicos debidamente sustentados en criterio de necesidad, con el respectivo equilibrio entre los derechos laborales de sus servidores y el interés público, tutelando sus derechos adquiridos y situaciones jurídicas consolidadas, sin posibilidad alguna de pagar menos salario que el que corresponde al percentil ocupacional aprobado en un período determinado, siendo posible, evidentemente, reconocer un mayor aumento salarial, si las condiciones y sostenibilidad presupuestaria así lo permitan. Lo anterior, sin perjuicio de disposiciones contenidas en la Ley de Fortalecimiento de las Finanzas Públicas, Ley No. 9635 y en especial la Ley Marco de Empleo Público, Ley No. 10159.-"