Denial of salary differentials for a Ministry of Health driverDenegatoria de diferencias salariales a chofer del Ministerio de Salud

*190007030641LA* Supreme Court of Justice SECOND CHAMBER Res: 2021-001965 SECOND CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at ten hours fifty minutes on the twenty-fifth of August, two thousand twenty-one.

Ordinary proceeding filed before the Labor Court of Cartago, by [Name 001], marital status unknown, driver, resident of Cartago, against the STATE, represented by its deputy procurator, licensed attorney Laura Rodríguez Benavides. The plaintiff's special judicial representative is licensed attorney Carlos Mauricio Sierra Sánchez. All of legal age, married, attorneys, and residents of San José, with the indicated exception.

Magistrate Varela Araya writes the opinion; and,

CONSIDERING:

I.- BACKGROUND: The plaintiff stated in the complaint that he began working for the Ministry of Health, [Name 004] office, in 1975, as a light vehicle driver. He stated that he worked a schedule of Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., with ten minutes for breakfast, forty minutes for lunch, and fifteen minutes for a coffee break. He asserted that he was not paid the legal minimum wage for the work performed. By virtue of the foregoing, he requested that the defendant be ordered in judgment as follows: 1. To recognize the wage differences from the beginning of the employment relationship until April 2, 2019. 2. To readjust the payment of annual increments, Christmas bonus, and school salary. 3. To pay interest and indexation. 2. To pay both costs of the proceeding (see document added to the virtual desktop of the Labor Court at 8:57:55 on 05/09/2019). The state representative answered the initial action and raised the defense of lack of right. Likewise, she indicated that the complaint does not meet the requirements established by numeral 495 of the reformed Code of Labor, inasmuch as it does not clearly establish its claims, nor does it indicate the reasons why it considers that the minimum wage is not recognized to him. She asserted that the plaintiff has been paid the minimum wage in accordance with the regulatory guidelines governing the public employment relationship with the State. She explained that the salary goes through the various approval filters to determine that it is in accordance with the law; and in this manner, it is recorded in the personnel action, which must be approved by the Civil Service General Directorate and finally, by the budget of the Ministry of Finance (see document added to the virtual desktop of the Labor Court at 16:33:0 on 05/27/2019). The Labor Court of Cartago, by judgment number 823-2019 at 14 hours and 8 minutes on November 6, 2019, upheld the defense of lack of right. It dismissed the complaint. It ordered the plaintiff to pay both costs of the proceeding, setting the personal costs at the sum of ¢121,000 (see ruling incorporated into the virtual desktop of the Labor Court at 14:08:50 on 11/6/2019).

II.- GRIEVANCES: The plaintiff files a cassation appeal, in which he expresses the following reproaches. In his judgment, the appealed ruling contains an erroneous interpretation of the evidence and the sound discretion of judicial decisions, as well as clear opposition to the rulings of the Second Chamber regarding the matters not granted. He points out that his client has been sustaining the thesis that the base salary (salario base) and the minimum wage (salario mínimo) are really the same, but the analysis of these concepts, at the jurisprudential level, are different, since one belongs to the public sector and the other to the private sector. He notes that the concept of "wage supplement / plus salarial" is not analyzed from a literal point of view, as it is the item that is above the minimum allowed. According to his criterion, it should not be interpreted that the supplements (pluses) of the public sector were created to "equalize" the legal minimum of the private sector, given that the same functions are performed. He states that the salary of State workers is above the legal minimums established for the private sector, but in the specific case, the opposite occurs. He notes that what is intended with the complaint is to collect the wage differences based on the minimum wages of the Administrative Decrees of the Ministry of Labor, since the jurisprudence has sustained that, when the public sector salary equals or exceeds that indicated in the Decrees of the Ministry of Labor, there are no wage differences. According to his criterion, in the specific case, the plaintiff has no wage supplements (pluses salariales) other than the annual increments (anualidades) and even so, his salary does not reach the legal minimum established for the private sector. He indicates that this situation violates the jurisprudential line, the purpose of which is social wage equalization, regardless of whether it concerns the public or private sector. He argues that the plaintiff's salary is below the legal minimum. In addition, he indicates that there is no difference between two people who perform the same functions as a driver in the public and private sector. He states that there is unequal wage treatment to the detriment of the public employee. He adds that the order to pay costs is disproportionate, since there is no procedural bad faith. He considers that he has a right to his claim.

III.- DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BASE SALARY AND MINIMUM WAGE: The plaintiff's representative alleges that the concept of base salary (salario base) and minimum wage (salario mínimo) are the same. However, this Chamber has previously ruled on this matter and has indicated the opposite. It is worth noting that, through judgment number 530 at 9 hours and 54 minutes on April 9, 2010, it was indicated: "Salary is defined in doctrine as 'the set of economic advantages, normal and permanent, that the worker obtains as a consequence of his work performed by virtue of an employment relationship' (Pla RODRÍGUEZ Américo. (1956). El salario en el Uruguay. Faculty of Law and Social Sciences of the University of Montevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay, pp. 12). From the previous meaning, a series of subcategories referring to the salary concept are elaborated, within which it is necessary to differentiate between base salary and minimum wage. The so-called base salary is the fixed or guaranteed remuneration per unit of time or work referring to a professional category. For Palomeque López and ÁLVAREZ de la Rosa, its importance lies in the following factors: 'a) it is the wage amount that normally standardizes the group or professional category; b) it will be, normally, the support for calculating on it the amount of many wage supplements; and c) it is a closing concept: when a perception is not assimilable to one of the wage supplements, it will be imputed to the base salary.' (Palomeque López Manuel Carlos and ÁLVAREZ de la Rosa Manuel. (2002). Derecho del Trabajo, Tenth Edition, Editorial Centro de Estudios Ramón Areces, S.A., Madrid, Spain, pp. 901). To said wage amount, wage components are added, based on remunerative perceptions, by virtue of the concurrence of certain circumstances. Our legal system refers to them as bonuses (sobresueldos) and supplements (pluses). The Spanish author Alfredo Montoya Melgar, referring to Spanish legislation, classifies these sums according to their link to the person's conditions, to the work, and to the situation and results of the company, being clear in the sense that these sums should not be considered for the calculation of the base salary. In this regard, he teaches: 'Supplements linked to the person: are those that remunerate personal circumstances of the worker, not taken into account when determining the base salary (...). / Supplements linked to the work: among them are those that compensate for greater productivity (...), as well as the special conditions of the job position (e.g.: supplements for hardship, danger, toxicity, night work, etc.) (...). / Supplements linked to the situation and results of the company: in this category are included profit sharing and bonuses based on sales, invoicing, etc.' (Montoya Melgar Alfredo. (2007). Derecho del Trabajo, twenty-eighth edition, Editorial Tecnos, Madrid, Spain, pp. 374). For its part, the minimum wage in the Costa Rican legal system is based on Article 57 of the Political Constitution, which establishes the maxim that no worker can earn an amount less than that set by the administrative authorities of the State, with the intention that he can satisfy his own needs and those of his family. Américo Pla RODRÍGUEZ speaks of that salary in the following way: 'The minimum wage is the lowest wage that the law allows to be set. It is a purely legal concept: a limit below which no salary can be paid. And purely formal: because that minimum can be determined according to various criteria. / The idea of minimum wage does not indicate what that inspiring criterion is, but rather the only thing it establishes is the limit that cannot be violated downward, setting a lower salary. It restricts in this sense the conventional freedom of the parties; and only in this sense, because it does not prevent the contractual setting of a higher salary.' (Pla RODRÍGUEZ Américo. (1956). El salario en el Uruguay. Faculty of Law and Social Sciences of the University of Montevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay, pp. 98). Based on the previous formula, any contractual stipulation that sets the salary below the established limit shall become null and void, and correlatively, any omission by the employer in this regard shall be sanctionable through the jurisdictional route. Now then, this Chamber has considered that the existence of a public employment regime, regulated by its own principles, does not imply neglect of Article 57 of the Constitution, since the salary of officials governed by the Civil Service Statute is composed of the base salary and indirect wage remunerations such as bonuses (sobresueldos) and supplements (pluses), which make the remunerations of that sector equal to or even exceed the minimum wage set by the competent body. In this line of argument, resolution 2004-0202 at 10:20 hours on March 24, 2004, indicates: 'As can be noted, there is a difference between the concepts of "base salary" and "minimum wage," since it is not true that the Minimum Wage Decree indicates or points out that the minimum wage is the same as the base salary. In addition, the wage supplements (pluses salariales) applicable to the Public Sector constitute a mechanism devised to increase the salary of workers in that sector, thus surpassing the wage setting for homologous cases in the Private Sector. The term salary must be understood in a generic and broad sense; therefore, in the Public Sector it comprises both the base salary and the other supplements, so applying the interpretation proposed by the plaintiff would imply ignoring the doctrine that informs the concept of salary.' The distinction between base salary and minimum wage is raised in the terms that, on one hand, the former alludes to the remuneration of professional categories in attention to the rank and status they possess, and the second proposes the guarantee that every working person will receive an essential remunerative core to satisfy their basic needs. In this way, both concepts possess diverse content that cannot be equated, insofar as they come from dissimilar legal situations. Thus, the petition of the plaintiff is not admissible, since as has been explained in this considering, the base salary in the public sector does not necessarily have to be equal to the minimum wage set by the National Wage Council, because wage supplements (pluses) and bonuses (sobresueldos) derived from the provision of services under the public employment regime are added to said wage base. Likewise, the argument made that the wage supplements (pluses salariales) and bonuses (sobresueldos) cannot be considered to establish an equivalence to the minimum amounts of the private sector is not acceptable, since they are remunerations derived indirectly from the provision of services, given with remunerative intent by the employer, which serve to increase the worker's assets and therefore are an integral part of the salary received" (in a similar sense, judgments number 105 at 9:45 hours on January 27, 2017, and 395 at 9:40 hours on April 27, 2016, can be consulted).

IV.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE: The plaintiff argues that the salary he has been paid is less than the legal minimum and claims payment of the respective wage differences. In this regard, it must be noted that the salary regime for public servants is regulated by legislation, specifically established in the Civil Service Statute. Article 48 of the referred normative body regulates that: "The salaries of the officials and employees protected by this law shall be governed according to the following rules: / a) No employee or official shall earn a salary lower than the minimum corresponding to the performance of the position they hold. / b) The salaries of the servants of the Executive Branch shall be determined by a Salaries Law that will set the minimum, intermediate, and maximum sums corresponding to each category of employment. / c) For the setting of salaries, fiscal conditions, the modalities of each type of work, the cost of living in the different regions, the salaries prevailing in private companies for analogous positions, and other factors stipulated in the Code of Labor shall be taken into account. / d) Within the minimum and maximum figures mentioned in subparagraph b), the respective Chiefs may agree to salary increases, taking into account factors such as efficiency, seniority, conduct, aptitudes, and other qualities resulting from the periodic evaluation of their servants, all this subject to what the Salaries Law provides to that effect. The Chiefs of the various sections of the administrative personnel must obtain, prior to such increases, the approval of the hierarchical supervisor; increases that shall be subject to the provisions of subparagraph e) of this same article; and / e) It is forbidden for the National Treasury to issue drafts in favor of employees or officials, for sums other than the minimums set in the Budget or Salaries Law; and in the case of the preceding subparagraph, the increase shall not become effective until it is included in the Ordinary Budget Law, or in an extraordinary budget. The Civil Service General Directorate shall inform the National Treasury of the increases in the salaries of public servants." In the same order of ideas, the Public Administration Salaries Law establishes in numeral 1 that said legal instrument aims to guarantee the efficiency of the Administration; and also constitutes the remuneration system for all types of positions classified in the descriptive manual of positions, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X of the Civil Service Statute. Article 4 of that normative body determines a salary scale for the public sector composed of seventy-three categories, which may be modified by the Civil Service General Directorate, after a technical study, adding in Article 8 that no State worker may earn a salary lower than that of their respective category. It is important to indicate that, through the issuance of Law No. 832, of November 4, 1949, the National Wage Council (Consejo Nacional de Salarios) was created, and in its Article 1, it stipulates: "everything related to wage setting is of public interest, as a means of contributing to the well-being of the Costa Rican family and of promoting the just distribution of wealth." Said Council is a tripartite body composed of nine members, which—according to Article 2—has the competence to set minimum wages. In that sense, the norm states: "The setting of minimum wages shall be the responsibility of a permanent technical body, called the National Wage Council, a maximum deconcentrated body of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security." Regarding the scope of the legal norms that this administrative authority issues, Article 15 establishes: "The setting of the minimum wage shall be made for intellectual, industrial, agricultural, livestock, or commercial activities, and according to the different territorial or economic circumscriptions. It may also be made for a specific company." In accordance with the foregoing list of norms, the Costa Rican legal system guarantees that no public official shall earn a salary lower than that established for their salary category. Similarly, it is necessary to point out that the existence of a public employment regime, governed by its own principles, does not render nugatory the guarantee provided in numeral 57 of the Political Constitution. It must be remembered that, as the appellant states, the Public Administration, by imperative mandate of Articles 11 of the Political Constitution and 11 of the General Law of Public Administration, is prevented from carrying out conduct that is not expressly authorized by the legal system. As stated, it is clear that the Public Administration is subject to the principle of legality and, therefore, in matters of salaries – the subject under debate – must adhere to the provisions of the normative bodies previously alluded to. Thus, what is sought by the plaintiff is inadmissible. This is because the salary he has earned is in accordance with the law, inasmuch as it has been the one assigned for his category by the Civil Service General Directorate, as observed from certification No. [Value 001], issued by the Human Development Directorate of the Ministry of Health (see document incorporated to the virtual desktop at 16:33:18 on 05/27/2019). This Chamber considers that, in the appealed judgment, the evidence was not improperly weighed nor was the jurisprudence erroneously interpreted. Furthermore, discriminatory or unequal treatment is not given to the official, given that his conditions are not equal to those of persons providing their services as a driver in the private sector, since his regime is one of public employment and, therefore, is regulated by special norms. In that sense, it is deemed pertinent to bring up what was expressed by the Constitutional Chamber in judgment number 94 at 9 hours and 48 minutes on January 8, 1993: "...It is necessary to indicate that the minimum wage decrees are applicable only to private sector workers, and not to those of the public sector (as are the appellants), for whom a different regime applies." V.- COSTS: Numeral 562 of the reformed Code of Labor, in what is of interest, stipulates: "In every judgment [...] the defeated party shall be ordered [...] to pay the personal and procedural costs incurred. / If the judgment resolves the matter on the merits [...] the personal costs may not be less than fifteen percent (15%) nor greater than twenty-five percent (25%) of the liquid amount of the award or the dismissal, as the case may be..." Numeral 563 following, for its part, points out: "Nevertheless, the defeated party may be exempted from the payment of personal costs and even procedural costs when: 1) They have litigated with evident good faith. / 2) The propositions have been partially successful. / 3) When there has been mutual defeat. / The exoneration must always be reasoned... / The party who denied evident claims that the outcome of the process indicates should have been accepted, did not attend the entirety of the hearing, alleged bribed witnesses or false witnesses and documents, did not offer any proof to justify their claim or defenses, if they were based on disputed facts... shall not be considered to be in good faith." In accordance with the foregoing, the rule is to impose the payment of these expenses on the defeated party. In the case under analysis, it is not considered to be in the presence of a case that merits the exercise of that power to not apply the general rule, since the claim filed lacks legal basis and there is vast jurisprudence that has denied similar claims.

VI. FINAL CONSIDERATION

As a corollary of the foregoing, the proper course is to dismiss the appeal filed.

THEREFORE:

The appeal is dismissed.

Orlando Aguirre Gómez Julia Varela Araya Luis Porfirio Sánchez Rodríguez Jorge Enrique Olaso Álvarez Roxana Chacón Artavia Res: 2021001965 PMADRIGALE/mrg 2 Telephones: 2295-3671, 2295-3676, 2295-3675 and 2295-4406. Fax: 2295-3009. Emails: [email protected].

**Exp: 190007030641LA** **Res: 2021-001965** **SECOND CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE**. San José, at ten hours fifty minutes on the twenty-fifth of August of two thousand twenty-one.

Ordinary proceeding established before the Labor Court of Cartago, by [Name 001], marital status unknown, driver, resident of Cartago, against the **STATE**, represented by its deputy procuradora, licensed attorney Laura Rodríguez Benavides. The licensed attorney Carlos Mauricio Sierra Sánchez acts as special judicial representative of the plaintiff. All of legal age, married, attorneys, and residents of San José, with the indicated exception.

**Drafted by Magistrate Varela Araya; and,** **WHEREAS:** **I.- BACKGROUND:** The plaintiff stated in the complaint that he began working for the Ministry of Health, [Name 004] headquarters, in the year 1975, as a light vehicle driver. He reported that he worked a schedule from Monday to Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., having ten minutes for breakfast, forty minutes for lunch, and fifteen minutes for a coffee break. He asserted that he was not paid the legal minimum wage for the duties performed. By virtue of the foregoing, he requested that the defendant be ordered in judgment to do the following: 1. Recognize the wage differentials (diferencias salariales) from the beginning of the employment relationship until April 2, 2019. 2. Readjust the payment of seniority bonuses (anualidades), the Christmas bonus (aguinaldo), and the school bonus (salario escolar). 3. Pay interest and indexation (indexación). 2. Pay both costs (costas) of the proceeding (see document added to the virtual desktop of the Labor Court at 8:57:55 on 05/09/2019). The state representative answered the initial action and raised the defense of lack of right (excepción de falta de derecho). Likewise, she indicated that the complaint does not meet the requirements established by section 495 of the amended Labor Code (Código de Trabajo), since it does not clearly establish its claims nor does it indicate the reasons why he considers that the minimum wage is not being recognized. She asserted that the plaintiff has been paid the minimum wage in accordance with the regulatory guidelines that govern the public employment relationship with the State. She explained that the salary undergoes various approval filters to determine if it is legally compliant; and, in this way, it is reflected in the personnel action, which must be approved by the General Directorate of Civil Service (Dirección General de Servicio Civil) and finally, by the budget of the Ministry of Finance (see document added to the virtual desktop of the Labor Court at 16:33:0 on 05/27/2019). The Labor Court of Cartago, through judgment number 823-2019 at 14 hours and 8 minutes on November 6, 2019, upheld the defense of lack of right (excepción de falta de derecho). It declared the complaint without merit. It ordered the plaintiff to pay both costs (costas) of the proceeding, setting the personal costs at the sum of ¢121,000 (see ruling incorporated into the virtual desktop of the Labor Court at 14:08:50 on 11/6/2019).

**II.- GRIEVANCES:** The plaintiff files a cassation appeal (recurso de casación), in which he expresses the following objections. In his opinion, the appealed judgment contains an erroneous interpretation of the evidence and the sound judgment (sana crítica) of judicial rulings, as well as a clear contradiction to the votes of the Second Chamber regarding the relief not granted. He points out that his party has been maintaining the thesis that the base salary (salario base) and the minimum (salario mínimo) are really the same thing, but the analysis of these figures, at the jurisprudential level, is different, since one belongs to the public sector and the other to the private sector. He notes that the concept of "salary supplement (plus salarial)" is not analyzed from a literal point of view, as it is the item that is above the permitted minimum. According to his criterion, it should not be interpreted that the supplements (pluses) of the public sector were created to "match" the private sector's legal minimum (mínimo legal), given that the same functions are performed. He states that the salary of State workers is above the legal minimums established for the private sector, but in the specific case, the opposite occurs. He notes that what is sought with the complaint is to collect the wage differentials (diferencias salariales) taking as a basis the minimum wages (salarios mínimos) of the Administrative Decrees of the Ministry of Labor, since jurisprudence has held that, when the public sector salary equals or exceeds that indicated in the Decrees of the Ministry of Labor, there are no wage differentials (diferencias salariales). According to his criterion, in the specific case, the plaintiff has no salary supplements (pluses salariales) other than seniority bonuses (anualidades) and even so his salary does not reach the legal minimum (mínimo legal) established for the private sector. He indicates that this situation breaks the jurisprudential line, which aims at social equalization at the salary level, regardless of whether it is the public or private sector. He argues that the plaintiff's salary is below the legal minimum (mínimo legal). Furthermore, he indicates that there is no difference between two people who perform the same functions as a driver in the public and private sector. He affirms that there is unequal salary treatment to the detriment of the public employee. He adds that the order of costs (costas) is disproportionate, since there is no procedural bad faith. He considers that he has a right to his claim.

**III.- DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BASE SALARY AND MINIMUM WAGE:** The plaintiff's representative argues that the concept of base salary (salario base) and minimum wage (salario mínimo) are the same. However, this Chamber has already ruled on the matter and has indicated the opposite. It is worth noting that, through judgment number 530 at 9 hours and 54 minutes on April 9, 2010, it was indicated: *"Salary is defined in doctrine as 'the set of economic, normal, and permanent advantages that the worker obtains as a consequence of his work performed by virtue of an employment relationship' (Pla RODRÍGUEZ Américo. (1956). El salario en el Uruguay. Faculty of Law and Social Sciences of the University of Montevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay, pp. 12). From the preceding meaning, a series of subcategories referring to the concept of salary are elaborated, within which it is necessary to differentiate the base salary (salario base) and the minimum wage (salario mínimo).* *The so-called base salary (salario base) is the fixed or guaranteed remuneration per unit of time or work referring to a professional category. For Palomeque López and ÁLVAREZ de la Rosa, its importance lies in the following factors:* '*a) it is the salary amount that normally standardizes the professional group or category; b) it will normally be the support for calculating the amount of many salary supplements on it; and c) it is a closing concept: when a perception is not assimilable to any of the salary supplements, it will be charged to the base salary (salario base).' *(Palomeque López Manuel Carlos and ÁLVAREZ de la Rosa Manuel. (2002). Derecho del Trabajo, Tenth Edition, Editorial Centro de Estudios Ramón Areces, S.A., Madrid, Spain, pp. 901). To said salary amount, salary components are added, based on remunerative perceptions, by virtue of the concurrence of certain circumstances. Our legal system refers to them as bonuses (sobresueldos) and supplements (pluses). The Spanish author Alfredo Montoya Melgar, referring to Spanish legislation, classifies said sums according to their link to the conditions of the person, the work, and the situation and results of the company, being clear in the sense that said sums should not be considered for the calculation of the base salary (salario base).* *In this regard, he teaches:* '*Supplements linked to the person: are those that remunerate personal circumstances of the worker, not taken into account when determining the base salary (salario base) (...). / Supplements linked to the work: within these are those that reward greater productivity (...), as well as the special conditions of the job position (e.g.: supplements for hardship, danger, toxicity, night work, etc.) (...). / Supplements linked to the situation and results of the company: these include profit sharing and bonuses based on sales, invoicing, etc.*'. *(Montoya Melgar Alfredo. (2007). Derecho del Trabajo, twenty-eighth edition, Editorial Tecnos, Madrid, Spain, pp. 374). For its part, the minimum wage (salario mínimo) in the Costa Rican legal system is based on Article 57 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), which creates the maxim that no worker can earn an amount lower than that set by the administrative authorities of the State, with the intention that he can satisfy his own needs and those of his family. Américo Pla RODRÍGUEZ speaks of that salary in the following way:* '*The minimum wage (salario mínimo) is the lowest salary that the law allows to set. It is a purely legal concept: a limit below which no salary can be paid. And purely formal: because that minimum can be determined according to various criteria. / The idea of a minimum wage (salario mínimo) does not indicate what that inspiring criterion is, but rather the only thing it marks is the limit that cannot be violated downwards, setting a lower salary. It restricts the conventional freedom of the parties in that sense; and only in that sense, because it does not prevent the contractual setting of a higher salary.*'. *(Pla RODRÍGUEZ Américo. (1956). El salario en el Uruguay. Faculty of Law and Social Sciences of the University of Montevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay, pp. 98). Based on the preceding formula, any contractual stipulation that sets the salary below the established limit will become null and correspondingly, any omission on the part of the employer in that sense will be sanctionable in the jurisdictional avenue.* Now, this Chamber has considered that the existence of a public employment regime (régimen de empleo público), regulated by its own principles, does not imply disregard for Article 57 of the Constitution, since the salary of officials governed by the Civil Service Statute (Estatuto del Servicio Civil) is composed of the base salary (salario base) and indirect salary compensation such as additional payments and bonuses (sobresueldos y pluses), which cause the remuneration in that sector to equal or even exceed the minimum salary (salario mínimo) set by the competent body. In this line of argument, resolution 2004-0202 of 10:20 a.m. on March 24, 2004, states: 'As can be noted, there is a difference between the concepts of "base salary" and "minimum salary," since it is not true that the Minimum Wage Decree indicates or points out that the minimum salary is the same as the base salary. Moreover, the salary bonuses applicable to the Public Sector constitute a mechanism devised to increase the salary of workers in that sector, thus exceeding the salary setting for comparable cases in the Private Sector. The term salary must be understood in a generic and broad sense; therefore, in the Public Sector, it includes both the base salary and the other bonuses, so applying the interpretation proposed by the petitioner would mean disregarding the doctrine that informs the concept of salary.' The distinction between base salary and minimum salary is set forth in terms that, on the one hand, the former alludes to the remuneration of professional categories in view of the rank and status they hold, and the latter proposes the guarantee that every working person will receive an essential remunerative core to satisfy their basic needs.

Thus, both concepts possess different content that cannot be equated, insofar as they arise from dissimilar legal situations. This being the case, the petition of the plaintiff is not admissible, since, as has been explained in this recital (considerando), the base salary in the public sector does not necessarily have to be equal to the minimum salary set by the National Wage Council (Consejo Nacional de Salarios), given that bonuses and additional payments derived from the provision of services under the public employment regime are added to this wage base. Likewise, the argument that salary bonuses and additional payments cannot be considered to establish an equivalence to the minimum amounts in the private sector is not acceptable, since they are compensation indirectly derived from the provision of services, given with remunerative intent by the employer, which serve to increase the worker's assets and are therefore an integral part of the salary earned” (in a similar vein, see judgments numbers 105 of 9:45 a.m. on January 27, 2017, and 395 of 9:40 a.m. on April 27, 2016).

**IV.- REGARDING THE SPECIFIC CASE:** The plaintiff argues that the salary paid to him is less than the legal minimum and demands payment of the respective wage differences. In this regard, it must be noted that the salary regime for public servants is regulated by legislation, specifically established in the Civil Service Statute (Estatuto de Servicio Civil). Article 48 of the aforementioned regulatory body provides that: *"The salaries of the officials and employees protected by this law shall be governed in accordance with the following rules: / a) No employee or official shall earn a salary lower than the minimum corresponding to the performance of the position they hold. / b) The salaries of Executive Branch servants shall be determined by a Salary Law (Ley de Salarios) that will set the minimum, intermediate, and maximum amounts corresponding to each category of employment. / c) For setting salaries, fiscal conditions, the modalities of each type of work, the cost of living in the different regions, the salaries prevailing in private companies for similar positions, and the other factors stipulated by the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo) shall be taken into account. / d) Within the minimum and maximum figures referred to in subsection b), the respective Heads may agree to salary increases, considering factors such as efficiency, seniority, conduct, skills, and other qualities resulting from the periodic evaluation of their servants, all subject to what the Salary Law provides for that purpose. The Heads of the various sections of the administrative personnel must obtain the approval of the hierarchical supervisor prior to such increases; increases that will be subject to the provisions of subsection e) of this same article; and / e) The National Treasury is prohibited from issuing payments in favor of employees or officials for amounts different from the minimums set in the Budget or Salary Law; and in the case of the previous subsection, the increase shall not become effective until it is included in the Ordinary Budget Law or in an extraordinary budget. The Directorate General of Civil Service (Dirección General de Servicio Civil) shall inform the National Treasury of the salary increases of public servants."* In the same line of thought, the Public Administration Salary Law (Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública) establishes in Article 1 that this legal instrument seeks to guarantee the efficiency of the Administration; and it also constitutes the compensation system for all categories of positions classified in the descriptive manual of positions, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X of the Civil Service Statute. Article 4 of that regulatory body establishes a salary scale for the public sector composed of seventy-three categories, which may be modified by the Directorate General of Civil Service, subject to a technical study, with Article 8 adding that no State employee may earn a salary lower than that of their respective category. It is important to point out that, through the enactment of Law No. 832 of November 4, 1949, the National Wage Council (Consejo Nacional de Salarios) was created, and its Article 1 stipulates: “*everything related to wage setting is of public interest, as a means of contributing to the well-being of the Costa Rican family and promoting the fair distribution of wealth*”. Said Council is a tripartite body composed of nine members, which—according to Article 2—has the competence to set minimum wages (salarios mínimos). In that sense, the norm affirms: *“The setting of minimum wages shall be the responsibility of a permanent technical body, called the National Wage Council, an organ of maximum deconcentration of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security (Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social).”* Regarding the scope of the legal norms issued by this administrative authority, Article 15 establishes: *“The setting of the minimum wage shall be done for intellectual, industrial, agricultural, livestock, or commercial activities, and according to the different territorial or economic circumscriptions. It may also be done for a specific company.”* In accordance with the preceding relation of norms, the Costa Rican legal system guarantees that no public official shall earn a salary lower than that established for their salary category. Likewise, it is necessary to point out that the existence of a public employment regime, governed by its own principles, does not nullify the guarantee provided in Article 57 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política). It must be remembered that, as argued by the appellant, the Public Administration, by imperative mandate of Articles 11 of the Political Constitution and 11 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), is precluded from engaging in conduct not expressly authorized by the legal system. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the Public Administration is subject to the principle of legality (principio de legalidad) and, consequently, in salary matters—the subject under debate—must adhere to the provisions of the aforementioned regulatory bodies. This being the case, the plaintiff's claim is inadmissible. The foregoing because the salary earned is in accordance with the law, insofar as it has been the one assigned for the plaintiff's category by the Directorate General of Civil Service, as observed from certification No. [Value 001], issued by the Human Development Directorate of the Ministry of Health (see document uploaded to the virtual desktop at 16:33:18 on 05/27/2019). This Chamber considers that, in the appealed judgment, the evidence was not improperly weighed nor was the case law erroneously interpreted. Moreover, discriminatory or unequal treatment is not afforded to the official, given that the official's conditions are not the same as those of persons who provide services as drivers in the private sector, since the official's regime is one of public employment and, therefore, is regulated by special norms. In that regard, it is deemed pertinent to cite what was stated by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in judgment number 94 of 9 hours and 48 minutes on January 8, 1993: *“…It is necessary to indicate that the minimum wage decrees are applicable only to private-sector workers, and not to those in the public sector (such as the appellants), for whom a different regime applies.”* **V.- COSTS (COSTAS):** Article 562 of the reformed Labor Code (Código de Trabajo), in what is of interest, stipulates: “*In every judgment […] the defeated party shall be ordered […] to pay the personal and procedural costs (costas personales y procesales) incurred. / If the judgment resolves the matter on the merits […] the personal costs may not be less than fifteen percent (15%) nor greater than twenty-five percent (25%) of the net amount of the award or the absolution, as applicable…*” Subsequent Article 563, for its part, indicates: “*However, the defeated party may be exempted from the payment of personal costs and even from procedural costs when: 1) The litigation was conducted with evident good faith (buena fe). / 2) The claims have partially succeeded. / 3) There has been reciprocal defeat. / The exemption must always be reasoned… / A party that denied evident claims that the outcome of the process indicates should have been accepted, did not attend the entirety of the hearing, adduced bribed witnesses or false witnesses and documents, or did not offer any evidence to support its claim or defenses if they were based on disputed facts, cannot be considered to act in good faith…*” In accordance with the above, the rule is to impose the payment of these expenses on the defeated party. In the case under analysis, it is not considered that there is a situation meriting the exercise of that power to set aside the general rule, since the complaint filed lacks legal basis and there is extensive case law that has denied similar claims.

**VI. FINAL CONSIDERATION:** As a corollary of the foregoing, the proper course is to declare the filed appeal without merit.

**POR TANTO:** The appeal is declared without merit.

**Orlando Aguirre Gómez** **Julia Varela Araya** **Luis Porfirio Sánchez Rodríguez** **Jorge Enrique Olaso Álvarez** **Roxana Chacón Artavia** **Res: 2021001965** PMADRIGALE/mrg 2 Telephones: 2295-3671, 2295-3676, 2295-3675 and 2295-4406. Facsimile: 2295-3009. Emails: [email protected].

<b>WAGE DIFFERENTIALS DENIED. ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE</b>. Driver for the Ministry of Health, who claims he did not receive minimum wage (salario mínimo). The remuneration received <span style="color: rgb(1, 1, 1); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">is in accordance with law, as it has been the one assigned “for his category by the Dirección General del Servicio Civil”. <b>DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BASE SALARY (SALARIO BASE) AND MINIMUM WAGE (SALARIO MÍNIMO)</b></span>. In this regard, <span style="color: rgb(1, 1, 1); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">judgment (sentencia) number 530 of 9 hours and 54 minutes of April 9, 2010 is cited. <b>THERE WAS NO DISCRIMINATORY OR UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF THE OFFICIAL. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT REGIME APPLIES</b>. <b>PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY.</b> His “conditions are not the same as those of persons who provide their services as a driver in the private sector, since his regime is one of public employment and, therefore, is regulated by special rules. In that sense, judgment (sentencia) no. 094-93 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) is cited, in which it states that: “… <i>the decrees on minimum wages (decretos de salarios mínimos) are applicable only to workers in the private sector, and not to those in the public sector (such as the appellants), for whom a different regime applies”</i>. </span><b>READJUST THE PAYMENT OF ANNUITIES (ANUALIDADES), THE CHRISTMAS BONUS (AGUINALDO) AND THE SCHOOL SALARY (SALARIO ESCOLAR). PAY THE INTERESTS AND INDEXATION. PAY BOTH COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS.</b> **Exp: 190007030641LA** **Res: 2021-001965** **SALA SEGUNDA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA**. San José, at ten hours fifty minutes of the twenty-fifth of August of two thousand twenty-one.

Ordinary proceeding established before the Labor Court of Cartago, by [Name 001], unknown marital status, driver, resident of Cartago, against the **STATE**, represented by its deputy procurator, licensed attorney Laura Rodríguez Benavides. Licensed attorney Carlos Mauricio Sierra Sánchez appears as the special judicial representative of the plaintiff. All of legal age, married, attorneys, and residents of San José, with the indicated exception.

**Drafted by Magistrate Varela Araya; and,** **WHEREAS:** **I.- BACKGROUND:** The plaintiff stated in the complaint that he began working for the Ministry of Health, [Name 004] location, in 1975, as a light vehicle driver. He reported that he worked a schedule from Monday to Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., having ten minutes for breakfast, forty minutes for lunch, and fifteen minutes for a coffee break. He asserted that he was not paid the legal minimum wage for the work performed. By virtue of the foregoing, he requested that the defendant be ordered in the judgment to the following: 1. Recognize the wage differences from the start of the employment relationship until April 2, 2019. 2. Readjust the payment of annuities (anualidades), the year-end bonus (aguinaldo), and the school salary (salario escolar). 3. Pay interest and indexation. 2. Pay both costs of the proceeding (see document added to the virtual desktop of the Labor Court at 8:57:55 on 05/09/2019). The state representative answered the initial action and filed the defense of lack of right (excepción de falta de derecho). Likewise, she indicated that the complaint does not meet the requirements established by section 495 of the reformed Labor Code (Código de Trabajo), because it does not clearly establish its claims nor does it indicate the reasons why it considers that the plaintiff is not being granted the minimum wage. She asserted that the plaintiff has been paid the minimum wage in accordance with the regulatory guidelines that govern the public employment relationship with the State. She explained that the salary passes through the different approval filters to determine that it is in accordance with the law; and, in this way, it is reflected in the personnel action (acción de personal), which must be approved by the General Directorate of Civil Service (Dirección General de Servicio Civil) and finally, by the budget of the Ministry of Finance (Ministerio de Hacienda) (see document added to the virtual desktop of the Labor Court at 16:33:0 on 05/27/2019). The Labor Court of Cartago, through judgment number 823-2019 at 14 hours and 8 minutes of November 6, 2019, upheld the defense of lack of right. It declared the complaint without merit. It ordered the plaintiff to pay both costs of the proceeding, setting the personal costs at the sum of ¢121,000 (see ruling incorporated into the virtual desktop of the Labor Court at 14:08:50 on 11/6/2019).

**II.- GRIEVANCES:** The plaintiff files a cassation appeal (recurso de casación), in which he expresses the following objections. In his opinion, the appealed ruling presents an erroneous interpretation of the evidence and the sound judgment (sana crítica) of judicial rulings, as well as evident contradiction to the votes (votos) of the Second Chamber (Sala Segunda) regarding the claims not granted. He points out that his represented party has been sustaining the thesis that the base salary (salario base) and the minimum wage (salario mínimo) are really the same, but the analysis of these concepts, at the jurisprudential level, are different, since one belongs to the public sector and the other to the private sector. He notes that the concept of "wage supplement (plus salarial)" is not analyzed from a literal point of view, as it is the item that is above the allowed minimum. According to his criterion, it should not be interpreted that the supplements of the public sector were created to "equalize" the legal minimum of the private sector, given that the same functions are performed. He states that the salary of State workers is generally above the legal minimums established for the private sector, but in the specific case the opposite occurs. He notes that what is sought with the complaint is to collect the wage differences based on the minimum wages of the Administrative Decrees of the Ministry of Labor (Ministerio de Trabajo), since jurisprudence has held that, when the salary of the public sector equals or exceeds that indicated in the Decrees of the Ministry of Labor, there are no wage differences. According to his criterion, in the specific case, the plaintiff has no wage supplements other than annuities and even then his salary does not reach the legal minimum established for the private sector. He indicates that this situation violates the jurisprudential line, which aims at a social equalization at the wage level, regardless of whether it involves the public or private sector. He argues that the plaintiff's salary is below the legal minimum. Furthermore, he indicates that there is no difference between two persons who perform the same driver functions in the public and private sector. He affirms that there is unequal wage treatment to the detriment of the public employee. He adds that the order to pay costs is disproportionate, since there is no procedural bad faith. He considers that he has a right in his claim.

**III.- DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BASE SALARY AND MINIMUM WAGE:** The plaintiff's representative argues that the concept of base salary and minimum wage are the same. However, this Chamber has already ruled on the matter and has indicated the contrary. It should be noted that, through judgment number 530 at 9 hours and 54 minutes of April 9, 2010, it was indicated: "Salary is defined in doctrine as 'the set of economic, normal, and permanent advantages that the worker obtains as a consequence of his work provided by virtue of an employment relationship' (Pla RODRÍGUEZ Américo. (1956). El salario en el Uruguay. Faculty of Law and Social Sciences of the University of Montevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay, pp. 12). From the previous definition, a series of subcategories referring to the salary concept are developed, within which it is necessary to differentiate the base salary and the minimum wage. The so-called base salary is the fixed or guaranteed remuneration per unit of time or work referring to a professional category. For Palomeque López and ÁLVAREZ de la Rosa, its importance lies in the following factors: 'a) it is the wage amount that normally standardizes the professional group or category; b) it will normally be the support for calculating on it the amount of many wage supplements and c) it is a closing concept: when a perception is not assimilable to any of the wage supplements, it will be charged to the base salary.' (Palomeque López Manuel Carlos and ÁLVAREZ de la Rosa Manuel. (2002). *Derecho del Trabajo*, Tenth Edition, Editorial Centro de Estudios Ramón Areces, S.A., Madrid, Spain, pp. 901). To said wage amount, wage components are added, based on remunerative perceptions, by virtue of the concurrence of certain circumstances. Our legal system refers to them as additional pays (sobresueldos) and supplements (pluses). The Spanish author Alfredo Montoya Melgar, referring to Spanish legislation, classifies said sums according to their link to the person's conditions, the work, and the situation and results of the company, being clear in the sense that said sums should not be considered for the calculation of the base salary. In this regard, he teaches: 'Supplements linked to the person: are those that remunerate personal circumstances of the worker, not taken into account when determining the base salary (...). / Supplements linked to the work: among them are those that remunerate higher productivity (...), as well as the special conditions of the job position (e.g.: hardship, danger, toxicity, night-shift supplements, etc.)(...). / Supplements linked to the situation and results of the company: included in this are profit sharing and bonuses based on sales, billing, etc.' (Montoya Melgar Alfredo. (2007). *Derecho del Trabajo*, twenty-eighth edition, Editorial Tecnos, Madrid, Spain, pp. 374). For its part, the minimum wage in the Costa Rican legal system is based on Article 57 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), which creates the maxim that no worker can earn an amount lower than that set by the administrative authorities of the State, with the intention that they can satisfy their own needs and those of their family. Américo Pla RODRÍGUEZ speaks of this wage in the following way: 'The minimum wage is the lowest wage that the law allows to be set. It is a purely legal concept: a limit below which no wage can be paid. And purely formal: because that minimum can be determined according to various criteria.

The idea of a minimum wage does not indicate what that guiding criterion is, but rather the only thing it marks is the limit that cannot be violated downwardly, by setting a lower wage. It restricts, in that sense, the conventional freedom of the parties; and only in that sense, because it does not prevent the contractual setting of a higher wage.’ (Pla RODRÍGUEZ Américo. (1956). El salario en el Uruguay. Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales de la Universidad de Montevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay, pp. 98). Based on the foregoing formula, any contractual stipulation that sets the wage below the established limit shall become null and void, and correspondingly, any omission in that regard on the part of the employer shall be sanctionable through the jurisdictional route. That said, this Chamber has considered that the existence of a public employment regime, regulated by its own principles, does not imply disregarding Article 57 of the Constitution, because the salary of officials governed by the Estatuto del Servicio Civil consists of the base salary (salario base) and indirect salary compensation (retribuciones salariales indirectas) such as bonus payments (sobresueldos) and pluses (pluses), which cause the remunerations of that sector to equal or even exceed the minimum wage ordered by the competent body. In this line of argument, resolution 2004-0202 of 10:20 a.m. on March 24, 2004, states: ‘As can be noticed, there is a difference between the concepts of “base salary” and “minimum wage,” because it is not true that the Minimum Wage Decree indicates or points out that the minimum wage is the same as the base salary. Furthermore, the salary pluses applicable to the Public Sector constitute a mechanism designed to increase the salary of workers in that sector, thus exceeding the wage setting for analogous cases in the Private Sector. The term salary must be understood in a generic and broad sense and that is why, in the Public Sector, it includes both the base salary and the other pluses, and therefore, applying the interpretation proposed by the petitioner would entail disregarding the doctrine that informs the concept of salary.’ The distinction between base salary and minimum wage is raised in the terms that, on one hand, the former alludes to the remuneration of professional categories in view of the rank and status they hold, and the latter proposes the guarantee that every working person will receive an essential remunerative core to satisfy their basic needs. Thus, both concepts possess diverse content that cannot be equated, insofar as they arise from dissimilar legal situations. This being the case, the petition of the plaintiff is not admissible, since, as explained in this recital (considerando), the base salary in the public sector does not necessarily have to be equal to the minimum wage set by the Consejo Nacional de Salarios, given that the pluses and bonus payments derived from the provision of services under the public employment regime are added to said base salary. Likewise, the argument made to the effect that salary pluses and bonus payments cannot be considered to establish an equivalence to the minimum amounts in the private sector is not accepted, since they are compensation derived indirectly from the provision of services, given with remunerative intent by the employer, which serve to increase the wealth of the working person and are therefore an integral part of the salary received” (in a similar sense, rulings number 105 of 9:45 a.m. on January 27, 2017, and 395 of 9:40 a.m. on April 27, 2016, may be consulted).

IV.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE: The plaintiff argues that the salary they have been paid is less than the legal minimum wage and claims payment of the respective salary differences. In this regard, it must be noted that the salary regime for public servants is regulated by legislation, specifically established in the Estatuto de Servicio Civil. Article 48 of the referred regulatory body regulates that: “The salaries of the officials and employees protected by this law shall be governed according to the following rules: / a) No employee or official shall earn a salary lower than the minimum corresponding to the performance of the position they hold. / b) The salaries of the servants of the Executive Branch shall be determined by a Ley de Salarios that shall set the minimum, intermediate, and maximum sums corresponding to each job category. / c) For setting salaries, fiscal conditions, the modalities of each class of work, the cost of living in the different regions, the salaries prevailing in private companies for analogous positions, and the other factors stipulated in the Código de Trabajo shall be taken into account. / d) Within the minimum and maximum figures referred to in subsection b), the respective Chiefs may agree to salary increases, taking into account factors such as efficiency, seniority, conduct, aptitudes, and other qualities resulting from the periodic evaluation of their servants, all this subject to what the Ley de Salarios provides for this purpose. The Chiefs of the various sections of administrative personnel must obtain, prior to such increases, the approval of the hierarchical supervisor; increases that shall be subject to the provisions of subsection e) of this same article; and / e) The Tesorería Nacional is prohibited from issuing disbursements in favor of employees or officials, for sums different from the minimums set in the Budget or Ley de Salarios; and in the case of the previous subsection, the increase shall not become effective until it is included in the Ley de Presupuesto Ordinario, or in an extraordinary budget. The Dirección General de Servicio Civil shall inform the Tesorería Nacional of the salary increases of public servants.” In the same order of ideas, the Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública establishes in Article 1 that said legal instrument aims to guarantee the efficiency of the Administration; and it also constitutes the compensation system for all classes of positions classified in the descriptive manual of positions, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X of the Estatuto del Servicio Civil. Article 4 of that regulatory body determines a salary scale for the public sector composed of seventy-three categories, which may be modified by the Dirección General del Servicio Civil, following a technical study, adding in Article 8 that no State worker may earn a salary lower than that of their respective category. It is important to indicate that, through the issuance of Law No. 832, of November 4, 1949, the Consejo Nacional de Salarios was created and its Article 1 stipulates: “everything related to the setting of wages is of public interest, as a means of contributing to the well-being of the Costa Rican family and promoting the just distribution of wealth.” Said Council is a tripartite body composed of nine members, which—according to Article 2—has the competence to set minimum wages. In that sense, the rule states: “The setting of minimum wages shall be the responsibility of a permanent technical body, called the Consejo Nacional de Salarios, an organ of maximum deconcentration of the Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social.” Regarding the scope of the legal norms that this administrative authority issues, Article 15 establishes: “The setting of the minimum wage shall be done for intellectual, industrial, agricultural, livestock, or commercial activities, and in accordance with the different territorial or economic circumscriptions. It may also be done for a specific company.” In accordance with the foregoing relation of norms, the Costa Rican legal system guarantees that no public official shall earn a salary lower than that established for their salary category. Likewise, it is necessary to point out that the existence of a public employment regime, governed by its own principles, does not render nugatory the guarantee provided in Article 57 of the Constitución Política. It must be remembered that, as the appellant argues, the Public Administration, by imperative mandate of Articles 11 of the Constitución Política and 11 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, is prevented from carrying out conduct that is not expressly authorized by the legal system. As stated, it is clear that the Public Administration is subject to the principle of legality and, therefore, regarding salaries—the subject matter under debate—it must adhere to the provisions of the regulatory bodies previously alluded to. This being the case, what the plaintiff seeks is improper. The foregoing, because the salary they have earned is in accordance with the law, insofar as it has been the one assigned for their category by the Dirección General del Servicio Civil, as observed from certification No. [Valor 001], issued by the Dirección de Desarrollo Humano of the Ministerio de Salud (see document incorporated into the virtual desktop at 4:33:18 p.m. on 05/27/2019). This Chamber considers that, in the appealed judgment, the evidence was not improperly assessed nor was the jurisprudence erroneously interpreted. Furthermore, discriminatory or unequal treatment is not afforded to the official, given that their conditions are not equal to those of persons who provide their services as a driver in the private sector, since their regime is one of public employment and, therefore, is regulated by special rules. In that sense, it is deemed pertinent to bring up what was expressed by the Sala Constitucional in judgment number 94 of 9 hours and 48 minutes on January 8, 1993: “…It is necessary to indicate that the minimum wage decrees are applicable only to workers in the private sector, and not to those in the public sector (as the appellants are), to whom a different regime applies.” V.- COSTS: Article 562 of the reformed Código de Trabajo, in what is of interest, stipulates: “In every judgment […] the losing party shall be condemned […] to pay the personal and procedural costs incurred. / If the judgment resolves the matter on the merits […] the personal costs may not be less than fifteen percent (15%) nor greater than twenty-five percent (25%) of the net amount of the award or the acquittal, as the case may be…” The subsequent Article 563, for its part, states: “Notwithstanding, the losing party may be exempted from the payment of personal costs and even procedural costs, when: 1) They have litigated with evident good faith. / 2) The propositions have partially succeeded. / 3) There has been reciprocal defeat. / The exoneration must always be reasoned… / A party that denied evident claims that the outcome of the process indicates it should have accepted, did not attend the entirety of the hearing, adduced bribed witnesses or false witnesses and documents, did not offer any evidence to justify its claim or defenses, if they were based on disputed facts… may not be considered to be in good faith.” In accordance with the foregoing, the rule is to impose the payment of these expenses on the losing party. In the case under analysis, it is not considered to be in the presence of a case that merits the exercise of that power to disapply the general rule, given that the complaint filed lacks legal basis and there is vast jurisprudence that has denied similar claims.

VI. FINAL CONSIDERATION

As a corollary of the foregoing, the proper course is to declare the appeal filed without merit.

POR TANTO:

The appeal is declared without merit.

Orlando Aguirre Gómez Julia Varela Araya Luis Porfirio Sánchez Rodríguez Jorge Enrique Olaso Álvarez Roxana Chacón Artavia Res: 2021001965 PMADRIGALE/mrg 2 Telephones: 2295-3671, 2295-3676, 2295-3675 and 2295-4406. Facsimile: 2295-3009. Emails: [email protected]. and [email protected]

*190007030641LA* Corte Suprema de Justicia SALA SEGUNDA Res: 2021-001965 SALA SEGUNDA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las diez horas cincuenta minutos del veinticinco de agosto de dos mil veintiuno.

Proceso ordinario establecido ante el Juzgado de Trabajo de Cartago, por [Nombre 001], estado civil desconocido, chofer, vecino de Cartago, contra el ESTADO, representado por su procuradora adjunta la licenciada Laura Rodríguez Benavides. Figura como apoderado especial judicial del accionante el licenciado Carlos Mauricio Sierra Sánchez. Todos mayores, casados, abogados y vecinos de San José, con la excepción indicada.

Redacta la Magistrada Varela Araya; y,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- ANTECEDENTES: El actor expresó en la demanda que inició a laborar para el Ministerio de Salud, sede de [Nombre 004] desde el año 1975, como chofer de vehículo liviano. Refirió que trabajó en un horario de lunes a viernes de las 8:00 a.m. a las 4:00 p.m., contando con diez minutos de desayuno, cuarenta minutos de almuerzo y quince minutos para tomar el café. Aseguró que, no se le cancelaba el salario mínimo legal para las labores desempeñadas. En virtud de lo anterior, solicitó que se condene al demandado en sentencia a lo siguiente: 1. Reconocer las diferencias salariales desde que inició la relación laboral hasta el 02 de abril del 2019. 2. Reajustar el pago de las anualidades, el aguinaldo y el salario escolar. 3. Pagar los intereses y la indexación. 2. Cancelar ambas costas del proceso (véase documento agregado al escritorio virtual del Juzgado de Trabajo a las 8:57:55 del 09/05/2019). La representante estatal contestó la acción inicial e interpuso la excepción de falta de derecho. Asimismo, indicó que la demanda no cumple con los requerimientos establecidos por el numeral 495 del Código de Trabajo reformado, por cuanto, no establece en forma clara sus pretensiones y tampoco señala las razones por las cuales considera que no se le reconoce el salario mínimo. Aseguró que, al promovente se le ha venido cancelando el salario mínimo conforme a los lineamientos normativos que al efecto rige la relación de empleo público con el Estado. Explicó que, el salario pasa por los distintos filtros de aprobación para determinar que este ajustado a derecho; y, de esta manera se plasma en la acción de personal, la cual debe ser aprobada por la Dirección General de Servicio Civil y finalmente, por el presupuesto del Ministerio de Hacienda (véase documento agregado al escritorio virtual del Juzgado de Trabajo a las 16:33:0 del 27/05/2019). El Juzgado de Trabajo de Cartago, mediante sentencia número 823-2019 de las 14 horas y 8 minutos del 6 de noviembre del 2019, acogió la excepción de falta de derecho. Declaró sin lugar la demanda. Condenó a la parte actora al pago de ambas costas del proceso, fijándose las personales en la suma de ¢121.000 (véase fallo incorporado al escritorio virtual del Juzgado de Trabajo a las 14:08:50 del 6/11/2019).

II.- AGRAVIOS: La parte actora presenta recurso de casación, en el cual expresa los siguientes reproches. A su juicio, en el fallo recurrido se presenta errónea interpretación de las pruebas y la sana crítica de las sentencias judiciales, así como, evidente contraposición a los votos de la Sala Segunda en cuanto a los extremos no otorgados. Señala que su representada ha venido sosteniendo la tesis de que el salario base y el mínimo son realmente lo mismo, pero el análisis de dichas figuras, a nivel jurisprudencial, son distintos, pues uno pertenece al sector público y otro al privado. Acota que, el concepto de “plus salarial” no se analiza desde un punto de vista literal, pues es el rubro que está por encima del mínimo permitido. Según su criterio, no se debería interpretar que los pluses del sector público se crearon para “igualar” el mínimo legal del sector privado, dado que se realizan las mismas funciones. Refiere que, el salario de las personas trabajadoras del Estado se encuentra por encima de los mínimos legales establecidos por el sector privado, pero en el caso concreto ocurre lo contrario. Acota que, lo pretendido con la demanda es cobrar las diferencias salariales tomando como base los salarios mínimos de los Decretos Administrativos del Ministerio de Trabajo, pues la jurisprudencia ha sostenido que, cuando el salario del sector público iguala o sobrepasa el indicado en los Decretos del Ministerio de Trabajo, no existen diferencias salariales. Según su criterio, en el caso concreto, el actor no tiene pluses salariales más que las anualidades y ni aun así llega su salario al mínimo legal al establecido para el sector privado. Indica, dicha situación quebranta la línea jurisprudencial, la cual lleva como fin una equiparación social a nivel salarial, independientemente si se trata del sector público o privado. Aduce que, el salario del accionante se encuentra por debajo del mínimo legal. Además, indica que no existe diferencia entre dos personas que ejercen las mismas funciones de chofer en el sector público y privado. Afirma, existe un trato salarial desigual en perjuicio del empleado público. Añade, la condena en constas es desproporcionada, pues no existe mala fe procesal. Considera que tiene derecho en su reclamo.

III.- DIFERENCIA ENTRE SALARIO BASE Y SALARIO MÍNIMO: El representante del actor aduce que el concepto de salario base y salario mínimo son lo mismo. Sin embargo, esta Sala ya se ha pronunciado al respecto y ha señalado lo contrario. Cabe destacar que, mediante la sentencia número 530 de las 9 horas y 54 minutos del 9 de abril de 2010, se indicó: “El salario es definido en doctrina como ‘el conjunto de ventajas, económicas, normales y permanentes que obtiene el trabajador como consecuencia de su labor prestada en virtud de una relación de trabajo’ (Pla RODRÍGUEZ Américo. (1956). El salario en el Uruguay. Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales de la Universidad de Montevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay, pp. 12). A partir de la anterior acepción se elaboran una serie de subcategorías referidas al concepto salario, dentro de las cuales es preciso diferenciar el salario base y el salario mínimo. El denominado salario base es la remuneración fija o garantizada por unidad de tiempo u obra referidas a una categoría profesional. Para Palomeque López y ÁLVAREZ de la Rosa su importancia radica en los siguientes factores: ‘a) es la cantidad salarial que normalmente uniformiza al grupo o categoría profesional; b) será, normalmente el soporte para calcular sobre el mismo la cuantía de muchos complementos salariales y c) es un concepto de cierre: cuando una percepción no es asimilable a alguno de los complementos salariales, se imputará al salario base.’ (Palomeque López Manuel Carlos y ÁLVAREZ de la Rosa Manuel. (2002). Derecho del Trabajo, Décima Edición, Editorial Centro de Estudios Ramón Areces, S.A., Madrid, España, pp. 901). A dicho monto salarial, se le adicionan componentes salariales, basados en percepciones retributivas, en virtud de la concurrencia de determinadas circunstancias. Nuestro ordenamiento jurídico se refiere a ellas como sobresueldos y pluses. El autor español Alfredo Montoya Melgar, haciendo referencia a la legislación española clasifica dichas sumas atendiendo su vinculación a las condiciones de la persona, al trabajo y a la situación y los resultados de la empresa, siendo claro en el sentido que dichas sumas no deben ser consideradas para el cálculo del salario base. Al respecto enseña: ‘ Complementos vinculados a la persona: son aquellos que remuneran circunstancias personales del trabajador, no tomadas en cuenta al determinar el salario base (…). / Complementos vinculados al trabajo: dentro de ellos se sitúa los que retribuyen la mayor productividad (…), así como las especiales condiciones del puesto de trabajo (v.g.: complementos de penosidad, peligrosidad, toxicidad, nocturnidad, etc.)(…). / Complementos vinculados a la situación y resultados de la empresa: en tal se incluyen la participación de beneficio y gratificaciones en función de ventas, facturación, etc.’ (Montoya Melgar Alfredo. (2007). Derecho del Trabajo, vigésima octava edición, Editorial Tecnos, Madrid, España, pp. 374). Por su parte el salario mínimo en el ordenamiento jurídico costarricense, se fundamenta en el artículo 57 de la Constitución Política, el cual crea la máxima que ningún trabajador puede devengar una cuantía inferior a la fijada por las autoridades administrativas del Estado, con la intención de que pueda satisfacer las necesidades propias y las de su familia, Américo Pla RODRÍGUEZ, nos habla de ese salario de la siguiente forma: ‘ El salario mínimo es el salario menor que el derecho permite fijar. Es un concepto puramente jurídico: un límite por debajo del cual no puede pagarse ningún salario. Y puramente formal: porque ese mínimo puede determinarse de acuerdo con diversos criterios. / La idea de salario mínimo no indica cuál es ese criterio inspirador, sino que lo único que marca es el límite que no puede violarse hacia abajo, fijando un salario inferior. Restringe en ese sentido la libertad convencional de las partes; y sólo en ese sentido, porque no impide la fijación contractual de un salario más alto .’ (Pla RODRÍGUEZ Américo. (1956). El salario en el Uruguay. Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales de la Universidad de Montevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay, pp. 98). Con base en la anterior fórmula devendrá nula cualquier estipulación contractual que fije el salario por debajo del límite establecido y correlativamente será sancionable en la vía jurisdiccional cualquier omisión de parte del empleador a en ese sentido. Ahora bien, esta Sala ha considerado que la existencia de un régimen de empleo público, regulado por sus propios principios, no implica la desatención del artículo 57 constitucional, pues el salario de los funcionarios regidos por el Estatuto del Servicio Civil, se compone del salario base y por retribuciones salariales indirectas como sobresueldos y pluses, que hacen que las remuneraciones de ese sector se equiparen o incluso superen el salario mínimo dispuesto por el órgano competente. En esta línea de argumentación la resolución 2004-0202 de las 10:20 horas del 24 de marzo de 2004, indica: ‘Como puede notarse, existe diferencia entre los conceptos de “salario base” y “salario mínimo”, pues no es cierto que en el Decreto de Salarios mínimos se indique o señale que el salario mínimo es lo mismo que el salario base. Además, los pluses salariales aplicables al Sector Público constituyen un mecanismo ideado para aumentar el salario a los trabajadores de ese sector, superando así la fijación salarial para casos homólogos en el Sector Privado. El término salario debe entenderse en sentido genérico y amplio por eso, en el Sector Público comprende tanto el salario base como los otros pluses, por lo que, aplicar la interpretación que plantea la gestionante implicaría desconocer la doctrina que informa el concepto de salario’. La distinción entre salario base y salario mínimo, se plantea en los términos en que por una parte, el primero de ellos alude a la remuneración de categorías profesionales en atención al rango y estatus que las mismas poseen y el segundo propone la garantía de que toda persona trabajadora recibirá un núcleo esencial remunerativo para satisfacer sus necesidades básicas. De esta forma, ambos conceptos poseen un contenido diverso que no es posible equiparar, en el tanto provienen de situaciones jurídicas disímiles. Así las cosas, no es atendible la petitoria de la parte actora, ya que como se ha explicado en el presente considerando, el salario base en el sector público, no necesariamente debe ser igual al salario mínimo fijado por el Consejo Nacional de Salarios, ya que a dicha base salarial se le adicionan los pluses y sobresueldos derivados de las prestaciones de servicios bajo régimen de empleo público. Igualmente no es recibo la argumentación hecha en el sentido de que los pluses salariales y sobresueldos no pueden ser apreciados para fijar una equivalencia a los montos mínimos del sector privado, ya que son retribuciones derivadas de manera indirecta de la prestación de servicios, dadas con ánimo remunerativo por el empleador, que sirven para acrecentar el patrimonio de la persona trabajadora y por lo tanto son parte integral del salario percibido” (en sentido similar se pueden consultar las sentencias números 105 de las 9:45 horas del 27 de enero de 2017, y 395 de las 9:40 horas del 27 de abril de 2016).

IV.- SOBRE EL CASO CONCRETO: La parte accionante arguye que el salario que se le ha cancelado es menor al mínimo de ley y reclama el pago de las respectivas diferencias salariales. A este respecto debe señalarse que el régimen de sueldos de las personas servidoras públicas se encuentra regulado por legislación, específicamente se establece en el Estatuto de Servicio Civil. El ordinal 48 del referido cuerpo normativo regula que: “Los sueldos de los funcionarios y empleados protegidos por esta ley, se regirán de acuerdo con las siguientes reglas: / a) Ningún empleado o funcionario devengará un sueldo inferior al mínimo que corresponda al desempeño del cargo que ocupe. / b) Los salarios de los servidores del Poder Ejecutivo serán determinados por una Ley de Salarios que fijará las sumas mínimas, intermedia y máximas correspondientes a cada categoría de empleos. / c) Para la fijación de sueldos se tomarán en cuenta las condiciones fiscales, las modalidades de cada clase de trabajo, el costo de la vida en las distintas regiones, los salarios que prevalezcan en las empresas privadas para puestos análogos y los demás factores que estipula el Código de Trabajo. / d) Dentro de las cifras mínimas y máximas de que habla el inciso b), los Jefes respectivos podrán acordar aumentos de sueldos, atendiendo a factores como la eficiencia, la antigüedad, la conducta, las aptitudes y demás cualidades que resulten de la calificación periódica de sus servidores, todo esto con sujeción a lo que al efecto disponga la Ley de Salarios. Los Jefes de las diversas secciones del personal administrativo, deberán obtener de previo a tales aumentos, la venia del supervisor jerárquico; aumentos que estarán sujetos a lo dispuesto en el inciso e) de este mismo artículo; y / e) Queda prohibido a la Tesorería Nacional extender giros a favor de empleados o funcionarios, por sumas distintas a las mínimas fijadas en el Presupuesto o Ley de Salarios; y en el caso del inciso anterior, el aumento no se hará efectivo sino cuando esté incluido en la Ley de Presupuesto Ordinario, o en un presupuesto extraordinario. La Dirección General de Servicio Civil, informará a la Tesorería Nacional de los aumentos de los sueldos de los servidores públicos”. En el mismo orden de ideas, la Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública, establece en el numeral 1 que, dicho instrumento jurídico pretende garantizar la eficiencia de la Administración; y, también constituye el sistema de retribución para todas las clases de puestos clasificados en el manual descriptivo de puestos, conforme lo dispone el capítulo X del Estatuto del Servicio Civil. En el artículo 4 de ese cuerpo normativo se determina una escala de sueldos para el sector público compuesta de setenta y tres categorías, las cuales podrán ser modificadas por la Dirección General del Servicio Civil, previo estudio técnico, adicionándose en el ordinal 8 que ninguna persona trabajadora del Estado podrá devengar un salario menor al de su respectiva categoría. Es importante indicar que, mediante la emisión de la Ley N.° 832, del 4 de noviembre de 1949, se creó el Consejo Nacional de Salarios y en su artículo 1, se estipula: “de interés público todo lo relativo a la fijación de los salarios, como un medio de contribuir al bienestar de la familia costarricense y de fomentar la justa distribución de la riqueza”. Dicho Consejo es un órgano tripartido integrado por nueve miembros, el cual -según el ordinal 2- cuenta con la competencia de fijar los salarios mínimos. En ese sentido, la norma afirma: “La fijación de los salarios mínimos estará a cargo de un organismo técnico permanente, denominado Consejo Nacional de Salarios, órgano de desconcentración máxima del Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social”. Respecto a los alcances de las normas jurídicas que esta autoridad administrativa emita, el ordinal 15 establece: “La fijación del salario mínimo se hará para las actividades intelectuales, industriales, agrícolas, ganaderas o comerciales, y de acuerdo con las diferentes circunscripciones territoriales o económicas. Podrá hacerse también para una empresa determinada”. De conformidad con la anterior relación de normas, el ordenamiento jurídico costarricense garantiza que ninguna persona funcionaria pública devengará un salario inferior al establecido para su categoría salarial. De igual manera, es preciso señalar que la existencia de un régimen de empleo público, regido por sus propios principios, no hace nugatoria la garantía dispuesta en el numeral 57 de la Constitución Política. Se debe recordar que, tal y como lo plantea el recurrente, la Administración Pública, por mandamiento imperativo de los artículos 11 de la Constitución Política y 11 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, se encuentra imposibilitada de realizar conductas que no le sean la Administración Pública está sujeta al principio de legalidad y, por ende, en materia de salarios –tema objeto de debate- debe apegarse a lo dispuesto en los cuerpos normativos antes aludidos. Así las cosas, lo pretendido por la parte actora resulta improcedente. Lo anterior, por cuanto, el salario que ha devengado resulta conforme a derecho, en tanto ha sido el asignado para su categoría por parte de la Dirección General del Servicio Civil, según se observa de la certificación n.° [Valor 001], emitida por la Dirección de Desarrollo Humano del Ministerio de Salud (véase escrito incorporado al escritorio virtual a las 16:33:18 del 27/05/2019). Considera esta Sala que, en la sentencia recurrida no se valoró indebidamente la prueba ni se interpretó erróneamente la jurisprudencia. Además, tampoco se brinda un trato discriminatorio o desigual al funcionario, dado que, sus condiciones no son iguales a las personas que prestan sus servicios como chofer en el sector privado, pues su régimen es de empleo público y, por ende, se regula por normas especiales. En ese sentido, se estima pertinente traer a colación lo expresado por la Sala Constitucional en la sentencia número 94 de las 9 horas y 48 minutos del 8 de enero de 1993: “…Es necesario indicar que los decretos de salarios mínimos son aplicables únicamente a los trabajadores del sector privado, y no a los del sector público (como lo son los recurrentes), para quienes se aplica un régimen diferente”.

V.- COSTAS: El numeral 562 del Código de Trabajo reformado , en lo que resulta de interés, estipula: “En toda sentencia […] se condenará al vencido […] al pago de las costas personales y procesales causadas. /Si la sentencia resuelve el asunto por el fondo […] las personales no podrán ser menores del quince por ciento (15%) ni mayores del veinticinco por ciento (25%) del importe líquido de la condenatoria o de la absolución, en su caso…” El ordinal 563 siguiente, por su parte, señala: “ No obstante, se podrá eximir al vencido del pago de las costas personales y aun de las procesales, cuando: 1) Se haya litigado con evidente buena fe. /2) Las proposiciones hayan prosperado parcialmente. /3) Cuando haya habido vencimiento recíproco. /La exoneración debe ser siempre razonada… /No podrá considerarse de buena fe a la parte que negó pretensiones evidentes que el resultado del proceso indique que debió aceptarlas, no asistió a la totalidad de la audiencia, adujo testigos sobornados o testigos y documentos falsos, no ofreció ninguna probanza para justificar su demanda o excepciones, si se fundaran en hechos disputados…” De conformidad con lo anterior, la regla es imponer el pago de estos gastos a la parte que resultó vencida. En el caso bajo análisis, no se estima estar en presencia de un caso que amerite el ejercicio de esa potestad para desaplicar la regla general, toda vez que, la demanda formulada carece de asidero jurídico y existe vasta jurisprudencia que ha denegado pretensiones similares.

VI. CONSIDERACIÓN FINAL

Como corolario de lo expuesto, lo procedente es declarar sin lugar el recurso interpuesto.

POR TANTO:

Se declara sin lugar el recurso.

Orlando Aguirre Gómez Julia Varela Araya Luis Porfirio Sánchez Rodríguez Jorge Enrique Olaso Álvarez Roxana Chacón Artavia Res: 2021001965 PMADRIGALE/mrg 2 [email protected]. y [email protected]