Uruguay: Uruguayan Courts Take Action To Preserve Constitutional Rights.

Last Updated: 9 October 2007

Article by Enrique Radmilovich and Lucia Ottati

In this article we will analyze the evolution that our legal system and jurisprudence have had regarding a matter which is very much in vogue these days. We are talking about the “occupation” of the workplace and its premises by its employees as a union’s collective measure.


Since 1996, and until year 2005, Decree No. 512/66 (amended by Decree 286/000) was in force in our country. This Decree, which was issued by the Ministry of Domestic Affairs due to the need of regulating the intervention of public authorities in the case of occupation of the workplace by its employees, substantially stated that: i) According to the Constitution, public authorities are in charge of preserving the country’s internal order; ii) the same Constitution recognizes the right of workers to go on strike, but such right cannot imply neither an alteration of the public order nor a breach of private property which is also constitutionally guaranteed; iii) the State must guarantee the exercise of constitutional rights always that such exercise does not imply a breach of other rights which are equally considered.

Furthermore, the Decree adopted a clear position before the occupation of the workplace by its employees as a union’s collective measure, stating that the occupation of the workplace by its employees implies a breach of the right to private property, signifies a risk to internal order and surpasses the legitimate exercise of the right to go on strike.

Consequently, the Decree stated that the Ministry of Domestic Affairs, could authorize the entry of the public force (police) into workplaces, educational institutions, medical institutions or public offices, occupied by its employees, students or any other person, upon the request of the owner of the company or the competent authorities of the same. Such entry will be authorized with the sole purpose of re-establishing the public order, and of maintaining the right to private property. The public force should proceed to the dispossession of the workplace and then deliver it to its owner.

Current Regime

On March of year 2005, the new government – the first left wing party to reach the power- assumed its position before the Executive Power. Two months later, the Ministry of Domestic Affairs, issued a Decree which revoked Decree 512/66. This decision was adopted by the Ministry of Domestic Affairs, and according to the press information of those days, neither the Ministry of Labour nor the Workers’ Unions requested the Ministry of Domestic Affairs to adopt such decision.

The new Decree mainly stated that: i) the different situations that were regulated by Decree 512/66, referred to conflicts of rights that are recognized in the Constitution, ii) the disputes among individuals, and between them and the Administration, should be resolved by the Judicial Power (Courts), and iii) accordingly, Decree 512/66 and its amendment should be revoked, in order that the disputed rights should be preserved and guaranteed before the Courts of Law.

The decision to revoke Decree 512/66 raised a huge problem: the Unions -encouraged by the impossibility of employers to request the Ministry of Domestic Affairs the dispossession of the workplace- began to abuse of such situation and adopt as a first union measure, the occupation of the workplace.

Many differences that arose between employers and employees provoked the immediate occupation of workplaces, no matter if the differences among parties justified the adoption of an extreme union measure such as the occupation of workplaces or not. The leniency of the government before this measure, gave the Unions the impression that they could act as they desired.

Occupying workplaces granted the Unions an enormous handicap since, on the other hand, the employers, in the absence of a legal tool that could enable the rapid dispossession of the occupied workplace, had no other option but to yield to the employees claims, or on the contrary, they would have to face and suffer the damages that the occupation would cause to their business (loss of clients, economic looses, and eventually the bankruptcy of their business).

Moreover, an intense debate between the labour doctrine, the Unions and the employers arose regarding the legality of the occupation of workplaces. In such debate, the Unions and the majority of the labour doctrine defended the right of workers to occupy workplaces. They understood that the right to occupy workplaces was an “extension” of the right to go on “strike” (Constitutional right). On the other hand, employers organizations, political parties opposed to the government and the minority of the labour doctrine understood that the occupation of workplaces implied a breach of the Constitutional right to private property and a breach of the Constitutional right “to work” of those employees who were not occupying the workplace.

Approximately one year after the date when the Ministry of Domestic Affairs revoked Decree No. 512/66, the Ministry of Labour, in attention to the notorious increase in the number of occupations of workplaces, and the distortion that such collective measure was causing in the relationship between Unions and employers’ organizations, on May 30, 2006 issued Decree No. 165/006, with the intention of providing a legal framework to be followed by employers and employees in order to prevent and solve collective conflicts.

In Decree No. 165/006, it was substantially stated that i) employers or their representative organizations and the Unions may adopt measures for the prevention and solution of collective conflicts, ii) employers or their representative organizations and the Unions may request at any time the mediation or conciliation of the National Labour Department or the corresponding Wages Committee and iii) the request of conciliation or mediation must be performed with reasonable time prior to the adoption of conflict measures (except those conflict measures to be adopted in case of imminent closing of the company, abandonment, or when the employer has left the country without leaving any legal representative).

It must be highlighted, that section 4 of the Decree stated, for the first time in our legal system, that the occupation of the workplaces was a way of exercising the constitutional right to go on strike, establishing that the same should be adopted in a pacific manner and following certain steps.

Such steps are the following: i) immediately after the occupation occurs, the condition of the assets and the real estate involved should be duly documented, ii) the most representative Union of the employees which are occupying the workplace, should adopt all the necessary measures in order to avoid damages to the property, perishable goods and to guard the continuity of production processes that cannot be interrupted, iii) occupying employees cannot take charge of the production or commercial activities of the company, except in those cases in which the employer has abandoned the company or has not left a legal representative in the country.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Decree enabled the Ministry of Labour and the competent Ministry (according to the activity of the company), to demand the occupants to leave the workplace in a 24 hours period when the measures adopted to solve the conflict have failed and the continuity of the occupancy implies a serious risk to the lives, security, and health of all or part of the population, or seriously affects the public order. If the occupants do not leave the workplace, the Ministry of Domestic Affairs will be able to proceed to the dispossession of the workplace.

This Decree was very criticized by the employers organizations, political parties opposed to the government, and the minority of the labour doctrine, mainly because the Ministry of Labour legitimated the occupancy or the workplaces –moreover it was expressly understood that the occupancy was a way of exercising the right to go on strike- and only in a few and extreme cases the dispossession could take place.

The result of this Decree was that occupancies of workplaces did not decrease, even with the effort of the government trying to dissuade the occupancies by means of the above-referred Decree.

Therefore, employers and employees suffering damages due to occupancies were forced to look for other legal alternatives in order to obtain the due respect to their Constitutional rights being affected by such measures (right to private property, right to work) in a prompt and efficient manner.

In the end, the Civil Courts were the ones who played the main role in the reestablishment of the lost balance between the different rights in conflict.

Court’s Role In Re-Establishing The Lost Balance

The ground breaking case in this regard was that of the company “Coltirey” in which employees of the company who were being affected by the occupancy of the premises -that was being carried out by other employees of the company- requested a Civil Court to order the dispossession of the workplace. The chosen legal procedure was a summary proceeding (“acción de amparo”) destined to promptly protect rights being violated, in this case, the constitutional right to work.

Plaintiffs requested the Civil Court (competent Court to understand in the referred summary proceeding) the dispossession because: i) the occupants had not followed the steps indicated in Decree No. 165/2006 before proceeding to the occupation; ii) the occupancy of the workplace breached the right to work of plaintiffs as well as their individual right to decide if they want to go on strike or not.

The Civil Court ruled in favour of Plaintiffs’ request under the following basis: i) the occupancy breached two Constitutional rights, a) private property, b) the right to work of those workers who were not occupying the workplace (it was understood by the Judge that the occupancy of workplaces limited in an indirect manner the right of plaintiffs to freely decide it they want to stop working), and ii) occupants did not followed the steps indicated in Decree No. 165/2006 before proceeding to the occupation.

The Court ordered the dispossession of the workplace in a 24 hours period and in case that the order was not voluntarily obeyed by defendants, the Public Force was authorized to act in order to make effective the dispossession.

Defendants appealed the Court’s decision, but the Appeal Court maintained the decision, understanding that the occupancy measure was notoriously illegitimate.

After the conclusion of the abovementioned case, four different resolutions were issued by Civil Courts and Appeal Civil Courts in cases were plaintiffs requested the dispossession of the workplace.

The last of the referred decisions, issued by an Appeal Civil Court, understood that the occupation of the workplace by defendants, implied a serious and blatant breach to the plurality of human rights (right to individual freedom, to work, to private property and to develop a licit activity) all of them expressly recognized in the Uruguayan Constitution, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, American Declaration of Rights and Duties of Individuals and Protocol of the American Convention of Human Rights, among others.

Final Comments

Until now the Civil Courts have unanimously understood that the occupancy of workplaces is an illegitimate measure and breaches the Constitution.

Such decisions contained arguments opposed to those sustained by the majority of the labour doctrine -which considered the occupation of the workplace to be a licit measure- and also, resulted opposed to the position shown at the beginning by the government when it revoked Decree No. 512/66.

Notwithstanding the government’s subsequent efforts to obtain a reduction in the number of occupations through Decree No. 165/2006 by means of establishing certain steps to be complied before the adoption of collective conflicts measures, Civil Courts resolutions have turned out to be the main reason in the substantial decrease of the number of occupations.

We believe that such decisions have resulted of vital importance because; i) the balance that was lost as a consequence of the occupancy of the workplaces, was re-established; ii) employers have found a legal tool to obtain a prompt and efficient dispossession of the workplaces; iii) they have demonstrated that the Courts do not share the position of the majority of the labour doctrine in respect with legality of the occupation of workplaces; iv) it has been ratified that the Judicial Power effectively works as an independent power in our country, and adopts its decisions without considering the opinion the government may have regarding the issues to be resolved.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.