The Argentine Chamber of the Labor Court of Appeals defined the concept of "defendant's domicile" provided in Section 24, Law 18.345, which determines that, in cases between workers and employers, the competent judge is, by choice of the claimant, the judge of the workplace , the one of the place where the contract is celebrated, or the domicile of the defendant, for the purpose of determining the territorial jurisdiction of the National Labor Justice.
The conclusion was that the legal domicile, considered as the commercial headquarters, must be understood to be domicile of the defendant , stating that the law presumes without contrary evidence, that that is precisely where the legal person is domiciled, regardless of the different offices in other jurisdictions they may have.
In this case, a sports institution was sued - whose registered office was located in the Province of Buenos Aires, where the work contract had been celebrated and executed (place of work) - justifying the jurisdiction of the National Labor Court by virtue of the defendant having a seat in the City of Buenos Aires.1
Footnotes
1 File N° CNT 47432/2015/CA1 – "Davila, Telma Marta c/ Club Atlético Independiente Asoc. Civil s/ despido" – CNTRAB – SALA VIII – 19/12/2016
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.