From days off for not being late for permits to go to the cemetery, what can the municipality of San Jose take away from its agreement?

Although it is the duty of all workers not to miss their work and not be late, the municipality of San Jose grants three additional days of leave to officials who, for a year, do not record absences or late arrivals. According to the collective agreement signed between six unions and the administration, this feature is an “incentive” for the municipality’s 2,800 employees.

The collective agreement provides for 17 working days of vacation for employees with four years of seniority, 22 working days for those with more than five years of service and 30 working days for those with more than ten years. In these periods, if a person does not arrive late or is absent, Three days are added “stimulus”.

In addition, workers enjoy half a day of paid leave on November 2 each year. To visit deceased loved onesUntil two days with pay To prepare appeals of dismissals, payment 80% of dental expenses and subsidies To buy glasses, braces, dentures and school supplies.

The collective agreement also sets a 20-year unemployment cap, annual scholarships of up to $100 for at least three unionists, 15,000 yen assistance for workers in the event of the death of spouses, children and grandparents, and six tickets per official to attend Zapote bulls.

However, these and other benefits were denied by the San Jose municipality through an official letter DMS-1393 dated the previous February 22nd. In total, the administration has denounced 30 of the 64 articles of the current collective agreement with the aim of canceling or amending them, and the next step is to renegotiate each point with the six signatory associations.

Despite the complaint, Paula Vargas, the mayor of San Jose, failed to denounce important aspects, such as paying multi-million dollar bonuses to members of the Labor Relations Board. Between January 2021 and March 2022 alone, the municipality had to pay 107 million colones to eleven unions for their participation in that body’s sessions.

For each appointment, regular board representatives receive 183,000 and alternate 92,000. In some cases, union leaders received up to 12.6 million colones in provisions last year.

Another aspect that the municipality did not denounce is the granting of scholarships to study officials and paid licenses for this purpose.


Although there is an Institutional Legal Directorate, to renegotiate the collective agreement, the San Jose municipality, in April 2020, contracted BDS Legal Advisors for 30 million yen.

The shortened bid was published in the Standardized System of Public Procurement (SICOP) on March 2, 2020; The city council has decided that an interested firm must have at least three attorneys with five years’ business experience.

It also requires, among the requirements, proof of five years’ experience in providing advice to public institutions, to negotiate at least three collective agreements after the approval of the Public Finance Strengthening Law, to have a specialized field in labor litigation that has taken over the legal representation of nine public bodies in the past five years And prove its experience in preparing internal regulations for the public sector.

Last Thursday, the mayor of the capital was asked about the recommendation of legal advisers to the BDS on vetoing the collective agreement, if the specialists proposed a partial or total denunciation of the agreement, but at the conclusion of this information did not answer. .

Susan Quiros, the leader of the National Confederation of Labor, a 600-member organization, expressed disagreement with the complaint from the foundation, because they intend to cancel low assistance to pay for eyeglasses or orthotics and millionaire transfers to union leaders are kept for Labor Relations Board meetings.

This payment is completely disproportionate and illogical. It is true that it is legal because it is established in the collective agreement, but it is not moral or ethical. These payments have been used by the municipality to achieve the complicity of the unions receiving them,” Quiros said.

“We believe that union representatives should not be paid for going to represent workers on the Labor Relations Board, because that is part of the jobs of a union leader, and it is part of the obligations he assumes when he accepts a position. So he shouldn’t pay them,” the woman added.

In the week just ended, Municipal Councilor Diego Miranda announced that he was going to Chamber Four to file an unconstitutional action against the payment of allowances to members of the Labor Relations Board.

Leave a Comment