Our main clients are companies in the mining, banking, industrial, financial, transport, telecommunications and government sectors.
During our years of experience in providing procedural advice to our clients, we have obtained significant results in court, among which we highlight the following:

Advising Ajinomoto del Perú SA in a litigation against a workers’ union for failing to meet constitutional requirements, such as the minimum affiliation of 100 workers. At the time of filing the lawsuit, it had only 15 affiliates, hence we argue that, although it now meets the requirements, the assessment should be based on the original circumstances. The relevance lies in preventing the continuation of a union that violates the law, thereby averting claims that could economically harm the company.

Advice to Volcan Compañía Minera SA in an administrative contentious action against the resolution of the Regional Labor Directorate of Junín, which included workers from other companies, including the outsourcing of the Andaychagua Union. According to Article 10 of the General Law of Administrative Procedure, nonexistent acts or those approved automatically are void if they contravene the Constitution, laws, or regulations, as in this case, where Article 12 of the Collective Labor Relations Law was infringed. The case is pending in the Supreme Court and is complex due to the lack of a uniform criterion in jurisprudence. However, we focus on the client’s objectives to seek a favorable judgment. Additionally, the case has international implications, involving international unions, confederations, NGOs, business organizations, and Glencore International. Volcan is accused of violating employees’ rights to negotiate their employment terms and conditions and to form and join unions of their choice.

Defense of Rimac Compañía de Seguros y Reaseguros SA in 100 judicial proceedings where former employees of various companies that contracted the Complementary Occupational Accident Insurance (SCTR) seek to be granted a disability pension due to occupational disease or work-related accident.

This amounts to approximately USD 1,000 per month for life for each of the claimants, which, according to our defense strategy aimed at reducing contingencies, represent very high economic claims that would financially impact the company.

Advising Corporación Aceros Arequipa SA in the claim initiated by the Workers’ Union for the payment of salaries to 356 affiliated members, arguing that benefits were limited to only 4 members at the end of a collective bargaining negotiation. The presiding judge ordered the claim to be disaggregated into 356 individual proceedings. We believe extending the benefit to all workers isn’t justified, as only 4 union members received recognition for specific activities. Thus, it doesn’t demonstrate the comparative equivalence required to prove lack of equal treatment. In appeal before the Superior Court, we have obtained favorable rulings for a portion of the cases so far.

Advice to LG Electronics Perú SAC in a case where a former employee seeks reinstatement for wrongful dismissal due to alleged contract outsourcing mischaracterization. We focus on refuting the employee’s claims, demonstrating there was no such mischaracterization and therefore no grounds for wrongful dismissal. The claimant’s subordination was directly with the outsourcing company, evidenced by the employment contract and payrolls issued by them. This case could pave the way for future similar claims, resulting in severe economic and structural damages to the company.

Advice to Compañía Peruana de Radiodifusión S.A. (Latina) in a legal case involving a former television host suing for labor compensations at Lima’s Labor Court. She seeks payments related to social benefits and damages for alleged mischaracterization of a civil contract. Our defense rests on the lack of essential elements for an employment contract, notably subordination, as the contract with Latina does not entail a direct employment relationship. This case is significant for involving a TV personality suing a major network like Latina, attracting media attention and potential economic damages to the company.