Not a Member? Get access to HR news and resources that you can trust.
We asked HR professionals to tell us about their time in HR. Here are their stories.
Is your employee handbook keeping up with the changing world of work? With SHRM's Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Instructor-led guidance for your SHRM-CP/SHRM-SCP exam, no travel or time out of the office required.
#SHRM18 will expand your perspective – on your organization, on your career, and on the way you approach HR. Join us in Chicago June 17-20, 2018
On November 29, 2012, departing Mexican President Felipe de Jesús Calderón signed a comprehensive reform of Mexico’s Federal Labor Law (FLL), instituting more than 300 changes, effective December 1, 2012, with far-reaching and substantive implications for foreign companies doing business in Mexico and local Mexican employers alike.
Mexico’s government stated that the purpose of this bill is to increase productivity and better paying jobs, while also allowing greater employment access for women and younger workers. Most of these changes will be familiar to U.S. employers, as in many ways they bring Mexican labor standards more in line with those that we are accustomed to here in the United States. However, employers that have been doing business in Mexico will find other changes more significant, such as the revisions designed to ensure more extensive coverage of Mexico’s FLL employee benefits, as well as clarifications to the procedural requirements for employment terminations in Mexico.
Some of the key changes in the law include:
Outsourcing/Subcontracting. Historically, many companies doing business in Mexico have managed labor obligations through outsourcing or subcontracting to a service company, which provides the workforce for a fee. Although the employees render services that benefit a particular commercial company, they are employed by and on the payroll of the service company, which is contractually responsible for labor obligations. This is important in all aspects of the FLL, but particularly so in regard to the law’s 10 percent employee profit-sharing requirement. Under a typical subcontracting relationship 10 percent of the profits of the service company—as opposed to the commercial entity that benefits from the services—are shared with the employees, thus limiting the commercial entity’s obligations to the service company employees. Recently, a Mexican federal court foreshadowed the end of this practice by holding that when an employer enters into a “professional services agreement” or “any other legal arrangement” in order to avoid its labor-related obligations, the service company and the operating company will be deemed to be a “single economic unit” under the FLL. The amendments create new restrictions for service companies as employers, as well as for the beneficiary companies, by essentially codifying the federal labor court’s holding that these two entities will be deemed a single economic unit for purposes of the FLL’s benefits and protections to employees. Further, to the extent that such outsourcing relationships are used to avoid labor obligations, under the amendments, the actual beneficiaries of the services are jointly liable under the FLL. Likewise, if a contracting commercial company is found to be invoking such outsourcing for the purpose of avoiding labor obligations under the FLL, including payment of profit sharing, it may be subject to significant fines from the Mexican labor authorities.
This is one of the more significant changes in the law, given the long-standing use of these arrangements.
Anti-Discrimination/Harassment. The amendments align Mexico with international anti-discrimination and harassment standards by expressly prohibiting discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin, nationality, disability, health conditions, religion, immigration conditions, opinions, sexual preference or civil status. What is more, workplace and sexual harassment (along with mobbing, lack of honesty, and acts of violence, among others) are now defined and are grounds for a just cause termination. This is important because it will allow employers in Mexico to consistently enforce global policies and procedures concerning harassment and related matters. Further, employers are prohibited from requesting pregnancy tests as a hiring condition, and they cannot require a woman to resign due to pregnancy or change of civil status.
Family Leave. The right to paternity leave for five days and maternity leave for six weeks for the birth or adoption of a child is now mandatory. In addition, the amendments include protections for working mothers by providing flexibility in choosing when to take maternity leave and shorter shifts to accommodate nursing mothers.
Disability. Employers with 50 or more employees must adapt the workplace to accommodate employees with disabilities.
New Hires. The law now requires new hiring forms, incorporates protections for seasonal workers, includes trial and training periods up to six months for new employees, and provides telecommuting benefits. There are also specific rules for employers that hire Mexican employees to work abroad. Improved working conditions for household, agricultural and mine workers are also included.
Underage Labor. Hiring children under the age of 14 is now a crime.
Payroll Deductions. Employers must now inform the family court if the employment of an employee owing alimony payments is terminated.
Terminations and Termination-Related Proceedings. Before the reform, employees could claim that they never received for-cause notice of termination from their employer, and the burden of proof was on the employer to prove that such notice was in fact served. The amendments redefine the burden of proof in this notice process and allow employers to serve notice directly on the employee or through the labor board, which prevents employees from claiming they never received such notice. Exactly how this change will play out procedurally will be the subject of future labor court proceedings.
In addition, back pay awards in unjustified termination proceedings are now capped at one year of accrued salary, which creates a disincentive for claimants to delay such proceedings. (Under the old regime, awards could include accrued salary from the date of termination to the date of award, which encouraged terminated employees to drag out the process.) If the proceedings are not completed within the year term, the terminated employee must be paid an interest of two percent on a monthly basis over the equivalent of 15 months of salary, instead of having back pay awards increasing month by month until the proceedings finish.
Use of “Electronic Means.” This term is now defined, using terms such as digital certifications, private codes, passwords, digital documents, access codes, and electronic and advanced electronic signatures. As a result, employers are allowed to issue employment-related documents electronically.
Fines for Noncompliance. The reform increases fines for noncompliance with the FLL.
For U.S. employers, many of these changes will not appear terribly shocking or controversial because they are relatively consistent with U.S. employment law standards. In fact, although this reform increases protection for employees, it also actually provides greater certainty concerning labor relations and requirements, which should help companies as they embark on business ventures in Mexico. At the same time, employers doing business in Mexico should not only review their employment policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the reform but also look for new opportunities to make such policies and procedures truly global. Furthermore, in light of the joint labor liability aspect of this reform, consideration should be given to the actual benefit of continued use of services and outsourcing companies to hire personnel, particularly since the use of these services carries with it a substantial cost already. Now, the ability of such beneficiary companies to avoid labor liability has been practically eliminated, which is generally considered to be a major business justification behind paying a high markup to a service provider. As such, these corporate structures and outsourcing models arguably no longer provide the same protection they once did and may no longer be a cost-effective solution.
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart is a national law firm that provides counsel to companies in all areas of employment and labor law. Republished with permission. © 2012 Ogletree Deakins. All rights reserved.
SHRM Online Global HR page
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Your session has expired. Please log in again before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Join SHRM's exclusive peer-to-peer social network
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies