By: Lic. Federico Anaya Ojeda - December 2005 -

General Porfirio Díaz Mori Oaxacan ruled our country from 1876 to 1911. Some say even that Don Porfirio was behind the presidency of Manuel González from 1880 to 1884. This period is known as the Porfiriato and the aching and significant contrasts found.

On the one hand capitalism reached unexpected boom. Supported by the aristocracy and new bourgeoisie of the time, the economically advanced country on topics such as roads, railways and telegraphs mainly in the field, mining, petroleum, banking, and industry. On the other hand the farmers were dispossessed of their land and workers were marginalized in their rights.

Mexican workers were discriminated against at work for American companies paid higher wages for the same job to foreigners, were subject to abuse, punishment, injury, discounts and arbitrary dismissals. Their wages were low, unions were nonexistent, no bonus, no holidays, no vacation pay, no profit sharing, no overtime pay, no holidays, and much less social security. The day worked from sunrise to sunset.

Today, after a revolution, the rights of our Mexican workers are guaranteed in Article 123 of the Mexican constitution. The Mexicans discrimination on grounds of nationality in our country no longer exists, companies are forced to hire ninety percent of Mexican workers and pay them at least according to the principle of equal work, equal pay. The mistreatment, unfair punishment, injury, improper deductions by the employer to its employees are grounds for termination of contract and unjustly dismissed employee can ask to be reinstated or be compensated. Fortunately today things have changed. The day is no longer working from sunrise to sunset.

Legally the day is defined as the time in which the worker is available to the employer. Federal Labor Law distinguishes three types of day:

• The day shift is between six in the morning till eight in the evening.
• The night shift is between eight o'clock in the evening at six o'clock the next day.
• The day is mixed comprising periods of day shift and night shift as long as the night period is less than three hours.

The maximum time that a worker can provide services is eight hours in the daytime, seven hours in the evening to seven hours in the mixed. Also, if the journey is continuing the employee is entitled to a half hour break at least to rest and take food, which is counted as days actually worked if the worker can not leave the place where serves.

Federal Labor law allows workers to work overtime without this exceed three hours daily, or three times per week to be paid twice the salary of normal hours.

The overtime exceeding nine hours a week will be paid at triple the normal hours wage plus the employer shall be punishable by a fine from three hundred fifty-five times the minimum wage.

Importantly, in terms of Article 59 of the Federal Labour workers and their employer may spread the hours of work to rest on Saturday afternoon or any other equivalent method. For this reason the day should be observed from the weekly plan, and on that basis we have the maximum working day is 48 hours, the 42-hour night shift and 45-hour joint, obtained by multiplying by six days of the daily hours week.

This is momentous because derived in the following case, overtime should not be calculated from the end of the working day, but at the end of the working week. The workday may exceed the legal maximum eight, seven and seven-thirty, provided they do not exceed the limits of forty-eight, forty two forty-five weekly.

DAY EVERYDAY. EXCEED EIGHT HOURS WITHOUT GIVING RISE TO THE PAYMENT OF OVERTIME.

Article 59 of the Federal Labour Act provides that workers and the employer may distribute the hours of work in order to be allowed to rest on Saturday early afternoon, or any equivalent method. Therefore, a schedule can be agreed validly than eight hours per day, which is the legal day, not to exceed forty-eight hours a week, to rest on Saturday afternoon or any other form, without that circumstance may give rise to the claim as overtime in excess of one working day.

COLLEGIATE COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT WORK.

Direct Amparo 14/90.

Celina Contreras Anzures Israel. May 9, 1990. Approved unanimously. Speaker: Andres Cruz Martinez. Secretary: Rocio Hope Gabriel.

Direct Amparo 145/90.

. Ocampo Agustin Araujo. August 22, 1990. Approved unanimously. Speaker: Jose de Jesus Rodriguez Martinez. Secretary: Jose de Jesus Lopez Murrieta.

Direct Amparo 131/92.

Antonio Araiza Garcia. April 8, 1992. Approved unanimously. Speaker: Andres Cruz Martinez. Secretary: Constancio Carrasco Daza.

Direct Amparo 116/92.

Ana Maria Gonzalez Carrillo. April 22, 1992. Approved unanimously. Speaker: Alfonsina Berta Navarro Hidalgo. Secretary: Hope Guadalupe Farias Flores.

Direct Amparo 173/92.

Enrique López García. May 13, 1992. Approved unanimously. Speaker: Alfonsina Berta Navarro Hidalgo. Secretary: Jorge Humberto Benitez pepper.

SOME CASES OF EMERGENCY

1. The under sixteen years shall not be employed for overtime work, night work and any job industry after twenty-two hours. (Article 5 LFT)
2. La training and training that workers receive will be considered as working hours, unless otherwise agreed by type of work. (Article 153-E LFT)
3. The work of pregnant or breastfeeding periods may not be used in unhealthy or hazardous industrial night work, in shops or service after ten in the evening, and in overtime, when put into endanger the health of the woman or the baby. (Article 164).
4. The under sixteen years may not work more than six hours, not to exceed a maximum period of more than three hours. Between period and have one hour period of rest. (Article 177 LFT)
5. Not may be used on Sundays or rest days on pain payment mandatory triple. (Article 178 LFT)
6. The issue of workers permanence vessels inside the boat must be considered as working time, unless the rest period is four hours or more, the worker there physically unable to leave the ship or that abandonment because it lacks subject of unpopulated areas
7. .If workers for aircraft total time of services to be provided the crew, include only the actual flight time, the path and reservation services, but may not exceed one hundred eighty hours per month. The actual flight time will not exceed ninety hours. (Articles 223 and 224 of the LFT)
8. The actual flight time of the crew shall not exceed eight hours in the day shift, seven in the evening and half past seven in the mixed, unless they are granted a rest period horizontal, before turning or fulfill these days equal to the time flown. The excess of the stated time will be extraordinary. (Article 225 of the LFT)
9. On for railroad workers the conference will be adjusted according to the needs of the service and may commencement to any time of day or night. (Article 252 LFT)
10. The issue of these academic workers can be hired for full-time or part-time. (Article 353-M LFT)
11. Regarding these domestic workers are not required to pay overtime but they must provide sufficient rest for meals and rest during the night. (Article 333 of the LFT)
12. If the employment contract is fixed a time less than that provided by law, shall be considered as overtime which exceed the agreed working hours, however not exceeding the statutory maximum.

Finally it is essential to advise employers to avoid them having legal disputes with its workers and payment of punitive monstrous that of carrying out an in-depth assistance with the date, time in and out of work and food duly signed by the worker. Where this is not possible it is necessary that the employment contract is agreed legal maximum hours, followed by a ban on specific clause the worker to labor overtime unless written order of the pattern. Remember that the burden of proof at trial the day and time rests with the employer and if it is true that our beloved Mexican workers are no longer forced to work from sunrise to sunset, so is that the employer does not comply with the burden of proof at trial as working conditions can bring sunny.

OVERTIME. THAT IS VALID CONTRACTUALLY AGREE LABORARLAS WORKER SHOULD ONLY WITH PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF EMPLOYER OR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR IT.

The implementation of the overtime work must be ordered or authorized by the employer, and therefore should not be left to the worker to decide exceed its normal working also creating at will the employer's payment obligation. Thus, in an individual contract or collective bargaining agreement is legally valid expressly agree that the worker may only be required to work overtime as there exists in its previous order in writing to the employer or their empowered representatives, calling attention clearly work to be done and the time required. Thus, to be written specifically mandated for overtime labor, and after running it, you get the worker require your payment source to display that authorization and the impediment for the employer to require an extension of the day that exceeds the guidelines established by the Federal Labor Law. However, comments not only stipulation must adapt to the consequences which comply with labor standards, but also those that are consistent with good faith and equity, as required by Article 31 of the labor law itself , from which it follows that the existence of that agreement only creates the assumption that only labor overtime was due prior written order of the pattern, the presumption that alone is not enough to relieve the latter of the burden of proof when the worker claims to have worked overtime or a day higher than legally or contractually agreed, but if the employer demonstrates convincingly with other evidence when in his company evolved overtime was because there was the written order to do so, that presumption is corroborated and it will result in the worker who must show that there was the written mandate, or even without it but with the consent of the employer, worked the overtime claimed.

Contradiction of Thesis 42/93. Between the Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts Work Matters of the First Circuit. May 2, 1994. Majority of four votes. Speaker: José Antonio Llanos Duarte. Secretary: Daniel Hair Gonzalez.

Jurisprudence Thesis 16/94. Adopted by the Fourth Chamber of the High Court in closed session from May 2 of 1994, a majority of four votes of the Ministers: President Ignacio Magaña Cardenas, Felipe Lopez Contreras, Carlos García Vázquez and José Antonio Llanos Duarte , contrary issued by the Minister Juan Diaz Romero.