Argentina Labor Reform: Supreme Court Precedents to Become Binding on Labor Courts

Marval O’Farrell Mairal | In Argentina, a significant shift in the judicial framework for labor disputes is underway. The labor reform bill approved by the Senate would grant binding force to Supreme Court precedents, marking a departure from the current system and aiming to enhance uniformity and legal certainty across lower courts.

The Labor Bill seeks to introduce, among many other procedural and substantive matters, greater predictability to the judicial system. Within this framework, which obtained preliminary approval in the Argentine Senate on February 11, 2026, article 90 emerges as a key provision designed to transform and reshape relationships among the different instances of the Judiciary by establishing the mandatory nature of the precedents issued by the Argentine Supreme Court (CSJN).

From a system of guiding criteria to binding precedents
Under the current Argentine legal system, CSJN decisions function as high ranking doctrinal guidance but are not strictly binding for lower courts, beyond the fact that a departure without offering new arguments is considered a lack of reasoning or an arbitrariness that may warrant invalidation. This structure enables first?instance courts and the various chambers of the National Court of Appeals on Labor Matters (CNAT) to maintain their own criteria, which frequently results in divergent interpretations of the same legal provision.

Article 90 of the reform introduces a paradigm shift by providing that "judges deciding labor related cases must, as a mandatory obligation, adapt their decisions to the precedents established by the Supreme Court in the matter." Likewise, the bill reinforces this mandatory nature by establishing that an unfounded departure of judges from such precedents may constitute grounds for misperformance in the exercise of their functions.

The objective: legal certainty and predictability
The principal basis of this measure is the pursuit of legal certainty. The disparity in judicial criteria generates uncertainty for both workers and employers, making it difficult to calculate economic and financial contingencies in litigation. 

A leading case that illustrates the need for this reform is the controversy regarding the application of methods for updating labor credits and the Oliva decision of the Supreme Court, in which the CSJN invalidated the use of successive interest capitalization (anatocism). Lower courts have applied more than a dozen different calculation formulas, with significantly divergent results and in open contradiction with CSJN doctrine.

With appropriate distinctions depending on the type of rule at issue, article 90 seeks to ensure a more consistent and uniform interpretation and application of the Supreme Court decisions, to guarantee that the same claim obtains a similar outcome regardless of the court before which it is filed. 

Reconfiguration of litigation strategy and institutional oversight
The mandatory nature of precedent does not eliminate the right to appeal, but it redefines its strategic viability. At present, many appeals are sustained by the expectation that a specific CNAT chamber will maintain a criterion contrary to that of the CSJN. Under the new regulation, appeals that contradict CSJN doctrine would be more exposed to being dismissed, which also seeks to discourage the use of the second instance as a delaying tactic.

From an institutional standpoint, the focus shifts toward the duty to provide reasoning. The bill does not annul the judge’s critical capacity, but it imposes an extreme argumentative burden: any ruling that does not align with the hierarchical standard must be so solidly reasoned that it cannot be characterized as an "unfounded departure from CSJN precedents." This mechanism seeks to ensure that judicial verticality is not merely a theoretical directive, but a standard of professional conduct, the breach of which could lead to the Judicial Council’s scrutiny. Thus, the reform aims for greater predictability and legal certainty.

Final considerations
The reform represents an effort to institutionalize the value of precedent. Article 90 of the bill not only seeks to reduce litigation, but also to consolidate a system in which the law is applied under a single, unified, and predictable criterion to strengthen confidence in judicial institutions and in the rules governing the labor market.

marval.com