Background on Infonavit and the Relevant Parties
Infonavit, or the National Housing Savings Fund for Workers, is a Mexican government-run mortgage program that provides housing loans to employees based on their savings contributions. The recent reform under scrutiny mandated employers to continue deducting salaries for employees with Infonavit credit during periods of labor incapacity, funded by the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS).
The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) played a crucial role in addressing this issue, ultimately overturning the controversial reform.
SCJN’s Ruling on the Infonavit Reform
In a recent jurisprudence, the SCJN acknowledged the possibility of suspending salary deductions for workers with Infonavit credit who are on leave or incapacitated, provided that the payment obligation is maintained according to law.
“The Supreme Court established jurisprudence that prioritizes legal certainty, proportionality, and the economic security of working individuals who are absent or incapacitated. This decision ensures that employers can temporarily halt salary deductions for Infonavit housing credits when employees are absent or incapacitated, as long as the payment obligation is upheld,” stated SCJN in a press release.
Impacts of the Infonavit Reform Before the SCJN’s Ruling
Experts consulted by El Economista in April, a month after the reform’s enactment, warned that the new measure lacked legal certainty for both companies and employees. In practical terms, it would turn into employer-funded credit financing for the employee during their incapacitation period.
“This is a poorly designed provision that leads to impossibility, and it’s also causing lawsuits,” Carlos Ferran Martínez, a partner at Ferran Martínez Abogados, cautioned at the time.
Francisco Gutiérrez-Zamora, a partner specializing in Local Contributions, Social Security, and Strategic Litigation at Chevez Ruiz Zamarripa, explained that the Infonavit reform could result in outstanding debts between employers and employees. Essentially, once an employee returned to work, the employer would deduct a portion of their salary to settle the accumulated debt.
However, experts agreed that a potential risk for workplaces in this scenario was the possibility of non-compliance opinions from Infonavit, which could lead to cancellation of their registration in the Registry of Specialized Services Providers (Repse), a requirement managed by the Labor and Prevision Social Secretariat (STPS) for offering specialized services subcontracting.
Key Questions and Answers
- What was the Infonavit reform about? The reform mandated employers to continue deducting salaries for employees with Infonavit credit during labor incapacity, funded by the IMSS.
- Why did the SCJN overturn the reform? The SCJN recognized that enforcing these deductions during absences or incapacities imposed an unfair economic burden on both employees and employers, as there was no salary base for the deductions.
- What were the potential consequences of the reform before the SCJN’s ruling? Experts warned that the reform created legal uncertainty, possible employer-funded credit financing, and potential non-compliance issues leading to Repse cancellation.
