Lapse of Proceedings in the Labor Reform

The Argentine Congress passed the Labor Modernization Bill. It is currently pending final enactment due to the amendments introduced during the congressional process. The initiative submitted by the Argentine Executive Branch in December 2025 proposes a broad reform of the Argentine labor regime, which is not limited to amendments to the Labor Law but also incorporates relevant changes to the National Labor Justice Organization and Procedure Law 18345.

Within this set of procedural reforms, one of the aspects that has attracted the greatest attention is the modification of the regime governing the lapse of proceedings in the national courts labor process. This is a change that directly impacts the dynamics of labor litigation, the distribution of procedural burdens between the judicial authority and the parties, and the duration of disputes.

The new article 46: text and operational rules

The amended article 46 provides, first, that “the procedure shall be driven by the parties.” This statement operates as a structural rule of the new framework, clearly departing from the previous general principle referring to court-driven proceedings.

Secondly, it establishes that “the lapse of proceedings shall occur when its progress is not sought,” and prior notice is not needed, within the following time limits:
 

1. six months in the first or sole instance,
2. three months in the second instance and in any instance in summary proceedings, enforcement proceedings, special executions, and incidental matters,
3. one month in the incidental proceeding concerning the lapse of proceedings.

This contrasts directly with the previous regime under which, by definition, the lapse of proceedings did not exist.

Lastly, it precisely delineates the lifespan of the proceeding: “the proceeding commences with the filing of the claim, even if the order directing its service has not been notified, and ends with the issuance of the ruling,” a definition that was not included in the previous wording of the law.

The context: prolonged proceedings and dormant claims

It is not new that labor proceedings tend to extend for years, going through periods of inactivity that, in many cases, find no justification in the complexity of the dispute or in pending judicial activity.

The absence of a fully operative lapse-of-proceedings mechanism has allowed numerous cases to remain formally open even when they show no meaningful activity for extended periods. This situation generates a particular phenomenon: the existence of dormant claims that do not move towards resolution but are not extinguished either, remaining available to be reactivated at any time.

This scenario directly affects the predictability of the system and the strategic planning of the parties, especially in the context of high interest rates and monetary updating mechanisms that substantially increase the amount of labor credits under litigation.

The reconfiguration of the duty to drive the proceedings

The existing regime under Law 18345 has traditionally been characterized as a procedure of inquisitorial nature, in which the labor judge assumes an active role in directing the process through court‑driven action. This conception is closely linked to the protective purpose of labor law and to the subsistence‑related nature of the credits at stake.

From this perspective, the exclusion of the lapse of proceedings has been doctrinally justified as a mechanism aimed at preventing the inactivity of the parties from frustrating the effective judicial protection of the worker’s rights.

The reform—as approved—introduces a significant change by shifting the axis of procedural impetus towards the parties, reinforcing the idea that those who bring judicial action must assume a minimum burden of diligence in its prosecution.

In this new framework, the lapse of proceedings regains prominence as an instrument aimed at sanctioning prolonged inactivity, provided that there is no specific duty on the part of the court to carry out the omitted procedural act. The reform does not eliminate the judge’s active role but redefines the balance between judicial direction of the process and the responsibility of the parties in advancing it.

From this viewpoint, the lapse emerges as a mechanism intended to streamline the proceedings, discourage undue delays, and prevent periods of inactivity that only contribute to the unnecessary prolongation of litigation.

Traditional objections and constitutional debate

Among the traditional objections to applying the lapse of proceedings in labor litigation is its alleged incompatibility with the protective principle enshrined in article 14 bis of the Argentine Constitution.

However, this argument has been reconsidered in recent years. From a constitutional perspective, protecting labor rights does not preclude the establishment of reasonable procedural rules aimed at ensuring the reasonable duration of the process, legal certainty, and equality of the parties before the law.

The existence of procedural burdens does not imply a waiver of rights but rather a minimum requirement of diligent conduct for accessing the courts. In this regard, the lapse of proceedings may be understood as a tool designed to reconcile the protection of the worker with the need to prevent indefinitely open proceedings.

Internal comparative law: The experience of the province of Buenos Aires

The regulation in force in the Province of Buenos Aires offers a particularly relevant point of comparison. Article 12 of the Buenos Aires Labor Procedure Law (Law 11653, currently Law 15057) establishes a system in which the court has broad powers to drive and investigate the proceedings, but expressly provides for the possibility of declaring the lapse of proceedings.

The provincial regime sets clear time limits (three months in summary proceedings and six months in others) and requires prior notice to the parties to produce meaningful procedural activity, provided that the court has no specific duty to perform the omitted act.

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires has repeatedly upheld the operability of the lapse of proceedings in the labor sphere, emphasizing its sanctioning purpose in the face of manifest disinterest by parties. It held so, among other precedents, in “Villalba, Pedro c/ Xatrux S.A. y otros s/ enfermedad” (February 28, 2002), “Medina, Luis c/ De Sa Carneiro, Manuel s/ enfermedad accidente” (Mrch 12, 2003), and “Maestre, Roberto Daniel c/ Mc. Kee del Plata s/ enfermedad accidente” (February 18, 2004), in which the provincial high court stressed that the lapse is appropriate when the parties are not prevented from carrying out actions to drive the process.

Although in practice it is common to encounter various obstacles and a very restrictive interpretation when seeking to invoke the lapse of proceedings, these precedents show that the coexistence of an active judicial role and the lapse of proceedings is not, in itself, incompatible with the principles of labor procedure.
 

Final considerations
The reform introducing the lapse of proceedings raises a debate that goes beyond procedural technique and fits within a broader discussion about the efficiency of the judicial system, the reasonable duration of labor proceedings, and legal certainty.

Comparative experience and existing case law suggest that the lapse of proceedings may operate as a legitimate instrument to discourage unjustified inactivity without undermining the protection that characterizes labor law. The challenge will lie in how the institution is applied by judges and in the ability of the courts to harmonize it with the remaining principles governing labor procedure.