Labor courts must explain, not just state, why they believe witnesses
Witness testimony in labor matters. The criteria of certainty, uniformity, impartiality and consistency for assessing it must be applied under the rationalist conception of evidence adopted by the Federal Labor Law.
Official heading (Spanish): PRUEBA TESTIMONIAL EN MATERIA LABORAL. LOS CRITERIOS DE CERTIDUMBRE, UNIFORMIDAD, IMPARCIALIDAD Y CONGRUENCIA PARA SU VALORACIÓN DEBEN APRECIARSE DESDE LA CONCEPCIÓN RACIONALISTA DE LA PRUEBA QUE ADOPTA LA LEY FEDERAL DEL TRABAJO.
The ruling
In the same dismissal case, the Labor Board ruled for the employer because its witnesses were consistent and uniform. The Collegiate Circuit Court held that, under article 841 of the Federal Labor Law, the criteria of certainty, uniformity, impartiality and consistency must be applied under a rationalist view of evidence, with explicit reasoning a reviewing court can test.
Our take
This precedent pairs with the one listing factors for assessing testimony and targets another flaw: using the four classic criteria as a checklist. It is no longer enough for the award to say witnesses were uniform; it must explain why their account matches what happened. For companies, this opens two fronts. On defense, their witnesses must withstand closer scrutiny. On appeal, when an adverse ruling rests on generic formulas, there is a solid argument to challenge it for lack of evidentiary reasoning.
What to do
- When challenging an award, point out testimony assessments that rely on generic formulas without reasoning.
- Prepare witnesses on specific facts they directly know, not on a uniform account.
- Back each testimony with corroborating documentary evidence.
Details
- Court
- Collegiate Circuit Court
- Type
- Isolated precedent
- Identifier
- VI.2o.T.1 L (12a.)
- Digital registry
- 2032600
- Published
- September 4, 2026
- Area
- Labor and social security
- View official source ↗
Does this ruling affect your company? Let’s talk.
Schedule a conversationOther precedents in the same area
Prepared by Artegia for information only; not legal advice. Headings in English are unofficial translations. The official text is the one published in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación or the TFJA journal.