Independent Workers with Collaborators: The New Frontier of Labor Autonomy

The enactment of Law 27,742 (Bases Law) and its subsequent consolidation through Law 27,802 (Labor Modernization Law) have profoundly transformed the landscape of labor law in the Argentine Republic. One of the most disruptive and debated changes is the creation of the figure of the independent worker with collaborators, originally enshrined in Article 97 of Law 27,742, which establishes an express exclusion from the protective scope of the Labor Contract Law (LCT).

The Regulatory Framework and the Modification of Article 2 of the LCT

Article 1 of Law 27,802 (BO, 3/6/2026) substantially modifies Article 2 of the LCT, redefining its scope of application. Specifically, it expands the exclusions to the presumption of employment. As noted in the Professional Practical Guide: Labor Reform 2026 (Dir: Julio A. Grisolia), the new subsection e) of Article 2 establishes that the provisions of the LCT will not apply "to independent workers and their collaborators in the terms of Article 97 of the Law of Bases and Starting Points for the Freedom of Argentines No. 27,742".

This exclusion joins other novel figures, such as independent providers of technological platforms (subsection f), forming a clear shift by the legislator towards the recognition of forms of work organization outside the classic paradigm of hierarchical and personal dependency.

Dependency vs. Autonomy: The Vision of Doctrine

To understand the scope of the independent worker with collaborators, it is essential to analyze the historical tension between labor dependency and autonomy. As Dr. Alejandro H. Perugini explains in the cited work, dependency and autonomy are concepts built on "the same material or the same mud": personal human work. They act as two territories divided by a borderline.

Historically, labor law has had an expansive vocation, absorbing almost all provision of personal services under the presumption of Article 23 of the LCT (also modified by these reforms). However, the new legislation "reclaims the spaces" of autonomy. The defining element for this figure to operate rests on self-organization: the independent worker assumes the economic risk of their activity, organizes their own productive unit, and exercises the power of direction over their collaborators, appropriating the result of the joint labor without subjection to an outside entrepreneur.

In this way, the command-obedience relationship typical of legal-personal dependency gives way to a bond of coordination or civil association between the independent worker and their collaborators, who, according to the norm, do not have an employment relationship with either the main contracting party or the independent worker who summons them.

Procedural Impact: Presumptions and Burden of Proof

In the field of labor litigation, the figure of the independent worker with collaborators has an unavoidable procedural impact. Traditionally, the simple provision of services created a presumption of the existence of an employment contract, reversing the burden of proof onto the defendant (who had to prove that the relationship was autonomous).

With current modifications, and especially with the alteration of Article 23 of the LCT and the elimination of the reference to "in dubio pro operario" in matters of evidentiary assessment (according to the reform of Article 9 of the LCT by Article 3 of Law 27,802), the scenario changes drastically. Whoever intends to seek the protection of LCT rules must overcome the initial barrier of legal exclusion, proving conclusively that the figure of the "collaborator" was used in fraud of the law (Article 14 of the LCT), and that in fact, there was a covert technical, economic, and legal subordination.

Registration and Social Security Aspects

Another point of utmost relevance is registration traceability. Law 27,802 consolidates the "Registration Simplification" system under the orbit of the new Customs Control and Collection Agency (ARCA, formerly AFIP). Although independent workers with collaborators do not register in the Special Book of the former Article 52 of the LCT (since there is no employment contract), they are subject to billing regimes, autonomous pension contributions, and risk coverage (personal accident insurance) as stipulated by regulations.

In this sense, legal independence brings with it the indelegable responsibility of the autonomous worker for their own social security and that of their collaborators, having to instrument the corresponding civil insurance to avoid contingencies in the face of accidents during the provided service. Failure to comply does not automatically laborize the bond, but it exposes those who make up the independent work scheme patrimonially.

Connection with Other Independence Regimes (Platforms)

The 2026 legislator has sought to consolidate different autonomous work schemes. A clear parallel to the figure of the independent worker with collaborators is the specific regime for delivery drivers and messengers of digital platforms (Title XII of Law 27,802, articles 119 to 128).

Both regimes share a common philosophy: guaranteeing freedom of contract and the non-labor nature of the bond. In the case of platform providers, "freedom of connection" is guaranteed, and it is expressly established that their rights do not constitute an indication of subordination. Similarly, the collaborators of Article 97 maintain legal and economic independence from the person who hires them, assimilating into the regulatory framework of the Civil and Commercial Code of the Nation for contracts for works and services (Articles 1251 and following).

Requirements and Prevention of Labor Fraud

It is necessary to highlight that the exclusion from the LCT is not a "blank check" for precariousness. Labor courts, by applying the principle of the primacy of reality, will continue to scrutinize the true nature of the bond. If the worker, misnamed "independent," or their "collaborator" lacks self-organization, is subject to an imposed fixed schedule, receives disciplinary orders, does not assume any economic risk, and receives a fixed remuneration comparable to a salary, the corporate veil or the figure of Article 97 will be dismissed. In these cases, the relationship will be governed by the mandatory rules of labor law (according to the second paragraph of Article 1252 of the Civil and Commercial Code).

Therefore, the implementation of this contractual modality requires strict legal compliance by contracting companies and independent workers, ensuring that billing, the organization of means of production, and the assumption of risks authentically reflect a commercial bond and not a covert subordination.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Review the text of current regulations at InfoLEG - Ministry of Justice and Human Rights.

Validity Notice: The information contained on this page is a doctrinal analysis of the norm and does not constitute legal advice applicable to a specific case.