One registration only: ARCA, and IERIC cannot ask for more

thesis The law chose a technique here that is worth looking at, because it explains why the section works: it did not repeal IERIC's registry, it barred it from demanding it. Repealing it would have opened a debate about the whole construction regime; barring the demand solves the employer's problem without touching Ley 22.250. ⇒ For the works supplier the effect adds to that of section 129 and both point the same way: making it cheaper to bring your own crew to a distant site. One removes the local-list filter, the other removes the parallel registry. It is R10 in its most literal form — the demand for works already exists; what changes is the cost of meeting it. What could break this reading: the procedure that really weighs not being registration but the rest of the construction regime — the Severance Fund, the record book, the site permit — which this section does not touch. And ARCA not yet having issued the rules the section itself refers to. And there is a new piece that reinforces this reading, found on 2 September 2026: the ban on demanding parallel registries is not only in the IERIC section. It appears three times — in s. 52 of the Employment Contract Act («any other authority»), in s. 84 of the SME law («any national, provincial or municipal authority») and in the IERIC section. Writing the same rule three times, across three different regimes, is a drafting decision that says something: the legislator expected resistance from bodies that could argue their special regime was not covered. ⇒ For an SME supplier operating across several provinces, the practical consequence is that the provincial or municipal employers' registry is no longer enforceable against it, whatever the jurisdiction. With the same caveat as above, which now weighs more: all of this refers to rules ARCA must issue, and the Single Personnel Registry of s. 85 is a system ARCA has to build. That the law orders it does not prove it already exists. thesis