CHILE Law and Practice Contributed by: Christian Alvarado and Agustín Alcalde, Clyde & Co Chile
For the purposes of the formal investigation proce - dure established by the Karin Act, complaints must be filed by an identified person. The regulatory framework and the Labour Board’s administrative practice have clarified that anonymous complaints do not initiate the statutory investigation procedure. This does not mean, however, that anonymous alerts may be disregarded – employers remain bound by their general duty to protect the life, health and dignity of employees and must therefore assess the information received and utilise appropriate preventive or protective measures. A key feature of the Karin Act regime is the empha - sis on confidentiality and controlled access to infor - mation. Employers are required to designate one or more specific individuals responsible for receiving and administering complaints, centralising the man - agement of the reporting channel and strictly limiting access to sensitive information. This approach reflects the heightened confidentiality standards applicable under the Karin Act and distinguishes the statutory framework from more general compliance-based reporting systems. A relevant practical issue associated with reporting channels is the risk of false or malicious complaints. Practice has shown cases in which an employee’s identity has been improperly used to file multiple unfounded complaints, resulting in adverse effects on the person involved. Cross-complaints, often aris - ing from personal conflicts, friendships, or sentimen - tal relationships, are also frequent: one party reports, and the other counters. Importantly, the fact that a complaint is not substantiated does not, by itself, render it false; deliberate intent to misrepresent the facts must be proven. In particularly serious cases, false or malicious complaints may give rise to disci - plinary consequences and, if duly accredited, could constitute grounds for dismissal under Article 160 of the Labour Code. A related phenomenon is the abuse of reporting chan - nels. Situations have arisen in which the same employ - ee repeatedly files Karin Act complaints regarding the same facts through different internal compliance channels, forcing the employer to investigate identical matters multiple times. This repetition has, in some cases, led to claims by investigated employees alleg -
ing violations of fundamental rights due to being sub - jected to successive identical procedures. Employers must establish clear internal rules, respond propor - tionally and carefully assess each case to protect all parties. 1.4 Responsibility Outside the scope of the Karin Act, internal investi - gations are generally carried out by the compliance officer or the person designated in internal policies, who may receive complaints, conduct a preliminary assessment, initiate or coordinate the investigation, and ensure confidentiality. Depending on the nature and complexity of the case, the matter may be han - dled internally or referred to another competent area, such as HR, ensuring independence and proper docu - mentation. Under the Karin Act, when the employer conducts the investigation, it must (if possible) appoint a person with training in harassment, gender, or fundamental rights and inform the complainant in writing. Both the complainant and the respondent may challenge the investigator’s impartiality, in which case the employer must decide on a reasoned basis and record this deci - sion in the investigation report. External specialists may participate as technical support, without releas - ing the employer from its legal responsibility. 1.5 Obligation to Carry Out an HR Internal Investigation In Chile, the obligation to conduct an investigation arises expressly under the Karin Act in cases involving complaints of workplace harassment, sexual harass - ment or violence at work, as the employer may not conduct an admissibility review or dismiss the com - plaint and must always activate the relevant proce - dure. In such cases, the employer must either initiate an internal investigation in accordance with its appli - cable internal regulations or refer the matter to the Labour Board, as applicable. Outside this specific framework, internal investiga - tions do not constitute a general legal obligation, but rather a faculty of the employer linked to risk manage - ment and the general duty to protect employees.
81 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook