CHILE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Christian Alvarado and Agustín Alcalde, Clyde & Co Chile
sive delays by the Labour Board as legally reproach - able, reinforcing the mandatory and enforceable nature of the statutory 30-day deadline to conclude investigations. Among the relevant decisions in this area, the Val - paraíso Court of Appeal has ruled on protection actions brought by both employers and employees affected by the undue prolongation of investigations conducted by the Labour Board under the Karin Act. In these judgments, the courts have been emphatic in stating that the maximum 30-day period is not mere - ly indicative or programmatic, but rather an express legal requirement, directly linked to the principles of timeliness and due process governing this type of procedure. In the cases analysed, the Labour Board kept inves - tigations open for several months without issuing a substantive decision or informing the parties in a time - ly manner of the status of the proceedings or the valid - ity of the protective measures adopted. In response, the courts characterised such inaction as an illegal and arbitrary omission, emphasising that the failure to close the procedure is neither neutral nor harm - less. On the contrary, it creates a prolonged state of uncertainty for the reporting employee, who remains unaware of the outcome of the complaint, and for the employer and the reported individual, who continue to be subject to precautionary measures whose duration is extended indefinitely. A particularly relevant aspect of these rulings is the explicit rejection of the argument that administrative deadlines are not peremptory. In the specific context of the Karin Act, the courts have held that the seri - ousness of the conduct under investigation and the effects arising from the mere pendency of the pro - cedure justify a strict temporal compliance standard. Consequently, unjustified delay infringes constitution - al guarantees such as equality before the law and due process, affecting all parties involved. More recently, this line of case law was consolidated by the Supreme Court of Chile, the country’s high - est court, in a judgment rendered by its Third Cham - ber in case No 31,105-2025. In that decision, the Supreme Court examined a protection action filed by
an employer in response to the Labour Board’s pro - longed inaction in a workplace harassment investiga - tion that had lasted nearly five months, far exceeding the statutory deadline. The Supreme Court categorically rejected the ser - vice’s workload as a valid justification for non-compli - ance with the legal mandate. It held that the indefinite continuation of the investigative procedure, together with the extension of protective measures such as paid leave, constitutes illegal and arbitrary conduct. In particular, the Court recognised a concrete infringe - ment of the employer’s right to property, as it was forced to bear the costs associated with precautionary measures beyond the period expressly established by the legislature. The message emerging from this ruling is clear: the 30-day deadline established by the Karin Act is legally enforceable, and its breach is subject to judicial con - trol. Timeliness is not a programmatic aspiration of the system, but a legal obligation, the disregard of which entails responsibility and warrants judicial interven - tion. Practical Impact of Delays Delays in the processing of investigations under the Karin Act, when these are conducted by the Labour Board, do not constitute a merely procedural or formal issue. On the contrary, they generate concrete, practi - cal effects for both employees and employers, affect - ing rights, costs, and the day-to-day management of employment relationships. In this sense, delay is not neutral: it produces real consequences that strain the balance the legislature sought to establish. Impact on employees From the perspective of those who file complaints, the main consequence of delay is prolonged uncer - tainty. The affected employee may remain for months without knowing the outcome of the investigation or the legal assessment of the alleged facts, which weak - ens the protective function underlying the Karin Act. This uncertainty is exacerbated when the protective measures initially adopted (such as changes in duties, separation of workspaces, or psychological support) are extended over time without a clear determination as to their duration.
97 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook