CHILE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Christian Alvarado and Agustín Alcalde, Clyde & Co Chile
In addition, there is a relevant legal risk: the poten - tial expiry of judicial actions, particularly claims for protection of fundamental rights. In practice, admin - istrative delays may consume critical time limits within which the employee must assess and pursue actions before the labour courts, thereby indirectly affecting access to justice. This risk has been highlighted by legal scholarship and labour-market stakeholders as one of the most problematic consequences of failing to comply with the statutory investigation deadline. Finally, the psychological impact of keeping an inves - tigation open for a prolonged period cannot be over - looked. Constant exposure to conflict, the absence of closure, and the perception of institutional inefficiency may aggravate the emotional harm associated with the alleged conduct, precisely in a context where the law seeks to prevent re-victimisation and promote timely responses. Impact on employers For employers, delays also generate significant effects. First, the indefinite extension of protective measures often entails direct economic costs. Measures such as paid leave, reassignment of duties, or temporary oper - ational adjustments become, in practice, prolonged burdens that exceed the temporal horizon envisaged by the legislature. In addition, employees benefit from a guarantee of protection against retaliation (indemni - ty protection), meaning that they cannot be dismissed during the course of the investigation; any termination carried out in that period may be characterised as retaliatory conduct. There is also reputational risk. An investigation that remains open for months without resolution may affect the internal work climate, erode team trust, and pro - ject to third parties (clients, suppliers, or authorities) an image of ongoing conflict, even where no conclu - sion has been reached as to the veracity of the alle - gations. Moreover, the inability to close internal conflicts in a timely manner limits the employer’s capacity to man - age employment relationships effectively. The lack of definition prevents the adoption of definitive correc - tive measures, the implementation of organisational
learnings, or the clear restoration of normal workplace operations. The “admissibility control” in administrative practice A particularly relevant element in the analysis of delays is the Labour Board’s administrative practice, which includes a pre-classification or admissibility control stage for complaints that is not provided for in the law. In practice, the labour authority verifies criteria such as the existence of an employment relationship, the timeliness of the complaint, the subject matter invoked, or its formal alignment with the Karin Act before proceeding to the substantive investigation. This aspect is problematic from a normative stand - point. Article 12 of the Karin Act Regulations expressly prohibits such a step, stating that “it shall not be pos - sible to consider an admissibility control of the com - plaint in investigation procedures.” In other words, the legal design deliberately excludes this stage, yet the Labour Board is nonetheless applying it. From a practical perspective, this unprovided-for stage should, in theory, help to decongest the system. However, experience shows that it has not prevented subsequent delays in the processing of investiga - tions. Moreover, it introduces an additional phase that employers do not face in internal investigations, creat - ing a difficult-to-justify asymmetry and reinforcing the view that the problem lies not solely in the volume of complaints but also in how the administrative proce - dure is being managed. Ultimately, delays in investigations conducted by the Labour Board under the Karin Act have significant legal, economic, and human effects on all parties involved. For neither employees nor employers is the prolongation of proceedings innocuous. Even consid - ering the context of the authority’s heavy workload, the existence of stages not provided by the regula - tory framework (such as admissibility control) and the failure to comply with the statutory deadline under - score the need to address this issue from a structural perspective, consistent with the legal design and the promise of celerity that underpins the Karin Act.
98 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook