This highlights the importance of defining the scope of whistleblowing channels and their impact on the employer’s legitimate authority to manage and impose disciplinary measures.
In recent times, the creation and promotion of internal reporting channels designed to report alleged administrative misconduct or irregularities that may be occurring within the business context has become widespread in business organizations.
In this way, the employer may decide whether to conduct a fact-finding process or an internal investigation to verify the reported facts, and if so, apply the employer’s established disciplinary measures in the exercise of its managerial authority.
However, the question that has arisen is whether it is mandatory to conduct an investigation when the report concerns a labor-related matter, or whether, on the contrary, this is a discretionary power of the employer in the exercise of its managerial authority.
This is the subject of an interesting ruling by the High Court of Justice of Galicia, dated January 28, 2026, which, upon hearing an appeal filed by the company, upheld the position that it is not mandatory to conduct an investigation and, consequently, a prior hearing.
Given the seriousness of the allegations against the employee (unnecessary physical contact by a physical therapist, consisting of pulling down underwear, repeated touching, and inappropriate comments), which, given the nature of the service, posed a risk to third parties and required an urgent response from the company, dismissal could be applied directly.
Regarding whether or not this decision to terminate employment violated the provisions of the company’s existing reporting channel, the ruling states that “The Conduct Channel does not intend to serve as a universal and mandatory channel prior to any corporate action, much less in matters of labor discipline, but rather expressly distinguishes between the internal reporting system and ordinary personnel management mechanisms.”
That being the case, “It follows that the Conduct Channel falls within the scope of compliance and internal control, without constituting a labor disciplinary procedure or a regulatory framework governing the formal requirements for disciplinary dismissal.”
Likewise, “The Code of Ethics and internal reporting channels constitute unilateral mechanisms of corporate self-regulation, aimed at establishing standards of conduct, enabling internal communication channels, and articulating preventive and organizational measures characteristic of integrity and compliance systems.”
It continues, “Therefore, they do not, in and of themselves, form part of the system of legal sources (…) nor do they constitute a collective bargaining agreement—whether statutory or non-statutory—or a regulation with comparable normative force; consequently, they lack the normative force to impose, in general terms, additional formal requirements on the legal framework governing disciplinary dismissal.”
Finally, the court determines that “To admit that a unilateral instrument may add conditions constituting the validity of a dismissal would amount to distorting the system of sources and allowing an indirect modification of the legal regime through internal organizational decisions.”
Based on the foregoing, this is an interesting judicial ruling in comparative law and one that is perfectly applicable to our legal system, highlighting the importance of defining the scope of complaint channels and their impact on the exercise of the employer’s legitimate powers of administration and discipline.
For more information on these issues, please contact our Labor Group:
Jorge Arredondo | Partner | jarredondo@az.cl
Jocelyn Aros | Director Labor Group | jaros@az.cl
Felipe Neira | Senior Associate | fneira@az.cl
Palmira Valdivia | Associate | pvaldivia@az.cl
Manuel Sepúlveda | Associate | msepulveda@az.cl
Catalina Díaz | Associate | cdiazp@az.cl
Be part of our multimedia platform and you can receive the latest legal news, events, podcazt and webinars.
