This ruling is particularly significant as it calls on companies to consider certain contingencies beyond the scope of labor legislation when making strategic decisions.
In the context of administrative proceedings related to collective bargaining processes, the Second Labor Court of Santiago (RIT I-1035-2025) issued a ruling of particular significance regarding the limits of the supervisory authority of the Labor Directorate in this area.
In fact, the case arose from a challenge to an administrative act through which the administrative authority declared ineffective a declaration of a “period unsuitable for collective bargaining”, made by a company in accordance with the provisions of Article 332 of the Labor Code.
Specifically, the administrative decision was based on the alleged lack of a “reasonable period” between the declaration of the period and its commencement, a criterion that the Labor Directorate deemed enforceable by virtue of its internal regulations.
However, following a judicial complaint filed by the affected company, the court expressly rejected that interpretation, establishing that the requirements for the validity of the period unsuitable for collective bargaining are strictly regulated by law, and that it is not legally permissible to impose additional requirements through administrative channels.
Thus, in the eighth recital of the ruling, the judge states:
“That, upon analyzing the merits of the dispute, Article 332 of the Labor Code establishes specific requirements for the validity of the declaration of an ineligible period: 1) Absence of a valid collective agreement; 2) Notification to employees and the Labor Inspectorate through appropriate means; and 3) That the period does not exceed 60 days. In this case, the Labor Inspectorate has sought to nullify the effects of the declaration based on a requirement that does not exist in the law: the mediation of a ‘reasonable period’. In this regard, this Court holds that, since administrative law governing sanctions and oversight is a strict legal framework, it is not lawful for the administrative authority to create additional requirements that restrict the employer’s legal powers through mere internal manuals or guidelines such as Service Order No. 2000-15-25”
On this basis, the court ruled to uphold the legal claim filed by the company, declaring the nullity of the contested administrative act and recognizing the full validity and effectiveness of the declaration of a period unsuitable for collective bargaining made in accordance with the law.
Finally, the ruling—which is now final and enforceable—reaffirms that the administrative authority cannot alter the content of the law or restrict the employer’s powers based on internal criteria established at the discretion of the Labor Directorate.
Lastly, it is worth noting that this ruling is particularly significant as it serves as a call for companies to consider certain contingencies beyond what labor legislation stipulates when making strategic decisions, as well as because it consolidates the position that the declaration of a period unsuitable for initiating collective bargaining in companies without a current collective agreement does not require advance notice from the employer to take effect.
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.
