Our partner Jorge Arredondo spoke with Diario Financiero about the concerns surrounding the new workweek reduction under the 40-Hour Law.
On April 26, companies must adjust their workweeks, which will be reduced from 44 hours per week to 42. While companies are facing this change with greater clarity today than in 2024—when the first one-hour adjustment took place—it is not without its concerns. And these concerns are fueled by expectations regarding the stance that the Labor Directorate and its new director, David Oddó, will take on this matter.
In the words of Ignacia López, a partner in the Labor practice at Cariola Díez Pérez-Cotapos, while companies “are better prepared for this second reduction, thanks to the experience of the previous one,” certain structural questions persist—and in some cases intensify.
She explained that recurring questions include: what happens regarding the allocation of meal breaks to the workday when actual working hours are already less than 40 hours—is the reduction still necessary?; what tools does the employer have when a worker objects to no longer being exempt from the workweek under Article 22, paragraph two; or how to redesign shifts and operational schedules, considering the increased costs involved in managing fewer working hours per person without affecting production.
“In this context, any new rulings that reconsider or clarify previous rulings and court decisions will be essential to achieving a balance between the necessary work-life balance for employees and the actual operational needs of companies,” says López.
His point is echoed by Carlos Gutierrez, a partner at GNP Canales, who adds that “rather than concern, what we see today are high expectations, albeit with caution.” He adds that the second reduction comes at a time when there are still doubts regarding exceptional work schedules and, especially, the inclusion of meal breaks within the workday. “This creates a scenario of operational uncertainty that makes efficient planning difficult,” he says.
Expectations
For Jaime Salinas, founding partner of Salinas Toledo, there is a great deal of anticipation, especially with the change in leadership at the Labor Directorate (DT). “Inquiries have grown exponentially, driven mainly by speculation about new interpretive criteria that could relax a doctrine which, in practice, has harmed workers and companies alike, particularly regarding workday exclusions,” he states.
Added to this is concern over how to distribute the reduction in hours, which, he says, are currently quite limited. “Companies have learned, sometimes the hard way, that a ruling by the Labor Directorate can change their entire personnel management strategy overnight. That is why every publication by the agency is now monitored as an essential part of labor compliance: to avoid creating unnecessary risks with the very entity that has the authority to enforce regulations,” he explains.
Jorge Arredondo, a partner at az, expects that one of the Labor Directorate’s first changes will relate to working hour controls. “This is one of the areas that may eventually be reviewed,” he explains.
On the other hand, Cristobal Raby, a partner at Prieto Abogados, sees no room for significant changes. “There has also been talk that changes might come regarding the current doctrine on meal breaks, but in my opinion, a change in that doctrine would not be legally sustainable,” he says.
Marcelo Albornoz, a partner at Albornoz & Cia, offered a similar view: “I don’t see much room for changes. The expectations that have been generated, both for and against, will not actually have much impact in practice, because there isn’t much left to discuss at this point,” he states, though he clarifies that there could be changes on issues such as working hour controls.
Read the full article here.
