This reinforces the importance of continuously reviewing and optimizing internal disciplinary procedures.
On June 12, 2026, the Talca Court of Appeals (Case No. 69-2025) upheld the ruling of the Curicó Labor Court, which had granted a claim for wrongful termination, determining that the employee’s reinstatement to his position following an internal investigation constituted a “waiver of grounds.”
In this case, the employee was involved in an altercation in which he struck a coworker. As a result, the employer suspended him from his duties with pay for 10 days while the investigation was conducted. However, the employee resumed his regular duties for approximately two weeks before being terminated by his employer.
The appellant company argued that the trial court’s ruling was erroneous, contending that the delay between the end of the investigation and the termination was justified by the institution’s internal bureaucratic processes, since the report had to be reviewed by a disciplinary committee at headquarters.
Furthermore, the employer stated that the employee’s return to work was neither a discretionary act nor a “tacit pardon,” but simply the result of the temporary suspension coming to an end.
In response, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge’s ruling regarding the requirement of immediacy in the exercise of disciplinary authority. The court held that the seriousness of the alleged conduct constitutes a breach of the employment relationship that requires immediate action, which is inconsistent with allowing the employee to return to his regular duties.
Thus, the ruling states: “Fourth: (…) Upon reviewing the trial judge’s analysis of the established facts, she addresses the immediacy that must exist between the act and the sanction—that is, a direct and close temporal relationship between the misconduct committed by the employee, the employer’s knowledge of it, and the sanction imposed. Between July 29—when the employee returned from his suspension—and August 20, the employee was working normally, which led him to expect that his misconduct would not have drastic consequences.”
Finally, the court states that, in its view, since the defendant failed to prove that the delay in carrying out the dismissal was due to unforeseen circumstances or force majeure, it is evident that the delay resulted solely from an arbitrary decision or bureaucratic red tape on the part of the company. Thus, the appellate court dismisses the motion to set aside the decision, confirming that the delay and the employee’s actual reinstatement did constitute a “waiver of the grounds for termination,” and therefore the dismissal remains unjustified.
This ruling reinforces the importance of continuously reviewing and optimizing internal disciplinary procedures to ensure prompt action between the commission of a violation, its notification to the parties involved, and the imposition of the corresponding sanction.
Finally, it highlights the need for measures taken during an internal investigation to be consistent with the severity of the alleged conduct and with the disciplinary decision that may eventually be adopted, avoiding actions that could be interpreted as a waiver of the employer’s authority to impose sanctions.
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.
