This ruling is significant in that it establishes that misuse of medical leave does constitute grounds for dismissal on the basis of lack of integrity and serious breach of contractual obligations.
On February 12, the Court of First Instance and Guarantee of Pozo Almonte issued a final ruling (case RIT: o-23-2025) rejecting a claim for unjustified dismissal, stating that the dismissed worker had indeed committed misconduct and serious breach of contractual obligations by misusing the total rest prescribed by a medical leave.
In this regard, the judge began by stating that, for the purposes of invoking the grounds for dismissal due to lack of integrity, “the attitude that is being reproached must be dishonest, that is, it must have been tainted or corrupted between the parties, or it must have become disrespectful towards a specific person within this context, that is, it has violated the good faith of the contract, understood as a required model of conduct that translates into directives equivalent to loyalty, honorability, integrity, and trust or other similar concepts.“
For his part, with regard to the grounds for serious breach of contractual obligations, the judge began his analysis by arguing that this ultimately pointed to a breakdown in harmony between the employee and the employer, and that it must relate to the obligations agreed by the employee in the employment contract.
Thus, the duties or obligations that would be required of the worker under his employment contract would be:
- Diligence and collaboration: the worker must perform the service punctually, with regular attendance and adequate dedication to the characteristics of the job and the tools provided;
- Loyalty: the worker’s obligation not to perform any act that could harm the employer’s interests and to report any breaches of which they are aware that could harm the employer or any inconvenience that prevents the normal performance of the work;
- Obedience: to observe the orders and instructions given by the employer regarding the manner in which the work is to be performed;
- Custody of work tools: to keep the tools or equipment provided for the performance of the work, but without assuming responsibility for any damage they may suffer through use;
- Liability for damages: be liable to the employer for any damage caused to the employer’s interests through wilful misconduct or gross negligence in the performance of their duties; and
- Non-competition: refrain from conducting negotiations on their own behalf or on behalf of others that could affect the employer’s interests, unless authorized by the employer.
Thus, after this theoretical analysis, the Court now focused on analyzing the specific conduct for which the former employee had been reprimanded and which led to his dismissal. It held that:
“In this vein, there is no dispute that the plaintiff is on medical leave, but rather whether engaging in an activity unrelated to his work while on leave falls under the grounds invoked.”
Thus, after a detailed explanation of the regulations governing the issuance and use of medical leave, it indicated that medical leave was rejected or invalidated when the worker had committed infractions such as “failure to comply with the rest period indicated in the leave, except in the case of outpatient treatment prescribed by the professional who issued the leave,” or when it was verified that “work, whether remunerated or not, was performed during the period of rest.”
Thus, based on the evidence presented in the case, it concluded that:
“(…) the plaintiff failed to comply with the rest period indicated, which was total and at home (…) and did not have a medical prescription ordering him to attend any outpatient treatment (…) Ergo, the plaintiff has committed a violation (…) and therefore the medical leave must be rejected or invalidated (if it has not already been), rendering the payment of the benefits he received improper, for which he must unfailingly repay them. Ergo, he has misused his medical leave.”
Consequently, it concludes that the employee’s conduct constituted serious misconduct, given that:
“(…) he has not been diligent or cooperative, since he did not provide services on a regular basis, even though he was able to do so; he has not been loyal, since his conduct harms the interests of the employer (he is one worker short, without prejudice to the employer assuming the costs of medical leave not covered by the social security institution…); and he is disobedient, since he does not follow the instructions given regarding leave.”
In addition, for the purposes of establishing the grounds for lack of integrity, it states that:
“(…) the plaintiff’s conduct has been dishonest in that he concealed the fact, breaking the trust that existed between the parties to the employment contract (…)”.
In short, this ruling is relevant in that it qualifies the misuse of medical leave (in this case, having carried out an activity unrelated to work while the leave was in effect) as constituting, for the purposes of dismissal, grounds for lack of integrity and serious breach of the obligations imposed by the contract.
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.
