The ruling recognizes that employers must not assess or interpret union membership or resolve disputes regarding it, as this function falls to the courts.
In compliance with the obligation set forth in Article 294 bis of the Labor Code—which requires the Labor Directorate to maintain a record of convictions for anti-union or unfair labor practices and to publish a list of offending companies and labor unions every six months—the case of a labor union that was convicted of such acts in the first half of 2026 is particularly noteworthy.
Indeed, in a ruling dated October 7, 2024, issued in case RIT S-105-2023, the First Labor Court of Santiago upheld a complaint alleging anti-union practices filed by the Walmart Chile Inter-Company Union for Labor and Workplace Equity (SITEL) against the Inter-Company Union of Workers at Líder Supermarket Companies (SIL).
Although this ruling was challenged before the respective Santiago Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, in both cases, the arguments of the defendant union were rejected.
The controversy arose after a group of workers notified the SIL of their resignation and expressed their desire to join SITEL, a decision that was not recognized by their original union, which continued to include them on its membership rolls, thereby causing the employer to deduct union dues from their pay.
In this case, the Court found the resignations to be valid and held that the union’s internal administrative difficulties were not sufficient grounds to disregard the workers’ desire to withdraw their membership, noting in its seventh recital that in this particular case:
“The collective will—an expression of the freedom of association to join and withdraw from a union—is evident; it was expressed through repeated communications, and, given that this is a fundamental right, it must not be obstructed.”
However, a particularly relevant aspect of the ruling concerns the situation of the employers, who had also been accused of continuing to make the deductions requested by the SIL, despite having been informed of the resignations.
On this point, the Court dismissed the complaint against the companies, holding that it is not the employer’s role to resolve disputes that may arise regarding workers’ union membership or withdrawal from a union, and specifically stating in its ninth recital that:
“The defendants, who are informed monthly of union memberships in order to apply the deductions, are not responsible for assessing or interpreting the membership information provided by the unions. Such interpretations must be resolved by the courts, which is the case here. As the defendant correctly points out, if they fail to make the requested deduction, they may be fined or ordered by the court to pay the amounts in question. Consequently, there is no evidence against the defendants.”
Finally, the Court ordered the SIL to pay a fine of 80 UTM, directing it to refrain from engaging in similar conduct, to remove the affected workers from its payroll, and to reimburse the regular and special union dues deducted after July 30, 2023.
The ruling is particularly significant from the perspective of employers, as it recognizes that it is not their responsibility to assess or interpret union membership as reported by the unions, nor to resolve any disputes that may arise in this regard—a matter that falls within the jurisdiction of the courts.
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.
