Our partner Jorge Arredondo spoke with Diario Financiero, where he commented on the Labor Directorate’s change in stance regarding the recognition of framework agreements.
The Labor Directorate (DT) reversed one of the most controversial labor rulings of recent years.
In a ruling issued on July 3, the agency rescinded the doctrine established in November 2025, which had recognized the framework agreement signed between the Confederation of Copper Workers (CTC), Codelco, and the Trade Association of Entrepreneurs for Mining and Related Industries (Agema) as an “atypical collective bargaining agreement.”
This change in doctrine is significant because the criteria established late last year had sparked intense legal and political debate. Why? At that time, the Labor Directorate (DT) maintained that the agreement signed in 2022 between the CTC, Codelco, and Agema could be understood as an “atypical collective agreement,” created under the protection of freedom of association, which obligated the parties to comply with it in good faith and could even be registered by the administrative authority as a collective instrument.
That interpretation was viewed by the business community and labor experts as an implicit recognition of a form of sector-level bargaining, even though such a concept is not regulated under Chilean law.
In the new ruling, the agency stated that it is returning to the position it has held for more than a decade: framework agreements entered into between labor unions and employer associations do not constitute collective bargaining agreements under the terms of the Labor Code.
“The creation of a category of atypical collective agreement is not based on any legal provision, but rather on an indirect interpretation of constitutional principles and international standards, none of which authorize the administration to create forms or categories of collective agreements not provided for by the legislature,” the new ruling stated.
Reconsideration of the Ruling
The reconsideration was requested by Agema, which sought to overturn the 2025 ruling, arguing that the Labor Directorate had exceeded its authority by creating a legal category that does not exist in the law.
The current National Director of Labor, David Oddó, granted that request and completely revoked the previous ruling.
This new perspective holds that the Labor Code expressly defines what is meant by a collective agreement and the procedures through which collective bargaining may take place. Consequently, an agreement that does not conform to those procedures cannot be classified, by way of interpretation, as a collective agreement.
Along these lines, the Labor Directorate added in its ruling that the Chilean legal system does not recognize the category of “atypical collective agreement.”
This, the new text stated, “amounts to introducing a form not provided for by the legal system, in a matter that the Constitution itself entrusts to the legislature.”
In closing, the recent ruling concluded by stating that the classification of any breach of the framework agreement as an unfair or anti-union practice falls “exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Labor Courts.”
Experts’ Perspectives
The DT’s change in criteria sparked a new debate among labor specialists.
While there are differences regarding the scope of the position adopted by the agency, experts agreed that the new ruling does not invalidate the framework agreement signed between the Confederation of Copper Workers (CTC), Codelco, and Agema, but rather modifies the way in which the administrative authority recognizes it.
Pablo Zenteno, former director of Labor and an attorney at Zenteno & Associates, stated that the ruling reflects a “more restrictive” interpretation of collective bargaining and warned that it adds to other changes promoted by the agency’s current administration that “undermine collective bargaining and its consequences.”
Nevertheless, he emphasized that the new criteria do not invalidate the agreement signed between the Confederation of Copper Workers (CTC), Codelco, and Agema.
“The agreement remains valid. The only thing the Labor Directorate is stating is that it will not register it and that it is up to the labor courts to resolve any disputes regarding compliance, non-compliance, penalties, or compensation,” he explained.
In that regard, he added that the union retains the right to seek judicial enforcement of the agreement.
A similar view, though based on different grounds, was expressed by az’s labor attorney, Jorge Arredondo.
“I hold the view that atypical instruments are binding and mandatory, falling outside the scope of the regulations governing the Labor Code,” said the expert.
However, he considered that registration with the Labor Directorate lacks constitutive effect.
“The formality of filing with the Labor Inspectorate is irrelevant, because it seems to me that the parties, by virtue of collective autonomy, can enter into this type of agreement,” Arredondo noted.
