We invite you to read the opinion piece by our partner Jorge Arredondo, who discussed some proposals for improving the implementation of the Karin Law.
This month marks the second anniversary of the Karin Law coming into effect, a piece of legislation that brought about a significant change in the way organizations must prevent, investigate, and address cases of workplace harassment, sexual harassment, and violence.
Since then, more than 67,000 complaints have been filed—a figure that reflects the importance this issue has gained but has also led to significant backlogs in the system. Part of the problem is that many complaints do not necessarily involve conduct covered by the law but rather differences, conflicts, or tensions inherent in labor relations.
Two years after its implementation, there is an opportunity to assess what is working and which aspects require adjustments. To do so, it is essential to distinguish between legal changes and regulatory amendments. The Karin Law is a public policy approved by Congress, and any structural transformation must respect that legislative process. However, there are procedural aspects that could be refined through amendments to the regulations implementing the law, allowing for improvements in its operation without altering its fundamental principles.
One of the main challenges lies in the handling of complaints. Currently, the Labor Directorate, through internal circulars, has a preliminary admissibility process that allows it to assess whether a complaint meets minimum requirements before initiating an investigation. Companies, on the other hand, do not have an equivalent mechanism. Once a complaint is received, they must initiate the corresponding procedure, even when the facts described may not constitute workplace harassment or violence.
Therefore, it would be reasonable to consider incorporating a preliminary admissibility stage for internal investigations. The purpose of this would not be to restrict the right to file a complaint or to create barriers for those facing harassment, but rather to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to initiate an investigation. To prevent arbitrary decisions, this mechanism should be based on objective criteria, include safeguards for challenging the decision, and, if necessary, provide the option to appeal to the Labor Inspectorate.
A tool of this kind would also make it possible to focus resources on those cases that truly require investigation. This is particularly important because a complaint sets in motion processes that require time, specialized professionals, and protective measures, in addition to having an impact on complainants, those against whom complaints are filed, and work teams. An overburdened system ultimately harms precisely those who need a swift and effective response.
The Labor Directorate already faces timeliness challenges. Even with internal admissibility mechanisms in place, response times can extend beyond the 30 days established by regulation. Therefore, the debate should not focus solely on the content of the Karin Law, but also on the institutional capacity to implement it properly.
After two years, the challenge is to move toward a new stage of maturity. Protecting people requires effective channels for filing complaints, but also procedures capable of distinguishing, investigating, and resolving cases in a timely manner while ensuring safeguards for all parties.
Column written by:
Jorge Arredondo | Partner | jarredondo@az.cl
