The changes the Government is preparing to fix shortcomings in the Karin Law
Rodrigo Ugarte’s analysis, partner at the Aninat firm, argues that “it is essential for the law to allow for an admissibility review of complaints. Not every complaint should have to be investigated simply because it was filed. There must be a screening process to rule out, for example, manifestly false complaints, or those unsupported by any evidence.” He proposes “reinstating the requirement of repeated conduct for a complaint to proceed, incorporating that requirement into the admissibility review”.
On August 1, 2024, the law amending the Labor Code on the prevention, investigation and punishment of workplace harassment, sexual harassment and violence at work came into force: the Karin Law. Its name honors Karin Salgado, a public employee and nursing technician who, after suffering workplace harassment and lacking an adequate complaint channel and psychological support, took her own life.
Among the main changes, new legal definitions were introduced and existing ones refined, such as workplace harassment, sexual harassment, violence at work committed by third parties outside the employment relationship, and non-discrimination, in addition to explicitly incorporating a gender perspective into labor relations under Article 2 of the Labor Code.
The definition of workplace harassment also changed, dropping the requirement that the aggression and hostile conduct be repeated in order to constitute the offense. As a result, a single act of workplace harassment is now enough to trigger a complaint. Also, from a gender perspective, so-called sexist harassment was added to the list of prohibited conduct.
The new legislation also protects workers from violence committed by people outside the company, such as customers, suppliers or users.
Additionally, the law requires companies and government bodies to have a prevention protocol for workplace harassment, sexual harassment and violence at work, strengthening a preventive approach that had previously been absent from the regulation. This must be carried out under guidelines set by the Superintendencia de Seguridad Social (Social Security Superintendency).
Nearly two years after it took effect, President José Antonio Kast’s government began reviewing the law’s implementation and whether it has met its intended objectives.
“The Ministry’s assessment is positive regarding the law’s central objective, which is to establish a new way of addressing workplace harassment, sexual harassment and violence at work, moving from a reactive approach to a preventive one,” said Deputy Labor Minister Gustavo Rosende.
However, the government official noted that while the law aimed to bring about a cultural shift and helped bring to light situations that often went unreported or lacked an adequate institutional response, “its implementation has been extremely inefficient, and it’s our duty to improve it”.
The current administration is thus working on a set of adjustments to address these shortcomings, expected to be unveiled in the second half of the year.
One of the main shortcomings identified by the government is that, at times, it is difficult to properly distinguish between situations that could genuinely constitute harassment or workplace violence and other conflicts typical of day-to-day management in the workplace. “That has caused overload, especially at the Dirección del Trabajo (Labor Directorate), overly complex procedures, and delays that end up affecting both those who need urgent protection and employers themselves,” Rosende explains.
In fact, nearly 20% of the Dirección del Trabajo’s total staff perform functions related to the Karin Law, equivalent to 448 employees out of a total institutional workforce of 2,360 nationwide. However, it is noted that 348 of them carry out this work on a non-exclusive basis, split between 196 lawyers and 152 inspectors.
Staff dedicated exclusively to this matter total 100 employees nationwide, split between 33 lawyers and 67 inspectors.
Experts’ Views
Experts generally welcome the law’s implementation, but agree that improvements are needed, particularly when it comes to defining or limiting which complaints should fall within its legal scope.
Along these lines, Rodrigo Ugarte’s analysis, partner at the Aninat firm, argues that “it is essential for the law to allow for an admissibility review of complaints. Not every complaint should have to be investigated simply because it was filed. There must be a screening process to rule out, for example, manifestly false complaints, or those unsupported by any evidence.” He proposes “reinstating the requirement of repeated conduct for a complaint to proceed, incorporating that requirement into the admissibility review”.
Read the full article published by La Tercera at the following link.
