– Suspension or prohibition of work or tasks: Applies if the inspector verifies that there is a serious and imminent risk to the safety and health of workers or if there has been a fatal work accident. The measure will last until the maximum period that the inspection proceedings last.
– Temporary closure of the area of an economic unit or an economic unit: Applies: (i) as an inspection prevention measure in the event of a fatal accident, the duration of which may not exceed the maximum term of the inspection proceedings; and/or (ii) as a sanction in the event of specific breaches (failure to comply with occupational safety and health regulations that entails a fatal accident; obstruction of fatal accident investigation; failure to comply with temporary closure order, alteration of the place where the fatal accident occurred or provision of false or inaccurate information) and whose duration may not exceed 30 calendar days.
– New occupational safety and health infringements, and against labor inspection: The main incorporations are detailed below in the Occupational Safety and Health section of this
– Modification of the amount of fines: The amount of administrative fines applicable to companies that do not qualify as MYPE has been updated.
In addition, the criteria that inspectors must take into account to determine the occupational safety and health risk have already been approved, as well as the graduation of the penalty (suspension or prohibition of work or tasks, or temporary closure) in cases of failure to comply with occupational safety and health.
New statutory regulations for “Vida Ley” life insurance.- For more information, see the following link here.
There is the right to claim loss of profit, even though it has been worked for another employer.- For the Supreme Court, the fact that the dismissed worker has provided services for another employer during the period in which he found himself separated does not prevent the right to compensation for damages for loss of profit. The Supreme Court states that the income received by another employer could not be used to affect the amount of loss of profit of the worker unjustifiably terminated, since such income would be the product of the constitutional exercise of the right to work (Labor Cassation No. 10956-2017 Tacna). With this ruling, the Supreme Court amended the criteria of the entire National Labor Relations Board 2019, in which it was agreed that for the quantification of the loss of profit, the income received by the worker during the period of termination should be deducted.
SUNAFIL adopted a new “Directive on the exercise of inspection functions” .- This document maintains general provisions set forth in the directive it replaces, but also includes new aspects depending on the regulatory amendments that have taken place in the field of inspections. The main novelties are as follows:
(i) The inspector must order the conclusion of the inspection proceedings and the closure of the inspection order when he becomes aware of the existence of judicial proceedings on the same facts, subjects and grounds.
(ii) Provisions on the limitation period for infringements and the rules applicable for the calculation of the term are included.
(iii) Provisions on compliance with the duty of confidentiality are laid down.
(iv) Deadlines for the investigation of accidents at work followed by death are specified and reference is made to the inspection measure of temporary closure.
(v) Requirement for information is regulated by means of electronic communication systems and the possibility of imposing a penalty for infringement of the inspection work if the employer fails to provide his e-mail.
New infringements on occupational safety and health and inspection work are incorporated.- The main novelties are as follows:
Despite the filing of the criminal complaint, SUNAFIL can re-officiate the Public Prosecutor’s Office for further investigation. This was provided for in a recent resolution in which following a fatal accident, SUNAFIL ordered the transfer of the penalizing file to the Public Prosecutor’s Office even though the prosecution had already ordered the closure of the criminal investigation for the alleged crime against life and health. The decision to refer the case was justified by the fact that there is another type of criminal infringement in which this type of case would fit: infringement of occupational safety and health.