Labor Newsletter - January 2026
Themes
LABOR NEWS
SUNAFIL will no longer accept documents via email, which was implemented due to the agency's operational contingency.- SUNAFIL has announced that, as of 00:00 hours on January 31, 2026, the only official and valid channel for submitting documents is its Records Office, in both virtual and in-person formats nationwide (without prejudice to the electronic mailbox, where applicable).
INSPECTIONS
The Labor Inspection Tribunal (TFL) requires objective justification and a homologation analysis to prove wage discrimination.- In Resolution No. 1435-2025-SUNAFIL/TFL-First Chamber, the TFL partially annulled a sanctioning resolution issued against a company for alleged wage discrimination, based on the following arguments:
- In accordance with binding jurisprudence and precedents, the inspection must objectively substantiate the existence of the discriminatory act, clearly identifying: (i) the act of discrimination, (ii) the differentiated remuneration, and the comparison between the affected worker and their peers (“counterparts”). All of this must be supported by sufficient evidence and due justification.
- In this inspection, the case of a worker who received a salary of Production Assistant I (S/ 1,220.00) was analyzed. However, he performed duties typical of a Machine Operator I (S/ 2,013.00). Lower courts sanctioned the company based on the affected worker's pay stubs and those of a comparable worker, which demonstrated a pay difference.
- However, the Labor Court noted that the sanctioning authority only partially assessed the facts and failed to demonstrate why the affected worker should necessarily be entitled to the Machine Operator I salary. Furthermore, relevant factors were not considered, such as the fact that the comparable worker had more than nine additional years of experience, had previously held the position of Machine Operator I, and that it was not determined exactly when the affected worker had assumed those duties in practice.
- The Labor Court emphasized that the lower courts did not assess whether both workers were truly comparable (“equivalent”) in terms of experience, profile, and career path, noting that, in cases of wage discrimination, it is not enough to identify a salary difference; rather, it must be verified whether the different treatment lacks objective justification and whether the comparison meets the jurisprudential criteria for determining equal employment status. Because this analysis was not carried out, the sanctioning decision was not adequately justified.
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
An accident on the premises of the main company does not necessarily determine its liability.- This was stated by the Labor Court (TFL) in Resolution No. 1446-2025-SUNAFIL/TFL-First Chamber, which dismissed the administrative liability of the main company where the incident occurred.
The main company was being sanctioned due to the fatal accident of a contractor's employee, who crashed into a wall while working as a tanker truck driver transporting well equipment.
Despite the initial charge of breach of duty of oversight regarding the contractor, the Labor Court (TFL) partially upheld the appeal filed by the main contractor because the lower courts had not found a direct causal link between the main contractor's conduct and the accident.
The court stated that a comprehensive technical assessment encompassing operational, environmental, and other aspects had not been conducted to determine whether the event resulted from any breach by the main contractor, thus exonerating it from liability.
MONTHLY REMINDER
In the first months of the year, the Occupational Physician must prepare and submit information on worker health surveillance to the health authority.- According to occupational safety and health regulations, worker health surveillance is a medical act that falls under the responsibility of the Occupational Physician, whose duties include, among others, preparing the annual occupational health surveillance report.
This report, which contains the results obtained from the occupational health surveillance carried out the previous year, is submitted by the Occupational Physician to the health authority in their jurisdiction using the forms and documents available on the website of the General Directorate of Environmental Health (DIGESA). The regulations do not establish an exact submission date, but this obligation should be fulfilled in the first months of each year.