Labor Newsletter - March 2026
Themes
LABOR NEWS
The Supreme Court has ruled, in final instance, that outsourcing of core business activities is lawful.
Through Judgment in Popular Action No. 30989-2023 Lima, the Supreme Court annulled, in final instance, Supreme Decree No. 001-2022-TR, which prohibited the outsourcing of core business activities, considering it unlawful and unconstitutional for violating the hierarchy of legal norms.
The decision was adopted by 4 of the 5 justices of the Permanent Constitutional and Social Law Chamber.
The Supreme Court concluded that Supreme Decree No. 001-2022-TR improperly modified the legal framework on outsourcing by prohibiting the outsourcing of core business activities. Such a prohibition does not exist in Law No. 29245.
The main arguments of the ruling are as follows:
- Law No. 29245 allows the outsourcing of specialized activities or works, even if they form part of the main activity, provided that labor rights are respected.
- There is no basis to affirm that outsourcing core activities affects labor rights.
- The Constitutional Court has already upheld the constitutionality of outsourcing in Case No. 13-2014-PI/TC.
- The concept of “core business” introduced by Supreme Decree No. 001-2022-TR constitutes a restriction not provided for in Law No. 29245.
- Constitutional Court rulings do not bind the Judiciary, except in cases where they are expressly binding. The Supreme Court considers that, in the LAP case (Case No. 3097-2024-PA/TC), the Constitutional Court’s decision (which declined to disapply the amended regulation) conflicts with Law No. 29245.
Additionally, it should be noted that the annulment of Supreme Decree No. 001-2022-TR also removes the prohibition that said regulation established regarding the outsourcing of complementary activities, insofar as it has been entirely removed from the legal system.
Finally, it should be mentioned that the decision adopted by the Supreme Court is consistent with the position of INDECOPI, which suspended the effects of Supreme Decree No. 001-2022-TR.
Paid non-compensable rest day for workers serving as Polling Station Board members in the upcoming elections
This is established by Law No. 32231, provided that the worker has completed the required training process.
This rest day must be granted within 90 days following the election date. The timing of the rest day shall be agreed upon between the employer and the worker; in the absence of agreement, the employer will determine the date.
INSPECTIONS
The Labor Inspection Tribunal (TFL) resolves a case on union discrimination (differentiated salary increases for unionized and non-unionized workers).
SUNAFIL verified that the inspected company granted performance-based salary increases to non-unionized workers, while union members—who were also evaluated—did not receive them. These workers instead received an increase derived from collective bargaining, for a lower amount.
The inspection authority concluded that this salary differentiation was based on union membership, thereby constituting discriminatory acts in employment. The TFL upheld this conclusion in Resolution No. 0286-2026-SUNAFIL/TFL-First Chamber based on the following considerations:
- The Labor Inspection Tribunal (TFL) confirms that not every unequal treatment constitutes discrimination, but only that which lacks an objective and reasonable justification, is disproportionate, or is based on prohibited grounds such as the exercise of freedom of association. When wage differentiation is not based on objective, reasonable, and proportionate criteria, and it affects the worker’s dignity or a fundamental right, a discriminatory act is established.
- The infringement provided for in Article 25.17 of the Regulation of the General Labor Inspection Law (“RGLIT”) was designed to sanction discriminatory conduct based on historically prohibited grounds, such as origin, sex, economic condition, or union membership. For these cases, the legal framework provides an aggravated sanctioning regime that considers all workers as affected, pursuant to Article 48.1-C of the RGLIT. However, the TFL distinguishes that violations of the principle of equality that do not evidence direct or indirect discrimination based on prohibited grounds must be sanctioned under Article 25.17 of the RGLIT, but without applying the aggravated penalty escalation.
- In this case, the TFL finds that discrimination based on the exercise of freedom of association has been established.
- The TFL emphasizes that the wage difference identified is not based on an objective reason, and that the justification provided by the employer is not suitable to support the differentiated treatment, thereby confirming the very serious infringement.
- It further adds that discriminatory acts produce completed and irreversible effects; therefore, such violations must be considered irremediable and, consequently, no corrective order should be issued.
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
The employer would not be liable for the ankle sprain suffered by the worker during his transfer to another workplace.
This was stated by the Labor Inspection Tribunal (TFL) in Resolution No. 0385-2026-SUNAFIL/TFL-First Chamber, in which it annulled all charges brought against the company following the ankle injury sustained by its worker while traveling from one site to another by minibus.
The TFL had attributed four occupational safety and health violations related to the accident, such as failing to provide training and specific information for the worker’s usual tasks; failing to identify the risk (loss of balance while using public transport) in the baseline IPER risk matrix; lacking a written safe work procedure (PETS) specific to the worker’s tasks; and failing to carry out effective supervision.
The TFL set aside all charges because SUNAFIL had not analyzed the circumstances of the event. The investigation did not determine whether the worker’s transfer was part of his usual duties, in order to assess the applicability of such obligations and the provision of transportation.
MONTHLY REMINDER
SUNAFIL is issuing induction letters requesting information regarding the Life Insurance (Vida Ley) policy.
SUNAFIL has been sending letters requesting the “Submission Proof,” obtained from the Virtual System of the Mandatory Registry of Life Insurance Contracts, for policies registered from January 2026 up to the date of notification of the induction letter; and the “List of insured workers per policy,” also obtained from the aforementioned mandatory registry and for the same period.
SUNAFIL is issuing induction letters requesting occupational safety and health information from companies in the mining, hydrocarbons, and electricity sectors.
SUNAFIL has been sending letters requesting, by way of example, the current Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Control Determination (IPERC) matrices; and the document describing the methodology used for risk assessment.