This is a pronouncement that delimits the degree of intervention that the TD may have with respect to a minimum services agreement between the employer and its unions.
The case we are commenting on this occasion is related to a minimum services agreement between a company and its labor unions.
In effect, based on the collective autonomy of the parties, these defined autonomously to enter into a minimum services agreement whose purpose is to maintain certain types of operations in the event of an eventual stoppage due to a strike.
In the specific situation to which we refer, one of the unions contemplated in its bylaws that its board of directors was composed of four leaders; however, at the time the minimum services agreement was reached, only two of them remained in force. Therefore, the respective instrument was executed and signed only by the leaders who were active workers at that date.
Once the agreement was reached, the respective agreement was deposited with the Labor Inspectorate, which issued a resolution rejecting the agreement and not validating the document signed by the parties because, in the opinion of the labor administrative authority, it did not meet its criteria and standards.
It is against this resolution of the Labor Inspection that the company filed a lawsuit in court, questioning the actions of the Labor Inspection for arrogating to itself powers that it does not have.
Therefore, the fundamental discussion in the present case is: What is the degree of interference that the Labor Directorate can have with respect to a minimum services agreement that has been reached autonomously and freely between the employer and its union organizations?
The judgment clearly and categorically states (case Rit I-93-2023 of the 1st Labor Court of Santiago) that “Article 360 of the Labor Code, regarding the agreement that the union organizations may reach in relation to the matter, has contemplated that the only intervention of the Labor Directorate in the process is that of being the depositary of the agreement. Unlike the provisions of Article 223 of the Labor Code, it has not provided for the powers of this body to make observations on the instrument in the sub-lite case“.
It continues, “It corresponds to the state organs to be subject without any exception and in all their actions, according to the constitutional norm of article 7° and they cannot be attributed other powers than those contemplated in the fundamental text and the laws that have been dictated in accordance with it. The respondent does not sufficiently justify under what normative assumption an active conduct is justified in questioning the legitimacy of the instrument that has been delivered to it for its collection“.
This is an extremely important pronouncement since it clearly delimits the degree of intervention that the Labor Directorate may have with respect to a minimum services agreement entered into between the employer and its unions, and restricts any possibility of objecting to it, repairing it or refusing to accept it as deposited, since its role is not preponderant when there is a direct agreement between the parties.
For more information on these topics, please contact our #azLabor group:
Jorge Arredondo | Partner | jarredondo@az.cl
Jocelyn Aros | Senior Associate | jaros@az.cl
Felipe Neira | Associate | fneira@az.cl
Palmira Valdivia | Associate | pvaldivia@az.cl
