On April 9, 2026, Bill No. 18170-13 was introduced to the Chamber of Deputies by Representative Ximena Ossandón Irarrázabal. The bill seeks to amend the Labor Code provisions reformed by Law No. 21,643 — the so-called Karin Law. The initiative stems from a concrete diagnosis: internal investigations conducted by companies are left in legal uncertainty when the Dirección del Trabajo takes nine to ten months to issue a ruling. The bill proposes, among other measures, that if the authority fails to respond within the legal deadline, the facts and conclusions of the internal report be presumed truthful.
What changed
Bill No. 18170-13 proposes amendments to three articles of the Labor Code: Article 2, Article 211-A, and Article 211-C, all in their versions reformed by Law No. 21,643.
On workplace harassment, the bill redefines the conduct by requiring that it involve repeated psychological harassment or aggression. A single isolated episode is not enough. The new definition further requires that the conduct cause concrete harm to the affected person's employment situation and that the psychological impact be duly proven. This is a higher evidentiary standard than the current text.
On sexual harassment, the bill introduces two adjustments. First, it removes the expression "improperly" (de forma indebida) qualifying sexual advances. The rationale: if there is no consent, the conduct is inherently improper and the removed expression was redundant. Second, it replaces the reference to advances that "threaten or harm their employment situation or job opportunities" with advances that "directly threaten their job stability and continuity and employment opportunities." The change raises the threshold: a generic threat to the "employment situation" is no longer sufficient; the threat must directly target the stability and continuity of the employment relationship.
The third pillar addresses the effects of internal investigations. If the Dirección del Trabajo fails to respond within its deadlines, the conclusions of the internal report would be presumed truthful. This presumption would operate in two scenarios: a lawsuit challenging the dismissal of the harasser, and the adoption of disciplinary measures within the company. It is a rebuttable presumption: it admits contrary evidence and can be overturned by the worker in a dismissal challenge proceeding.
The bill also amends Article 211-A to provide that privacy and honor safeguard measures must apply equally to the complainant and the accused. The current provision did not state this with that clarity.
What this could mean for your company
If you manage internal harassment investigations, this bill affects you on at least three fronts.
The most operational is the presumption of truthfulness. Today, many companies complete their investigations on time, send the report to the Dirección del Trabajo, and wait. The response can take nine to ten months, as acknowledged in the bill's explanatory statement. During that period, the company operates in a gray zone: it made a decision — dismiss, sanction, exonerate — but without formal backing from the authority. If Bill No. 18170-13 is approved, once the DT's deadline expires without a response, the facts established by your internal investigation will be presumed truthful. This does not eliminate the risk of judicial challenge, but it shifts the argumentative burden in any eventual lawsuit.
The second front is the redefinition of workplace harassment. The repetition requirement and the demand to prove psychological harm raise the threshold. This has two sides. It protects companies against complaints that confuse a one-time conflict with systematic harassment. But it requires that your investigation protocols be capable of documenting patterns of conduct and their psychological effects with sufficient evidence.
There is a gray area the bill does not resolve: what happens with a severe but isolated act? Under the proposed text, a single episode of serious harassment might not qualify as workplace harassment if there is no repetition.
Regarding equal protection of honor, the amendment to Article 211-A corrects a practical omission. Many companies already applied safeguard measures for both parties, but without express legal basis for the accused. If the bill advances, that practice will have legal backing.
What you can do
The bill is under legislative processing and its text may change. Still, there are actions worth taking now:
- Review your internal harassment investigation protocols and assess whether they are designed to document repetition, concrete harm, and proven psychological impact. If the bill passes, that will be the standard your reports must meet.
- Verify that your safeguard procedures treat the complainant and the accused equally in matters of privacy and honor, anticipating the eventual express legal requirement.
- Audit the Dirección del Trabajo's response times on pending investigations. If you have reports submitted more than six months ago without a response, the proposed truthfulness presumption could directly apply to those cases if the law takes effect before the DT responds.
If you need to assess how this bill could impact your internal investigation procedures or update your harassment protocols, schedule a consultation with Cubillos Lama.
This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case.