A ruling of the First Labor Court of Santiago (RIT T-712-2025) upheld the labor-protection action brought by an executive of the Comunidad Mercado La Vega and declared that her dismissal violated the indemnity guarantee (art. 485, third paragraph, of the Labor Code). The judgment ordered the payment to the worker of more than $86 million between additional compensation, years of service surcharged at 80%, lack of prior notice, and legal and proportional vacation.
What happened
The worker had provided services for more than a decade with a monthly remuneration of $3,054,909. In December 2024 she informed management, via WhatsApp and email, of her intention to file an anonymous complaint under the Karin Law against the new administrator. She attached a record describing the facts.
On January 20, 2025 she activated an inspection before the Labor Directorate (DT). In the following weeks, the company recorded 14 statements before the DT for alleged breaches by the worker. The plaintiff, in parallel, was on medical leave.
On February 5, 2025, without having attempted prior contact to learn about her state of health, the employer issued the dismissal letter invoking work absences on the 3rd, 4th, and 5th of that month (art. 160 No. 3 of the Labor Code). The copy was sent to the DT at 11:59 a.m. that same day.
The court applied the evidentiary logic of the labor-protection procedure: the plaintiff proved sufficient indications of a violation of indemnity and the employer failed to rebut them. The rule was established: the decision to dismiss did not respond to a legitimate business management, but rather concealed a punishment for the worker's acts of complaint and grievance.
What it may mean for your company
The indemnity guarantee protects any legitimate exercise of the worker's rights before their employer or the labor authority. It covers internal complaints, administrative complaints, inspection requests, formalized grievances, and participation in investigations. It is not just the "anti-harassment" mechanism of the Karin Law regime. It is an autonomous guarantee with its own sanction in art. 489 of the Labor Code.
The evidentiary standard is decisive: it is enough for the worker to prove sufficient indications of a violation for the burden to shift to the company. The company must then demonstrate that the decision responded to objective, proportionate reasons unrelated to the exercise of the worker's rights. If it fails to do so, the dismissal is declared to be in violation.
The temporal proximity between the complaint and the dismissal was the most powerful indication. Between the initial complaint and the dismissal, approximately eight weeks elapsed. The court also weighed that the employer did not attempt communication during the medical leave and that the 14 statements before the DT appeared after the complaint: it read them as an artificial construction of grounds, not as genuine disciplinary management.
The cost comes in layers. The additional compensation of art. 489, third paragraph, of the Labor Code is set between 6 and 11 remunerations at the court's discretion. Here, six remunerations for $18,329,454. To that is added the compensation for years of service ($33,603,999 for 11 years), the 80% surcharge of art. 168 letter c) for having applied a ground of art. 160 that the court deemed unproven ($26,883,199), prior notice ($3,054,909), and legal and proportional vacation ($4,276,873). All adjustable, with interest, plus the referral of the records to the Labor Directorate.
There is another angle. The worker did not need to prove the harassment to win. The court avoided ruling on the administrator's conduct so as not to incur ultra petita and resolved the matter through the indemnity route. This means that a defective Karin protocol, an inconclusive investigation, or a complaint dismissed by the company do not immunize against a retaliation labor-protection action: the axis of the protection is having complained, not that the complaint is proven on the merits.
But indemnity is not absolute. A dismissal with pre-existing grounds, documented before the complaint and with objectively proven reasons, remains defensible. The gray area is narrow: if the grounds appear right after the complaint, the court will read them as a pretext.
Do you know whether your company's performance records have traceability predating the complaints that are open today? A review of that documentation allows you to anticipate whether a dismissal would withstand the indications standard of art. 485. Request that review with our team.
What you can do
If your company has active Karin complaints, ongoing DT inspections, or workers with formalized grievances, the risk of an indemnity labor-protection action is active. Three concrete actions:
- Before any dismissal, verify whether the worker has filed internal complaints, complaints or inquiries to the DT, inspection requests, or written grievances in the last six months. If there were any, require a prior legal report that assesses the indemnity risk and proposes alternative routes or reinforced documentation.
- Build and maintain performance-management records with objective data, regular periodicity, and traceability predating any complaint. The "paper trail" created after the complaint is counterproductive: the court reads it as an artificial construction of grounds.
- Train management —not just Human Resources— on the real scope of indemnity: it covers any legitimate exercise of the worker's rights, including the activation of an inspection before the DT, not only the formal Karin complaint.
If any of these points raises questions, a 30-minute diagnostic session is enough to size up the indemnity risk in your pending dismissals. Schedule here.
If your company has internal complaints, Karin Law complaints, or active DT inspections and you need to assess the indemnity risk before a dismissal or adjust your people-management protocols, schedule a meeting with our team.
This content is informational and does not constitute legal advice.