The Santiago Court of Appeals, by judgment issued on April 27, 2026 (Case No. 23-2025), dismissed the annulment appeal filed by a nonprofit organization sanctioned by the Labor Inspectorate and upheld the fine imposed against it. The reason: it did not have a Risk Prevention Department (DPR), despite having 116 workers. If your organization or company has more than 100 workers, this ruling requires you to review how your prevention function is structured — and whether what you have today is sufficient.
What happened
The Labor Inspectorate imposed a fine on a nonprofit organization for not having a DPR. The organization challenged the sanction in court with two arguments: first, that the obligation under article 66, paragraph 4 of Law No. 16,744 applies only to mining, industrial, or commercial companies in the strict sense, a category it did not fall into; second, that it was already complying with safety regulations because it had a risk prevention specialist within its internal structure. The lower court rejected the claim. In response, the organization filed an annulment appeal. The Santiago Court of Appeals dismissed it in full and upheld the fine. The reasoning had two pillars. The first: the obligation to have a DPR cannot be read in a strictly literal or restrictive way. It must be interpreted in harmony with the general duty of protection in article 184 of the Labor Code, with the protective purpose of Law No. 16,744 — to ensure workers’ safety and health — and with article 8 of Supreme Decree No. 40, which states that "every company" with more than 100 workers must have that structure. The line of business does not define the obligation. Headcount does. The second pillar directly addressed the specialist argument. The Court noted that the law requires a "Department": a structure with sufficient means and personnel to carry out preventive functions on a permanent basis. A single person does not meet that standard. The organization had 116 workers, some of whom carried out neighborhood patrol and security duties — patrols, responding to situations involving possible crimes — activities that created exposure to real risks. The rule established by the ruling is clear: if you have more than 100 workers, you are required to have a DPR, regardless of your business line.
What this may mean for your company
The impact of this ruling is not limited to nonprofit organizations. The Court built its reasoning on article 8 of Supreme Decree No. 40 — which refers to "every company" — and on the purpose of Law No. 16,744 — to protect workers regardless of the sector in which they operate. The industry is irrelevant. What triggers the obligation is crossing the threshold of more than 100 workers. That means corporations, cooperatives, foundations, trade associations, municipal services, or educational institutions with more than that number of people in their workforce are in the same position as any industrial or commercial company. There is another angle that should not be underestimated: the distinction between having a prevention specialist and having a Department. A prevention specialist is a person. A department is a structure: material resources, defined functions, and sufficient staffing to operate continuously. What the Court rejected was not the presence of the professional, but the absence of the structure required by law. Having a single risk prevention specialist — and nothing more — is not enough to comply. The gray area lies in how headcount is calculated. The ruling does not go into detail on whether workers under fee-based contracts, fixed-term contracts, or part-time contracts are included in the total. That point requires case-by-case analysis, because the Labor Inspectorate has taken broad positions on the matter. What this means in practice: if your company or institution is close to the 100-worker threshold or has already exceeded it, and you do not have a formally established DPR with documented structure and functions, you are exposed to the same sanction upheld by this ruling. The fine is only the beginning; the Labor Inspectorate may also require the immediate establishment of the department as a corrective measure.
What you can do
If your organization has more than 100 workers — or is about to reach that number — the risk is immediate. Three concrete actions:
- Verify your actual headcount and determine whether you exceed the 100-worker threshold. Include all people with an active employment relationship in the count, regardless of contract type. If there is any doubt about which contracts are included, that is the first issue to resolve.
- Assess whether what you have today is a "Department" or simply a professional. A risk prevention specialist without structure, resources, or written functions does not satisfy the standard upheld by the Court. If the honest answer is that you have the professional but not the structure, it should be formalized: define functions, allocate resources, and keep documented records.
- Review the status of your other obligations under Law No. 16,744 — joint safety committee, updated internal order and safety regulations, accident and occupational disease records — because when the Labor Inspectorate comes in for one noncompliance, it often audits the whole set.
If you need to assess whether your risk prevention structure meets the standard consolidated by this ruling, or if you want to determine how it affects your current headcount, schedule a diagnostic meeting with our team at https://calendar.app.google/f13cTubrP12uveuBA. This content is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice for a specific case.