The Karin Act, two years on: the mistakes that recur most

Since August 1, 2024, a harassment complaint in Chile triggers a procedure with strict deadlines, mandatory protective measures and review by the Labor Directorate. Two years of application leave one clear lesson: files are not lost on the merits, they are lost on procedure.

What the doctrine has clarified

Ruling 57/04 of January 2026 resolved the costliest doubt: the thirty days are administrative business days, not calendar days. It also defined responsibilities where contractors are involved and clarified application over time for facts predating the law. And courts have upheld fines for exceeding the deadline even where the delay had a practical justification: the clock admits no excuses.

The five recurring failures

• Miscounting the deadline. From when the complaint is received, not from when it is "formalized." And in administrative business days, regulation in hand.
• Late or absent protective measures. The law requires them immediately. Every day without them is an argument against the company.
• An investigator without demonstrable impartiality. Appointing the area manager or someone untrained taints the procedure even when the conclusion is correct.
• Gender perspective as a formula. Declaring it is not enough: it must be visible in how interviews are conducted and accounts are weighed.
• Conclusions never submitted. The report must reach the Labor Inspectorate. A file closed internally and never submitted did not comply with the law.

The alternative few use well

Referring the investigation to the Labor Directorate within three days is legitimate, and for companies without internal capacity it may be the right option. But referring does not exempt the company from protective measures or from cooperating with the investigation. Companies that refer and disengage discover the clock was still running for them.

← All insights