The Labor Directorate’s ruling interpreted the scope of Law No. 21,431, which amended the Labor Code to regulate contractual relationships between workers and app companies such as Uber and PedidosYa.
The Supreme Court ruled this Tuesday, May 23, I reconfirmed that. Directorate General of Labor (DT) acted within one’s capabilities We shall not engage in illegal or arbitrary acts in expressing opinions regarding labor relations.
This is related to a legal sentence DT made against workers last October. Offer services through digital platforms And it was called into question by Uber through a protective appeal.
The Supreme Court’s decision confirms in all parts the Santiago Court of Appeal’s April 4 decision.
The Court of Appeal then Rejected a claim of protection filed by Uber In November last year, it challenged the opinion of DT 1831/39 of 19 October 2022, which interpreted the scope of Law No. 21,431 amending the Labor Code regulating the contracts of company employees on digital service platforms. .
Through this ruling, the Directorate General of Labor made the first reference to labor relations between applicant workers, classified applicant workers into the categories of dependent workers and independent workers, and defined the relationship they maintain with their employers and the rights they should be entitled to. explained in order. vigilant.
DT highlights the ruling as “a recognition of the defense of our interpretive capacity”
“A majority vote confirms the Court of Appeal’s decision.” The statement said, “When exercising its functions by issuing an opinion that it is an illegal or arbitrary act, it is acting within its powers and therefore holding such an institution (the General Directorate of Labor) accountable.” I can’t,” he said. of DT.
Regarding biological reactions, Labor Director Pablo Zenteno Munoz commented that the ruling “is taken as a recognition of the position it has always held as an institution on the defense of the right of interpretation, and in this sense it sees the ruling as affirmation of the Supreme Court’s historical thesis.” About the faculty that the Ministry of Labor has in the field of labor law. “
In addition to the above, he also emphasized that: This decision reinforces and recognizes the agency’s role in the framework of labor law compliance and interpretation of laws regulating labor. In particular, we are in the midst of a new reality in areas such as transportation and delivery applications.
“The Supreme Court decision illustrates a theory that we have espoused since the beginning of our defense practice, and that in issuing this opinion we did not violate any law or constitution, much less any regulatory framework. “It was established by DFL No. 2 of 1967, a provision in the sense that the law and the legal system allow us to interpret the labor law.” The director of the institution concluded.
Source: Biobiochile
