Supreme Court reaffirms access to justice: accepts complaint and orders to process labour lawsuit

What happened?

A claim for recognition of employment, unjustified dismissal, nullity of dismissal and recovery of benefits was filed against the Municipality of Puerto Aysén. In the filing of the claim, the Court of Aysén ordered the plaintiff to submit the minutes of the hearing and the documents presented at the administrative level, in accordance with the provisions of article 499 of the Labour Code, which requires the submission of the minutes of the conciliation hearing before the Labour Inspectorate in the case of payment proceedings.

The plaintiff stated that she had not received a response to the claim and that the Labour Inspectorate had not yet summoned the parties to the conciliation hearing, which made it impossible to submit the required information. The court, upon hearing the case, decided that the order had not been complied with and, consequently, that the claim had not been filed.

The plaintiff filed an appeal against this decision. The Court of Appeals of Coyhaique upheld the decision, rejecting the allegation made in the appeal that the respective Labour Inspectorate had not yet fixed the summons, since the claim was filed the day after the complaint was lodged with the administrative body, without waiting for its resolution. Notwithstanding this, the Court held that, once the administrative instance had been exhausted, the claim could be filed again, since the judge of first instance only considered it as not having been filed, but did not reject it outright. An appeal was lodged against this ruling.

The Supreme Court's ruling 

On 16 September 2025, the Supreme Court, in case Rol 25.489-2025, upheld the appeal in question. It considered that the interpretation of art. 499 put forward in the first instance (and confirmed by the Court of Appeal) constituted a serious misconduct or abuse, having deprived the worker of obtaining a decision on the merits of the case. It determined that the article in question "does not prescribe that a claim filed without the required background information will be deemed not to have been filed, noting that in those cases in which the legislation assigns such a punitive effect, it does so expressly". The omission, then, only makes it impossible to process the lawsuit according to the rules of the order for payment procedure - which, due to its speed and concentration, was more favourable to the worker - but maintains the right to access the ordinary procedure.

In addition, the highest court emphasised that, in labour matters, procedural rules must be interpreted in accordance with the protective principles of labour law, highlighting effective judicial protection, inexcusability and the right to a fair and rational procedure.

Constitutional principles guaranteeing access to labour justice

The seventh recital of the judgment emphasises that, in the labour sphere, procedural rules should not be understood in isolation, but must be interpreted in the light of the principles that justify the existence of labour law. One of the key foundations in this context is the right of individuals to free access to a court of law for the protection of their rights. This derives from the constitutional recognition of what in doctrine and in conventional and comparative law is called "effective judicial protection", contemplated in numeral 3 of article 19 of the Political Constitution of the Republic by recognising the universal right to equal protection of the law, the right to legal defence, to be judged by the natural judge and to a fair and rational procedure.

These basic prerogatives have an organic counterpart in the guiding principles of jurisdictional activity, enshrined in Article 76 of the Constitution, especially that of "inexcusability", which imposes on the courts the imperative duty to grant a meritorious pronouncement on the controversies that are legally submitted to them.

Conclusions 

The recent Supreme Court ruling constitutes an interesting interpretative precedent in procedural-labour matters, indicating that workers cannot be deprived of a decision on the merits because of certain procedural formalities when this sanction is not expressly regulated in the legislation.

The judgement also emphasises that procedural rules must be applied in harmony with the protective principles of labour law, guaranteeing effective access to justice, a fair procedure and the inexcusability of jurisdictional work.

This decision also underlines the importance of having specialised advice in labour litigation. The correct interpretation of the applicable procedures and deadlines, as well as the analysis and identification of the most appropriate procedural avenues, can make the difference in accessing an effective and timely ruling, and not being hindered or obstructed in the exercise of rights due to questions of form or procedural grounds.