In general terms, an internal investigation within a company is initiated when there are grounds to collect sufficient information to assess the organisation’s proper functioning and to clarify potential improper conduct occurring within it. This includes situations where it is presumed that an individual or group of individuals may have committed a breach in the performance of their duties, as well as the need to determine the scope and seriousness of such conduct. Internal investigations may arise both from infringements of the legal framework and from facts that, without necessarily constituting criminal offences, breach the company’s internal standards, rules or policies. They may also be initiated when poor practices previously unidentified in risk management processes are detected, or when it is necessary to assess the effectiveness of compliance programmes, with the aim of preventing or mitigating legal, operational, economic, or reputational consequences for the organisation.

Notably, in the Chilean labour context, opening an internal investigation becomes a legal obligation, not merely a discretionary action, in cases regulated by Law No 21,643 (the “Karin Act”). This law requires employers to investigate complaints of workplace harassment, sexual harassment and workplace violence in accordance with the applicable legal framework.

Historically, Chilean law has not provided a general and systematic framework imposing a cross-cutting obligation to carry out internal investigations in either the labour or corporate context. In general terms, internal investigations have been grounded in the employer’s discretionary powers, derived from the need to collect sufficient information to assess the proper functioning of the organisation, clarify improper conduct, and prevent or mitigate legal, operational and reputational risks. In this context, internal investigations have been linked to compliance programmes, internal regulations and models for the prevention of crime, particularly in the criminal sphere, where internal investigations constitute a relevant tool for risk detection and for assessing the effectiveness of such models, without criminal legislation establishing a specific labour investigation procedure.

In the labour context, prior to the entry into force of the Karin Act, there were limited obligations relating to sexual harassment, mainly through the Internal Regulations on Order, Hygiene and Safety, which were required to set out duties, prohibitions and disciplinary measures, as well as general guidelines for the handling of such complaints. However, these requirements did not constitute a uniform or detailed statutory procedure for internal investigations, leaving the employer with a broad margin of discretion.

This situation changes with the entry into force of the Karin Act, which amends the Labour Code and expressly imposes on employers the obligation to investigate complaints relating to workplace harassment, sexual harassment and violence at work, establishing for the first time a structured internal investigation procedure with minimum stages, timeframes and rules, or alternatively the option to refer the matter to the Labour Board. In these cases, the investigation ceases to be merely discretionary and becomes a legal duty, and the decision to initiate the investigation or to refer the matter to the administrative authority must be communicated to the reporter within the applicable timeframe. Outside these specific scenarios, internal investigations continue to operate primarily as a permitted and recommended tool from a preventive, risk-management and compliance perspective.

In addition to domestic sources, the legal basis of the Karin Act is directly linked to international labour standards, in particular Convention No 190 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and Recommendation No 206, both adopted in 2019 and ratified by Chile in June 2023, entering into force on 12 June 2024. These international instruments constitute the normative foundation of the current Chilean framework on workplace harassment, sexual harassment and violence at work.

ILO Convention No 190 introduces several core elements that are reflected in Chilean law, including:

• the express recognition of the right of every person to a world of work free from violence and harassment (Article 4.1);
• the definition of violence and harassment as unacceptable behaviours, practices or threats – whether occurring once or repeatedly – that aim at, result in, or are likely to result in physical, psychological, sexual or economic harm (Article 1(a));
• the obligation of States to respect, promote and ensure the elimination of violence and harassment in all work-related contexts; and
• the express possibility for national legislation to regulate violence and harassment as a single concept or as separate categories (Article 1, paragraph 2).

Recommendation No 206 complements Convention No 190 by reinforcing the need for preventive policies, effective remedial measures, and accessible and reliable investigation mechanisms, highlighting the central role of employers in the detection, investigation and sanctioning of such conduct.

The transposition of these international standards into Chilean law is reflected in several key features of the Karin Act. In particular, the Act:

• expressly recognises violence and harassment as unacceptable conduct in the workplace;
• extends its scope of application to all contexts connected to work, and not merely the physical workplace; and
• imposes an active role on employers in prevention, investigation and sanctioning, through standardised procedures subject to defined principles, stages and timeframes.

From a systemic perspective, the legal sources underpinning the new Chilean labour compliance model therefore derive not only from domestic legislative reform, but directly from Convention No 190 and Recommendation No 206 of the ILO. These international instruments establish that workplace violence and harassment are unacceptable, even as isolated incidents, and require States to adopt effective measures for prevention, investigation and sanction. Law No 21,643 incorporates these requirements into Chilean law, creating a mandatory compliance framework in the labour sphere. This represents a significant shift: investigations that were previously discretionary for employers have become legally imposed duties in defined cases.

In Chile, the existence and design of communication channels must be analysed by distinguishing between general compliance frameworks and the specific regime applicable to workplace harassment, sexual harassment and violence at work under the Karin Act.

General Communication Channels (Non-Karin Act Frameworks)

Outside the specific scope of the Karin Act, employers commonly implement general reporting or ethics channels as part of their compliance and risk-management systems. These channels are designed to allow employees and other stakeholders to report potential irregularities, breaches of internal policies or other misconduct, whether internal or external, in written or electronic form. Within this general compliance framework, reporting channels may admit both identified and anonymous complaints. Anonymous reporting is recognised as a legitimate tool for detecting risks and encouraging reporting, although it also presents practical limitations, such as difficulties in gathering additional information or assessing the credibility of the allegations. Importantly, in this general context, the existence of an anonymous report does not prevent the employer from assessing the situation and adopting preventive or corrective measures in accordance with its general duty of care.

Communication Channels Under the Karin Act

The regulatory landscape changes in relation to complaints concerning workplace harassment, sexual harassment and violence at work. Under the Karin Act and its implementing regulation, employers are expressly required to make available and inform appropriate channels for the receipt of such complaints. The regulation allows complaints to be submitted verbally or in writing, in person or electronically, either to the employer or to the Labour Board, and requires that a receipt be issued and clear information about the procedure be provided.

For the purposes of the formal investigation procedure established by the Karin Act, complaints must be filed by an identified person. The regulatory framework and the Labour Board’s administrative practice have clarified that anonymous complaints do not initiate the statutory investigation procedure. This does not mean, however, that anonymous alerts may be disregarded – employers remain bound by their general duty to protect the life, health and dignity of employees and must therefore assess the information received and utilise appropriate preventive or protective measures.

A key feature of the Karin Act regime is the emphasis on confidentiality and controlled access to information. Employers are required to designate one or more specific individuals responsible for receiving and administering complaints, centralising the management of the reporting channel and strictly limiting access to sensitive information. This approach reflects the heightened confidentiality standards applicable under the Karin Act and distinguishes the statutory framework from more general compliance-based reporting systems.

A relevant practical issue associated with reporting channels is the risk of false or malicious complaints. Practice has shown cases in which an employee’s identity has been improperly used to file multiple unfounded complaints, resulting in adverse effects on the person involved. Cross-complaints, often arising from personal conflicts, friendships, or sentimental relationships, are also frequent: one party reports, and the other counters. Importantly, the fact that a complaint is not substantiated does not, by itself, render it false; deliberate intent to misrepresent the facts must be proven. In particularly serious cases, false or malicious complaints may give rise to disciplinary consequences and, if duly accredited, could constitute grounds for dismissal under Article 160 of the Labour Code.

A related phenomenon is the abuse of reporting channels. Situations have arisen in which the same employee repeatedly files Karin Act complaints regarding the same facts through different internal compliance channels, forcing the employer to investigate identical matters multiple times. This repetition has, in some cases, led to claims by investigated employees alleging violations of fundamental rights due to being subjected to successive identical procedures. Employers must establish clear internal rules, respond proportionally and carefully assess each case to protect all parties.

Outside the scope of the Karin Act, internal investigations are generally carried out by the compliance officer or the person designated in internal policies, who may receive complaints, conduct a preliminary assessment, initiate or coordinate the investigation, and ensure confidentiality. Depending on the nature and complexity of the case, the matter may be handled internally or referred to another competent area, such as HR, ensuring independence and proper documentation.

Under the Karin Act, when the employer conducts the investigation, it must (if possible) appoint a person with training in harassment, gender, or fundamental rights and inform the complainant in writing. Both the complainant and the respondent may challenge the investigator’s impartiality, in which case the employer must decide on a reasoned basis and record this decision in the investigation report. External specialists may participate as technical support, without releasing the employer from its legal responsibility.

In Chile, the obligation to conduct an investigation arises expressly under the Karin Act in cases involving complaints of workplace harassment, sexual harassment or violence at work, as the employer may not conduct an admissibility review or dismiss the complaint and must always activate the relevant procedure. In such cases, the employer must either initiate an internal investigation in accordance with its applicable internal regulations or refer the matter to the Labour Board, as applicable.

Outside this specific framework, internal investigations do not constitute a general legal obligation, but rather a faculty of the employer linked to risk management and the general duty to protect employees.

Under the Karin Act, the employer may not conduct an internal investigation unless it has established internal regulations that incorporate the legally required procedure; in that case, the complaint must be immediately referred to the Labour Board.

Likewise, where the complaint is directed against persons deemed to represent the employer under Article 4 of the Labour Code, an internal investigation is prohibited, and the matter must always be investigated by the administrative authority.

Outside these specific circumstances, there are no general legal prohibitions on conducting internal investigations in labour matters.

When an investigation is neither mandatory nor prohibited, the employer may decide to initiate it in the exercise of its disciplinary powers or in compliance with the duty to protect and safeguard employees established in Article 184 of the Labour Code, in order to clarify relevant facts, prevent or mitigate legal, operational or reputational risks, and verify compliance with internal rules or compliance programmes.

In this context, the employer’s decision is typically guided by an assessment of the seriousness, credibility and potential impact of the facts reported, as well as by the need to ensure a safe and respectful working environment. Factors that may justify opening an investigation include:

• the nature of the alleged conduct;
• the positions of those involved;
• the risk of recurrence; and
• any prior incidents.

Likewise, initiating an internal investigation may serve as a preventive tool to demonstrate that the employer has acted diligently and in good faith, particularly in highly regulated environments or where future administrative or judicial scrutiny is foreseeable. In these cases, internal investigations are part of the employer’s broader governance, risk management and compliance framework, allowing the organisation to detect weaknesses, reinforce internal controls and adopt corrective measures before conflicts escalate or turn into legal disputes.

In Chilean practice, both the reporter and the respondent have a right to be informed of the opening of an HR internal investigation, as part of the broader requirements of due process and respect for fundamental rights applicable to internal disciplinary and investigative procedures. This applies both in general internal investigations and, with greater intensity, in investigations governed by the Karin Act.

In general, internal investigations must respect principles of transparency, bilateral hearing and due process. This implies that both the reporter and the respondent should be informed, in a timely manner, that an investigation has been initiated, the general nature of the allegations and the procedural framework that will apply. While the law does not impose a fixed notice period in these cases, the information must be provided in a manner that allows the respondent to effectively exercise their right of defence, subject always to confidentiality requirements.

Under the Karin Act, the right to be informed is expressly reinforced. The reporter must be promptly informed whether the employer will conduct an internal investigation or refer the matter to the Labour Board, and the respondent must also be informed in a clear and timely manner to ensure due process and the possibility of defence. Although the statute does not set a specific deadline for such communications, they must be made without delay, given their direct connection to the adoption of protective measures. Where the complaint is filed directly with the Labour Board, the employer must implement protective measures within three business days of receiving the authority’s notice, which, in practice, sets the timing of the relevant communications. In all cases, confidentiality must be strictly preserved, and anonymous complaints do not allow the formal procedure under the Karin Act, as identification is required to safeguard the respondent’s right to defence.

As a general rule, the opening of an internal investigation does not need to be communicated to public authorities, unless expressly required by law.

Karin Act

Where the employer decides to conduct an internal investigation, it must inform the Labour Board within three working days from receipt of the complaint; if the matter is referred, the relevant background information must be submitted within the same timeframe. In addition, the employer must notify the relevant mutual insurance entity within 24 hours to ensure early psychological support and must inform the reporting party of the available criminal reporting channels before the Public Prosecutor’s Office (Ministerio Público), police (Carabineros de Chile) or the Investigative Police (PDI), where the facts may constitute a criminal offence.

In addition, under the Karin Act framework, employers are subject to a specific and autonomous reporting obligation to the workers’ compensation insurance entity (mutual insurance entity) that administers the statutory occupational accidents and diseases insurance. In accordance with Circular No 3854 of the Superintendence of Social Security (2025), employers must report all complaints under the Karin Act to their mutual insurance entity within five business days of becoming aware of the complaint. This applies whether the investigation is conducted internally or referred to the Labour Board. This reporting obligation is separate from and complements the immediate notification required to secure early psychological support.

Economic or Criminal Offences

There is no general obligation to inform public authorities of the commencement of an internal investigation; any report to the Public Prosecutor’s Office is discretionary and strategic, in accordance with the crime prevention model and the duty of confidentiality.

The parties may be required to sign NDAs in the context of an internal investigation, which is a common practice, particularly in sensitive labour matters, and is usually regulated in the internal regulations and communicated at the outset of the procedure.

Such agreements are subject to the overriding requirement to respect workers’ fundamental rights and therefore may not restrict the right of defence or prevent reporting to the competent authorities.

Even where no NDA is executed, the internal investigation remains subject to a legal duty of confidentiality, particularly in cases of sexual harassment, workplace harassment and violence at work, where the law requires the protection of information and personal data, without prejudice to requests from courts or the Labour Authority.

A breach of confidentiality may give rise to liability for the individual who disclosed the information and, potentially, for the employer if it failed to adopt reasonable protective measures, and may even result in claims for infringement of fundamental rights.

Outside the scope of the Karin Act, the possibility of conducting a preliminary investigation depends on what is established by law or by the company’s internal regulations and may be used to determine whether a formal investigation is warranted and to define its scope; however, in cases governed by the Karin Act, there is no admissibility review or preliminary stage, as the employer must immediately initiate the internal investigation or refer the complaint to the Labour Board.

In an internal investigation, the reporter, the respondent and any other individuals who may provide relevant information regarding the facts are typically interviewed, including direct or indirect witnesses. There is no predetermined legal limit on the number of witnesses each party may propose.

Participation in interviews is voluntary and must be non-coercive. If an interviewee refuses to participate or remains silent, the employer may not compel participation or impose sanctions, as individuals retain the right not to self-incriminate. Any refusal or partial participation must be documented in the investigation record.

Interviews may be conducted remotely (eg, via Teams or Zoom), provided that confidentiality, privacy and due process are ensured, and that the setting allows for a proper and unpressured statement. In all cases, the employer must ensure adequate documentation of the interview. In investigations governed by the Karin Act, all interviews (conducted remotely or in person) must be documented in writing as part of the mandatory investigation record.

There is no legally fixed number of interviewers in an internal investigation, which should instead be conducted in accordance with internal regulations and principles of objectivity and impartiality. Under the Karin Act, and as a key requirement for the validity and adequacy of the procedure, the employer must appoint an investigator with training in harassment, gender or fundamental rights.

Outside the scope of the Karin Act, the presence of a neutral third party during interviews depends on what is established in the employer’s internal regulations and investigation procedures, and may be allowed if duly regulated and justified. Under the Karin Act, third parties are not permitted to participate as witnesses in interviews due to strict confidentiality requirements. More than one interviewer may be involved if expressly authorised by the internal regulations, but access to the investigation must be strictly limited to authorised persons.

In general, whether an interviewee may be accompanied by a third party depends on the employer’s internal regulations and does not constitute an automatic legal right. Under the Karin Act, there is no right to attend interviews accompanied by a lawyer or other support person, given the administrative and confidential nature of the procedure, without prejudice to the possibility for trade unions to accompany and represent the reporting party at their request, as provided by law.

In an internal investigation, the interviewee must be informed, at a minimum, of the purpose of the interview and the confidential nature of the procedure, in accordance with internal regulations and due process principles. In cases governed by the Karin Act, such information must be provided clearly and in a timely manner, including the interviewee’s rights and obligations, and how their statement will be recorded in the investigation file.

If an interviewee requests to stop the interview, the interview must be suspended immediately, as participation is voluntary and the interviewer must respect the individual’s dignity and due process rights. The request to stop and the resulting interruption must be documented in the investigation record. The interview may be rescheduled or resumed at a later time, provided that doing so does not compromise the fairness or integrity of the investigation, particularly in procedures governed by the Karin Act.

Interviews are generally documented through written minutes, which may be summarised, provided they accurately reflect the statements given. Interviewees are usually allowed to review the minutes and, in practice, are asked to sign them to confirm their content, particularly in investigations governed by the Karin Act. There is no legal requirement for the minutes to be taken by an external party, although this may be used where internal rules or the circumstances of the case so provide.

Interviews in internal investigations may be recorded, provided that fundamental rights, data protection rules and the physical and mental integrity of the interviewees are respected. Under the Karin Act, the law requires written and signed records of statements, but does not prohibit recording as a complementary tool, provided its purpose is to ensure the accuracy of the testimony. If an interview is recorded, a transcript should be produced and made available to the interviewee for review, correction or amendment, which is an irrevocable right. In remote investigations, the absence of recording can be ensured through clear instructions to the parties and rules established in the internal procedure.

In addition to interviews, an internal investigation may use other fact-finding and evidence-preservation measures, such as reviewing physical and digital documents, emails, access logs, IT systems, and information storage and custody protocols and assessing the relevance of each measure on a case-by-case basis. Early preservation steps are key to preventing alteration, concealment, or destruction of evidence through internal instructions and appropriate access controls.

In all cases, investigative steps that infringe fundamental rights (such as privacy, mental integrity or dignity) may not be used and any fact-finding activity must be lawful, proportionate, and respectful of constitutional guarantees.

The employer must and may take measures to protect the reporter during an internal investigation, based on the general duty of protection and, in cases of workplace harassment, sexual harassment or workplace violence, in accordance with the Karin Act. Such measures must aim to prevent re-victimisation or secondary victimisation, safeguarding the reporter’s physical and psychological integrity, as well as their personality rights.

Under the Karin Act, the employer must adopt immediate protective measures, taking into account the seriousness of the allegations and the working conditions. These may include separation of physical spaces, adjustments to working time, remote work arrangements and early psychological support through the relevant workers’ compensation insurance entity. Such measures may be modified throughout the investigation and are subject to review by the Labour Authority. Failure to adopt appropriate measures may result in administrative and judicial liability, while protective actions must comply with the principle of proportionality. In addition, the reporter benefits from anti-retaliation (indemnity) protection, and any retaliatory conduct may give rise to labour protection claims.

The employer may and should adopt measures to protect the respondent during an internal investigation, particularly regarding their honour, privacy and personality rights, based on the general duty of protection under Article 184 of the Labour Code, the principle of due process and the confidentiality requirements applicable to labour investigations, including those regulated by the Karin Act. Typical measures include strict confidentiality safeguards, restricted access to information, limited internal communications and impartial treatment throughout the procedure. Failure to adopt such measures may expose the employer to claims for violation of fundamental rights, while any protective measures must be proportionate and must not amount to anticipated sanctions or unduly affect the respondent.

As a general rule, the employer should not impose disciplinary measures before concluding the internal investigation, as doing so could undermine impartiality, due process and fundamental rights. Within the framework of the Karin Act, only preventive, proportionate and non-punitive protective measures are allowed (such as separation of workspaces, redistribution of working time or remote work), taking into account the seriousness of the allegations and the protection of the persons involved. Imposing sanctions prematurely may give rise to labour protection claims or employer liability; conversely, failing to adopt protective measures when they were necessary may also result in liability.

The employer must and may adopt measures to protect other employees when the situation under investigation may affect their safety, health or rights, pursuant to the general duty of protection. Such measures may include:

• separating physical workspaces;
• redistributing working hours;
• enabling remote work; or
• other preventive and proportionate actions.

Failure to adopt protective measures may give rise to employer liability for breach of the duty of protection, while adopting such measures must be carried out with caution to avoid infringing fundamental rights or amounting to disguised disciplinary sanctions, thereby avoiding the risk of litigation or fundamental rights claims.

In general terms, any internal investigation must be conducted in accordance with the principles of:

• legality;
• impartiality;
• objectivity;
• presumption of innocence;
• factual accuracy;
• respect for the individuals involved;
• proper documentation;
• confidentiality;
• protection against retaliation; and
• good faith.

This requires that the procedure be previously regulated in the company’s internal policies, ensuring that:

• investigators act independently, without conflicts of interest and with sufficient competence;
• the parties be heard and allowed to submit evidence;
• the investigation is based on verifiable facts rather than mere opinions;
• all actions be duly documented; and
• the fundamental rights, privacy, and physical and psychological integrity of the participants are safeguarded, avoiding retaliation or arbitrary treatment.

On this general basis, the Regulation implementing the Karin Act expressly provides that investigations into sexual harassment, workplace harassment, and workplace violence must strictly adhere to the following principles, which apply throughout the entire procedure, as outlined below.

Gender Perspective

This principle requires that, throughout the entire procedure, potential gender-based discrimination affecting the exercise of rights or access to opportunities be duly considered. Its objective is to promote gender equality in the workplace, ensuring equal treatment and equal opportunities in employment and occupational development.

Non-Discrimination

This principle recognises the right of all participants to be treated equally, without arbitrary distinctions, exclusions or preferences based on grounds such as sex, age, marital status, religion, political opinion, sexual orientation, gender identity, personal appearance, social origin or any other similar factor. It also requires special consideration of situations of vulnerability or multiple discrimination, which may exacerbate conditions of inequality affecting a worker.

Non-Revictimisation or Avoidance of Secondary Victimisation

This principle imposes a duty on those receiving complaints and conducting the investigation to prevent the affected person from experiencing renewed harm or additional emotional or psychological distress as a result of participating in the procedure. Accordingly, effective protective measures must be put in place to prevent secondary victimisation.

Confidentiality

obliges all participants to safeguard access to and disclosure of the information obtained during the investigation. In particular, the employer must maintain strict confidentiality over all personal data accessed by virtue of the employment relationship, in accordance with Article 154-ter of the Labour Code. Disclosure is permitted only exceptionally, where required by courts or by the Labour Board in the exercise of their legal powers.

Impartiality

This principle requires that the investigation be conducted with objectivity, neutrality and integrity, both in the handling of the procedure and in the formulation of its conclusions. It entails adopting measures to prevent bias, prejudice or personal interests that could compromise the rights of the individuals involved.

Timeliness (Celerity)

requires that the investigation be conducted diligently and efficiently, actively removing any obstacles that may hinder its prompt conclusion. The aim is to avoid unnecessary delays that could aggravate the situation of those involved, while respecting the legally established timeframes.

Reasonableness

This principle demands that all decisions adopted during the investigation be logical, coherent, proportionate and non-arbitrary, so that they are understandable and justifiable to the participants in the procedure.

Due Process

Requires that the procedure, conducted in a fair and equitable manner, respects workers’ fundamental rights. This includes the right to be clearly and timely informed of the facts affecting them, to be heard, to submit evidence, and to receive duly reasoned decisions. It also entails the right to be informed of the status of the procedure, always in harmony with the other governing principles.

Co-Operation

The principle of co-operation imposes on all persons involved in the investigation a duty to collaborate in its proper conduct by providing useful information that clarifies the facts and, where appropriate, the reported conduct is sanctioned.

Summary

Failure to comply with these procedural requirements may give rise to employer liability, including claims for damages by the affected individual. As these principles form part of the system for protecting fundamental rights within the employment relationship, their infringement may also result in labour protection actions where the employer has acted negligently or wilfully.

Additionally, the investigation may be deemed flawed or invalid, rendering any measures adopted as a result ineffective, and the Labour Board may impose administrative sanctions on the employer for non-compliance with applicable regulations.

Employers may include in their internal regulations procedures and guarantees that go beyond the minimum requirements set out in 5.1 Requirements, as those standards operate as a minimum legal baseline. Such additional safeguards are permissible provided they comply with applicable law, fully respect employees’ fundamental rights and do not impose arbitrary requirements or unjustified restrictions on the right of defence, honour or privacy.

Once incorporated into the internal regulations, these procedural rules are binding on the employer. Failure to comply with them may expose the employer to labour liability, challenges to the validity of the investigation, claims for breach of fundamental rights, and administrative sanctions imposed by the Labour Board.

In internal investigations, each party must submit and substantiate the facts it alleges, and may present any evidence it deems relevant. In matters related to violations of fundamental rights, the Labour Board has established that conclusions may be reached on the basis of circumstantial (indirect) evidence, provided it is properly formulated and reasoned. Where the evidence submitted by the complainant gives rise to sufficient indicia, the burden of proof may be reversed, requiring the respondent to rebut them. The assessment of evidence does not require a standard higher than that applied by courts, but rather a rational evaluation in accordance with the principles of sound judgment, based on logic, experience, and established knowledge, and avoiding bias or subjectivity.

There is no general rule determining when an internal investigation must be concluded; therefore, its closure must follow a reasonable timeframe established in the company’s internal regulations. By contrast, in investigations governed by the Karin Act, the timing of the conclusion is expressly regulated, and the internal investigation must be completed within a maximum period of 30 administrative working days, understood as days from Monday to Friday, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays.

Once an internal investigation concludes, the company’s internal regulations generally require communication of the closure and, at a minimum, the conclusions to ensure due process.

By contrast, under the Karin Act, the conclusion of the investigation requires the issuance of a written report, the formal communication of its conclusions to the parties, and the submission of the report and its conclusions to the Labour Board within two days of the investigation’s completion. The Labour Board then has 30 days to issue its decision, after which (or if no decision is issued within that period) the employer must implement and notify the applicable measures or sanctions within 15 calendar days. The entire procedure must be conducted and brought to a close within a maximum period of 30 administrative working days, and must be properly documented and safeguarded.

Where the investigation, under the Karin Act, is conducted directly by the Labour Board, or where the employer refers or delegates the complaint to the authority, the procedure may continue beyond the investigative phase. In such cases, Chilean law establishes an additional mandatory mediation stage following the conclusion of the administrative investigation, even though this phase does not strictly constitute an internal investigation. This mediation is mandatory in cases of workplace harassment and violence and aims to reach an agreement between the parties before judicial escalation. If mediation is held and no agreement is reached, or if the agreement is breached, the Labour Board is required to initiate a judicial fundamental rights action before the labour courts. On the other hand, in cases of sexual harassment where there are sufficient indicia of the conduct, mediation is excluded, and the Labour Board must directly file a judicial complaint.

In general terms, the law does not establish a specific form for the conclusion of an internal investigation; it must comply with the company’s internal regulations or internal policies. In the case of investigations governed by the Karin Act, the procedure requires a formal, documented conclusion, typically in the form of a written report that records the steps taken, the facts investigated, and the conclusions reached, ensuring traceability, due process and administrative oversight.

Generally, internal investigations lack a uniform legal regulation establishing mandatory content for final investigation reports. Accordingly, their content is governed by the company’s internal regulations and internal policies. In practice, such reports usually include the identification of the parties, a description of the information gathered, the analysis carried out, and the conclusions of the investigation, serving as the basis for any subsequent decisions by the employer.

By contrast, in investigations governed by the Karin Act, the investigation report must be in writing and must include, at a minimum, the following mandatory contents:

• name, email address and tax identification number (RUT) of the company;
• identification of the complainant and the respondent, including at least their email address and national identity card or passport;
• identification of the person in charge of the investigation, including at least their email address and national identity card or passport, and a record of whether any circumstances affecting their impartiality exist and, where applicable, any replacement;
• details of the protective measures adopted and the notifications issued during the procedure;
• identification of the background information and interviews collected, with special safeguards for the confidentiality of the participants;
• description of the alleged facts, the statements obtained and the arguments submitted by the parties;
• formulation of the indicia or coherent and consistent reasoning supporting the investigation’s conclusions, in order to determine whether the investigated facts constitute sexual harassment, workplace harassment or violence at work;
• proposal of corrective measures, where applicable; and
• proposal of sanctions, where appropriate, assessing the seriousness of the investigated facts and in accordance with the applicable internal regulations.

This report forms the basis for the Labour Authority’s review and for the possible adoption of measures or sanctions by the employer, in accordance with the procedure established under the Karin Act.

In the context of an internal investigation, the parties’ right to receive information about the outcome depends on the applicable regime. As a general matter, and in accordance with practice and the provisions of the internal regulations, the employer must inform both the reporter and the respondent of the conclusions of the procedure and the measures adopted, while safeguarding confidentiality and sensitive data.

Under the Karin Act, the employer must notify both parties of the investigation outcome. The notification includes:

• the Labour Board’s decision and conclusions, if issued; or
• the full investigation file if 30 days elapsed without a response from the Board.

Notifications are subject to confidentiality requirements and do not grant parties the right to access third-party data.

The conclusions of an internal investigation into matters other than those regulated by the Karin Act should not be communicated to authorities, unless a legal provision expressly requires it or the employer decides to do so for compliance or strategic reasons (for example, in criminal or compliance matters). In the absence of a legal obligation, the information remains within the internal sphere, subject to the duty of confidentiality.

By contrast, in investigations governed by the Karin Act, the communication of the conclusions to the Labour Board is mandatory, in accordance with the terms and timeframes set out in 6.2 Procedure for Ending an HR Internal Investigation.

As a general rule, information regarding the conclusion of an internal investigation is not communicated to parties other than the reporter and the respondent. Exceptionally, and only where strictly necessary for organisational or compliance reasons, the employer may inform direct managers or other internal areas about the adoption of certain measures, without disclosing factual findings, detailed conclusions or sensitive personal data.

In investigations governed by the Karin Act, the principle of confidentiality reinforces this approach. Accordingly, witnesses, team members or other third parties are not informed of the contents of the report or its conclusions, except to the extent strictly necessary to implement protective or preventive measures, always avoiding unnecessary exposure of the individuals involved.

If the allegations are deemed substantiated, the employer may apply the disciplinary measures provided for in the Labour Code and in the internal regulations, respecting due process and the non bis in idem principle. In particular, depending on the seriousness of the facts, the following disciplinary measures may be adopted:

• verbal warning, as a formal warning;
• written warning, through a clear and precise written communication detailing the misconduct and the expected conduct going forward;
• fine, only if expressly contemplated in the internal regulations and up to a maximum of 25% of the daily remuneration, with the legally mandated allocation of the amounts collected; and
• disciplinary dismissal, where the grounds set out in the Labour Code apply, without entitlement to severance, and duly substantiated in the dismissal letter.

An employee may not be sanctioned twice for the same conduct; however, a different sanction may be imposed if a subsequent internal investigation establishes additional infringing conduct. Any measure adopted must be proportionate, properly documented, and communicated in accordance with the applicable regulations.

In the event that the investigation results in a disciplinary dismissal, the employee retains the right to challenge the termination before the labour courts, and may submit evidence aimed at rebutting or disproving the facts and conclusions set out in the investigation report, which does not bind the courts nor preclude full judicial review of the dismissal.

In practice, and in compliance with the employer’s duty of protection, it is common for additional preventive or corrective measures to be adopted following an internal investigation, regardless of whether the allegations are ultimately substantiated. These may include:

• organisational adjustments;
• reinforcement of internal protocols;
• mandatory training;
• changes in the allocation of duties; or
• protective measures aimed at preventing the recurrence of risk situations.

Such measures must be proportionate, non-punitive, and respectful of the fundamental rights of the individuals involved, and are grounded in the general duties of prevention and protection governing the employment relationship.

The employer may collect personal data in the context of an internal investigation, provided that such processing complies with Law No 19,628. This requires:

• duly informing employees of the purpose for which their data will be used;
• obtaining legal authorisation or consent where applicable; and
• using the information exclusively for the purposes that were communicated.

In addition, pursuant to Article 154-ter of the Labour Code, the employer must keep confidential all information and personal data accessed in the context of the employment relationship, a duty further reinforced in investigations concerning workplace harassment, sexual harassment or violence at work.

It should also be noted that, as of 1 December 2026, the new Personal Data Protection Law No 21,719 will further strengthen these requirements, recognising employees as the owners of their personal data and employers as data controllers. This law imposes enhanced obligations regarding lawfulness, purpose limitation, proportionality and data security, expands employees’ data protection rights, and requires employers to update their internal policies, establishing significant sanctions and potential liability for breaches of fundamental rights in the event of non-compliance.

In an internal investigation, the processing of personal data must comply with the personal data protection legislation and the duty of confidentiality set out in Article 154-ter of the Labour Code. This requires informing employees of the purpose for which their data will be used, obtaining written authorisation where applicable and using the information exclusively for the stated purposes, with particular care given to sensitive data, especially in investigations involving workplace harassment, sexual harassment or violence at work.

As of 1 December 2026, Law No 21,719 will further reinforce these requirements by imposing principles of lawfulness, purpose limitation, proportionality and security, strengthening employees’ rights over their data and requiring employers to update their internal data processing policies.

The parties may exercise the right of access only in respect of their own personal data collected in the context of an internal investigation, in accordance with data protection regulations. There is no right to access third parties’ personal data or the entirety of the investigation file, and the employer may lawfully restrict such access in order to safeguard confidentiality, protect sensitive data of other individuals, and preserve the integrity of the investigation, particularly in cases of workplace harassment, sexual harassment or violence at work.

In practice, the use of artificial intelligence is neither common nor advisable in labour internal investigations. Where it is used, it should be limited to support functions (for example, organising information or conducting preliminary document analysis), without replacing human assessment. Its use entails significant data protection risks and must therefore strictly comply with confidentiality obligations, purpose limitation, proportionality, and the prohibition of automated decision-making.

In Chile, there is currently no general, comprehensive whistle-blower protection regime that applies cross-cuttingly to the private sector. The legal framework provides partial, fragmented and sector-specific mechanisms, with varying levels of protection depending on the context in which the report is made, which prevents the existence of an autonomous and robust labour-law whistle-blowing statute comparable to those in other jurisdictions.

Public Sector

In the public sector, Law No 21,592 expressly regulates whistle-blowing channels before the Office of the Comptroller General (Contraloría General de la República), in relation to conduct affecting the public interest. This regime establishes a formal whistle-blowing system that includes institutional reporting channels, identity protection, preventive protective measures, anti-retaliation rules, and a reinforced protection framework applicable to civil servants, employees, contractors, trainees and other persons linked to public administration. This system expressly acknowledges the risk of retaliation and establishes specific mechanisms to prevent and sanction it.

Private Sector

By contrast, in the private sector, whistle-blowing has developed mainly from a criminal and compliance perspective, particularly under the Corporate Criminal Liability regime and its expansion following the enactment of the Economic Crimes Act. In this context, internal reporting channels form part of crime-prevention models, allowing the reporting of conduct of public interest – primarily criminal or economic in nature – and enabling internal investigations within a framework often described as corporate justice. However, these mechanisms do not provide a labour-law-based whistle-blower protection statute, nor do they establish specific rights, procedural guarantees or clear safeguards against retaliation. Their primary function is to protect the company, rather than the reporting worker.

Protection of Whistle-Blowers

From a labour-law perspective, Chilean law does not recognise whistle-blowing as a distinct legal procedure, nor does it provide a specific category of “public-interest reporting” within employment law. The labour system is structured around private interest disputes between employer and employee, rather than the protection of the public interest, creating a structural mismatch with whistle-blowing models developed in other legal systems. In practice, employees who report wrongdoing of public interest within the company face significant exposure to retaliation and must seek protection ex post through general mechanisms, primarily fundamental rights protection claims.

This protection is limited and fragmented, as fundamental rights claims were not designed specifically for whistle-blowing, require high evidentiary thresholds, and shift the focus from the public interest to the individual harm suffered by the employee. This demonstrates that, although reporting channels, partial anti-retaliation rules and compliance obligations exist, Chile currently lacks an integrated whistle-blowing system in the private employment context, leaving whistle-blowers in a structurally weak position vis-à-vis the employer’s investigative and disciplinary powers.

Accordingly, whistle-blowing in Chile is incomplete and asymmetrical, with effective protection in the public sector, instrumental development in the criminal-corporate sphere, and the absence of a general labour-law whistle-blower protection framework, which constitutes one of the main structural gaps in the Chilean system in this area.

Chilean legislation provides specific protections against allegations of sexual harassment, workplace harassment, and workplace violence, which have been significantly reinforced and systematised by the Karin Act, in force since August 2024.

The law expressly defines these forms of misconduct in Article 2 of the Labour Code, as follows.

• Sexual harassment: “any conduct whereby a person, improperly and by any means, makes sexual advances or requests that are not consented to by the recipient and that threaten or adversely affect their employment situation or opportunities at work.”
• Workplace harassment: “any conduct constituting aggression or harassment exercised by the employer or by one or more workers against another worker or workers, by any means, whether occurring once or repeatedly, and which results in harm, mistreatment or humiliation of the affected person(s), or threatens or adversely affects their employment situation or opportunities at work.”
• Violence at work exercised by third parties outside the employment relationship: “conduct affecting workers in the course of the provision of services, carried out by clients, suppliers, users or other third parties.” This constitutes a new category expressly incorporated by the Karin Act.

These protections apply to all employees, regardless of position or contract type, and cover conduct occurring both in the workplace and in connection with the provision of services, including interactions with third parties.

Among the additional protections established under this framework are, inter alia:

• the employer’s obligation to implement a prevention protocol;
• formal investigation procedure subject to principles of confidentiality, impartiality, promptness, due process and non-revictimisation;
• the immediate adoption of protective measures;
• the possibility for the investigation to be conducted either internally by the employer or by the Labour Board; and
• enhanced duties of information, documentation and reporting to the labour authority.

As regards recent developments, the main change is the entry into force of the Karin Act in August 2024, which expanded the scope of protection, expressly incorporated violence committed by third parties, strengthened the preventive approach, and established more stringent legal standards for the investigation and sanctioning of such conduct.

This Karin Act investigation framework has been addressed throughout the preceding sections, as it currently constitutes the only formally regulated statutory HR internal investigation procedure under Chilean labour law. Accordingly, many of the answers above distinguish between general internal investigations governed by internal regulations and compliance practices, and investigations specifically subject to the Karin Act, which establishes mandatory stages, principles, timeframes, reporting obligations and procedural safeguards governing the investigation process.

In Chile, there are specific protections against other forms of discrimination and harassment, which are now mainly articulated through the legal definition of workplace harassment as incorporated and reinforced by the Karin Act. This definition covers conduct involving harassment, aggression or humiliation, which may occur even as a single act and includes behaviours traditionally referred to as bullying or mobbing. These protections apply regardless of the perpetrator’s hierarchical position and cover any affected employee.

With respect to discrimination, Article 2 of the Labour Code establishes a broad list of protected grounds (including race, sex, gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, trade union membership, religion, among others), which is not exhaustive, as the provision expressly includes the wording “among others”. This approach, strengthened by the Karin Act, allows conduct not expressly listed to be classified as discriminatory where its purpose or effect is to nullify or impair equality of opportunity or treatment in employment, unless the distinction is based on objective qualifications required for a specific position.

In addition, alongside the administrative and internal investigation procedures for workplace harassment or discrimination, employees may also resort to the fundamental rights protection action before labour courts. This is a specific judicial mechanism designed to address violations of fundamental rights arising in the context of the employment relationship, further reinforcing the protection framework.

Finally, these protections have undergone a significant recent development with the entry into force of the Karin Act in August 2024, which expanded the scope of protected conduct, strengthened procedural principles, and established the only formal investigation procedure applicable to workplace harassment, sexual harassment, violence at work and discrimination linked to such conduct.

Where the facts under investigation may constitute a criminal offence, the employer must distinguish the applicable legal framework.

In the context of the Karin Act, the employer is required to inform the reporter about the available criminal reporting channels, such as the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the police or the PDI. However, this does not entail an automatic obligation for the employer to file a criminal complaint. The legislation does not establish a general duty for employers to report criminal conduct, without prejudice to specific cases in which a reporting obligation may arise under Article 175 of the Chilean Criminal Procedure Code. In any event, the internal investigation must be conducted in accordance with the procedure set out in Law Karin, applying the relevant protective measures and respecting its governing principles, regardless of whether a parallel criminal process is pursued.

With respect to economic crimes, there is no automatic legal obligation to report the conduct, although doing so may be advisable, particularly as evidence of the effectiveness of a crime prevention model. An internal investigation may provide a sufficient basis for corrective actions and for a potential report to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, provided that evidence is collected lawfully and that confidentiality and proportionality are respected. In such cases, it is recommended that the investigation be conducted by professionals with expertise in criminal law and corporate criminal liability, and that the accused be informed that the information gathered may be disclosed to the authorities.

There are no specific procedures established under Chilean law for multi-jurisdictional internal investigations. In such cases, the employer must adhere to the provisions of its internal regulations and internal investigation policies, applying the general rules of Chilean labour law when the facts or their effects occur in Chile. In any event, the applicable local regulations in each involved jurisdiction must be respected, particularly in labour, confidentiality and personal data protection matters.