Chile: Labour Directorate Issues New Opinion Regarding Lunchtime When Reducing the Working Hours
Chile is currently undergoing the gradual implementation of Law No. 21,561, commonly known as the “40-hour law,” which aims to reduce the statutory weekly working hours from 45 to 40. This process began in April 2024 with a reduction to 44 hours and will continue progressively until reaching 40 hours in 2028. In this context, the next milestone will occur in April 2026, when the workweek will be reduced to 42 hours. To guide this transition, the Labour Directorate issued Opinion No. 745-38.
In it, the Labour Directorate reaffirms the mandatory and inalienable nature of labour rights, clarifying that the reduction in working hours may not, under any circumstances, be offset against the statutory lunch break, which retains its character as a compulsory rest period pursuant to Article 34 of the Labour Code. Consequently, the reduction must be applied at the beginning of the workday when there is mutual agreement between the parties. In the absence of such agreement, it shall be applied at the end of the workday. This interpretation upholds the legislator’s intent, as both provisions pursue distinct purposes: the lunch break enables the worker to recover during the workday, whereas the reduction introduced by Law No. 21,561 seeks to provide employees with additional time for personal and family life, without impairing the inalienable right to rest during working hours.
Regarding cases where the immutability of the lunch break to the working day has been agreed upon, this Opinion distinguishes whether such agreement was reached at the collective or individual level for the purpose of implementing the adjustment to the new working schedule by mutual consent. In the collective sphere, the absence of agreement to amend the imputation of the lunch break stipulated in the collective instrument implies that the principle of ultra activity shall not apply to such clause, nor shall it form part of the bargaining floor. In the individual sphere, any modification requires the express and written consent of the parties. This interpretation reinforces the principles of good faith and worker protection, preventing practices that undermine the purpose of the law.
Finally, Opinion No. 745-38, in addition to interpreting the rule, raises a practical challenge: reconciling prior agreements on immutability with the new regulation, which reveals the tension between contractual autonomy —both collective and individual— and mandatory labour law norms.
