The plaintiff filed an appeal for case law unification against the ruling of the Court of Appeals of Santiago, invoking a ruling issued by the Court of Appeals of Santiago and another from the Court of Appeals of Puerto Montt. These rulings hold that the FFRR severance corresponds to a legal severance that results in a determinate obligation and that there is no legal infringement by the court in extending the liability for the FFRR severance to the main company.

The Supreme Court's ruling points out the following to be highlighted:

  • FFRR severance is not a financial benefit in exchange for services rendered or not rendered or compensation for damages.
  • FFRR severance is a sanction that accounts for a breach of an employer's obligation not to do something.
  • In the case of a violation of fundamental rights committed by the direct employer (i.e. the contractor), the main company has no control and/or supervision duties. This is because it is a sphere in which the main company is not allowed to intervene by express provision of the law.

Consequently, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal for unification of jurisprudence, stating that the FFRR severance due to acts attributable to the contractor cannot be extended to the main company in a subcontracting regime.

Key action point

On 7th August 2023, the Supreme Court ruling on an appeal for case law unification decided on whether it is possible to extend to the main company in a subcontracted work system the severance for violation of fundamental rights upon termination (hereinafter "FFRR severance") provided for by law.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.