Case “Raillanca v. Sociedad Constructora Rieving and Municipalidad de Valdivia”, judgment for the unification of jurisprudence (Case Docket No. 38.146-2024): How much specificity must an employment final settlement agreement (finiquito laboral) contain to produce liability-releasing effect regarding a workplace accident?

Abstract

In the analyzed judgment for the unification of jurisprudence, the Supreme Court rejects the liability-releasing effect (efecto liberatorio) of an employment final settlement agreement (finiquito laboral), which had been executed with all legal formalities and without any reservation of rights. Despite explicitly mentioning the waiver of actions arising from workplace accidents, the Court attributes a lack of the specificity required to generate such a releasing effect. Regarding this ruling, we argue that the Court lacks necessary clarity, given that while there is one interpretation of the decision we deem reasonable—which would require a reference to the specific accident—there are other alternatives that could lead to the absolute instability of final settlement agreements. This would occur if these agreements are required to cover every legal aspect associated with the employer’s potential liability, or if a specific financial compensation is strictly required in every case to recognize a final settlement effect in the instrument. We argue that a final settlement agreement intended to cover risks arising from workplace accidents or occupational diseases must clearly indicate the damaging event that originates the waived actions. Furthermore, we deem it groundless to mechanically associate this expression of will with an out-of-court settlement to validate the waiver of claims in this area, which must be understood as valid and covered by the liability-releasing effect expressly recognized by the Labor Code as of Law No. 21,361 to final settlement agreements.