/ New Labor Directorate Ruling on Exceptions to Working Hour Limits

The Labor Directorate issued Ruling No. 252/20, which revisits previous rulings and establishes new doctrine regarding the concept of “immediate superior supervision.”

Francisco Espinoza
Area director

The Labor Directorate issued a new ruling on April 16, 2026, updating the doctrine regarding the exclusion from working hour limits for workers without immediate superior supervision, and focusing on the specific nature of the duties rather than solely on formal or technological elements.

PREVIOUS DOCTRINE:

The second paragraph of Article 22 of the Labor Code provides:

“Workers who provide services as managers, administrators, agents with administrative powers, and all those who work without immediate supervision due to the nature of the work performed, shall be excluded from the limitation on working hours. (…)”

Interpreting the meaning and scope of this provision with regard to the second scenario, the Labor Directorate, in Opinion No. 84/04 of February 6, 2024, noted that, recognizing the need to update institutional doctrine regarding the concept of immediate superior supervision, it is deemed essential to clarify that:

“it shall be understood that this condition is met when the following requirements are cumulatively satisfied:

a) Criticism or evaluation of the work performed, which means, in other words, supervision or control of the services provided;

b) The supervision or control is exercised by;

• persons of higher rank or hierarchy within the company or establishment or;
• automated means without human intervention.

c) That such supervision or control is exercised in a contiguous or close manner, a requirement that must be understood in the sense of functional proximity between the person supervising or overseeing and the person performing the work. This proximity should no longer be limited solely to physical or spatial closeness but should be extended to all possibilities of supervision and control made possible by technological development.

In summary, it noted that only those services or functions which, by their nature, “present an impediment of such magnitude as to inhibit the use of any lawful means of supervision or control” could be exempted.

NEW DOCTRINE:

Through the new Opinion No. 252/20, dated April 16, 2026, the DT noted that some of the criteria mentioned do not align adequately with the literal wording of the law or with a harmonious interpretation of the labor legal system, particularly regarding the concept of immediate superior supervisionand the impact of technological control mechanisms on determining the appropriateness of the exclusion from working hours.

To this end, it noted that Article 22, paragraph 2, explicitly establishes that the exclusion from the workday applies to those who work without immediate supervision “due to the nature of the work performed,” meaning that the determination of the applicability of the exclusion cannot be made in the abstract or based on formal elements—such as job title,

the contractual designation, or the existence of a time-recording system—but rather requires a concrete analysis of the nature of the duties the worker actually performs, specifying that such analysis must consider, among other factors:

(i) whether the worker autonomously organizes their work schedule and working arrangements;

(ii) whether their work is evaluated based on results or adherence to a schedule;

(iii) whether there is a supervisor who directly oversees the manner and timing of task execution;

(iv) whether the nature of the position involves representing the employer or making autonomous decisions; and

(v) whether existing control mechanisms affect the execution of the work or only its results.

Likewise, it added that the analysis must also take into account current forms of work organization, characterized by greater functional autonomy, performance-based objectives, remote or hybrid work, and less hierarchical organizational structures—circumstances that may be compatible with the exclusion of the limitation on working hours.

Thus, in summary, he noted that:

• Subordination and dependence, as an essential element of the employment contract, should not be confused with immediate superior supervision. A worker may be fully subject to the relationship of subordination and dependence and, at the same time, be excluded from the limitation on working hours, if the nature of their duties does not entail direct and functional control over the manner and timing in which they perform their work.

• The existence of recording mechanisms, technological tools, reporting systems, or traceability systems does not, in and of itself, constitute immediate superior supervision nor does it, by itself, preclude its applicability. The determining factor is whether such mechanisms imply, in practice, direct, functional, and effectively exercised control over the manner and timing in which the work is performed.

• Although the geographical criterion was eliminated as a basis for excluding the limitation of working hours, the substantive standard of immediate superior supervision was not modified, nor was it established that the technological availability of supervision is equivalent to its effective exercise.