/ New Milestone for the 42-Hour Workweek: Implementation Rules and the End of the Proportional Minimum Wage
March 23, 2026At the end of April 2026, the second phase of the plan to reduce the standard workweek begins. More than a simple reduction in hours, this milestone consolidates the transformation initiated by Law 21,561 and marks the transition from an interpretive discussion to a predominantly operational phase.
Associate
On April 26, the standard workweek in Chile will be reduced from a maximum of 44 to 42 hours per week. The real impact lies in how this reduction is to be implemented and in the administrative definitions accompanying its implementation.
The 40-hour reform was originally designed as a gradual process; however, this gradual approach did not prevent interpretive tensions from arising during its initial phase of implementation.
The transition from 45 to 44 hours exposed significant legal gaps regarding how employers were to implement the reduction and what its technical limits were—all matters that the law originally did not address.
1. End of the Division of the Workweek into Minutes
During the first implementation phase, in April 2024, the Labor Directorate (DT) adopted a restrictive approach regarding how the reduction in working hours should be implemented. Through Rulings No. 235/8 and 599/25, the authority interpreted the following: the reduction in working hours could not be implemented by dividing the hour into daily minutes—for example, reducing 12 minutes over five days—but rather, in the absence of an agreement with the workers, a full hour must be deducted on the days determined by the employer.
The basis for this interpretation lay in the purpose of the reform: a marginal reduction of 10 or 12 minutes per day did not satisfy the legal objective of providing quality time and effective rest to workers, as it diluted the benefit and distorted the purpose of the regulation.
At the same time, various Labor Courts throughout the country overturned the fines imposed by the DT, ruling in favor of companies that had implemented reductions of 10 or 12 minutes per day. The dispute even escalated to the Court of Appeals of La Serena, which upheld the lower court’s decision, adopting the permissive approach of reducing the workday by daily minutes (ICA La Serena Labor Case No. 310-2024).
This tension in the interpretation of the law created a scenario of uncertainty for companies, particularly regarding the possibility of dividing the reduction into daily minutes distributed evenly throughout the week.
With the entry into force of Law 21.755 in July 2025, that debate came to an end. The legislature opted for an explicit regulatory approach: In the absence of an agreement between the employer and the employee, the reduction from 44 to 42 hours must be implemented as either one hour or 50 minutes per day, according to the distribution determined by the employer, excluding marginal reductions that would effectively negate the benefit. This brings to a close the debate that pitted the administrative authority against the courts and definitively eliminates the minimum fraction as a valid alternative.
As a result, the debate ceases to be a matter of legal doctrine and becomes primarily a matter of compliance.
2. The End of the Controversy Over Proportional Minimum Wage
One of the critical issues of the reform has been the applicability of the proportional Monthly Minimum Wage (MMW) in light of the reduction in working hours. The question raised was precise: if regular working hours are reduced, is there a legal basis for proportionally adjusting the wage base?
The interpretive law has cleared up this ambiguity. A reduction in working hours does not justify a decrease in wages nor does it authorize indirect compensation through agreements that alter the wage structure. By virtue of the principle of wage invariance, even if the worker performs services for fewer regular weekly hours, their monthly wages must remain in full.
This criterion has been reinforced by the Labor Directorate (Ruling No. 827-48), confirming that any workweek exceeding 30 hours but less than 42 hours must be fully compensated at the minimum wage.
In practical terms, this change in criteria implies that the hourly rate for workers whose workweek exceeds 30 hours but is less than 42 hours will see a significant increase, since the same monthly pay must be distributed over fewer regular hours. Similarly, the value of overtime—calculated based on the regular hourly rate—will also increase. This economic impact is significant and must be duly considered by companies when projecting labor costs and reviewing their productivity models, making it necessary to rethink their workweek structures.
3. Organizational Impact and Redesign of the Regular Workweek
The effective implementation of this new process to reduce the workweek to 42 hours requires clear management by companies; it entails reviewing various variables, shift systems, work distribution schedules, and updating annexes to employment contracts, which will become obsolete as of April of this year.
In structures with complex shifts or continuous operations, the reduction may necessitate increasing staffing levels, reconfiguring breaks, or recalculating overtime exposure. Where the workweek was already at the legal limit, the adjustment is no small matter; it will involve organizational decisions that must be made based on technical criteria and supported by documentation.
The reduction to 42 hours should therefore be understood not as a marginal adjustment but as a decisive step in the consolidation of the new labor standard, with distribution rules that are now defined by law.
Organizations that proactively adapt to these regulatory changes—by rigorously reviewing the distribution of their workweeks and documenting the corresponding changes—will undoubtedly be in a better position to navigate this new landscape, where the margin for interpretation has narrowed significantly and compliance standards are being enforced with greater rigor.
This article was published in El Mercurio Legal
