Introduction
The SUNAFIL (Superintendencia Nacional de Fiscalización Laboral – National Superintendence of Labor Inspection) issued Resolution No. 405-2024-SUNAFIL/TFL-First Chamber, which resolves the appeal for review filed by Banco BBVA Peru. This appeal was filed in response to an economic sanction imposed for not renewing the contract of a pregnant worker, an infraction considered “very serious” in the labor framework.
Background
The case originated due to an inspection order issued by the Regional Intendency of Cusco to verify compliance with social and labor regulations. The investigation displayed that Banco BBVA Peru did not renew the contract of a pregnant worker, which, according to the respective authority, contravened Article 6 of Law No. 30709. This law prohibits the dismissal or non-renewal of contracts for reasons related to pregnancy or breastfeeding.
The process culminated in issuing Sanction Sub-Intendency Resolution No. 631-2022-SUNAFIL/IRE CUSCO-SISA, which imposed a fine of S/ 346,698.00 to Banco BBVA Perú.
Appeal Arguments for Review
BBVA Peru argued in its appeal for review that it did not renew the contract for objective reasons, such as poor performance and customer complaints. It also pointed out that the worker was reinstated in her job by court order, which remedied any alleged infringement.
The bank’s main points of defense included:
- Causal Nexus: The non-renewal of the contract was not related to the pregnancy, as the renewal was during the state of gestation in May 2021.
- Substantiation: The worker was reinstated in her position through a court ruling, which, according to the bank, remedied the breach.
- Violation of the typicality principle: They argued that the sanctioned infraction does not comply with Law No. 30709, which principally prohibits discrimination in remuneration, not specifically protection during pregnancy.
Ruling Implications
The ruling underlines the importance of administrative acts, especially in sanctioning procedures. It also highlights that the reinstatement of a female worker by court order may affect the assessment of labor violations related to protection during pregnancy.
The case also clarifies that penalties for labor infractions related to protection during pregnancy may affect the assessment of labor infractions related to pregnancy protection.