If you are a worker who works remotely, you should know that the Congressional Labor and Social Security Commission approved a ruling a few weeks ago that proposes a set of reforms to the Teleworking Law, among which are the prohibition of private or private activities during their work day.
Likewise, the legislative proposal contained in project 5889/2023-CR by parliamentarian Maria del Carmen Alva leaves open the possibility of sanctioning any outside activity that is being carried out during the teleworker’s hours. To address the scope and its impacts on Peruvian labor legislation, La República spoke with two specialists on the subject.
They seek to prohibit particular activities at work: is this measure viable?
In Peru there are around 220,000 people who work remotely, according to information from the Ministry of Labor and Employment Promotion (MTPE) corresponding to the period 2023. Although in 2022 the Teleworking Law was published, whose purpose is the to guarantee the same labor rights that the face-to-face modality has, the On March 12, the Labor and Social Security Commission approved various changes to this rule that directly affect teleworkers.
Law opinion 5889/2023-CR seeks to modify articles 3,11,21 and 23 of the Teleworking Law, which stipulates, among other points, the prohibition of carrying out private or private activities during teleworking hours. If the worker fails to comply unjustifiably with these measures, the employer could initiate a disciplinary procedure and subsequent sanction, as appropriate.
In the opinion of labor lawyer Germán Lora, partner at Damma Legal Advisors, the legislative reform promoted by parliamentarian María del Carmen Alva, proposes to clarify the obligations of every worker who works remotely.
“I believe that this rule is viable, since it has a good and correct intention, because whoever actually lives with teleworking, shows situations such as those raised in the bill. That is to say, although people are free, due to the natural teleworking transactions, to combine their professional life with their personal life, there must be moments where the provision of the service must be clear, correct and effective,” he indicated.
From the opposite side, the lawyer and parliamentary advisor, Walter Vargas, pointed out that the modification of article 21 of the Teleworking Law is “disproportionate” and is not in accordance with Peruvian labor legislation. “This modification is totally unreasonable and in any case, it should be subject to the regulations and clauses of the employment contract. By putting in the law that any non-compliance represents a serious disciplinary offense, they are telling us that it is grounds for dismissal,” he explained.
Finally, he highlighted that the standard establishes breaks for active breaks during the work day, issues related to safety and health in teleworking, as well as a provision to guarantee adequate access to connectivity and communication, which is the responsibility of the teleworker. in cases of change of place of work.
Digital disconnection and grounds for dismissal
Lawyer Germán Lora argued that based on the Teleworking Law, greater importance should be given to digital disconnection during the time when the worker is no longer working, or is enjoying their vacations.
“In Peru, greater importance should be given to digital disconnection, that is, that the teleworker is not obliged and is not sanctioned and repressed in any way for not answering phone calls, emails, or whatever.” within your rest period, and not just rest for a mandatory holiday or vacation. Regarding the law, it is necessary to give relevance to this new right,” he stated.
For his part, Walter Vargas said that details are needed to determine the causes why a teleworker disconnects during his work day and reiterated that the content of María del Carmen Alva’s legislative proposal does not specify under what circumstances an act would be committed. serious misconduct.
“This rule gives arbitrary power to employers that will cause them to have mandatory grounds for dismissal by law, when we know that all sanctions must be evaluated according to the seriousness of the offense. Not all interference from any family or personal domestic activity can be classified as serious misconduct, not in the understanding, for example, that a worker is absent for ten minutes or five minutes to attend to a personal emergency,” he stated.
Source: Larepublica
Alia is a professional author and journalist, working at 247 news agency. She writes on various topics from economy news to general interest pieces, providing readers with relevant and informative content. With years of experience, she brings a unique perspective and in-depth analysis to her work.
