Regarding legal cross-reference to the interruption of liberative prescription (statute of limitations) in labour law. Critical thoughts

Abstract

The present study hopes to prove certain inconsistencies in Article 510 of the Chilean Labour Code, that involve the violation of the principle of protection that inspire Labour law. Specifically, the author criticizes the forwarding ordered by said regulation to Article 2423 of the Civil Code, on account of the regulation of civil interruption of statute of limitations by means of a “requirement”, and the hardening undertaken by the Supreme Court of the criteria used to determine the instant in which the interruption is carried out. For these purposes, the author exposes the various existing opinions in regard to the moment of interruption, and also refers to the dangers in transferring some long-standing civil discussions towards the Labour Code. Then he explains the standpoint he values as sheltering for the rights of the dependant and suggests a lege ferenda solution to the administrative processing before Labour Inspection.