Last Monday, September 11, the congresswoman Maria del Carmen Alva presented project No. 31572, which seeks to modify various articles of the Teleworking Lawfocusing mainly on work time.
The project establishes that the remote working day will be equivalent to the in-person one. However, it adds details about the activities permitted to teleworkers. In addition, the document is co-authored by legislators Silvia Monteza Facho, Karol Paredes Fonseca and José Alberto Arriola.
“(…) the teleworker is prohibited from carrying out domestic or private tasks, if this is the case, it constitutes a abandonment of duties and, therefore, the abandonment of the job, with the corresponding sanctions being applicable and the reversal of the teleworking modality”, reads the letter presented by Alva.
Infobae Peru spoke with two Labor lawyers to analyze this scenario and how it could be executed. It should be noted that it must first be approved by the Labor and Social Security Commission and then it will be transferred to the Plenary Session of Congress.
The main associate of Estudio Muñiz, Cesar Puntrianodescribed the modification of this article as “unnecessary”, because it argues that the collaborator must already be available for the tasks entrusted to him by his company.
“This part of the project is unnecessary. Because? For two reasons. First, because today teleworkers who are subject to work hours must remain at the employer’s disposal during said time. For example, a person who teleworks from 9 in the morning to 6 in the afternoon has to be available during that period except during their snack hours,” he explained.
In a second point, Puntriano added that there are teleworkers without a specific schedule, where what matters is not the time connected, but the results obtained.
For its part, Lidia Vilchez, associate of Philippi Prietocarrizosa Ferrero DU & Uría, argued that the proposal goes against the “principle of reasonableness.” She pointed out that the teleworking modality is chosen by employees for several reasons, including the possibility of combining domestic and professional tasks.
“The logic of teleworking that makes it functional for many employees is precisely the possibility of making certain personal or family activities compatible with work. For this reason, the teleworking rule provides that the parties can agree on a flexible schedule. (…) I can work from home, but “at a certain time I am allowed to stop to cook, sit down and continue working, and that half hour it took me to cook will mean that I will work half an hour more,” he argued.
Vilchez added that only by demonstrating that the employee do activities outside your home A dismissal could be justified, “but the fact that there is an absolute prohibition on carrying out any domestic activity does not withstand an analysis of reasonableness.”
Both specialists were consulted for possible approval, who agreed that it could be a matter of “a violation of the right to privacy”. This is how they say that there are other ways that the collaborator can incur a fault when he does not comply with the provisions of his boss.
“It is not possible to have an inspection that does not imply a violation of the worker’s right to privacy. There would be no way to supervise it, but the consequence of non-compliance is triggered when there is evidence of such non-compliance,” says Vilchez.
“Means of control would have to be resorted to do not affect the intimacy or privacy of the teleworker. For example, it would not be valid to place a permanent video surveillance camera or enter your home without your consent. But, if the employer makes a video call and the teleworker is in the park, on the beach, shopping, that is proof,” says Puntriano.
In this way, they point out that if the employee objects to turning on his camera in a meeting or turns it on when he is in a public placecould be sanctioned from now on.