Curing labor infringements in Peru to reduce fines

Peru’s labor inspection system is designed less to collect fines than to obtain compliance, and the law puts a price on timing to encourage it. An employer that corrects a breach early pays a fraction of the fine; one that corrects late pays more; one that never corrects pays in full, and may face aggravation for repeat offences. For a regional HQ deciding whether to authorize back payments across a Peruvian workforce, the fine reduction rules are often the decisive economic argument. This note sets out the three reduction windows exactly as they appear in the legal texts, the conditions attached to each, and how to evidence a cure so that it is credited.

What “curing” means under Peruvian law

The Spanish term is subsanación: correcting the breach and reversing its effects for the affected employees. Under article 49 of Supreme Decree 019-2006-TR, the regulation of the General Labor Inspection Law (Law 28806), reductions apply only to curable infringements, meaning those whose effects on the affected employees can be reversed.

In practice, curing means completed action: back pay actually deposited, registrations actually made, rest days actually granted, safety measures actually implemented. A remediation plan, a board approval or a commitment to pay next month is not a cure.

The three windows at a glance

Window 1: before the infringement report (90% reduction)

During the inspection, the inspector usually issues a compliance order (medida de requerimiento) setting a period to correct the breach. If the employer cures before the infringement report (acta de infracción) is issued, article 17.3 of the regulation, as amended by Supreme Decree 012-2013-TR, provides that the proposed fine is accompanied by a 90% reduction for the infringements effectively cured.

The condition is significant: the benefit is lost if the company files a written defense against the infringement report or challenges the resulting fine with respect to those infringements. The logic is that the company has accepted the finding in exchange for the reduction.

Window 2: after the report, before the appeal deadline (fine at 30%)

If the infringement report has already been notified, the employer can still obtain a significant benefit. Under article 40(a) of Law 28806, if the cure is proven from notification of the infringement report and until the deadline to appeal expires, the fine is reduced to 30% of its amount.

Window 3: after the appeal is decided (fine at 50%)

Once the appeal has been resolved, article 40(b) of Law 28806 allows a final opportunity: if the sanctioned employer proves the cure within ten business days of notification of the appeal decision, the fine is reduced to 50% of its amount.

Under article 40, requests for these reductions are decided by the first-instance authority.

A worked illustration

Assume an employer outside the micro and small business regime commits a serious infringement affecting between one and ten employees. Under the current fine table (Supreme Decree 008-2020-TR), the fine is 1.57 UIT, equivalent to S/ 8,635 in 2026, when the UIT (a tax reference unit used to express fines) is S/ 5,500. Leaving aside the amounts owed to the employees, which are payable in all cases:

For a larger workforce, or for very serious infringements, the differences between windows are correspondingly greater. The full calculation method is explained in our note on how labor fines are calculated.

Illustrative scenario

Illustrative scenario: a Peruvian subsidiary of a German industrial group, with 180 employees, is inspected following a complaint about rest-day work. The inspector concludes that employees at one plant worked on their weekly rest day without substitute rest or the statutory premium, and issues a compliance order. The regional HQ in São Paulo must approve any back payment exceeding a set threshold, and its next committee meeting falls after the compliance period.

The local team, with counsel, separates the issues. For employees whose rest-day work is fully documented in the attendance system, the company pays the premium within the period and files the payment records with SUNAFIL: those infringements qualify for the 90% reduction, and the company decides not to contest them. For a smaller group where the records show the rest days were in fact compensated, the company files its evidence and contests the finding, accepting that the reduction will not apply to those points if it loses. Regional approval is obtained for a pre-defined remediation budget, so the decision can be taken inside the window.

Proving the cure

Cure is a matter of evidence. Depending on the breach, the file should include:

• proof of payment to each affected employee (bank transfers or payroll records), with a calculation schedule showing how each amount was determined;
• updated payroll registrations or corrected filings, with their confirmation receipts;
• revised attendance records, schedules or contracts where the breach concerned documentation;
• evidence of implemented health and safety measures (photographs, purchase records, training attendance lists, updated risk assessments);
• a cover submission to SUNAFIL, in Spanish, cross-referencing each finding to its evidence.

Partial cure should be presented as such. Claiming a complete cure that the documents do not support undermines the company’s credibility on every other point.

Cure or contest: a decision framework

Curing is not always the right choice. A company may have solid grounds to dispute a finding, or the “breach” may reflect a legal interpretation that affects many other employees. We recommend deciding infringement by infringement:

1. Is the finding legally and factually sound? If yes, early cure is usually the most economical path.
2. Is it curable? If the effects cannot be reversed, no reduction will apply, and the defense strategy matters more.
3. What does contesting cost? Weigh the reduction forfeited, the likely outcome, and any precedent effect across the workforce or the group.
4. Is there a wider exposure? A cure for the inspected employees may reveal the same issue elsewhere; our note on identifying employment liabilities explains how to size it.
5. Who can decide in time? Build a delegated authority for remediation within the compliance period, so the best window is not lost to internal approvals.

Common mistakes

• Treating the compliance order as the start of a negotiation, and letting the period expire (see ignoring a SUNAFIL request).
• Curing, obtaining the 90% reduction, and then filing a defense against the same infringements, which forfeits it.
• Paying the affected employees without documenting the calculation, so SUNAFIL cannot verify the cure.
• Assuming that a cure closes the matter: the underlying facts may still support employee claims in court.
• Relying on unofficial reduction tables instead of the legal text.

Bottom line

The Peruvian rules on cure are straightforward once stated precisely: 90% reduction before the infringement report, a fine at 30% until the appeal deadline, and a fine at 50% within ten business days of the appeal decision, only for curable infringements and only with proof. The practical challenge for international groups is timing, which depends on internal governance more than on the law. For the full sequence in which these windows open and close, see the stages of a labor inspection and our guide to labor inspections in Peru. For help deciding whether to cure or contest, see our labor inspection defense service.