Dismissal attracts most of the attention in Peruvian employment law, but day-to-day discipline is built on smaller measures: a documented conversation, a written warning, a short unpaid suspension. These measures correct behavior before it escalates, and they create the record that later justifies a dismissal when correction fails. Handled carelessly, they do the opposite: they generate claims of arbitrariness and leave the employer with no usable history when it needs one.
For international companies, the difficulty is often alignment. Group policies may use concepts such as “final written warning”, “performance improvement plan” or “suspension pending investigation” that do not map neatly onto Peruvian law. This article explains the measures available, how to apply proportionality, and how to adapt group practices. For the full termination framework, see our guide to termination of employment in Peru.
Where disciplinary power comes from
Subordination is one of the three essential elements of an employment relationship in Peru, alongside personal service and remuneration (article 9 of the Productivity and Competitiveness Law, the consolidated text of Legislative Decree 728, or LPCL). Within that framework, the employer can issue instructions, supervise their fulfillment and sanction breaches, within the limits of reasonableness.
The statute does not contain a detailed catalogue of lesser sanctions or their duration. That gap is filled by the internal work rules (Reglamento Interno de Trabajo, or RIT), which are mandatory for employers with more than 100 employees and must include rules on discipline and sanctions under Supreme Decree 039-91-TR. Our article on internal work rules in Peru explains their content and approval. Smaller employers can still adopt written disciplinary policies, and doing so is strongly advisable.
Key point
Proportionality is the organizing principle. The sanction should reflect the seriousness of the conduct, the employee’s role, intent, history and the harm caused, and should be consistent with how comparable conduct by others was treated.
The disciplinary scale
| Measure | Typical use | Key documentation |
|---|---|---|
| Verbal warning | First, minor breach; corrective conversation | Brief internal note with date and content |
| Written warning (amonestación escrita) | Minor or repeated breach; formal record | Letter describing facts, rule breached and consequences of recurrence |
| Unpaid suspension (suspensión sin goce de haber) | More serious breach not warranting dismissal, or recurrence after warnings | Letter with facts, rule, duration and dates; payroll adjustment |
| Dismissal | Serious misconduct under LPCL article 25 | Full statutory procedure: notice of charges, response, dismissal letter |
Why prior sanctions matter
Several statutory grounds for dismissal depend on history. Under article 25 of the LPCL, repeated lateness becomes serious misconduct only if it has been sanctioned. Repeated resistance to orders, repeated deliberate reduction in output and repeated intoxication are also defined by recurrence. Without a record of earlier warnings or suspensions, those grounds are hard to prove. Guidance on building that record is in documenting workplace misconduct.
Opportunity to comment
The statutory notice-and-response procedure in article 31 of the LPCL applies to dismissal. For lesser sanctions, the law does not impose the same formal procedure. As a professional recommendation, however, give the employee a short opportunity to explain before issuing a written warning or suspension. It improves the accuracy of the decision and strengthens the record if the sanction is later questioned.
Unpaid suspension versus paid release
This is where group policies and Peruvian law most often diverge. During a dismissal procedure, article 31 allows the employer to release the employee from attending work, provided this does not impair the defense and the employee continues to be paid. Many global policies instead provide for “suspension without pay pending investigation”.
Watch out
Applying an unpaid suspension before the facts are established is, in substance, a sanction imposed without procedure. It can also be challenged as an unjustified reduction of pay, which article 30 of the LPCL lists among acts of hostility. Where the employee must be kept away from the workplace during an investigation, use a paid release.
A similar rule applies in sexual harassment cases: under Supreme Decree 014-2019-MIMP, suspending the alleged harasser as a protective measure is an imperfect suspension, meaning the employee continues to be paid while the investigation runs.
Performance is not misconduct
Group policies often place underperformance and misconduct in the same disciplinary track, typically through a performance improvement plan (PIP) that ends in termination. Peruvian law treats them differently. Poor performance compared to the employee’s capacity and the average output in similar roles is a capacity ground under article 23 of the LPCL, not a conduct ground. Before dismissing for it, the employer must give the employee at least thirty calendar days in writing to demonstrate capacity or correct the deficiency. Only a deliberate and repeated reduction in output is serious misconduct under article 25.
In practice, this means a PIP can be a useful tool in Peru, but it should be designed with the statutory capacity procedure in mind: objective targets, comparison with peers, written communication, a period of at least thirty days and documented follow-up. Warnings for low sales or missed targets, by contrast, tend to be weak unless the shortfall results from deliberate conduct.
Sanctions and protected employees
Disciplinary measures must be applied with the same neutrality to every employee. Where the employee is a union officer or member of a union in formation, has recently filed a complaint against the employer, is pregnant, has a disability or has disclosed a serious illness, a sanction that looks inconsistent with how others were treated can be presented as retaliation or discrimination. Article 29 of the LPCL makes a dismissal on those grounds null, and inconsistent earlier sanctions are often the evidence used to prove motive. Before sanctioning a protected employee, check the comparators and document the rationale.
Illustrative scenario
Illustrative scenario
Illustrative scenario: a retail chain with 350 employees in Peru, owned by a Chilean group, applies a regional “three-strike” policy. After a cashier’s third cash-register discrepancy in six months, the store manager issues a “final written warning” in the morning and, following a later discrepancy that afternoon, sends her home “suspended without pay until further notice”.
Looking back, the first two discrepancies were discussed verbally but not recorded, so there is no documented history. The “final written warning” has no specific facts or amounts. The open-ended unpaid suspension has no defined duration and no finding that the cashier caused the shortfall. If the company later seeks to dismiss her, it will struggle to show recurrence, and the suspension itself may support a hostility claim.
A proportionate approach would record each discrepancy with the amount, the shift and the cashier’s explanation; issue written warnings that describe the facts; investigate the afternoon incident while the cashier remains on paid duty or paid release; and, if the facts justify it, apply a suspension of defined length stated in the RIT. If the pattern shows appropriation or deliberate misconduct, the company can move to the dismissal procedure described in dismissal for serious misconduct, starting with the notice of charges.
Checklist for a disciplinary measure
- Identify the specific conduct, date and rule breached.
- Check the employee’s disciplinary history and how similar cases were handled.
- Give the employee a brief opportunity to explain.
- Choose a measure proportionate to seriousness, intent, role and history.
- Put the measure in writing, in Spanish, with the facts and the consequence of recurrence.
- For suspensions, state the exact dates and coordinate the payroll adjustment.
- Obtain acknowledgment of receipt, or record refusal before witnesses.
- File the measure in the employee’s personnel record.
Common mistakes
- Warnings that state conclusions (“poor attitude”) without facts.
- Open-ended or unpaid suspensions pending investigation.
- Inconsistent treatment of similar conduct across teams or sites.
- Imposing a sanction and then using the same facts for dismissal, which exposes the employer to the objection that the conduct was already sanctioned.
- Relying on group policy terms that the RIT does not reflect.
- Failing to record verbal warnings, leaving no history for recurrence-based grounds.
Preventive recommendations
Review the RIT and any disciplinary policy against group standards, and make sure concepts such as “final warning” or “suspension pending investigation” are translated into measures Peruvian law recognizes. Train supervisors, who issue most warnings, on writing facts rather than opinions. And keep a simple register of sanctions by type of conduct, so HR can check consistency before each decision. Our disciplinary procedures team can review policies and help calibrate sanctions case by case.
Bottom line
Lesser disciplinary measures are the everyday tools of workplace management in Peru, and the foundation of any later dismissal. When they are specific, proportionate, consistent and documented, they correct behavior and create a reliable record. When they borrow uncritically from global templates, they tend to produce the opposite: an employee with a grievance and an employer without evidence.