In many multinational groups, the instinct when an unexpected regulatory letter arrives abroad is to pause: escalate, wait for guidance, avoid saying anything until the position is clear. In a Peruvian labor inspection, that instinct is costly. A request from SUNAFIL, Peru’s national labor inspection authority, comes with a deadline, and the process moves on when the deadline expires, with or without the company’s input. This note explains what counts as “ignoring” a request, what the law attaches to it, and how to recover if a deadline has already been missed.
Not all requests are the same
SUNAFIL communicates with employers at several points in an inspection and in the sanctioning procedure that may follow. Each request carries different consequences if left unanswered.
| Request | What it is | If ignored |
|---|---|---|
| Document request | Inspector requires records, on the spot or by a set date | Possible infringement against the inspection; findings made on incomplete evidence |
| Summons to appear (comparecencia) | Company is called to attend, in person or virtually, with documents | Failure to attend is an infringement under article 36 of Law 28806 |
| Compliance order (medida de requerimiento) | Inspector orders correction of a breach within a period | Very serious infringement; infringement report on the underlying breach |
| Notice of charges (imputación de cargos) | Opens the sanctioning procedure | Procedure continues on the basis of the infringement report |
The mechanics of each stage are set out in our note on the stages of a labor inspection.
The legal framework: infringements against the inspection
Law 28806, the General Labor Inspection Law, treats the employer’s conduct during the inspection as a compliance matter in its own right. Under article 36, as amended in 2019, the following are infringements against the inspection:
- an unjustified refusal or any impediment, direct or indirect, to the inspection;
- abandoning an inspection diligence once it has started; and
- failing to attend a diligence to which the company was duly summoned.
The implementing regulation, Supreme Decree 019-2006-TR, classifies inspection-related infringements as minor or very serious. Failing to comply with a compliance order is classified as a very serious infringement against the inspection. In addition, article 48.1-C provides that certain infringements against the inspection are calculated on the company’s total workforce, rather than on the number of affected employees, which can multiply the amount for large employers. Our note on how labor fines are calculated explains the table and caps.
Legal note
Obstructing the investigation of a fatal workplace accident is treated with particular severity: Law 28806 provides for both a fine and the temporary closure of the workplace or unit concerned.
The electronic mailbox: where most deadlines are lost
Most notices reach employers through SUNAFIL’s electronic mailbox (casilla electrónica), a mandatory electronic notification system established by regulation (Supreme Decree 003-2020-TR). The practical consequence is that a notice is legally served when it is deposited in the mailbox in accordance with the rules, not when someone opens it.
For foreign-owned companies, the mailbox is a common weak point. Access may sit with a former finance manager, alerts may go to an unmonitored address, or the local team may assume the external accountant is checking it. Holiday periods and management transitions make the problem worse.
Watch out
A notice that sits unread in the electronic mailbox for a week is, legally, a week of the deadline already spent. Mailbox monitoring should be assigned by name, with a back-up, and tested periodically.
What ignoring a request actually costs
The exposure accumulates in four ways.
1. A separate infringement. The obstruction or non-compliance infringement is added to any substantive finding. A company inspected for an overtime issue can end up sanctioned for overtime and for failing to comply with the compliance order.
2. Findings on the inspector’s evidence alone. If the company does not produce documents, the inspector relies on what is available: interviews, complaints, public registries. Facts recorded in the infringement report are presumed true unless proven otherwise (article 47 of Law 28806). Rebutting them later, with documents the company chose not to produce during the inspection, is difficult.
3. Lost reductions. Curing a breach before the infringement report is issued triggers a 90% reduction of the proposed fine for the infringements cured, provided the company does not later contest them. Letting a compliance order expire usually means the infringement report is issued and that reduction is gone. Later reductions exist, but they are smaller; see our note on curing labor infringements.
4. Procedural consequences. In the sanctioning procedure, a missed deadline for the written defense means the decision will be made without the company’s arguments. After the final administrative decision, filing a court claim does not by itself suspend enforced collection of the fine.
Illustrative scenario
Illustrative scenario: a Peruvian subsidiary of a Spanish retail group, with 210 employees across several stores, receives a compliance order through the electronic mailbox in late December. The order requires it to pay the difference in night-work premiums to a group of employees within a set period. The local HR director is on leave; the mailbox alerts go to a generic finance address; the regional HQ in Madrid learns of the order in mid-January, after the period has expired.
At that point, the inspector has issued an infringement report covering both the night-work pay issue and the failure to comply with the order. The company can still correct the pay issue and, if it does so before the deadline to appeal the first-instance resolution, obtain a fine reduced to 30% of its amount for the cured infringement. But the 90% reduction is no longer available, and the non-compliance infringement is now part of the record. Nothing in the underlying facts changed between December and January; only the timing did.
If a deadline has already been missed
The worst response to a missed deadline is to continue to say nothing. As a general approach, we recommend:
- Act immediately. Obtain the full file: inspection order, notices, compliance order, any records of diligences.
- Respond in writing. Deliver the requested documents or information, explain the reasons for the delay factually, and confirm the company’s willingness to cooperate. Do not overstate the reasons.
- Cure what can be cured. If a breach is undisputed, correct it and document the correction in a form the inspector can verify.
- State disagreements with evidence. Where the company disagrees, set out why and provide supporting documents.
- Plan for the next stage. Identify the remaining windows for defense and for fine reductions, and assign responsibilities.
None of this guarantees a particular outcome, but it keeps options open and improves the record on which SUNAFIL will decide.
What a sound written response contains
Whether on time or late, a response to SUNAFIL is evidence, and it will be read alongside the inspector’s own notes. It should be written in Spanish, signed by someone with documented authority to represent the Peruvian entity, and filed through the channel indicated in the notice. As a matter of practice, a sound response:
- identifies the inspection order and the specific request it answers;
- lists each document delivered, with an index that matches the request item by item;
- explains, briefly and factually, any document that does not exist or cannot be produced, and offers an alternative source;
- describes any correction already made, with proof of payment or registration attached; and
- avoids general statements of compliance that the documents do not support.
For groups whose documents are drafted abroad, a short internal review before filing is worth the time: a response that contradicts the payroll records, or that uses job titles that differ from those in the contracts, gives the inspector new points to test. The objective is not length but coherence between what the company says and what its records show.
Preventive recommendations
- Assign the electronic mailbox to named individuals in Peru, with a back-up and daily checks.
- Keep the mailbox credentials under the control of the Peruvian entity, and update them when people leave.
- Pre-authorize the local team to respond to routine requests and to cure undisputed breaches without regional sign-off.
- Keep core records producible in Spanish within days (see our guide on preparing for a SUNAFIL appearance).
- Brief regional and global teams on Peruvian inspection timelines, so that escalation does not become delay.
- Review past inspections for patterns; our note on common employer mistakes during a labor inspection lists the recurring ones.
Bottom line
A SUNAFIL request is not an invitation to negotiate a timetable; it is a legal step with a deadline and consequences. Ignoring it adds infringements, hands the inspector the evidentiary initiative and closes the cheapest route to resolution. Treat the electronic mailbox as a legal inbox and give the local team the authority to act. For the broader context, see our guide to labor inspections in Peru; for help with a pending request or a missed deadline, see our labor inspection defense service.