Executives outside Peru often hear about a labor inspection only when a fine is already proposed. By then, the most valuable decisions have been taken, sometimes by default. A SUNAFIL matter is not a single event but a sequence of stages, each with its own deadlines, evidentiary rules and opportunities to reduce exposure. Understanding that sequence lets a regional legal team or an investor’s counsel ask the right question at each point: what can still be changed here, and what will be locked in once this stage closes?
Two processes, not one
Peruvian law separates two phases that are easy to conflate.
- The inspection (actuaciones inspectivas) is a fact-finding exercise led by an inspector of SUNAFIL, the national labor inspection authority created by Law 29981. Its purpose is to verify compliance and, where possible, obtain correction.
- The administrative sanctioning procedure (procedimiento administrativo sancionador, or PAS) is a separate process in which SUNAFIL decides whether to impose a fine. It always starts on SUNAFIL’s own initiative, with a notice of charges based on an infringement report.
The governing rules are Law 28806 (the General Labor Inspection Law), its implementing regulation, Supreme Decree 019-2006-TR, and, for general procedural matters, the Consolidated Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law (Supreme Decree 004-2019-JUS). SUNAFIL acts as first and second instance in the sanctioning procedure; an exceptional further review is decided by the Labor Inspection Tribunal (Tribunal de Fiscalización Laboral, or TFL), which has national jurisdiction and whose decision exhausts the administrative route.
The full sequence at a glance
| Stage | What happens | Timing reference | Company priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Order and preliminary actions | Inspection order issued; possible compliance-management or conciliation steps | Varies | Identify scope and trigger |
| 2. Investigation | Visits, summonses, document requests, interviews | Generally up to 30 business days | Produce complete, consistent evidence |
| 3. Inspection measures | Warning, compliance order, or stoppage for imminent risk | Period set in the order | Cure within the period, and prove it |
| 4. Infringement report | Inspector records uncured breaches and proposes a fine | End of investigation | Assess whether to cure or contest |
| 5. Sanctioning procedure | Notice of charges, defense, final report, first-instance decision | Short windows, counted in business days | Build the legal defense |
| 6. Appeal and review | Appeal to second instance; exceptional review by the TFL | Short windows from notification | Preserve arguments and evidence |
| 7. Collection and court review | Enforced collection; contentious-administrative claim | After final decision | Manage payment and litigation strategy |
Stage 1: the inspection order and preliminary actions
Under article 12 of Law 28806, an inspection may originate in an order from a superior authority, a request from another public entity or a court, an employee or union complaint, an internal SUNAFIL decision, the inspector’s own initiative, or a request for guidance. The law also recognizes preliminary actions that precede investigation: a compliance-management module and administrative conciliation, introduced in 2018. Guidance visits (actuaciones de orientación) do not lead to sanctions; investigative actions can.
The inspection order defines the subjects to be reviewed. Reading it carefully is the first practical step, because it tells the company which records and which people will matter. Our note on what to do when SUNAFIL inspects your company covers the first day in detail.
Stage 2: investigation
Investigative actions generally may not last more than 30 business days, unless the delay is attributable to the employer; extensions may be authorized for the time needed, except in occupational health and safety matters. The inspector may visit the workplace without notice, summon the company to appear with documents (a comparecencia, in person or virtually), and verify data against public registries.
Two features shape this stage. First, the inspector applies the principle of primacía de la realidad: what actually happens prevails over what documents say. Second, the company’s conduct is itself under review. Refusing or hindering the inspection, abandoning a diligence, or failing to attend a summons are infringements under article 36 of Law 28806, independently of any substantive breach. Our note on ignoring a SUNAFIL request explains how that exposure arises.
Stage 3: inspection measures
If the inspector detects a breach, the law provides for measures rather than immediate sanction: a warning; a compliance order (medida de requerimiento) that sets a period to correct the breach; a temporary closure of an area or unit in specific cases; and the stoppage or prohibition of work where there is serious and imminent risk to health or safety. Following a fatal accident, the inspector may order temporary closure for the maximum duration of the investigation; during closure, wages remain payable, days count as worked and vacation cannot be granted.
This is the decisive commercial moment. If the breach is cured before the infringement report is issued, the proposed fine for the cured infringements carries a 90% reduction, a benefit that is lost if the company later contests those infringements. Our analysis of curing labor infringements explains how to evidence a cure so that it is credited.
Key point
Failing to comply with a compliance order is itself classified as a very serious infringement against the inspection. An order should never be left unanswered, even when the company disagrees with it; disagreement should be put on record in writing, within the period.
Stage 4: the infringement report
When the compliance period expires without correction, the inspector issues an infringement report (acta de infracción). It describes the facts, the infringements, the affected employees and the proposed fine. Article 47 of Law 28806 gives the facts recorded in it a presumption of truth, which can be rebutted only with evidence. In practice, a report built on an incomplete document file is hard to overturn later.
Stage 5: the sanctioning procedure
The procedure has an investigative phase and a decision phase, handled by different units. It begins with a notice of charges (imputación de cargos) based on the report. Under the implementing regulation, the company has five business days to submit its written defense (descargos). The investigating unit then prepares a final report, generally within ten business days, which is notified to the company with a further short window for comments. The decision unit then issues the first-instance resolution, either imposing a fine or closing the case.
Legal note
Article 45 of Law 28806 still refers to a longer defense period from its original text, while the regulation, aligned with the general administrative procedure law, provides five business days. Companies should plan on the shorter period and confirm the deadline stated in each notice.
Where the breach is cured after the infringement report is notified and before the deadline to appeal expires, the law reduces the fine to 30% of its amount. The fine calculation itself, including caps and reductions for small businesses, is explained in our note on how labor fines are calculated.
Stage 6: appeal and review
The first-instance resolution may be appealed to the second instance within the general appeal period (fifteen business days under the general administrative procedure law). If the appeal is decided and the company then evidences the cure within ten business days of notification, the fine is reduced to 50%. A further review appeal (recurso de revisión) before the TFL is exceptional, with grounds narrower than an ordinary appeal. The TFL’s decision exhausts the administrative route.
A general time limit also applies: under the general administrative procedure law, a sanctioning procedure generally expires nine months from the notice of charges, extendable by up to three months. Expiry arguments depend on exact dates and notification records, which is another reason to keep a complete file.
Stage 7: collection and court review
Once the fine is final in the administrative route, SUNAFIL may pursue enforced collection. The company may bring a contentious-administrative claim before the courts, but under article 51 of Law 28806, filing that claim, or a constitutional action, does not suspend enforced collection unless a court orders otherwise. Separately, where a resolution determines that a fatal accident resulted from health and safety breaches, SUNAFIL must refer it to the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Illustrative scenario
Illustrative scenario: a US-owned logistics company with 260 employees in Peru receives an inspection prompted by a union complaint about rest days. The inspector issues a compliance order requiring payment of premium pay for worked rest days. Regional finance, based in Miami, disputes the calculation and instructs the local team to wait for a group review. The compliance period expires; an infringement report follows, now covering both the pay issue and the failure to comply with the order.
Had the company paid the undisputed portion within the period, documented it, and put its disagreement on the remainder on record, it could have obtained the 90% reduction for what was cured, avoided the separate very serious infringement, and kept its legal arguments for the rest. The group review was not wrong in itself; its timing was.
Governance lessons for international groups
- Map, in advance, which stage requires which level of approval, and delegate stage 3 decisions (cure or contest) to people who can act within days.
- Treat the electronic mailbox as a legal inbox: deadlines run from notification, not from when the notice is read.
- Keep one consolidated file per inspection, with every request, delivery and acknowledgment; it will be needed at every later stage.
- Involve counsel before the infringement report, not after the fine.
Bottom line
The inspection process in Peru rewards early, documented action and penalizes delay at each stage. The largest reductions are available before the infringement report, the defense windows in the sanctioning procedure are short, and court challenges do not by themselves stop collection. For the wider framework, see our guide to labor inspections in Peru; for hands-on support at any stage, see our labor inspection defense service.