To understand the scope of this decision, it is important to note that the Ministry of Labor uses circulars as guidance instruments to explain to employers and employees how the authority interprets and applies labor regulations within the scope of its powers. Accordingly, their purpose is to provide guidance on compliance with the rules in force, rather than to create new obligations or establish requirements that are not supported by law or regulations.

Following its review of the content of the circulars, the Ministry concluded that some of them had gone beyond their role of providing guidance to employers and employees on the application of labor regulations. In these cases, the circulars did not merely explain existing rules but instead established new obligations, requirements, or criteria that, given their nature, could only be created through a legal provision expressly authorizing the Ministry to do so. This does not mean that circulars are invalid simply because they are circulars; rather, the issue was that some of them included rules that exceeded what this type of instrument may establish. For this reason, the Ministry decided to withdraw them and render them without effect.

This decision is particularly relevant for companies, as several of these circulars had been used in recent months as references for adopting internal policies, procedures, and criteria concerning matters such as working hours and overtime, disciplinary proceedings, enhanced employment protection, freedom of association and collective bargaining, work performed through digital delivery platforms, and domestic work.

Accordingly, we recommend that companies review whether any of the circulars now rendered without effect were used as a basis for establishing or modifying internal policies, procedures, or practices and, if so, verify that such policies and practices remain supported by the labor regulations currently in force and make any necessary adjustments.

Below, we summarize the circulars covered by the decision and the main issues that we consider relevant for employers.

1. CIRCULARS REPEALED AND RENDERED WITHOUT EFFECT

Article 1 of the Resolution provides for the repeal and loss of effect, as of its publication, of the following instruments:

• External Circular 0101 of September 22, 2025: Regarding maximum working hours, domestic work, piece-rate compensation, the recording and monitoring of overtime, and compensation for work performed on mandatory rest days.
• Internal Circular 0120 of 2025: Regarding the procedure for obtaining authorization to terminate the employment relationship of individuals protected by enhanced employment protection due to disability or health conditions.
• Circular 0031 of March 17, 2026: Regarding care, gender equality, and social co-responsibility.
• External Circular 0032 of March 25, 2026: Regarding freedom of association, union leave, and compliance with collective bargaining agreements and conventions.
• Circular 0040 of April 16, 2026: Regarding working hours, overtime, and the recording of overtime in the private security and surveillance sector.
• Circular 0048 of May 22, 2026: Regarding due process in labor disciplinary proceedings and termination of employment for cause.
• Internal Circular 0049 of May 22, 2026: Regarding the procedure for obtaining authorization to terminate employment due to disability or health conditions.
• Circular 0057 of July 6, 2026: Regarding the principles of labor reform and contractual arrangements.
• Circular 0086 of July 29, 2026: Regarding the inspection, monitoring, and enforcement of work performed through digital delivery platforms.
• Circular 0088 of July 29, 2026: Regarding the preparation of the unified list of bargaining requests and the formation of the union bargaining committee.
• Circular 0089 of July 29, 2026: Regarding the inspection, monitoring, and enforcement of paid domestic work.

2. MAIN REASONS FOR THE MINISTRY’S DECISION

According to the review conducted by the Ministry of Labor, the circulars presented various issues relating to their content, drafting, and intended scope.

The main issues identified include the following:

• It was not always clear what was mandatory and what was merely guidance. Some circulars combined legal obligations, judicial decisions, recommendations, and public policy objectives without clearly explaining which of these contents were legally binding.
• Certain requirements or procedures were established that were not appropriate for a circular. In some cases, new requirements were imposed on employers and third parties through instruments that, by their nature, could not establish such obligations.
• Certain legal or judicial references required greater precision. The Ministry identified cases in which the laws or judicial decisions cited did not have precisely the scope attributed to them, which could create uncertainty as to the rules that should be applied.
• Certain provisions could affect rights or exceed the Ministry’s powers. One example identified was the possibility of entering private homes without consent in the context of inspection activities relating to paid domestic work.
• Some circulars were no longer necessary. Certain instruments had fulfilled the purpose for which they were issued or simply repeated rules already contained in higher-ranking legislation. Keeping them in force could create confusion as to which rules should actually apply.

Finally, the Ministry determined that these issues could not be adequately addressed simply by correcting certain provisions or partially amending the circulars. In its view, the identified shortcomings affected their content and scope more broadly, making it appropriate to withdraw them and render them without effect.

3. WHAT AREAS ARE AFFECTED BY THE MINISTRY’S DECISION?

The Ministry’s decision affects various areas of labor law. Below, we highlight those that may be particularly relevant for companies:

• Paid domestic work (Circular 0089 of 2026): The circular contemplated an exception allowing labor inspectors to enter a private home without the consent of the occupant or prior authorization where they considered that an imminent danger existed. The Ministry concluded that this authority was not within the inspectors’ powers. Accordingly, inspectors may no longer justify entry into a private home solely on the basis of their general inspection powers.
• Private security and surveillance (Circular 0040 of 2026): The circular stated that this sector was excluded from the general rules governing overtime. The Ministry clarified that the exception is more limited: private security and surveillance companies are not subject to the general limit of two hours of overtime per day and twelve hours per week, but they must comply with the other rules applicable to overtime, including those relating to compensation, record-keeping, and rest periods.
• Piece-rate compensation (External Circular 0101 of 2025): The circular included a formula for calculating economic compensation associated with the reduction in working hours. The Ministry clarified that this formula may not, by itself, be used to require a payment, determine a settlement, or impose a sanction. This does not, however, affect the statutory obligation to reduce working hours without reducing employees’ salaries.
• Due process in disciplinary proceedings (Circular 0048 of 2026): The circular provided detailed guidance on the steps to be followed in disciplinary proceedings and had been used as a reference to determine whether a proceeding complied with due process. The Ministry clarified that the circular may not, by itself, be regarded as the standard for determining whether a disciplinary proceeding is valid. Accordingly, companies must continue to apply directly the safeguards set forth in Article 115 of the Colombian Labor Code, as amended by Law 2466 of 2025.
• Enhanced employment protection (Internal Circulars 0120 of 2025 and 0049 of 2026): These circulars established, among other matters, documentation, requirements, and procedures for handling situations involving enhanced employment protection. The Ministry determined that such requirements could not be established through this type of instrument. Their withdrawal therefore does not alter the rules and protections recognized by case law, including Judgment SU-111 of 2025, which remains applicable.
• Freedom of association and collective bargaining (Circulars 0032 and 0088 of 2026): In these cases, the Ministry identified various issues. On the one hand, one of the circulars had been presented as a mandatory reference and linked non-compliance with its guidelines to potential sanctions and referrals to other authorities. On the other hand, an error was identified in the interpretation of a judicial decision concerning collective bargaining rules. Following the withdrawal of these circulars, these matters must be assessed directly on the basis of the applicable laws and case law.
• Digital delivery platforms (Circular 0086 of 2026): The circular provided instructions concerning the recognition of employment relationships in this sector. However, the Ministry reiterated that labor inspectors do not have the authority to independently determine the existence of individual rights or an employment relationship. In addition, the circular had been issued before Decree 0991 of August 4, 2026, entered into force, meaning that its content had to be reviewed in light of this new regulatory framework.
• Care, gender equality, and social co-responsibility (Circular 0031 of 2026): The circular combined recommendations with guidance concerning the adoption of internal policies, procedures, and programs, without clearly distinguishing which provisions were mandatory and which were merely recommendations.
• Principles of labor reform (Circular 0057 of 2026): The Ministry identified an imprecision in the way the circular described the scope of one of the provisions of the Colombian Labor Code amended by Law 2466 of 2025. This clarification is relevant to correctly determining the labor rules applicable to public employees subject to the special employment regime.

4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE MINISTRY’S DECISION?

The Ministry’s decision applies prospectively. This means that the fact that the circulars have been rendered without effect does not, by itself, mean that actions taken while they were in force are invalid, nor does it automatically affect legal situations that became consolidated during that period.

However, as of the effective date of Resolution 2708 of 2026, the withdrawn circulars may no longer be used as an independent legal basis for creating or imposing obligations, requirements, evidentiary burdens, procedures, sanctioning criteria, or conditions for accessing administrative procedures.

This is also relevant to administrative proceedings currently underway. The withdrawal of the circulars does not mean that such proceedings must automatically be closed or terminated. It does mean, however, that going forward, the authorities must determine the applicable rules on the basis of the Constitution, laws, regulations, and relevant case law, without relying on the withdrawn circulars as an independent legal basis for their decisions.

Furthermore, Resolution 2708 of 2026 does not automatically revive any previous circulars or administrative instructions that had been replaced or rendered without effect. At the same time, the Ministry must update its internal documents and tools, including its regulatory databases, protocols, checklists, forms, and training materials.

5. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The Ministry’s decision also establishes a series of measures to review and update the criteria applicable to the affected areas. For example, the inspection protocols relating to digital delivery platforms and the rules applicable to piece-rate compensation will be reviewed. New guidance will also be developed on freedom of association and collective bargaining, and the procedures relating to paid domestic work will be reviewed.

These reviews must be carried out within different timeframes established in the Resolution, including periods of 10, 15, and 30 business days. Accordingly, the Ministry may issue new instruments in the coming months, and we recommend monitoring any regulations and guidance issued in relation to these matters.

6. WHAT DO WE RECOMMEND TO COMPANIES?

In light of this decision, we recommend that companies review their internal documents and practices to determine whether any of the withdrawn circulars have been used as a basis for their policies or procedures. In particular, we recommend:

• Reviewing and updating internal policies, protocols, regulations, compliance matrices, regulatory databases, checklists, and training materials that refer to the withdrawn circulars.
• Reviewing internal work regulations and disciplinary procedures, ensuring that their rules and safeguards are directly supported by Article 115 of the Colombian Labor Code, as amended by Law 2466 of 2025, and by applicable case law, rather than exclusively by Circular 0048 of 2026.
• Reviewing pending applications for authorization to terminate the employment of employees with enhanced employment protection, bearing in mind that the requirements and procedures established in Circulars 0120 of 2025 and 0049 of 2026 may no longer be used as an independent basis, without prejudice to the rules and safeguards established by applicable case law, including Judgment SU-111 of 2025.
• Reviewing working-hour arrangements, overtime, and additional pay, particularly in the private security and surveillance sector and in relation to piece-rate employees, to ensure that calculations and internal practices are based directly on applicable law rather than on formulas or criteria contained in the withdrawn circulars.
• Maintaining documentary records and supporting evidence of actions taken while the circulars were in force, since the legal validity of each situation must be assessed in accordance with the rules applicable at the relevant time and the particular circumstances of each case.
• Reviewing ongoing administrative proceedings and, where appropriate, considering whether to request that the withdrawn circulars not be used as an independent basis for requests, evidentiary burdens, or potential sanctions.

7. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN IN PRACTICE?

Resolution 2708 of 2026 does not, by itself, change the labor obligations established by law or amend Law 2466 of 2025, Law 2101 of 2021, or other labor regulations currently in force. Its main effect is to withdraw certain Ministry instruments that had been used as references for interpreting and applying these rules.

Going forward, it will therefore be particularly important to clearly identify the legal basis for each labor obligation. Where a company, employee, or even an authority has been relying exclusively on one of the withdrawn circulars to support a particular requirement, its legal basis should be reassessed to determine whether it is supported by a law or judicial decision that remains applicable.

This review also provides companies with an opportunity to update their internal documents and procedures and ensure that their labor practices are supported by the legal sources that actually apply.

At Muñoz Tamayo & Asociados, we will continue to monitor the new guidance issued by the Ministry of Labor and its potential implications for employers. In this context, we remain available to assist you in reviewing and updating your policies, procedures, and other internal documents that may be affected by this decision.

La entrada Ministerio del Trabajo deja sin efectos 11 circulares expedidas entre 2025 y 2026 se publicó primero en Muñoz Tamayo & Asociados.

Accordingly, employers should undertake a comprehensive review of their working time arrangements, payroll practices, internal work regulations, management systems, and employment-related procedures to ensure compliance with the applicable legal requirements and to mitigate potential risks arising from their implementation.

Set out below are the key developments to consider:

1. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FORTY-TWO (42) HOUR MAXIMUM STATUTORY WORKING WEEK

As a result of the phased implementation established under Law 2101 of 2021, effective 15 July 2026 the statutory maximum working week has been reduced to forty-two (42) hours. This reduction must be implemented without affecting employees' salaries, statutory benefits, vested rights, or any other employment rights and protections.

With respect to the distribution of working hours, current legislation provides that the weekly working time may be agreed between the employer and the employee over five (5) or six (6) working days, provided that the applicable daily and weekly statutory limits, as well as mandatory rest periods, are observed.

Employers may maintain their existing work schedules and operational arrangements, provided that they comply with the new statutory limits and do not exceed the maximum weekly working hours established by law.

In this context, employers should review their current working time arrangements, including shift schedules, flexible working arrangements, attendance monitoring mechanisms, and the parameters used to calculate overtime, statutory premium payments, and the ordinary hourly rate, which serves as the basis for calculating overtime and statutory surcharges.

2. ELIMINATION OF MANDATORY FAMILY DAY AND WEEKLY EMPLOYEE WELFARE ACTIVITIES

Recent amendments to Colombian labor legislation have also modified certain employer obligations relating to employee welfare activities.

First, the mandatory Family Day is no longer a legal obligation for employers. Following the entry into force of Law 2466 of 2025, the semi-annual Family Day changed from a mandatory obligation to a voluntary initiative that employers and Family Compensation Funds may continue to promote and facilitate. This amendment has been effective since 25 June 2025.

Likewise, the obligation established under Law 50 of 1990 requiring employers to allocate two (2) hours per week to recreational, cultural, sports, or training activities has been permanently eliminated as of 15 July 2026, upon completion of the phased implementation of the forty-two (42) hour maximum statutory working week.

Nevertheless, employers should bear in mind that the elimination of these statutory obligations does not necessarily allow them to discontinue these benefits automatically. Where such benefits have been incorporated into employment agreements, internal work regulations, collective bargaining agreements, collective pacts, internal policies, or constitute contractual or extra-statutory benefits granted by the employer, any modification or elimination should be carefully assessed.

Accordingly, we recommend that employers review the legal basis of each benefit before making any changes, in order to avoid potential claims relating to vested rights or previously recognized employment conditions.

3. SURCHARGE FOR WORK ON MANDATORY REST DAYS INCREASE

As part of the phased implementation of Law 2466 of 2025, effective 1 July 2026 the statutory premium for work performed on mandatory weekly rest days and public holidays increased from eighty per cent (80%) to ninety per cent (90%).

The law also provides for a further increase, raising the premium to one hundred per cent (100%) as of 1 July 2027.

In light of this amendment, employers should review the configuration of their payroll systems and verify that the applicable premium rates have been properly updated to ensure compliance with current legislation. Likewise, employers should review their shift arrangements and compensatory rest mechanisms, particularly when operations are conducted on a continuous basis or when employees are required to work on statutory rest days or public holidays.

Failure to implement these changes correctly may result in payroll discrepancies, salary adjustments, and potential employment claims.

4. REVIEW OF NIGHT WORK PREMIUMS AND UPDATE OF THE ORDINARY HOURLY RATE

Although the amendment relating to night work became effective on 25 December 2025, it is worth recalling that Law 2466 of 2025 redefined daytime and nighttime working hours.

Under the amended legislation, night work is defined as work performed between 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. the following day, while daytime work corresponds to the period between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The statutory night work premium remains thirty-five per cent (35%) of the employee's ordinary hourly rate.

However, with the entry into force of the 42-hour maximum statutory working week on July 15, 2026, employers should once again review the parameters used to determine the ordinary hourly rate, as this constitutes the basis for calculating overtime payments and statutory premiums.

Accordingly, employers are encouraged to conduct a comprehensive review of their payroll systems and compensation practices to verify the proper calculation of overtime, night work premiums, and premiums for work performed on mandatory rest days, thereby ensuring compliance with the applicable legal framework and preventing potential payroll discrepancies.

5. UPDATE OF INTERNAL WORK REGULATIONS AND DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES

In light of the amendments introduced by Law 2466 of 2025, employers are required to update their Internal Work Regulations to incorporate the new rules governing disciplinary proceedings and the minimum due process guarantees applicable to disciplinary actions.

Under the Labour Reform, employers were required to complete this update within twelve (12) months following the entry into force of the law. That deadline expired on June 25, 2026. Employers must also ensure that the updated Internal Work Regulations are made permanently available to employees through the company's physical and/or electronic communication channels.

In addition, Law 2466 of 2025 strengthens employees' due process rights by establishing that, at a minimum, disciplinary proceedings must include the following stages:

1. Formal notification of the commencement of the disciplinary process.
2. A clear description of the facts under investigation and the potential consequences arising from them.
3. Disclosure of the evidence supporting the disciplinary action, ensuring the employee's right to challenge such evidence and exercise their defense
4. A reasonable opportunity for the employee to present their defense, within a period of no less than five (5) business days following notification of the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings.
5. Adoption of a reasoned decision based on principles of proportionality and reasonableness.
6. The possibility of appealing the decision, where applicable under the relevant legal framework.

In light of these developments, employers should verify that their Internal Work Regulations, disciplinary procedures, and internal practices are fully aligned with the new legal requirements. Disciplinary measures imposed without observing the minimum due process guarantees may expose employers to labor disputes and challenges regarding the validity of the sanctions imposed.

6. REGISTRATION OF TELEWORKERS THROUGH THE TELEWORKER REGISTRATION SYSTEM (SISTEL)

The Ministry of Labor has launched the Teleworker Registration System (SISTEL), an institutional platform designed to register, monitor, and update information relating to employees engaged under teleworking arrangements.

Accordingly, employers implementing any form of teleworking are required to register the relevant information concerning their teleworkers in SISTEL and to keep such information up to date whenever there are changes to the reported conditions, including changes in position, work location, teleworking modality, or employment status.

The implementation of SISTEL introduces a new monitoring and traceability mechanism through which the labor authorities may oversee remote working arrangements. Employers are therefore encouraged to verify that the information recorded in the system accurately reflects the current terms and conditions of their employment relationships.

Accordingly, we recommend conducting an internal review of all employees working under teleworking arrangements, the conditions currently reported, and the supporting documentation maintained by the company, in order to ensure consistency between the information registered in SISTEL and the company's records, and to mitigate potential risks during labor inspections.

7. ANNUAL REPORTING OF THE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SG-SST)

By July 31, 2026, employers and contracting entities must submit, through the Ministry of Labor’s online platform (sgrl.mintrabajo.gov.co), the self-assessment of the Minimum Standards applicable to the Occupational Health and Safety Management System (SG-SST) for the 2025 reporting period, together with the corresponding improvement plan derived from such assessment, in accordance with Article 26 of Resolution 0312 of 2019 and Ministry of Labor Circular No. 027 of 2026.

Accordingly, employers should verify that the information submitted accurately reflects the company's actual occupational health and safety practices and is supported by appropriate documentation, thereby ensuring compliance with current legal requirements and facilitating any inspections or requests from the labor authorities.

8. PUBLICATION AND REPORTING OF INFORMATION RELATING TO WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Pursuant to Law 2365 of 2024, employers are required to publish, on a semi-annual basis, information regarding the number of workplace sexual harassment complaints processed and the sanctions imposed in connection with such cases.

This information must be disclosed through the company's available physical and/or electronic communication channels and submitted to the Integrated Gender-Based Violence Information System (SIVIGE) within ten (10) days following the end of each reporting period.

At present, however, the SIVIGE platform has not yet become operational. Consequently, until the official reporting mechanism is available, the Ministry of Labor has established an alternative reporting procedure, whereby the required reporting form must be submitted via email to solucionesdocumental@mintrabajo.gov.co.

Accordingly, in order to comply with this obligation, employers are encouraged to:

• Accordingly, in order to comply with this obligation, employers are encouraged to:
• Submit the completed form to the Ministry of Labor through the designated reporting channel and retain evidence of its submission.
• Publish the required information internally through the company's available physical and/or electronic communication channels, while maintaining evidence of such publication.

It is important that all published and reported information be properly anonymized, ensuring that no data is disclosed that could directly or indirectly identify the individuals involved in the reported cases. This is essential to safeguard privacy, confidentiality, and the due process rights of all parties concerned.

Finally, employers should retain all supporting documentation evidencing compliance with these obligations, including the completed reporting form, proof of submission to the Ministry of Labor, and evidence of internal publication, in anticipation of any future inspections or requests from the competent authorities.

9. NEW NATIONAL PUBLIC HOLIDAY AND PAID MANDATORY REST DAY IN COLOMBIA

Law 2578 of 2026 established the Day of Our Lady of the Rosary of Chiquinquirá, observed annually on July 9, as a national public holiday and a paid mandatory rest day throughout Colombia.

Accordingly, employees in both the public and private sectors are entitled to paid leave in connection with this national holiday.

However, the law provides that the date on which the paid rest day is observed is governed by Law 51 of 1983 (the Emiliani Law), pursuant to which transferable public holidays that do not fall on a Monday are moved to the following Monday. Likewise, where the commemorative date falls on a Sunday, the corresponding paid rest day will also be observed on the following Monday.

As July 9, 2026 fell on a Thursday, the corresponding paid public holiday was observed on Monday, July 13, 2026.

10. AMENDMENTS TO THE LABOR OUTSOURCING FRAMEWORK

Through Decree 0581 of 5 June 2026, the Colombian Government amended Decree 1072 of 2015 to strengthen the Ministry of Labor’s inspection, monitoring, and enforcement powers in relation to unlawful labor outsourcing and illegal labor intermediation.

Among its principal amendments, the Decree: (i) defines the concepts of unlawful labor outsourcing, illegal labor intermediation, and permanent business activities; (ii) establishes a rebuttable presumption of the existence of an employment relationship where permanent activities are performed through third-party arrangements; (iii) introduces a series of indicators that may be considered by the labor authorities when determining whether unlawful outsourcing practices exist; (iv) further restricts the use of temporary employment agencies to the specific circumstances expressly permitted by law; and (v) strengthens the applicable corrective and enforcement measures.

From an enforcement perspective, the Ministry of Labor may now order corrective measures including the formalization of employment relationships, the regularization of social security contributions, the suspension or termination of irregular civil or commercial service agreements, and the implementation of compliance plans.

Employers should also note that companies involved in unlawful outsourcing arrangements may be subject to successive fines of up to five thousand (5,000) monthly statutory minimum wages (SMLMV), without prejudice to other enforcement measures, including the suspension of business activities or, where applicable, the revocation of the operating authorization granted to temporary employment agencies.

11. MINISTRY OF LABOR GUIDELINES ON DISCIPLINARY DUE PROCESS

Through Circular No. 048 of 2026, the Ministry of Labor issued guidelines regarding the application of Article 7 of Law 2466 of 2025, governing disciplinary due process in the private sector.

Although ministerial circulars do not create new legal obligations, they reflect the interpretative criteria adopted by the labor authorities and should therefore be taken into account by employers.

Among its key clarifications, the Circular reiterates that employers must observe the minimum stages of disciplinary proceedings introduced by the Labor Reform, including: written notification of the facts under investigation, disclosure of the supporting evidence, a period of no less than five (5) business days for the employee to prepare a defense, the opportunity to appeal the decision, and compliance with the principle of promptness.

The Circular further clarifies that warnings or written memoranda do not require the formal disciplinary procedure where they merely constitute management or supervisory measures rather than disciplinary sanctions. However, where an employer's Internal Work Regulations classify such measures as disciplinary sanctions, or where repeated warnings may give rise to disciplinary consequences, the applicable disciplinary procedure must be followed.

Finally, the Circular reiterates that dismissal for just cause does not, as a general rule, constitute a disciplinary sanction and therefore does not require a prior disciplinary proceeding. Nevertheless, the Ministry considers that such proceedings should be conducted where the dismissal is disciplinary in nature or where a legal provision expressly requires a prior procedure. In all cases, employers must ensure that employees are afforded the right to be heard and that the dismissal process complies with the principles established by the Constitutional Court.

12. GUIDELINES FOR OBTAINING AUTHORIZATION TO DISMISS EMPLOYEES PROTECTED BY REINFORCED EMPLOYMENT STABILITY

Through Circular No. 049 of 2026, the Ministry of Labor established internal guidelines governing applications for prior authorization to terminate the employment of employees protected by reinforced employment stability, implementing the criteria established by Constitutional Court Judgment SU-111 of 2025.

The Circular specifies the information and supporting documentation that employers must submit when requesting authorization, including evidence of the objective ground or just cause relied upon and, where applicable, documentation relating to any disciplinary proceedings conducted.

With respect to employees protected due to disability or a condition of manifest vulnerability, employers must also demonstrate that they have reasonably exhausted rehabilitation measures, reasonable accommodations, and alternatives for reassignment or reinstatement.

The Circular further regulates the procedure to be followed by Labor Inspectors, ensuring the employee's right to be heard, the opportunity to present evidence, and the issuance of a decision within a maximum period of three (3) months.

Finally, the Circular reiterates that prior authorization from the Ministry of Labor remains a mandatory legal requirement before terminating the employment of individuals protected by reinforced employment stability. Employers must demonstrate that the proposed termination is based on an objective or legally justified ground and does not constitute discriminatory treatment.

13. MANDATORY EMPLOYMENT QUOTAS FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

Law 2466 of 2025 introduced a new obligation requiring employers to hire people with disabilities according to the size of their permanent workforce.

In general terms, employers with up to five hundred (500) permanent employees must employ at least two (2) people with disabilities for every one hundred (100) permanent employees. Employers with more than five hundred (500) permanent employees must hire one (1) additional employee with a disability for each additional group of one hundred (100) employees.

Employees hired to comply with this requirement must also be reported to the Ministry of Labor.

It should be noted that this obligation is independent from the tax incentives established under Law 361 of 1997, which remain in force and continue to grant tax benefits to employers hiring people with disabilities who satisfy the applicable legal requirements.

Accordingly, employers should review the number of permanent employees within their workforce to determine whether this new obligation applies to them and, where applicable, adopt the necessary measures to ensure compliance, including obtaining the relevant disability certification and completing the corresponding reporting requirements before the Ministry of Labor.

14. OBLIGATION TO ADOPT AND UPDATE INTERNAL POLICIES ON THE PREVENTION OF WORKPLACE HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Employers are required to maintain separate internal policies addressing the prevention of workplace harassment and workplace sexual harassment, in accordance with Law 1010 of 2006, Law 2365 of 2024, and Law 2466 of 2025.

With respect to sexual harassment, Law 2365 of 2024 requires employers to adopt an internal prevention policy reflected in the company's Internal Work Regulations, employment agreements, internal protocols, reporting mechanisms, and response procedures, while ensuring that such policy is properly communicated to employees. Employers must also implement effective mechanisms for preventing and addressing complaints of sexual harassment, guarantee measures aimed at preventing recurrence, and comply with the applicable reporting obligations.

Additionally, Law 2466 of 2025 reinforces employers' duty to provide workplaces free from violence and harassment, regardless of the form of employment, through the implementation of effective protocols, procedures, and preventive measures consistent with the workplace harassment framework established under Law 1010 of 2006.

Accordingly, employers should review and update their internal documentation to ensure that they maintain, as separate instruments:

• A workplace harassment prevention policy, together with the corresponding reporting and case-management mechanisms overseen by the Workplace Coexistence Committee.
• A workplace sexual harassment prevention policy, including reporting channels, confidentiality safeguards, and protective measures.
• Updated internal protocols and procedures reflecting the current legal framework.
• Communication and training mechanisms designed to ensure that employees are properly informed of these policies.

This review is particularly important given the Ministry of Labor’s inspection and enforcement powers in this area, as failure to comply with these obligations may result in administrative sanctions.

15. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Considering the regulatory changes taking effect as of July 2026, we recommend that employers undertake a comprehensive review of their employment practices, with particular attention to working time arrangements, payroll calculations, and compliance with the applicable formal and documentary obligations.

In particular, employers should verify the proper implementation of the 42-hour maximum statutory working week, update the parameters used to calculate overtime and statutory premium payments, ensure the correct application of the new premium rates for work performed on mandatory rest days, and, where applicable, update and publish their Internal Work Regulations.

Employers should also confirm compliance with the obligations relating to teleworking, the Occupational Health and Safety Management System (SG-SST), and the reporting requirements concerning the prevention of workplace sexual harassment, ensuring in all cases that adequate documentary evidence is maintained to demonstrate compliance.

These reviews will enable employers to anticipate potential employment-related contingencies, strengthen their internal compliance processes, and ensure a smooth transition in light of the regulatory changes applicable throughout 2026.

We hope that this bulletin provides useful guidance for navigating the regulatory changes and employment obligations currently in force. At MTA, we remain available to assist our clients with the implementation of these new requirements and to provide legal advice on any challenges that may arise in their application.

Should you have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

La entrada Boletín de actualización laboral 2026 se publicó primero en Muñoz Tamayo & Asociados.

The aforementioned law aims to promote ecological restoration through tree planting and the creation of so-called "Life Areas" throughout the national territory. Thus, under this premise, Law 2173 requires medium and large companies to:

1. Develop and submit a tree planting programme to the competent environmental authority.
2. Determine the number of trees to be planted based on the number of employees in the company,
3. Obtain the certificate called "Siembra Vida Empresarial", and
4. Report the actions implemented to the competent environmental authorities.

Muñoz Tamayo & Asociados   remains at your full disposal to assist you in complying with the obligations arising from Law 2173 of 2021.

Accordingly, our advisory services may include conducting a personalized assessment to determine the scope of the law as it applies to your company, providing guidance on the selection of land for the tree‑planting programs, and/or managing procedures and submitting reports before the competent environmental authority, among others.

La entrada ¿Su empresa está preparada para cumplir con las nuevas obligaciones que exigen programas de restauración ecológica y siembra de árboles en Colombia? se publicó primero en Muñoz Tamayo & Asociados.

The labor reform bill has reached a key milestone with its approval in the House of Representatives, marking significant progress in its legislative process. The bill will now move forward in 2025 with debates in the Senate, where the approved provisions will be reviewed, and its viability will be determined. If it secures a favorable vote, it will proceed to a second debate before potential presidential enactment.

During discussions in the House, amendments were introduced to balance the interests of various labor stakeholders. This has sparked differing opinions regarding its impact on the labor market. Labor unions and workers' organizations support the initiative, arguing that it improves working conditions and promotes formal employment. In contrast, business associations and economic analysts have raised concerns about its potential effects on labor costs, competitiveness, and the sustainability of SMEs.

The approval of the reform will depend on key factors such as consensus between workers and employers, the economic feasibility of its provisions, and political support in Congress. Reaching balanced agreements will be crucial to finding a middle ground between safeguarding labor rights and ensuring business stability.

Companies should prepare for potential changes in contractual stability, adjustments to leave duration, the reduction of working hours, and stricter telework regulations. They may also face modifications in labor obligations, disciplinary procedures, and performance evaluation processes, necessitating a review of internal policies and staff training.

While the reform proposes significant changes to the labor market, it must still undergo two legislative debates and faces strong opposition, making its approval in the short term uncertain. Its future will depend on the ability to foster consensus and a thorough assessment of its economic and social impact.

La entrada Avances del proyecto de reforma laboral en Colombia se publicó primero en Muñoz Tamayo & Asociados.

Board members are elected by the general shareholders' meeting and collectively form the company's administrative body. As a collegiate body, decisions are made by majority vote, making each member’s opinion essential to the decision-making process.

Why is it important to have all board members in place?

Shareholders, based on their ownership percentages, may appoint one or more board members. However, once constituted, the board operates as an independent body within the company, representing the diverse interests of shareholders. Although the board is composed of individuals, it acts collectively, and each member plays a crucial role. Every member represents a particular position and set of interests, ensuring a balance when making decisions. A fully constituted board reflects the different perspectives of the company’s shareholder groups.

When a board loses one or more members, internal voting dynamics shift, affecting the previously established balance of interests. In such cases, an extraordinary general shareholders' meeting should be convened to appoint replacements for the departed members or those unable to complete their term. This helps restore the board’s composition and ensures its proper functioning.

What is an independent board member, and why is their role important?

Under Law 964 of 2005, the boards of directors of publicly traded companies must have at least 25% independent members. However, this requirement may vary depending on the company's bylaws, and some entities may mandate a higher percentage. While not all board members are independent, their presence safeguards the corporate interest against majority shareholders who might otherwise prioritize their own objectives.

Once elected, board members no longer represent the individual will of shareholders but must act in the best interest of the company as a whole. An independent board member is someone who does not have direct or indirect personal, professional, or commercial ties to the company they serve. They have no familial or business connections with any shareholders, allowing them to vote freely within the board, solely pursuing the best interests of the company rather than protecting individual shareholder interests.

Independent board members play a critical role by serving as a counterweight to majority shareholders and protecting minority shareholders. They enhance the board’s functionality and promote balance within the company by ensuring that decisions benefit the company as a whole rather than a specific group of shareholders. This helps prevent excessive control by a single shareholder over corporate governance.

Given their importance, any vacancy in an independent board member position should be promptly filled to maintain the board’s integrity and ensure its continued effectiveness.

La entrada La importancia de los miembros independientes de una junta directiva se publicó primero en Muñoz Tamayo & Asociados.

El estudio se centra en la importancia de la protección y el fortalecimiento del Estado de Derecho, entendido, no solo como el conjunto de reglas formales en un sistema jurídico, sino en elementos esenciales y sustanciales, como la protección de los derechos humanos y la adhesión y el respeto al derecho internacional. En el informe se denuncian los ataques sistemáticos que han erosionado profundamente el Estado de Derecho en el mundo y se revela que, por sexto año consecutivo, el también llamado Rule of Law ha disminuido en el 59% de las 150 jurisdicciones del mundo que fueron evaluadas.

Las conclusiones que se alcanzaron en el ejercicio son, entre otras, las siguientes: (i) que existe una sólida correlación entre un Estado de Derecho fuerte, protegido por un sistema judicial justo, efectivo y accesible, y el porcentaje del PIB que se destina a la investigación y el desarrollo, lo cual significa mayor innovación para la sociedad; (ii) que un Estado de Derecho fuerte fomenta mayores niveles de inversión, toda vez que ese elemento es una de las tres consideraciones que tienen las multinacionales al decidir sus inversiones, junto con “la facilidad de hacer negocios” y “un ambiente político estable”; (iii) que los servicios legales emplean aproximadamente a 20 millones de profesionales y generan 14 millones de empleos indirectos. También precisa (a) que aunque los abogados solo representen el 0.25% de la población mundial, generan aproximadamente USD 1.6 trillones de valor económico o 1.7% del PIB mundial, bien sea de forma directa o indirecta; (b) que los abogados actúan como creadores de paz al prevenir que escalen disputas y hacer que las partes lleguen a acuerdos justos, alcanzando consensos que reducen la alta congestión judicial y (c) que los abogados cumplen el rol fundamental de apoyar el Estado de Derecho, informando al público sobre sus derechos y deberes y protegiendo las libertades fundamentales.  

Precisamente, teniendo en cuenta la importancia del Estado de Derecho, de la independencia de poderes y de lo que esto implica en el desarrollo económico, hace unos pocos días, el Instituto de Derechos Humanos de la IBA (IBAHRI) también hizo un llamado al Presidente Petro para que respete la independencia del poder judicial, la separación de poderes y se abstenga de desacreditar a los jueces por cumplir con su deber. El IBAHRI también manifiesta su preocupación por la interceptación de comunicaciones de altos funcionarios de la rama judicial y la propuesta de una reforma constitucional a través de mecanismos distintos a las normas previstas en la Constitución.

Estos importantes mensajes de la comunidad internacional deben ser tenidos en cuenta por los gobiernos de los países en desarrollo, como Colombia, en donde entender esta estructura resulta fundamental, si se quiere promover la iniciativa privada y atraer la inversión extranjera.

La entrada La importancia del respeto al estado de Derecho se publicó primero en Muñoz Tamayo & Asociados.

¿Qué es un RSE?

El proyecto de ley define los RSE como aquellos que, por su naturaleza, composición, tamaño, volumen y peso, necesidades de transporte, condiciones de almacenaje y composición, no pueden ser manejados, tratados o dispuesto normalmente por la persona prestadora del servicio público de aseo. Bajo el entendido que esta es una definición muy amplia, el Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible deberá, dentro de los 10 meses siguientes a la entrada en vigencia de esta Ley, realizar estudios para generar una lista de los residuos objeto de la misma y, posteriormente, ajustar esta definición. Sin embargo, los Residuos Peligrosos se excluyen del ámbito de aplicación de esta norma, pues continuarán siendo regulados por la legislación vigente.

¿Qué implicaría esta Ley?

Algunas de las disposiciones más relevantes que propone este proyecto de ley:

1. Se prohíbe la introducción, importación o exportación de los RSE, así como su disposición o recepción en rellenos sanitarios, cuando sean potencialmente aprovechables.
2. Los RSE solo podrán ser exportados con fines de aprovechamiento y valorización cuando exista una aceptación por parte de las autoridades competentes del país al que se hará la exportación y con autorización previa de la ANLA.
3. Establece que el productor de los RSE tendrá una responsabilidad extendida por todo el ciclo de vida del producto fabricado, imponiendo una solidaridad entre el generador y el receptor. Asimismo, esta responsabilidad solidaria subsistiría hasta que el RSE sea aprovechado como insumo final cumpliendo con todos los estándares para que el mismo no represente un riesgo para la salud humana o el ambiente.

¿Qué sanciones prevé este proyecto de Ley?

El capítulo V del proyecto de ley establece un proceso sancionatorio especial, cuya potestad sancionatoria recaería sobre en el Estado, a través de las Autoridades Ambientales, Aduaneras, Sanitarias, de Transporte y policivas. Resulta importante poner de presente que las sanciones allí planteadas se aplicarán de manera adicional a las previstas en la Ley 1333 de 2009.

Las sanciones variarán dependiendo de la infracción y podrían ser una amonestación escrita, multas diarias sucesivas hasta de 30 SMLMV, sin que puedan superar los 10.000 SMLMV, decomiso definitivo de productos o artículos, suspensión o cancelación del registro mercantil hasta por 3 años, cancelación de licencias de comercialización de productos que generen RES, cierre temporal o definitivo del establecimiento, edificación o servicio, o incluso la revocatoria de licencias, permisos concesiones y/o autorizaciones ambientales. Por último, se destaca que este proyecto de ley pretende que las sumas que sean recaudadas por concepto de multas sean destinadas a un fondo que tendrá como fin desarrollar programas de investigación, desarrollo e innovación aplicada al aprovechamiento de RSE y al financiamiento de los sistemas de gestión integral de estos residuos.

La entrada El camino a la gestión integral de los Residuos Sólidos Especiales se publicó primero en Muñoz Tamayo & Asociados.

En el pasado, no había discusión por cuenta de decisiones de la Junta Monetaria (hoy Junta Directiva del Banco de la República – JDBR). En Resoluciones Externas del Banco de la República como la 87 de 1983, 57 de 1991, 53 de 1992 y 6 de 1999 se establecieron límites máximos a las tasas de interés para las operaciones de endeudamiento externo celebradas por residentes en el país con entidades financieras del exterior.

No obstante, la JDBR suprimió los límites y reconoció la autonomía de las partes para negociar y pactar libremente intereses cuando en la Circular Reglamentaria DCIN-23 de 1994 estableció que la tasa de interés para préstamos externos al sector privado podía ser “acordada libremente por las partes”. Esa autonomía ha sido reiterada en las Circulares Reglamentarias DCIN-83 del 2000, DCIN-30 del 2002 y DCIN-83 del 2009, entre otras, y sigue siendo reconocida actualmente.

En paralelo, ha habido debate sobre si el régimen de tasas de interés de la Ley 45 de 1990 y los arts. 1617 del C.C. y 884 del C. de Co. aplica a los préstamos denominados en dólares otorgados a residentes en el país. En su momento, la hoy Superintendencia Financiera de Colombia (SFC) sostuvo en algunos conceptos (OJ-345 de 1983 y OJ-076 de 1984) que la libertad para pactar intereses en esos créditos estaba limitada por el art. 884 del C. de Co. La Junta Monetaria acogió esa tesis en la Resolución Externa 57 de 1991 al excluir los créditos en moneda extranjera otorgados por Intermediarios del Mercado Cambiario de los límites a las tasas de interés fijados en esa resolución y afirmar que les aplicaban los límites legales (es decir, el art. 884 del C. de Co.).

Sin embargo, la SFC replanteó esa posición en el Concepto 001-812/87 al concluir que los límites del art. 884 del C. de Co. no eran aplicables a los créditos en moneda extranjera pues se definían con base en el interés bancario certificado por la SFC y esa entidad solo tenía la facultad de certificar tasas de interés del mercado colombiano.

La JDBR también revisó su posición y en la Resolución 53 de 1992 (aún vigente) estableció que los límites de los arts. 1617 del C.C. y 884 del C. de Co. solo aplican a los intereses de obligaciones en moneda legal. Para las obligaciones en moneda extranjera estableció que las tasas de interés máximas que se pueden pactar dependen de los límites que defina la Junta Monetaria bajo el art. 71 de la Ley 45 de 1990. Como se mencionó antes, a la fecha, la JDBR no ha definido límites. Esta posición revisada ha sido reiterada en varios conceptos como el JDS-28188 de 2015 y fue acogida por la SFC en el Concepto 2015081891-001 de 2015. En síntesis, se puede concluir que (i) actualmente no existe ningún límite máximo fijado por la JDBR para los intereses remuneratorios o moratorios de las operaciones de crédito denominadas en moneda extranjera celebradas entre entidades financieras del exterior con residentes en el país y (ii) las disposiciones establecidas en materia de intereses en los arts. 1617 del C.C. y 884 del C. de Co., no son aplicables a esas operaciones.

La entrada Límites de la tasa de interés de créditos en moneda extranjera se publicó primero en Muñoz Tamayo & Asociados.

Revisión interna de políticas y prácticas

Con estas disposiciones en vigor, las organizaciones deben alinear sus políticas de prevención del acoso con las nuevas normativas, revisando procedimientos, ofreciendo capacitaciones adecuadas y creando canales de denuncia seguros.

Responsabilidades extendidas

El artículo 12 de la Ley 2365 obliga a quienes celebren contratos de prestación de servicios a asumir las mismas responsabilidades de prevención del acoso que otras entidades, protegiendo a contratistas bajo las mismas normas que a los empleados. Así, las empresas deben garantizar un entorno libre de acoso para todos sus colaboradores, sin importar su tipo de vínculo contractual.

Ampliación del acoso laboral y sexual

Por su parte, las decisiones de las Altas Cortes han ampliado la comprensión del acoso laboral, permitiendo que ocurra fuera de la relación de dependencia tradicional. Esto obliga a las empresas a considerar todas las posibles interacciones, incluso con contratistas y clientes, al diseñar sus políticas de prevención.

En nuestra experiencia, hemos visto muchos casos de acoso, particularmente de maltrato laboral. En el ámbito de firmas de abogados y asesores jurídicos, el acoso puede ocurrir en las interacciones con clientes, quienes a menudo ejercen poder sobre los profesionales legales. Estas situaciones, que van desde comportamientos inapropiados y groseros en reuniones hasta comunicaciones persistentes con contenido inadecuado, son difíciles de denunciar debido a la relación cliente-abogado y al temor a las repercusiones económicas o profesionales que se puedan presentar. Sin embargo, esto no implica que la situación no pueda ocurrir ni que el cliente esté exento de consecuencias negativas, como sanciones y daños reputacionales. Por lo tanto, la conducta inapropiada de algún colaborador, si no es atendida oportunamente por la empresa, podría impactar negativamente en su operación.

Clarificación del vínculo laboral

Un aspecto crucial de la implementación de esta ley es la aclaración de que las medidas adoptadas no se deben interpretar como un reconocimiento de un vínculo laboral con el contratista. Este punto es esencial para las organizaciones, ya que garantiza que la protección contra el acoso no modifique el estatus contractual entre las partes, evitando así posibles malentendidos o disputas legales en el futuro.

Medidas proactivas y riesgos asociados

Dado el nuevo marco normativo, las empresas deben tomar medidas proactivas como la capacitación continua y la creación de procedimientos efectivos. Sin embargo, existen riesgos, como la percepción de un vínculo laboral implícito o una implementación inadecuada, que podría acarrear sanciones legales.

Evaluación del éxito de las políticas

La efectividad de estas políticas debe medirse con indicadores cuantitativos, como el número de denuncias y tiempo de resolución, e indicadores cualitativos, como encuestas de satisfacción y auditorías internas.

Conclusión

La Ley 2365 de 2024 y las decisiones judiciales recientes exigen que las organizaciones adopten un enfoque integral para prevenir el acoso. La protección se extiende a contratistas y otros actores, exigiendo a las empresas actualizar sus políticas y crear ambientes laborales seguros y respetuosos para todos.

La entrada Implementación de la Ley 2365 de 2024: Prevención del acoso laboral y sexual en Colombia se publicó primero en Muñoz Tamayo & Asociados.

La ley laboral establece 9 maneras por las que se puede terminar un contrato de trabajo, las cuales, en algunos casos, requerirán autorización del Ministerio del Trabajo. Sin embargo, una de las que más llama la atención, es el mutuo consentimiento. Esto significa que, si se encuentra inmerso en una relación laboral de la cual ni usted ni su empleador quiere hacer parte, podrán terminar esta relación, a través de un acuerdo mutuo, dejando establecido con claridad las causas y motivos que dieron origen a esa decisión.

¿Cómo dar por terminado un contrato por mutuo consentimiento?

Entre muchas otras posibilidades, una de las que más protege a las dos partes está estipulada en el Código Civil, este es, el Contrato de Transacción, el cual, a través de un acuerdo, ambas partes ceden en sus pretensiones y se generan obligaciones mutuas. La principal característica de este contrato es que termina extrajudicialmente un litigio actual o previene uno eventual, todo lo cual, produce efecto de cosa juzgada, es decir, produce el mismo efecto que una sentencia judicial en firme.

¿Sobre qué derechos laborales se puede transar?

En materia laboral, este contrato se encuentra regulado por el artículo 15 del CST, y establece que es válida la transacción, siempre y cuando no sea sobre derechos ciertos e indiscutibles que, según la doctrina, son aquellos sobre los que no se necesita una decisión judicial para su reconocimiento.

En este sentido, si se realiza una transacción sobre derechos inciertos y discutibles, si el objetivo es terminar un conflicto actual o futuro, si, como en todo contrato, se expresa con claridad la voluntad de las partes y, si las partes ceden en sus pretensiones y se obligan de manera mutua, el contrato de transacción es completamente válido.

¿Se puede declarar nulidad del contrato de transacción?

El Código Civil, refiere que es nula la transacción que se haya realizado con dolo o violencia, o cuando al momento de su realización haya finalizado un litigio sobre las mismas pretensiones y haya hecho tránsito a cosa juzgada. De manera que, a través de una acción ordinaria se puede solicitar la nulidad en los casos en los que con toda certeza se pueda probar alguno de estos escenarios, pues ocurre que, alguna de las partes se arrepiente de haber suscrito la transacción y pretende, a través de una demanda, invalidar, incluso, su propia voluntad. Sin embargo, si el contrato estuvo revestido de todas las formalidades necesarias, el proceso judicial podría terminar de manera anticipada, de conformidad con lo establecido en el numeral 3 del artículo 278 del CGP, que establece que el juez deberá dictar sentencia anticipada cuando se encuentre probada la cosa juzgada.

La entrada La transacción como mecanismo para terminación del contrato laboral se publicó primero en Muñoz Tamayo & Asociados.