Guidelines regarding lack of attendance control.
A series of administrative precedents of obligatory observance referred to the classification of the very serious infraction in matters of labor relations of not having the attendance control record, or preventing or replacing the worker in the registration of his working time, established in full room of the Labor Inspection Court (TFL) of the National Superintendence of Labor Inspection (Sunafil).
In accordance with Plenary Chamber Resolution No. 007-2023-Sunafil/TFL, when employers physically record the attendance of their personnel, they must make said record available to their workers, as well as ensure, under their responsibility, that their workers comply with the registration of their attendance at the work center. The same should occur in the event that a virtual or biometric or other record of a similar precise nature is implemented.
In this context, the Sunafil Court also established as a mandatory observance criterion that in any scenario, when the absence of the attendance record of one or more workers is evidenced, the employer must act with due diligence to guarantee its proper implementation.
At the same time, the administrative collegiate established as a precedent that the employer must guarantee that the attendance record does not undergo alterations of any kind, which may consist of partial or total deterioration that makes it impossible to continue with the record.
If, in the event, said record shows any damage, this must be a reason for timely verification, as well as the object of the adoption of the pertinent mechanisms aimed at continuing with the correct registration of attendance in the workplace, indicates the court.
All this, taking into account that the constitutional jurisprudence (Exp. N° 02111-2010-PA/TC-Lima) emphasizes that the obligation to register attendance control implies that employers observe due diligence in its management, since the regulations not only does it provide for the attendance control record to be enabled, but also for the actions to be carried out so that it fulfills its purpose.
The Sunafil Court also established as an administrative criterion of obligatory observance that although the infraction of not having the attendance control record, or preventing or replacing the worker in the registration of his working time could be considered as one of an objective nature , there are circumstances that lead the administrative authority to examine the responsibility of the company that is inspected.
It can occur when there is immediacy between the facts and the possible formulation of inspection exhortations through appropriate measures, such as the warning or the requirement, indicates the administrative collegiate.
Source: The Peruvian