Resolution 2708 of 2026: the Ministry of Labor withdraws 11 circulars and redefines the scope of its administrative guidelines

What changed?

The Ministry of Labor concluded that some of the reviewed circulars exceeded their merely advisory function and ended up establishing documentary requirements, procedures, decision-making criteria, settlement formulas, or legal consequences that could not be created through this type of instrument.

Likewise, the Ministry identified errors in some regulatory references and in the interpretation of case law, as well as circulars whose transitory purpose had already been fulfilled. For this reason, it was determined that the identified problems could not simply be solved through an erratum or partial amendments, since they compromised the very structure and scope of the instruments.

What were the grounds for withdrawing the circulars?

The main cross-cutting reasons that motivated the decision were:

Violation of the principle of legal and regulatory reserve

Several circulars autonomously created documentary requirements, conditions for accessing procedures, or procedural burdens for citizens that lacked prior legislative or regulatory authorization.

Overreach of powers and functions

It was determined that various instruments adopted decisions that were materially prescriptive, punitive, or declarative of individual rights, exceeding the exclusively advisory, informative, or instructional powers of service circulars.

Lack of clarity and mixing of content

Binding, mandatory rules were combined in the same text with mere recommendations of good practices and public policy objectives, which generated serious confusion and uncertainty for employers, workers, and labor inspectors.

Incompatibility with case law and regulatory dispersion

Erroneous interpretations or undue generalizations of judicial rulings issued for specific cases were incorporated, which affected the coherence of the legal system.

Points that may interest you

The repeal operates going forward

Resolution 2708 of 2026 does not automatically declare the nullity of actions carried out while the circulars were in force. Consequently, legal situations that have already been settled and administrative actions already taken must be analyzed according to the constitutional, legal, and regulatory rules applicable to each case.

The withdrawn circulars can no longer be used as an independent basis

Since the Resolution took effect, the repealed circulars may no longer be invoked as an independent legal source to:

• Create or demand obligations.
• Establish documentary requirements.
• Impose burdens of proof.
• Define procedures or conditions for accessing formalities.
• Establish sanctioning criteria.
• Create limitations on rights.
• Set independent inspection standards.

This does not mean that labor obligations disappear. On the contrary, they must be sought directly in the Constitution, the law, regulations, and applicable case law.

The repeal does not revive prior rules

The fact that a circular has been withdrawn does not mean that earlier instructions or circulars that had been replaced regain force. The applicable source must be determined directly from the current regulations governing each matter.

The withdrawn circulars

The Resolution repealed and rendered ineffective the following circulars:

Circular 0031 of March 17, 2026Care and Gender Equity

It did not delimit the legal force of its content; it confusingly mixed mere recommendations with guidelines that urged employers to amend internal regulations and implement protocols on a mandatory basis. This created the risk that a ministerial recommendation would be interpreted as an independent enforceable standard or grounds for sanction.

External Circular 0032 of March 25, 2026Freedom of Association and Union Leave

It exceeded its advisory function by proclaiming itself a "mandatory technical reference" and containing materially prescriptive mandates, such as the autonomous classification of anti-union conduct, the imposition of fines or sanctions for non-compliance, and an improper simplification of the rules on the precedence of collective agreements over the law.

Circular 0040 of April 16, 2026Private Security and Working Hours

It contained a significant substantive inaccuracy in stating that the security sector was "exempt from the general overtime or supplementary time regime" under Law 2466 of 2025. In reality, the law only exempts this sector from a specific limit (Article 13), not from the entirety of the rules on compensation and rest, nor from the special regime of Law 1920 of 2018.

Circular 0048 of May 22, 2026Disciplinary Due Process and Dismissal

It mixed mandatory rules, judicial precedents, and recommendations without a uniform methodology to determine which were binding. It also sought to freeze rigid criteria on the viability of dismissal for just cause, thereby autonomously interfering with the regime proper to the Substantive Labor Code.

Internal Circular 0049 of May 22, 2026Reinforced Job Stability

Despite being called an "internal circular," it regulated substantive procedures, required documentary access requirements, and defined mandatory burdens of proof for private individuals, exceeding the authority of the administration and violating due process and the principle of legal reserve.

Circular 0057 of July 6, 2026Labor Reform and Contracts

It contained a serious material inaccuracy in incorrectly stating that the Substantive Labor Code governs the individual relationships of both private-sector and official (public-sector) workers. This created the risk of improperly transferring individual rules from the labor reform (Law 2466 of 2025) to a regime subject to special regulations.

Circular 0086 of July 29, 2026Inspection of Digital Platforms

It provided that if subordination was found, the case should be referred for "recognition of the employment relationship and social security." This violated Article 486 of the Substantive Labor Code, which expressly prohibits inspectors from declaring individual rights or resolving judicial disputes. It had also become outdated following the subsequent issuance of Decree 0991 of 2025.

Circular 0088 of July 29, 2026Union Bargaining Committee

It contained errors in regulatory references (attributing to Decree 1072 of 2015 rules from a different article). It also improperly generalized a proportional representation formula derived from Judgment T-287 of 2025, which the Court had designed solely for a single, specific case, omitting the differentiated analysis required by other bargaining contexts.

Circular 0089 of July 29, 2026Inspection of Domestic Work

It authorized labor inspectors to enter private homes directly under an "Imminent Danger Exception," without needing the employer's prior consent or a judicial order. This flagrantly violated the constitutional guarantee of the inviolability of the home (Article 28 of the Political Constitution and Judgment C-212 of 2017), given that inspectors lack such an exceptional power to enter private residences.

External Circular 0101 of September 22, 2025Working Hours and Piecework

It autonomously established a mathematical formula requiring employers to financially compensate piecework workers for the reduction in working hours, which requires the rank of a law or regulation, exceeding the powers of an advisory circular.

Internal Circular 0120 of 2025Job Stability Procedure

Like Circular 0049 of 2026, it established stages, procedural requirements, procedural burdens, and mandatory forms for private individuals under the guise of internal management instructions, violating the principle of legal reserve and the due process enshrined in Judgment SU-111 of 2025.