Labour Conciliation and Constitutional Protection in Colombia: The Impact of SU-111

The recent ruling by the Constitutional Court in SU-111 (2025), which declared ineffective a labor conciliation signed by a worker with health immunity, has reopened a critical debate: how far can constitutional protection extend without undermining individual autonomy and established labor contracting rules?

According to the press release, the Court found the conciliation agreement invalid, stating it violated undeniable rights of a worker under special protection. Consequently, the worker’s reinstatement—or failing that, compensation for wages and benefits owed, along with inclusion in the mass of creditors of the liquidating company—was ordered.

While this decision reinforces labor protections, it raises concerns. Does the ruling imply that workers with health immunity can no longer voluntarily end their contracts through conciliation? This disrupts a previously legitimate means of terminating employment and introduces both legal and practical uncertainty. Are we witnessing the de facto annulment of these workers’ consent?

In practice, such restrictions could have unintended consequences. As Magistrate Natalia Ángel Cabo noted in her dissenting opinion, a rule that prevents conciliation for protected workers ultimately disregards their autonomy and decision-making capacity. Protecting rights should not mean denying individuals their ability to make informed choices about their employment future. A health condition does not strip a worker of autonomy or the right to determine their own career path.

Furthermore, the ruling’s implications extend beyond this case. What message does this send to businesses hiring workers with special health conditions? If negotiated solutions are off the table, will companies hesitate to employ individuals requiring protection? Where does this leave meaningful, barrier-free labor inclusion?

The Constitutional Court has taken an important step in reaffirming protections for vulnerable workers, diverging from Supreme Court precedent. However, in doing so, it has cast doubt on a legal tool that, when used appropriately, benefits both employees and employers. Once the full judgment is published, a deeper analysis will be crucial to understanding its impact on labor law.

Hopefully, this ruling prompts the creation of clearer policies—ones that safeguard rights without eroding personal autonomy. Because in labor rights, the strongest guarantee is one that ensures informed, autonomous decision-making—rather than imposing choices under the guise of protection.

By LLOREDA CAMACHO & CO, Colombia, a Transatlantic Law International Affiliated Firm.  

For further information or for any assistance please contact colombia@transatlanticlaw.com 

Disclaimer: Transatlantic Law International Limited is a UK registered limited liability company providing international business and legal solutions through its own resources and the expertise of over 105 affiliated independent law firms in over 95 countries worldwide. This article is for background information only and provided in the context of the applicable law when published and does not constitute legal advice and cannot be relied on as such for any matter. Legal advice may be provided subject to the retention of Transatlantic Law International Limited’s services and its governing terms and conditions of service. Transatlantic Law International Limited, based at 84 Brook Street, London W1K 5EH, United Kingdom, is registered with Companies House, Reg Nr. 361484, with its registered address at 83 Cambridge Street, London SW1V 4PS, United Kingdom.