1. Specific and Special Elements of the Trainee Contract

In Decree 0223 of March 5, 2026, the Ministry of Labor establishes the particular and special elements of the trainee contract in Colombia, which unifies and updates the regulatory rules:

Key Concepts:

• Work placement: A training activity carried out in a real work environment to fulfill a requirement for completing academic studies
• Training Arrangement: An agreement that regulates the internship between the student, the company, and the educational institution. It does not constitute an employment relationship.
• Trainee Contract: A special fixed-term employment contract aimed at acquiring structured and comprehensive professional training

Obligations:

• Register vacancies with the Public Employment Service.
• Assign a supervisor (mentor) to oversee each intern.
• Develop an Internship Plan jointly with the student and the academic supervisor.
• Ensure enrollment in the social security system.
• Provide a safe environment and the necessary equipment.
• Update internal policies regarding harassment prevention and inclusion.

Important Actions:

• Update the Internal Work Regulations.
• Review of existing contracts.
• Implement disciplinary procedures for apprentices.
• Update trainee contracts.
• Establish internship plans and supervision processes.

See Document

2. Maternity Protection and Prohibition of Dismissal During Pregnancy and Breastfeeding

In Judgment T-014 of 2026, the Constitutional Court, through the Third Review Chamber, reaffirmed the prohibition of dismissal due to pregnancy and clarified that termination during the breastfeeding period cannot be based on discriminatory grounds. The Court protected the fundamental rights to work, enhanced job stability, equality, breastfeeding, and social security of three employees who were dismissed during pregnancy or breastfeeding.

The Court reviewed tutela actions filed against the Mayor’s Office of Cali, the National Training Service (SENA), and the company Salamanca S.A., after finding that the claimants had been dismissed while pregnant or during the breastfeeding period, without evidence of an objective cause justifying the termination of their employment relationships.

In its analysis, the Court developed the scope of the constitutional protection afforded to pregnant and breastfeeding women, emphasizing the importance of breastfeeding as a right that impacts gender equality, work-life balance, and the protection of the family as a fundamental unit of society. It also reiterated that motherhood and professional development are not mutually exclusive, and therefore employers must ensure adequate conditions that allow for the harmonious coexistence of work and breastfeeding.

The Court clarified that enhanced job stability is a manifestation of the principle of special constitutional protection established in Article 43 of the Constitution, which prohibits dismissal, termination, or non-renewal of contracts due to or in connection with pregnancy or breastfeeding. In this regard, the guarantee is not limited to preventing discriminatory dismissals but also requires employers to adopt positive measures to ensure real equality, minimum living conditions, and non-discrimination.

After analyzing the specific cases, the Court concluded that the claimants were dismissed due to their pregnancy or breastfeeding status. Therefore, it ordered the renewal of service contracts under equivalent conditions, the payment of unpaid fees, and, in the case of the private company, the reinstatement of the employee, recognition of salaries, benefits, compensation, and payment of contributions to the Social Security System

Consequently, the Court reiterated that both public and private entities must guarantee enhanced protection of the rights of pregnant and breastfeeding women, preventing discriminatory practices and ensuring the continuity of the employment relationship during pregnancy and the breastfeeding period.

See: Judgment T-014 of 2026 (Constitutional Court)

3. Enhanced job security for temporary workers and a one-year time limit

In Ruling T-325 of 2025, the Constitutional Court reiterated that the one-year time limit allowed for hiring temporary workers cannot become an argument to disregard the right to reinforced job stability for health reasons, by protecting the fundamental rights to work, to a minimum living wage and to social security of a worker dismissed after a prolonged period of incapacity.

The Court studied the protection action filed by a worker on assignment who provided his services through a temporary services company, who was dismissed under the argument that the maximum time of one year of contract had been fulfilled, without having the prior authorization of the Ministry of Labor and without proving an objective cause for termination of the employment relationship.

In its analysis, the Court emphasized that, regardless of the type of employment or its temporary nature, any decision to terminate the employment of a worker protected by enhanced job security for health reasons must be authorized by the Ministry of Labor and based on an objective cause. In these cases, the burden of proof falls on the employer, who must rebut the presumption of discriminatory dismissal and demonstrate that the termination of the employment relationship is not due to the worker's health condition.

The Court also clarified that, although the ordinary labor courts have jurisdiction to definitively resolve these disputes, the tutela action is appropriate as a temporary mechanism when there is a risk of irreparable harm, especially when there is evidence of an impact on the minimum living standard of the worker and his family.

Additionally, the Court reiterated the confidential nature of medical records, stating that employers may not require their disclosure as a condition for recognizing medical leave, as this violates the

fundamental right to privacy. It also reminded the Court that entities within the Social Security System cannot unjustifiably delay the processes for assessing loss of work capacity.

Consequently, the Court ordered the reinstatement of the worker to the temporary services company and the user company, the removal of his medical history from the company records, and the adoption of measures to advance the process of qualifying for loss of work capacity.

See: Judgment T-325 of 2025 (Constitutional Court).

The content of this newsletter is merely informative, that´s why it cannot be used under any circumstances as advice on the matter described in it. If you need advice on any of the aspects discussed, our team of professionals will be willing to assist you. contacto@jadelrio.com