Definitive Report - Report No 102, 1968

Case No 516 (Peru) - Complaint date: 01-OCT-66 - Closed

1. 24. The complaint presented by the Staff Union of the Puno Tourist Hotel is contained in a communication dated 1 October 1966 (received on 18 April 1967). The text of this communication was transmitted to the Government in a letter dated 27 April 1967 and the Government forwarded its observations in a communication dated 23 August 1967.
2. 25. Peru has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), as well as the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 26. The complainants allege that a set of claims which they presented was declared irreceivable, as it stood, by the Cuzco office of the Directorate of Labour so long as it had not been established that the complainant organisation was a registered trade union.
2. 27. The complainants state that, since they were not registered, they were obliged to follow a more complicated procedure than would have been necessary for a registered trade union, where only the signatures of the union leaders are required for a claim to be presented. In accordance with the law, the complainants were obliged to have their claim signed by 50 per cent plus one of their members.
3. 28. In the view of the complainants, such an attitude on the part of the authorities constitutes an infringement of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), which has been ratified by Peru. The complainants explain their position in this respect as follows: " Following Legislative Resolution No. 13821 of 15 December 1959, adopted by the Peruvian Congress, the aforesaid Convention was ratified; it was put into force as a Peruvian law, and since it was promulgated by the Supreme Decree of 3 May 1961 trade unions are no longer obliged to apply for official recognition, as was necessary before the Convention was applied ".
4. 29. In its observations the Government states that none of the rights guaranteed by Convention No. 87 was infringed by the Cuzco authorities. The inquiries made, the Government continues, reveal that the authorities in question were not exceeding their powers in demanding that this group of workers observe the provisions of Supreme Decree No. 009 (3 May 1961), governing the application of Convention No. 87 in Peru, so as to legalise both the submission of their claim and the agreement which these workers might reach with their employers with regard to an improvement in wages and other working conditions.
5. 30. Since the complainants had not observed the above provisions, the Government continues, they were required to produce a petition signed by 50 per cent plus one of the workers on whose behalf they were acting, in accordance with section 42 of the Supreme Decree dated 23 March 1936.
6. 31. Once this procedure was complied with, the Government states, the claims went through the stages of direct negotiation and conciliation and, as the parties had renounced their right to submit the case to arbitration, the matter was finally resolved by a decision of the labour authorities.
7. 32. By virtue of this decision-the text of which has been supplied by the Government there was " a general increase of six soles in the wages paid to the staff of the Puno Tourist Hotel, with retroactive effect from the date of the submission of the claim; back payment resulting from the application of the increase is to be made within 30 days " of the date of the decision. Finally, as the General Secretary of the trade union has, in agreement with the other officers of his union, withdrawn in writing all the other points in the claim, this matter " should now be considered as finally settled ".

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 33. From the complainants' allegations, the Committee notes firstly that it is not clear in what way Convention No. 87 is alleged to have been infringed. The complainants mention the fact that their trade union was not considered to be registered. It is true that if prior permission for the establishment or functioning of a trade union were required from the public authorities as a condition for the granting of registration, this would undeniably constitute an infringement of the Convention. This, however, does not seem to have been the case, for examination of the text of Supreme Decree No. 009 of 3 May 1961 (sections 11 to 19) shows that the registration of trade unions consists solely of a formality in which there is no question of infringing guarantees laid down by the Convention.
2. 34. The information at the Committee's disposal seems to indicate that the complainant trade union omitted to register in accordance with the provisions of Supreme Decree No. 009 and that it therefore had only a de facto existence. This being so, the authorities considered the complainants not as a " trade union " in the true sense of the term but rather as a " group of workers " within the meaning of section 42 of the Supreme Decree of 23 March 1936, which is still in force. It is by virtue of this section that the authorities required 50 per cent plus one of the workers concerned to sign the claim, whereas if the trade union had been registered, as it was free to have been, the signatures of the trade union officers would have sufficed.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 35. Noting, however, that the complainants do not appear to have experienced any difficulty in collecting the number of signatures required, and that the matter was finally settled in a manner satisfactory to them, the Committee considers that it should recommend the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.