Definitive Report - Report No 157, June 1976

Case No 762 (Peru) - Complaint date: 22-JUN-73 - Closed

1. 32. The Committee already examined this case in May 1974 and May 1975 and presented an interim report to the Governing Body at each of those sessions. These reports are reproduced in paragraphs 136-145 of its 144th report and paragraphs 122-134 of its 151st report.
2. 33. Peru has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 34. The allegations still outstanding concerned the imprisonment of 11 workers of SIDERPERU. The Departmental Trade Union Federation of Workers of Ancash (FESIDETA) and 42 trade unions in the region requested the ILO to intercede with the Peruvian Government in order to put a stop to these injustices.
2. 35. In its reply, the Government indicated, in particular, that disturbances having nothing to do with trade union activities had taken place in May 1973 in the Chimbote Steelworks of the State undertaking SIDERPERU. As the disturbances, which had caused considerable damage to the installations, were deliberate criminal offences, the persons thought to be responsible were being held at the disposal of the judicial authorities. The Government added that the complaint failed to give the names of the persons concerned, that membership of a trade union did not confer the right to commit offences and remain unpunished and that, as the damage caused had nothing to do with trade union activity, its authors would have to be punished by the judicial authorities in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Penal Code.
3. 36. In its 144th report, the Committee recommended the Governing Body, inter alia, to request the Government to supply a copy of the text of the decisions of the judicial authorities, once issued, together with the grounds adduced therefore in respect of the arrested workers.
4. 37. The Government supplied further information in a communication dated 11 March 1975, in which it stated that SIDERPERU was given over to producing basic materials for national defence and that its activities were directed towards metalworking and the direct or indirect marketing of steel and allied products. According to the Government, the excellent employer-worker relations existing in the undertaking deteriorated in May 1973 when the trade unions in the organisation called a strike as a token of solidarity with other trade union organisations at Chimbote, for reasons which had nothing to do with SIDERPERU itself. The stoppage had degenerated into an indefinite general strike which affected the activities of SIDERPERU's Chimbote plant, although declared for reasons which had nothing to do with the organisation. A group of strikers had refused access to the plant to personnel responsible for avoiding damage to the blast furnace and to the electronic and automatic equipment in the undertaking. This had resulted in serious damage to material and equipment and losses running into several million soles, and the ultimate effects had been injurious to the metalworking industry.
5. 38. The Government added that 12 former workers of the undertaking, 4 of whom were trade union leaders, had been accused of sabotage. None of them was at that time still detained; the courts had not yet pronounced their verdict and investigations were still proceeding.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 39. The Committee did not have any information as to whether the twelve workers concerned were being prosecuted for taking part in strike action or because they caused destruction to material and equipment. However, the courts had not yet pronounced their verdict. In May 1975, the Committee, therefore, recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to furnish details on the charges brought against 12 workers and to communicate the text of the court decision, together with the grounds adduced therefor.
2. 40. The Government pointed out in a letter of 10 December 1975 that it needed to know the names of the workers in question so as to be able to state whether or not they had been involved in the events regarding which court action had been taken. It added that investigations had been opened up "against the persons found to be responsible for the damage" and not against the persons mentioned, and it attached copies of various case documents to its letter it stated that according to the General Secretary of the SIDERPERU Union itself, the strike action had been taken as a token of solidarity with the trade union Confederation and that the union leaders of the undertaking had not fully complied with the request by the Director-General of SIDERPERU that security personnel be nominated to prevent disturbances. The Government also stated that the investigations had led to dismissal of the charge (a copy of the dismissal findings was attached) and that no worker was in prison.

41. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government and in the light of this recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination.