Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 344, March 2007

Case No 2386 (Peru) - Complaint date: 25-AUG-04 - Closed

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 170. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in November 2005 [see 338th Report, paras 1229–1257], when it made the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to promote collective bargaining with the Unified Trade Union of Electricity Workers of Lima and Callao (SUTREL), in the Edelnor SAA enterprise and to keep it informed of the result of the appeal lodged against the arbitral award which confirmed the validity of the collective agreement concluded with the non-unionized workers in the enterprise.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government, if it is found that the workers of the Cam–Peru SRL enterprise are affiliated to the SUTREL and this is the most representative trade union, to take measures in order to promote collective bargaining between this trade union and the Cam–Peru SRL enterprise. Moreover, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the proceedings for protection of constitutional rights initiated by the SUTREL against the decision of the administrative authority which found that the enterprise’s refusal to engage in collective bargaining was well founded.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the Cam–Peru SRL enterprise deducts trade union dues as ordered by the judicial authority. As regards the failure to deduct trade union dues by the Edelnor SAA enterprise, the Committee requests the Government to send it a copy of any judicial decision handed down in this regard, and to guarantee respect for the principle that the withdrawal of the check-off facility, which could lead to financial difficulties for trade union organizations, is not conducive to the development of harmonious industrial relations and should therefore be avoided. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in both enterprises.
   • (d) The Committee urges the Government to carry out an inquiry concerning the payment of a bonus to workers for withdrawing from membership of the SUTREL and, if the complainants’ allegations are confirmed, to take the necessary measures to remedy the anti-union practices observed and their consequences. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the results of this inquiry.
   • (e) As regards the alleged threats by Edelnor SAA to restrict the activity of the SUTREL trade union branch in regard to the distribution of its newspaper, the Committee reminds the Government of the resolution concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties adopted by the International Labour Conference in 1970, which defined freedom of opinion and of expression, among others, as essential for the normal exercise of trade union rights. The Committee requests the Government to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to ensure that these rights are guaranteed.
   • (f) Lastly, recalling that trade union leave should not be unreasonably withheld and that this matter is regulated by Peruvian legislation, the Committee requests the Government to ensure compliance with the legislation on this subject and to keep it informed of developments.
2. 171. In a communication dated 21 September 2006, the SUTREL alleges that the Cam–Peru enterprise is refusing to: (1) comply with the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of 20 January 2006, ordering recognition of the right of workers to join the SUTREL, recognition of its trade union leaders and respect for the right to bargain collectively; (2) comply with the subdirectoral decision of 14 July 2005, and the directoral decision No. 07-2006-MTPE/2/12.2, dated 9 January 2006, issued by the administrative labour authority, finding that Cam–Peru’s opposition to the list of claims for the period 1 January to 31 December 2005 is unfounded; (3) respond to the call from the labour authority to participate in conciliation in relation to collective bargaining in the context of case No. 122384-2004-DRTPEL-DPSC-SDNC; (4) submit to arbitration for the settlement of the 2005 list of claims, thereby giving rise to a serious labour dispute, which could have unforeseen consequences; (5) recognize the right of members of the SUTREL to engage in collective bargaining, by opposing the submission of the list of claims for the period 1 January to 31 December 2006, despite the fact that its position was held to be unfounded by the first-level labour authority in a decision of 23 June 2006; (6) deduct the extraordinary trade union dues, as duly requested by the trade union by notarized letters dated 13 March and 3 July 2006, in accordance with the agreement adopted by the assembly of the SUTREL workers; and (7) receive and attend to communications sent by the SUTREL drawing its attention to labour, social, economic, cultural and/or safety issues as they arise, thereby obliging the SUTREL to send such communications through a notary.
3. 172. In a communication dated 25 October 2006, the Government states that, with a view to obtaining further information on the legal action for protection of constitutional rights initiated by the SUTREL against the decision by the administrative authority upholding the position of the employer not to engage in collective bargaining, official letter No. 583-2006-MTPE/9.1 was sent to the 12th Civil Court of Lima seeking information on the outcome of the appeal. However, no reply has yet been received from the court. The Government undertakes to forward the relevant information as soon it is received.
4. 173. The Committee notes this information. The Committee regrets that despite the time that has elapsed, the Government has not sent the requested information, and asks it to provide this information without delay, including information on the additional matters raised by the SUTREL.