Definitive Report - Report No 238, March 1985

Case No 1289 (Peru) - Complaint date: 04-JUN-84 - Closed

1. 141. The Employees' Union of Esperanza del Peru S.A. - Clinica San Borja submitted a complaint in a communication dated 4 June 1984. The Government replied in a communication dated 5 October 1984.
2. 142. Peru has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No.087), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No.098).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 143. In its communication dated 4 June 1984, the complainant alleges that the undertaking known as Esperanza del Peru S.A. has, with the approval of the Ministry of Labour, been engaging in a series of delaying tactics designed to prevent the registration of the Employees' Union of Esperanza del Peru S.A. - Clinica San Borja, which was set up on 23 April 1984. The appropriate authorities and the undertaking were immediately informed of the setting up of this organisation.
2. 144. The complainant refers also to a series of acts designed to destroy the union:
   • - the mass dismissal of trade union leaders and members and the Ministry of Labour not acting rapidly to consider their reinstatement;
   • - intimidation of union members by systematically changing their place and hours of work;
   • - police intervention on the pretext of protecting the property of the undertaking, in order to intimidate the workers;
   • - summoning of union leaders Jesús Soto and Raúl Sánchez to appear before the Lima police headquarters to answer complaints allegedly lodged by their employer.

B. The Government's reply

1. 145. The Government states that on 27 July 1984 the Trade Union Registration Division issued Resolution No. 060-84-RES registering the Employees' Union of Esperanza del Peru S.A. - Clinica San Borja; the said union was notified accordingly on the same day. The Government argues that the complaint is, therefore, completely unfounded and the fact that the union has been registered is proof that freedom of association and ILO Convention No. 87 are fully operative in Peru.
2. 146. Regarding the alleged intervention of the police, the Government states that complaints were lodged by the undertaking which has the right to request the collaboration of the police to protect its interests, in view of the special circumstances prevailing in the country at present. The Government states that this does not constitute an infringement of trade union rights.
3. 147. With regard to the remaining allegations (mass dismissal of trade union leaders and members of the complainant organisation, systematic changes in the place and hours of work, etc.), the Government states that no complaints concerning these matters have been brought before the labour administration, as authorised by Supreme Decree No. 006-72-TR which lays down the procedure for complaints of infringements of laws or agreements or calling for a dismissed worker's reinstatement.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 148. As regards the alleged delaying tactics engaged in by the undertaking, Esperanza del Peru S.A., with the approval of the Ministry of Labour in order to prevent the union's registration, the Committee observes that the Government does not refer explicitly to the allegation, but states that the union was registered on 27 July 1984 (more than three months after the request was submitted). In these circumstances, the Committee takes note of the information supplied by the Government but regrets that there was a delay in registering the union despite the fact that there were no apparent obstacles justifying the delay.
2. 149. Regarding the alleged mass dismissal and changes in the place and hours of work of union members, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, no complaint has been lodged to this effect despite the fact that specific procedures exist for doing so under the legislation in force. In these circumstances, and considering that the complainant has supplied no further details, such as the name of the persons allegedly affected and the date on which the alleged events took place, the Committee considers that this aspect of the complaint does not call for further examination.
3. 150. As regards the alleged intervention of the police (the dispatch of police to the undertaking and the summoning of two union leaders to Lima police headquarters), the Committee notes the Government's statement that the undertaking is entitled to request police collaboration to protect its interests, in view of the special circumstances presently prevailing in the country. The Committee regrets that neither the complainant nor the Government has provided any further details on the manner in which the alleged events took place and their relevance to the exercise of trade union rights. The Committee, accordingly, considers that it does not have sufficient information at its disposal to reach any conclusion on the subject.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 151. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve the present report and, in particular, the following conclusion: The Committee notes that the Employees' Union of Esperanza del Peru S.A. was registered on 27 July 1984. Nevertheless, the Committee regrets that there was a delay in its registration (more than three months after the request was submitted) despite the fact that there were no apparent obstacles justifying the delay.