Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 395, June 2021

Case No 2854 (Peru) - Complaint date: 19-APR-11 - Closed

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

1. 39. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2014 session. On that occasion, it emphasized the importance of holding in-depth consultations with the complainant, the National Federation of Workers of the National Ports Enterprise (FENTENAPU), on the impact of the privatization processes in various port terminals [see 371st Report, paras 105–114].
2. 40. In communications dated 4 April 2014 and 9 November 2015, FENTENAPU indicates that the Committee’s recommendation was not implemented, because the federation was not consulted on the impact of the privatization of port terminals. It also alleges that in 2014 the National Ports Enterprise (ENAPU) disregarded the arbitral award of 2013, having challenged it before the Fourth Labour Chamber of Lima, and that the financial incentive scheme for voluntary lay-offs that was implemented in the port authorities of Paita, Callao and General San Martín (Pisco) in reality disguised mass dismissals.
3. 41. In its communications dated 27 May 2014, 2 August 2016, 17 July 2017 and 8 January 2019, the Government indicates that there is no obligation under its national legislation to formally begin a process of consultation with workers of enterprises in cases of restructuring or privatization. At the same time, the Government indicates that an opinion must be sought from the Ministry of Transport and Communication of the enterprise that is the current concession-holder of the port terminals and from the Labour and Social Security Committee of the National Congress so that they can comment on the process of consultation with trade union organizations in the awarding of concessions, privatization and restructuring. In relation to the incentive scheme for voluntary lay-offs, the Government indicates that the enterprise that was awarded the concession of the port terminals had made a commitment to rehire a significant percentage of workers and that, in the case of the General San Martín port terminal in Pisco, it was those same trade unions that sought the implementation of a voluntary lay-off scheme with incentives.
4. 42. The Government also indicates that a multisectoral commission was established in 2015 in order to analyse the problems in dock work in the country and produce a technical report including draft standards to contribute to resolving the problems. The Government indicates that the commission, which included representatives of the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Transport and Communication, the Ministry of Health and the National Port Authority, among others, organized various working meetings with representatives of dockworkers’ and employers’ organizations in 2015 (the Government appended a copy of the minutes of the meetings, in which workers’ representatives from various trade unions are recorded as participants). The Government indicates that the comments of the workers’ and employers’ representatives were taken into account when the report was prepared and the findings were produced. The Government appended a copy of the final report of the multisectoral commission, dated 12 April 2016, which indicates that the main topics addressed included the register of dockworkers, the hiring system, rights and obligations of dockworkers, remuneration and payment of social benefits. The report contains a bill that the commission submitted to the executive for its consideration.
5. 43. Concerning the arbitral award and collective bargaining, ENAPU indicates that industrial relations with FENTENAPU continue to be harmonious, taking into account that the enterprise complies with the labour standards and collective agreements in force.
6. 44. The Committee recalls that this complaint, which was presented in 2011, was examined on two occasions and that at the last examination in 2014, the one outstanding matter was consultation with the complainant federation on the impact of the processes of privatization of various port terminals.
7. 45. The Committee notes that the complainant indicates in its communications of 2014 and 2015 that those consultations did not take place.
8. 46. The Committee notes the Government’s replies in this respect and observes that, firstly, the Government indicates that there is no obligation under its national legislation to formally begin a process of consultation with workers of enterprises in cases of restructuring or privatization and, secondly, an opinion must be sought from the Ministry of Transport and Communication of the enterprise that is the current concession-holder of the port terminals and from the Labour and Social Security Committee of the National Congress so that they can comment on the process of consultation with trade union organizations in the awarding of concessions, privatization and restructuring. The Committee also notes that the Government indicates that a multisectoral commission was established in 2015 in order to analyse the problems in dock work in the country and produce a technical report including draft standards to contribute to resolving the problems.
9. 47. While observing that the work carried out by the multisectoral commission addressed general matters of concern to dockworkers and not specifically the subject matter of this case, the Committee observes that, as recorded in the minutes of the meetings of the multisectoral commission on 10 June, 17 August, 2 September and 15 September 2015, the commission received visits from various trade unions and offered them an opportunity to present their main concerns and matters of interest.
10. 48. As to the allegation that the National Ports Enterprise disregarded the arbitral award of 2013, the Committee notes that the enterprise indicates that industrial relations with FENTENAPU continue to be harmonious and that the enterprise complies with the labour standards and collective agreements in force.
11. 49. In view of the above, and given that the Committee does not have updated information from the complainant organization regarding consultations on the effects of port terminal privatization processes, the Committee considers the present case closed and will not examine it further.