Seguimiento dado a las recomendaciones del Comité y del Consejo de Administración - Informe núm. 367, Marzo 2013

Caso núm. 2831 (Perú) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 24-NOV-10 - Cerrado

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

1. 97. The Committee last examined this case, which involves allegations concerning a dispute over the authorities’ recognition of the executive committee of the Single Union of Public Service Drivers of Lima, at its November 2011 meeting, and on that occasion it made the following recommendation [see 362nd Report, para. 1317]:
   • The Committee requests the Government to inform it of any ruling handed down regarding the appeal lodged against the decision of the Ministry of Labour in favour of the Executive Committee of the Single Union of Public Service Drivers of Lima, which is contested by the complainant organization (CATP), and of the decision taken by the Court of First Instance in this regard.
2. 98. In its communication of 28 August 2012, the Government states that: (1) in the first instance, the 14th Administrative Court ruled that the case brought by Mr Rolando Alonso Torres Prieto (an official of the Single Union of Public Service Drivers of Lima) was unfounded; and (2) on 14 June 2012, the First Administrative Chamber ruled on the appeal lodged by Mr Torres Prieto, declaring the case brought against the Ministry of Labour to be unfounded (the Government attaches copies of the first instance ruling and the ruling of the Higher Court of Justice for Lima).
3. 99. The Committee takes note of this information and observes, in particular, that the judicial rulings forwarded by the Government show that a request was made for the resolution of an internal union dispute concerning the request for registration of the union’s executive committee. In these circumstances, recalling that it has underlined on several occasions that, when internal disputes arise in a trade union organization, they should be resolved by the persons concerned (for example, by a vote), by appointing an independent mediator with the agreement of the parties concerned, or by intervention of the judicial authorities [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 1122], and that in this case the judicial authorities have handed down a ruling, the Committee will not proceed with the examination of these allegations.