Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 153, Mars 1976

Cas no 788 (Pérou) - Date de la plainte: 08-MAI -74 - Clos

1. 119. The complaint from the International Union of Food and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF) was submitted by a communication of 8 May 1974. The complainant submitted further information by a letter of 11 June 1974. The Government presented its observations in a communication of 21 May 1975.
2. 120. 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. 121. The IUF alleges in its initial communication that its General Secretary, Mr. Dan Gallin and his Regional Secretary for Latin America Mr. Enildo Iglesias, when visiting several Latin American countries to prepare for the IUF Sixth Regional Conference for Latin America, which took place in April 1974, were invited in particular to Peru, to attend the Congress of the National Federation of Hotel and Allied Workers (Lima, 25-27 March) and the inauguration of the new premises of the Perulac (Nestlé) Workers' Union (Chiclayo, 23 March). These two organisations are affiliated to the IUF.
2. 122. On 24 March, continues the complainant, Mr. Gallin and Mr. Iglesias were arrested by the Peruvian security police at Chiclayo and taken to police headquarters in Lima, where they were held without charges and incommunicado throughout the day of 25 March. Upon release, they were taken to a hotel and kept there under police guard until the following morning. Being confined to the hotel, they were unable to attend the Congress of the National Federation of Hotel and Allied Workers which began on the evening of 25 March.
3. 123. In its second communication, the complainant refers to similar earlier events it states that Mr. Iglesias visited Peru in May 1973. The police arrested him at Cajamarca on 5 May at the end of a trade union meeting. After a short interrogation, he was transferred to Chiclayo and interrogated again. The next day he was taken to Lima (still under arrest and incommunicado) and interrogated by various police departments. He was expelled on 9 May. The only explanation offered, despite repeated requests made by him, was that his arrival in the country had coincided with the strike by one of the organisations affiliated to the IUF.
4. 124. The complainant adds that Mr. Iglesias returned to Peru on 23 July 1973 and was summoned the next day before the Prefect of the City of Lima (the highest police authority in the city) who interrogated him about the reasons for his presence in Peru, the length of his stay, etc. The Prefect was satisfied with his explanations and said that he was free to do what he liked and would have no difficulties in the future unless his visit coincided with a labour conflict in which a union affiliated to the IUF was involved; apart from that he could freely visit affiliated organisations and participate in their congresses, etc., as in the past.
5. 125. The Government states in its reply that Mr. Gallin and Mr. Iglesias entered Peru with tourist visas and, despite that, indulged in activities prejudicial to public order, such as participating on 23 May 1974 in the activities of the National Federation of Hotel and Allied Workers. Consequently, continues the Government, in view of Mr. Iglesias' previous activities and the activities in which the two leaders were involved with Mr. Arturo Castillo Chirinos, General Secretary of the Perulac Workers' Union and a well-known agitator, the police had conducted Mr. Iglesias and Mr. Gallin to Lima to obtain explanations regarding the reasons for their stay in Peru. According to the Government, the inquiry showed that Mr. Iglesias had taken part in trade union matters of a domestic nature completely unassociated with the touristic nature of his trip. For that reason, the authorities had been obliged, in order to safeguard peace and public order, to expel the two leaders.
6. 126. The Government then describes certain earlier events which, it maintains, show that Mr. Iglesias is an agitator and a disturber of internal public order. He had entered Peru on 2 May 1973 and had unsuccessful talks the next morning with the management of Perulac concerning the position of workers in that undertaking who had started a strike. On 4 May, he had gone to Chiclayo to take part in a meeting with Perulac workers and had offered them a sum equivalent to $1,000 for the continuation of the strike. He had then gone to Cajamarca on 5 May to attend a general meeting of the union and had again offered financial aid for the continuation of the strike. Mr. Iglesias' activities, continues the Government, were not therefore those of a tourist and as they further aggravated the existing labour conflicts, the authorities had expelled him. He had returned to Peru on 23 July 1973 for talks with the leaders of three national unions, including the two referred to.
7. 127. Statements made by Mr. Gallin on 25 March 1974, adds the Government, show that his activities were designed to promote labour disputes in the country. In 1973, for example, the IUF had handed over 129,000 soles to the Perulac Union for the workers on strike and had also sent 25,000 soles to the Peruvian Food and Allied Workers' Federation in 1973 in support of a strike. The Government concludes that the action taken against Mr. Gallin and Mr. Iglesias was based on the undeniable right of every State to exercise its domestic sovereignty in defence of internal public order and to ensure smooth industrial relations. It considers that the complainant interfered in the country's internal affairs.
8. 128. This case concerns two leaders of an international trade union organisation who were expelled, according to the Government, for having jeopardised public order by participating in the activities of national unions affiliated to the IUF whilst on a visit with tourist visas; one of them had previously supported labour disputes, in particular by providing money to support strikes organised by national workers' organisations.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 129. The Committee has already pointed out in the past that international trade union solidarity is one of the basic objectives of any trade union movement and that one of the corollaries of the right to affiliate with international trade union organisations is the right of the national organisations to enjoy all the advantages resulting from their affiliation. Nevertheless, the granting of such advantages must not conflict with the law, it being understood that the law should not be such as to render any such affiliation meaningless. Any government has the right to take the necessary measures to maintain public order and, for this purpose, to check the reason for a visit to the country by trade unionists who may be under suspicion in this connection.
2. 130. With specific reference to the visit to Peru made by Mr. Gallin and Mr. Iglesias in March 1974, the Committee notes that its purpose, according to the complainant, was to attend the Congress of the National Federation of Hotel and Allied workers and the inauguration of the new premises of the Perulac Workers' Union. Still according to the complainant, the Prefect of Lima assured Mr. Iglesias In July 1973 that he would have no difficulty in future in visiting unions affiliated to the IUF and in attending their congresses, provided that his visit did not coincide with a labour dispute. The Government claims that the statements made by Mr. Gallin in March 1974 showed that the purpose of his activities was to support labour conflicts in Peru. The Government has given no further information in this connection, merely referring to financial support given to affiliated Peruvian organisations on the occasion of the strikes in 1973, and pointing cut that Mr. Gallin and Mr. Iglesias had indulged in activities jeopardising public order, such as their participation on 23 May 1974 in activities of the Federation mentioned.
3. 131. The Committee considers that, as a general rule, the visiting of affiliated national trade union organisations and participation in their congresses are normal activities for international workers' organisations, subject to the provisions of national legislation with regard to the admission of foreigners. The Peruvian Government does not specify why it considers that participation by Mr. Gallin and Mr. Iglesias in May 1974 in the activities of the National Federation of Hotel and Allied Workers jeopardised public order and justified their expulsion from the country. The Committee notes in this connection the statements said to have been made by the Prefect of Lima to Mr. Iglesias and which appeared to define the authorities' attitude regarding participation in this type of trade union activity.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 132. Under these conditions, the Committee recommends that the Governing Body call the attention of the Government and all parties concerned to the considerations and principles set out in paragraphs 129 to 131, especially as regards relations and contacts between international trade union organisations and their national affiliates and respect by the former for national legislation.