CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government's report which indicates that under Legislative Decree No. 650 of 23 July 1991, issuing the Act on compensation for time spent in employment, such compensation amounts to a social benefit to cover contingencies caused by lay-offs and to promote the worker and his family. The Government adds that the law on employment promotion (Legislative Decree No. 728, November 1991) establishes the right of workers to be paid compensation for unwarranted dismissal. The Government thus reiterates its opinion in previous reports that the legislation ensures economic protection for a worker who becomes unemployed to cover his expenditure until he finds a new job. In a communication of 10 June 1993 the Government confirms that compensation for dismissal is instead of unemployment insurance which would be extremely costly. The Government asserts that the relevant provisions of Peruvian law are in keeping with the definition of compensation contained in Article 1 of the Convention.

The Committee notes the foregoing but points out, as it did in earlier comments, that the legislation referred to by the Government does not constitute a system to provide unemployment benefit or allowance in conformity with the provisions of Convention No. 44. The Committee would also like to point out that, in order to give effect to the provisions of the Convention, ratifying States must ensure a benefit or an allowance to persons who are involuntarily unemployed, by means of a scheme which may be a compulsory insurance scheme, or a voluntary insurance scheme, or a combination of compulsory and voluntary schemes, or any of these alternatives combined with a complementary assistance scheme (Article 1 of the Convention). In these circumstances, the Committee hopes that the Government will review the situation and that in its next report it will be able to indicate the measures adopted or contemplated to establish an unemployment protection scheme as required by the provisions of the Convention.