Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - REPORT_NO337, June 2005

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

1. 116. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in March 2004 [see 333rd Report, paras. 849-862]. On that occasion the Committee observed that: (1) the complainants had alleged that the decision made by the Lima Water and Sewerage Company (Servicio de Agua Potable y Alcantarillado de Lima, SEDAPAL S.A.) to end its contract with CONCYSSA S.A. would lead to mass dismissals and the dissolution of the Single Trade Union of Water and Sewerage Control Workers (SUTOPEC); (2) the complainants and the Government agreed that the contract between SEDAPAL S.A. and CONCYSSA S.A. would have ended; (3) the complainants had not alleged that the legal relationship between the enterprises was ended for anti-union purposes. The Committee considered in these conditions that the information in the Committee’s possession did not allow it to determine whether the case concerned a matter of freedom of association, and requested the Government to transmit all eventual decisions taken by the authorities concerning violations of freedom of association.
2. 117. In its communication of 9 February 2005, the Government states that SEDAPAL S.A. indicated that it had concluded contracts in connection with maintenance work on the water and sewerage systems and pumping station operations with the company CONCYSSA S.A., the latter being responsible for providing trained workers, materials, equipment and anything else that might be necessary. CONCYSSA S.A. assumed exclusive responsibility for the workers it hired. The Government also states that more than 200 workers at CONCYSSA S.A. have initiated legal proceedings against that company and against SEDAPAL S.A. in relation to alleged contraventions of labour law, and that no final ruling has yet been handed down.
3. 118. The Committee takes note of this information. In these conditions, given that in the light of the Government’s new observations, it is unable to determine whether this case concerns a matter of freedom of association, the Committee will not proceed with an examination of these allegations.