Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO362, November 2011

1. 1306. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Autonomous Confederation of Peruvian Workers (CATP) dated 24 November 2010. The organization sent a communication containing additional information on 15 March 2011.
2. 1307. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated May 2011.
3. 1308. 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. The complainant’s allegations

1. 1309. In its extensive communications of 24 November 2010 and 15 March 2011, the CATP claims that, since 1997, the administrative authorities of the Ministry of Labour have repeatedly and unlawfully granted recognition to the Executive Committee of the Single Union of Public Service Drivers of Lima headed by Mr Jaime Ravelo (subsequently by Mr Rómulo Máximo Pizarro Bustos), thereby disregarding the Executive Committee (or sector) headed by Mr Rolando Torres Prieto, which in the complainant’s view is the legitimate one.
2. 1310. The CATP also claims that, over the years, the Executive Committee headed by Mr Jaime Ravelo (and more recently by Mr Rómulo Máximo Pizarro), and the administrative and judicial authorities have committed various irregularities and acts contrary to the established by-laws.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 1311. In its communication of May 2011, the Government states that the complaint refers to an internal dispute within the Single Union of Public Service Drivers of Lima which dates back to 1997 and flares up each time a new Executive Committee is elected. The Government maintains that the administrative authority has complied with all relevant legislation, administrative procedures and judicial decisions. The Government refers to a judicial decision taken on 26 July 2005 in favour of the Executive Committee headed by Mr Jaime Ravelo, which was contested by the complainant organization, and to two similar trade union appeals in 2006 and 2008. The Ministry of Labour complied with these decisions.
2. 1312. The Government adds that a case brought against the Ministry of Labour by Mr Rolando Torres Prieto was declared unfounded by the Court of First Instance in 2010, resulting in an appeal being filed on 20 September of the same year.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1313. The Committee notes that in this case the complainant organization alleges that, since 1997, the authorities of the Ministry of Labour have repeatedly and unlawfully granted recognition to the Executive Committee of the Single Union of Public Service Drivers of Lima headed by Mr Jaime Ravelo (subsequently by Mr Rómulo Máximo Pizarro Bustos), disregarding the Executive Committee (or sector) headed by Mr Ronaldo Torres Prieto, which, in the opinion of the complainant organization, is the legitimate one.
2. 1314. The Committee notes the Government’s statement to the effect that the complaint refers to an internal trade union dispute; that judicial decisions have been handed down in favour of Mr Jaime Ravelo, including one in 2010 which was subsequently appealed by Mr Rolando Torres Prieto, who is requesting the dissolution of the Executive Committee in question. The Government states that it has shown unwavering respect for all relevant legislation, administrative procedures and judicial decisions.
3. 1315. The Committee recalls 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].
4. 1316. Under these circumstances, and noting that this complaint has been referred to the judicial authority, 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.