Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - REPORT_NO407, June 2024

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

1. 30. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns allegations relating to the dismissal of trade union leaders of the Single Trade Union of Workers of Casa Grande and Allied Enterprises (SUTCGA) and other anti-union acts by a sugar company, at its March 2014 meeting [see 371st Report, paras 744–765]. On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the trial concerning the dismissal of six leaders of the complainant union.
2. 31. By communications of 15 May and 19 August 2014, 28 August, 9 October and 3 December 2018 and 22 January 2024, the Government informs that: (i) the dismissal annulment proceedings initiated in 2013 concluded with respect to four trade union leaders because three of them conciliated with the sugar company and the judicial proceedings concerning the fourth leader were brought to an end, given that the facts on which the proceedings were based had disappeared; (ii) through a second instance judgment of 2018, the dismissal of the other two union leaders (Mr Saucedo Castillo and Mr Rubio Oliva) were declared null and void, and their reinstatement was ordered, which was complied with by the sugar company; and (iii) in 2023, the cassation appeal filed by the sugar company against this judgment was declared unfounded.
3. 32. By means of a communication dated 21 December 2016, the Trade Union Confederation of Peruvian Workers (CSP) submitted additional allegations concerning obstructions to the exercise of trade union rights by members and leaders of the SUTCGA.
4. 33. The CSP alleges that, as a result of various claims by the SUTCGA, the sugar company: (i) generated a conflict between the union leaders of this organization by having a group of workers related to it attempt to accredit a management committee of the union for the 2015–17 period before the administrative labour authority (AAT) to the detriment of another previously registered and led by the two aforementioned union leaders; (ii) delayed the discussion of the list of claims for the same period; (iii) coerced the negotiating committee and the leaders of the SUTCGA to sign an unfair list of claims and to end the strike carried out in March 2016 through the filing of criminal charges and complaints as well as threats; and (iv) in retaliation for their participation in the strike, dismissed the two union leaders mentioned above and other unionized workers and announced the reduction of holidays and the deduction of social benefits for absences during the strike. The CSP indicates that it has denounced to the labour inspectorate both the anti-union acts described above and the illegal withholding of cheques for union dues by the sugar company.
5. 34. The CSP also alleges that, illegally and biased towards the sugar company, the AAT: (i) declared the 2016 strike unjustified after a document submitted by the SUTCGA (the affidavit of a union leader) was subtracted; and (ii) delayed the resolution of the proceedings initiated by the SUTCGA in relation to the 2015–17 list of claims and the 2016 strike.
6. 35. With regard to the allegations of anti-union acts, the Government provides information according to which: (i) there is a conflict between two leadership groups of the SUTCGA claiming representativeness and legitimacy vis-à-vis the sugar company and the AAT, which led to the interruption of collective bargaining 2015–17; (ii) after several conciliation meetings promoted by the AAT in a framework of respect for freedom of association and good faith bargaining, in June 2016 the sugar company and the SUTCGA, under the representation of the two union leaders mentioned above, signed the collective agreement 2015–17; (iii) also in the context of meetings convened by the AAT, in April and June 2016 the SUTCGA and the sugar company concluded agreements that addressed both the issue of dismissal and harassment of workers who took part in the March 2016 strike and the granting of loans to compensate for the discounts for absenteeism during the strike; (iv) in August 2016, the SUTCGA denounced to the labour inspectorate the existence of acts of hostility against the workers who took part in the 2016 strike; (v) in August and September 2016, the AAT was informed that the two union leaders mentioned above had been removed from their positions and that, up to that point, they had been provisionally reinstated by the sugar company in compliance with a precautionary measure; and (vi) in 2018, an ex officio inspection procedure was initiated with respect to the sugar company in order to verify the commission of the anti-union acts alleged by the CSP, which concluded without finding any legal breaches of freedom of association.
7. 36. In relation to the questioning of the AAT’s actions, the Government states that: (i) this authority has at all times safeguarded the principles and rights provided for in the rules governing administrative procedure and collective labour relations; (ii) the 2016 strike was declared first inadmissible and then illegal because of inconsistencies, in particular with regard to the number of attendees at the assembly at which the strike was decided; (iii) the competent provincial public prosecutor’s office declared that it was inadmissible to open an investigation for offences against the public administration against the AAT official who was in charge of the proceedings initiated by the SUTCGA; and (iv) the existence of an internal trade union conflict and the resolution of the various appeals lodged by the parties concerned had an impact on the duration of the aforementioned proceedings.
8. 37. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government and of the information available on the website of the Peruvian judiciary concerning the outcome of the dismissal annulment proceedings initiated in 2013 by leaders of the SUTCGA against the sugar company. The Committee notes that two of the trade union leaders were definitively reinstated by the company on 20 December 2018 and that the proceedings were terminated early (without a ruling on the merits) in respect of the others following, in particular, the signing of several conciliation agreements.
9. 38. The Committee also takes note of the additional allegations made by the CSP concerning various anti-union acts allegedly carried out by the sugar company to the detriment of the SUTCGA in the context of collective bargaining 2015–17 and a strike in 2016. Such acts allegedly include the creation of an internal trade union conflict, the intentional delay of the collective bargaining process, the withholding of union dues, company coercion to conclude the negotiations and put an end to the strike, as well as reprisals against the striking workers by reducing their remuneration (holidays and social benefits) and the dismissal of several trade unionists, including the two trade union leaders mentioned in the previous paragraph. The Committee notes that the CSP also questions the delay and lack of impartiality of the AAT in handling and resolving the proceedings initiated by the SUTCGA in connection with the collective bargaining and strike referred to above.
10. 39. The Committee notes that in its observations, the Government refers to the existence of a trade union conflict within the SUTCGA and to the fact that this conflict is said to have led to the temporary interruption of collective bargaining 2015–17 and, together with other elements, to the duration of the proceedings initiated by the SUTCGA before the AAT. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, following various meetings promoted by the AAT in a framework of respect for freedom of association and good faith bargaining, in June 2016, the SUTCGA (represented by the two trade union leaders mentioned above) and the sugar company signed the collective agreement 2015–17 and concluded other agreements addressing the problem of wage deductions and dismissals of workers who went on strike in March 2016. The Committee also notes that the Government indicates that, following an ex officio inspection in 2018, the labour inspectorate did not detect the violations of freedom of association alleged by the CSP.
11. 40. Having taken due note of the elements provided by the parties, the Committee, on the one hand, recalls that the two trade union leaders – to whose dismissal the CSP refers – were definitively reinstated in 2018 by the sugar company and, on the other hand, notes that the remaining allegations of the CSP have already been addressed in agreements concluded between the SUTGCA and the said company and through actions by the national authorities.
12. 41. With regard to the declaration of illegality by the AAT of the strike carried out in 2016 by the SUTGCA, the Committee wishes to emphasize that, as recalled in its previous examination of the case, the responsibility for declaring a strike illegal should not lie with the government, but with an independent body which has the confidence of the parties [Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 907]. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take steps to amend the legislation to take account of this criterion.
13. 42. On the basis of the above and having received no information from the complainant organizations since 2016, the Committee considers the present case closed and will not pursue its examination.