Interim Report - Report No 144, 1974

1. 136. The joint complaint by the Non-Manual Workers' Union of the SIDER Metalworks, the Manual Workers' Union of SIDER and the Departmental Trade Union Federation of Workers of Ancash (FESIDETA) is contained in a communication dated 22 June 1973.
2. 137. The text of this communication was transmitted to the Government, which forwarded its observations in a communication dated 8 February 1974.
3. 138. Peru has ratified both 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. 139. In their communication the complainant organisations allege that eleven workers, including two women, have been imprisoned and that massive dismissals of trade union leaders, with loss of social benefits, have taken place. The FESIDETA and forty-two trade unions in the region request the ILO to make representations to the Peruvian Government so as to put a stop to these injustices.
2. 140. In its communication the Government begins by stating that the Chimbote Steelworks, SIDERPERU, is a state undertaking which, because of its very humane and fair policies, has no labour problems with its employees.
3. 141. With regard to the complainants' allegations, the Government states that in March 1973, at a time when production had reached a record level after various problems had been overcome, disturbances broke out in the plant for reasons that had nothing to do with trade union activities. According to the Government, these disturbances, which were nothing else than sabotage, caused considerable damage to the installations of the plant. The Government adds that since the damage was done deliberately, the persons thought to be responsible are being held at the disposal of the judicial authorities.
4. 142. The Government considers the complaint to be unfounded for the following reasons: it fails to give the names of the persons concerned; the fact that a worker belongs to a trade union does not give him the right to commit offences and remain unpunished, and those responsible for the damage done in the Chimbote Steelworks, which had nothing to do with trade union activity, must be punished by the judicial authorities in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Penal Code. The Government adds that it has issued a legislative decree which provides for the reorganisation of SIDERPERU and invites its management to select appropriate personnel. This recruitment is taking place without any discrimination whatsoever.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 143. The Committee notes that the allegations made by the complainants concern, on the one hand, the arrest of eleven employees of the SIDERPERU Steelworks and, on the other, the dismissal of numerous trade union leaders from the same undertaking. As concerns the former allegations, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, these persons were arrested because damage had been done to the Chimbote Steelworks for reasons unconnected with trade union activities and in consequence the persons thought to be responsible were placed at the disposal of the judicial authorities. In accordance with its usual practice the Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to supply the text of the decision of these authorities, together with the grounds adduced therefor, once these are handed down.
2. 144. With regard to the allegations relating to the dismissal of trade union leaders, the Committee notes that the Government's reply contains no information on the subject. In such cases the Committee has always drawn attention to the principle that workers - and especially trade union officials - should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment such as dismissal, demotion, transfer or other prejudicial measures. However, this principle does not necessarily imply that the fact that a person holds a trade union office confers on him immunity against dismissal irrespective of the circumstances. The Committee considers that, in order to enable it to come to its conclusions on this aspect of the complaint in full knowledge of the facts, it would be useful if the Government were to be requested to give details about the dismissals to which the complainants refer.