Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 287, June 1993

1. 283. The National Confederation of Workers (CNT) presented this complaint in a communication dated 6 July 1992. It submitted further information in communications dated 15 and 27 August 1992. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 8 January 1993.
2. 284. Peru has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 285. In its communications of 6 July and 15 and 27 August 1992 the complainant alleges that the Ministry of Labour recognized a new executive committee of the CNT with views closer to those of the Government, disregarding the mandate given by the organization's last national congress. It adds that the Ministry of Labour took this decision on the grounds that it had noted that the executive committee chaired by Mr. Sánchez Zapata (and supported by the complainant organization) had failed to abide by some provisions of the internal rules of the Confederation. According to the complainant, the chairman of the new executive committee is a businessman, the head of the Lima-Callao Minibus Company, and is not a member of the CNT. Finally, the complainant states that it has filed "amparo" proceedings with the judicial authorities.

B. The Government's reply

1. 286. In its communication of 8 January 1993 the Government states that Supreme Decree No. 076-90-TR of December 1989 stipulates that the labour administration authority shall include in the trade union register any trade union organization that submits an affidavit requesting recognition, accompanied by certified copies of its act of constitution, internal rules and a list of the members of its executive committee. The Government explains that section 10 of this decree stipulates that in the event of any dispute over registration, the labour administration authority shall merely endorse the decision of the appropriate judicial authority or arbitration board.
2. 287. The Government states that in pursuance of this Supreme Decree, the administrative authority took note of the composition of the executive committee of the National Confederation of Workers, under the chairmanship of Mr. David Quintana. The documentation provided by the Government shows that the administrative authority examined the allegations made respectively by the executive committee chaired by Mr. Sánchez Zapata (which presented the complaint) and that headed by Mr. Quintana. It decided to recognize the executive committee chaired by the latter on the grounds that the previous leadership had not respected certain provisions of the organization's internal rules. Finally, the Government states that it is not for the administrative labour authority to intervene in disputes over registrations.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 288. The Committee notes that the present case concerns a dispute within the National Confederation of Workers, exacerbated by the recognition by the administrative labour authority of the organization's national executive committee headed by Mr. Quintana. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the labour administration authority registered this committee after ascertaining that the application met the legal requirements, and that the complainant organization has submitted this case of internal dispute to the judicial authorities.
2. 289. The Committee recalls that it "is not competent to make recommendations on internal dissensions within a trade union organization, so long as the government does not intervene in a manner which might affect the exercise of trade union rights and the normal functioning of an organization" (Digest of decisions and principles of the Committee on Freedom of Association, 3rd edition, 1985, para. 666). In these circumstances, since this is a case of internal trade union dissension which has been brought before a court, and the complainant organization has argued that the trade union executive committee recognized by the authorities holds views close to those of the Government, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the decision handed down by the judicial authority in this case.