Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 362, November 2011

1. 1224. The complaint is contained in a communication from the General Confederation of Workers of Peru (CGTP) dated 5 November 2010. The CGTP subsequently sent new allegations in a communication dated 25 January 2011.
2. 1225. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 3 May 2011.
3. 1226. 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. 1227. In its communication of 5 November 2010, the CGTP states that the purpose of the complaint is to report attempts by the government institution entitled National Service of Training for the Construction Industry (SENCICO) to obstruct the exercise of freedom of association as provided for in ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98, which have been ratified by the Government of Peru. The CGTP requests the Committee to require specific action from the Government in order to ensure the free exercise of freedom of association and collective bargaining.
2. 1228. The Single Union of Workers of the National Service of Training for the Construction Industry (SUTSENCICO) was formed on 28 June 2008 and has a national membership of 110 workers. On 5 September 2008, they presented a list of claims; after completion of the direct negotiations stage in December 2008, they went on to conciliation which ended in May 2009. This was followed by arbitration in an attempt to find a peaceful settlement to the dispute, but these efforts have so far been unsuccessful. According to the CGTP, after the union was created, the workers were coerced by the company into leaving the union; they were prevented from using certain premises for general meetings requested by the union; union leave was restricted to union officials; and disciplinary measures were applied against union members and officials for alleged breaches of internal regulations. Despite the company’s persistent harassment of union members, the union was able to present its initial list of claims to the company and the Subdirectorate for Collective Negotiations.
3. 1229. The CGTP indicates that on 9 September 2009, in the middle of collective talks, the audit commission of SENCICO formally requested in writing information from José Luis Amado Travesaño, who accordingly, on 11 September 2009, requested access to information at the general management office in order to be able to present the required documents within the period specified by the audit commission. On 11 September 2009 he sought an extension of the deadline. On 11 September, with the consent of the general management secretariat, he went to the general management office to help find the documents he needed and was accused of obtaining “restricted” information.
4. 1230. On 25 September 2009, the employer company sent a letter of dismissal to Mr José Luis Amado Travesaño, accusing him of having been in the act of attempting to obtain restricted SENCICO information. This false accusation prompted the union of SENCICO workers to request the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion to order a labour inspection. The Directorate of Inspections, following a detailed investigation described in the infraction report no. 25272009.MTPE/2/12.3, of 9 December 2009, concludes in point (h) that the dismissal of José Luis Amado Travesaño was not based on any reliably demonstrated cause but on factors which, in the light of the investigation, are not sufficient, reasonable or proportional, and that there are sufficient reasons to believe that factors such as his union membership, involvement in the union’s executive committee, and membership of the negotiating committee for the list of claims for 2008–09 and 200910, were the real reasons for his dismissal, in retaliation for his union activities and in contravention of the protection given under section 30 of the Single Text of the Collective Relations Act, No. 25593, approved by Supreme Decree No. 010-2003TR, in accordance with section 31(e) of that law. The Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion accordingly fined SENCICO 5,857.50 new soles (PEN) for committing a very serious infraction i.e. dismissing José Luis Amado Travesaño because of his union membership and despite his trade union immunity (infraction report 2527-2009.MTPE/2/12.3, of 9 December 2009). An application to annul the dismissal of José Luis Amado Travesaño is currently before the court and a date has been set for the presentation of the case in midSeptember.
5. 1231. The CGTP adds that on 12 November 2009, SENCICO sent a dismissal notice to Mr Jorge Segundo Pasache Vidal, the union’s defence secretary, alleging that he had failed to deal properly with concrete samples sent by customers to SENCICO. This occurred despite the fact the he had applied to change jobs two months in advance. An application to annul the dismissal is currently before the court and a date should be set for the presentation of the case.
6. 1232. The CGTP also alleges that on Thursday, 26 November 2009, the then General Secretary Clemente Rodríguez, was subjected to intimidation by the head of human resources, the head of administration, a human resources specialist and the surveillance supervisor. After visiting a pharmacy to purchase some medicines, he returned to the company premises and was taken to the administrative offices, where he was questioned and told to sign a document without even being allowed to read it. In this case, a conciliatory letter had been sent to officials. Mr Clemente Rodríguez is currently acing as the union’s organization secretary and has been transferred to another post as an electrician, although his original post was that of a technical clerk in the central warehouse.
7. 1233. The CGTP states that SUTSENCICO presented its list of claims in September 2008. During that process of collective bargaining, the company has made no counter-proposals in response to the claims. On the contrary, it launched a campaign of harassment and dismissals against union members and, with regard specifically to the collective bargaining process, it had created every possible obstacle to prevent the arbitration tribunal from being set up. Both parties in September 2009 nominated their respective arbitration representatives, but have not agreed on the name of the chairperson of the tribunal. In January, following repeated demands by the union and the CGTP to the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion, the Center for the Analysis and Solution of Conflicts (Consensus) of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru was asked to nominate the chairperson of the arbitration tribunal and in March 2010 duly nominated Dr Carlos Blancas Bustamante. Both parties agreed to this, but after Dr Blancas took up that post, the employers’ representative contested his participation and Dr Blancas chose not to take any further part in the tribunal. In June 2010, the Center for the Analysis and Solution of Conflicts (Consensus) reported that Dr Javier Neves Mujica had accepted nomination as chairperson of the arbitration tribunal, a month having passed without the employers’ side making any statement on the issue.
8. 1234. The CGTP adds that the union presented the list of claims for the period 2009–10 and the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion formally opened the proceedings. The company did not, however, at any time contact the union with an offer of direct negotiations. That being the case, the union decided that the direct negotiations stage was over and requested that conciliation proceedings be started.
9. 1235. As regards the list of claims for 2010–11, the union has presented this list but the employer enterprise has not convened any meeting. The CGTP maintains that for collective bargaining to work effectively, both parties must act in good faith and fairly to ensure a harmonious negotiating process. That means they must make a sincere effort to achieve mutual compromise in order to reach an agreement. However, since good faith cannot be imposed by law, it depends entirely on the voluntary, reciprocal, serious and sustained efforts of the employers and workers. It is thus important that both employers and workers participate in talks in good faith and do everything in their power to reach a reasonable and coherent agreement, that is to say, negotiations must be genuine, efficient, effective and constructive. In the case in question, SENCICO has constantly disregarded the principle of bargaining in good faith.
10. 1236. The CGTP states that on the other hand, since it was not possible to reach a settlement between the parties because of the company’s intransigence, the workers are obliged to regard the direct negotiations and conciliation stages as having been exhausted. Nevertheless, while exercising its right to seek recourse to arbitration as an alternative means of finding a peaceful settlement, the employer has repeatedly boycotted arbitration. This approach by the company, aimed at thwarting any settlement, has been encouraged by the systematic decisions of the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion, limiting the scope of collective bargaining and effectively vitiating the right of collective bargaining. The union is thus prevented from using collective bargaining to bring about improvements with regard to economic conditions, conditions of work, health and safety, and so on.
11. 1237. The CGTP emphasizes that the union has sought to negotiate and conclude collective labour agreements of benefit to both parties, with respect for the dignity and rights of the workers. The company, however, has to date thwarted any such possibility by obstructing and drawing out the talks, preventing the workers from exercising their right to collective bargaining. This attitude is encouraged by the systematic attempts of the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion which, in failing to address the points that have been vetoed by the company, indirectly endorses its attitude in practice. In so doing it sends a signal of impunity with regard to this breach of good faith to any parties involved in a labour dispute.
12. 1238. The CGTP maintains that SENCICO does not meet the obligations arising from Convention No. 98 with regard to collective bargaining. The Government has also failed in its duty to guarantee the exercise of the right of negotiation and to create the conditions needed to ensure that the issues specified by the ILO as relating to labour relations are addressed in collective agreements.
13. 1239. In its communication of 25 January 2011, the CGTP alleges that the enterprise Farmacias Peruanas SA obstructed the exercise of freedom of association protected by ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98 and the process of collective bargaining. The CGTP states that Farmacias Peruanas (Boticas Fasa), a Mexican-owned company, has more than 200 branches in the Lima metropolitan area and about 1,500 employees. On 2 December 2009, 36 workers of the company decided in accordance with Peruvian legislation to found the Trade Union of Workers of Farmacias Peruanas SA (SINTRAFASA). The union’s executive committee is headed by Hugo Cangalahua, who from that date onwards became the target of harassment, as did the other union officers: the officials were transferred from their places of work to various districts of the Lima metropolitan area. These transfers all had one or more of the following features in common: (a) they involve moves to locations far from the officials’ homes; (b) the new locations offer little opportunity for the union officials or members to earn commissions on sales; and (c) they are located in high-risk areas, where the officials and members are subjected to physical danger.
14. 1240. The CGTP adds that on 16 November 2010 all the union members were transferred from one day to the next; their working hours were changed, as was their place of work, which resulted in: (a) more time spent in travelling; (b) higher travel-related costs; (c) reduced income as a result of losing sales commissions; (d) neglect of family life; and (e) high exposure to risk in unsafe working areas.
15. 1241. The CGTP adds that a list of claims from SINTRAFASA was presented to the company on 14 January 2010. The company did not, as it was required to do under Peruvian law, take steps to start collective talks within the statutory period of ten days; that was done only on the union’s insistence in July 2010. In the direct talks with the company, the latter did not put forward any counter-proposals in response to the claims.
16. 1242. In August 2010, SINTRAFASA stated that in its view direct talks were over and asked the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion to schedule conciliation meetings. This was initiated in August and, at the request of the company, direct dialogue was resumed. The union presented a revised version of its list of claims, but the company still put forward no counter-proposals. The union therefore decided that conciliation should be resumed in the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion. The company indicated at the meeting at which dialogue was resumed that it had no counter-proposals in response to the union’s claims.
17. 1243. The CGTP considers that for collective bargaining to be effective, both parties must act in good faith and fairly to ensure harmonious negotiations. That means that they must make a sincere effort to achieve mutual compromises in order to reach an agreement. The complainant adds that the fact that the company transferred union officials to other sites during collective talks complicates any effort by the union to hold meetings with its members or advisers and discourages workers from remaining in the union as a result of the obvious economic losses they incur; it is in this regard an act of bargaining in bad faith on the part of the employer. To date, negotiations have been going on for almost 12 months without the company putting forward any counter-proposals in response to the union’s claims. This violates the right to collective bargaining, as article 28(b) of the Political Constitution stipulates that the State is required to promote collective bargaining.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 1244. In its communication of 3 May 2011, the Government states that with regard to the complaint against SENCICO, the latter was asked to provide its comments on the union’s complaint. SENCICO states that: (a) as regards the dismissals of union officials, both dismissals were found to have been entirely justified, given that José Luis Amado Travesaño (organization secretary) had obtained official restricted information from the employer and Jorge Segundo Pasache Vidal (defence secretary) had failed to meet this obligation at work by departing from established work procedures. The dismissals were applied in application of the internal regulations and in accordance with the procedures established under law. It also states that both the individuals concerned have instigated judicial proceedings to enforce their rights, and a ruling is still pending (general management resolutions nos 0842009.03.00 and 109-2009-03-00 of 30 September and 28 December 2009 respectively authorize payment of social benefits for the workers in question); (b) with regard to the refusal to negotiate the list of claims, SENCICO reported that the list of claims for the period 2008–09 was resolved through an arbitration award of 17 November 2010. As for the demands for the periods 2009–10 and 2010–11, it states that these have, to date, not been resolved and the conciliation stage of the collective bargaining process involving the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion has been concluded.
2. 1245. As regards the action of the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion, the Government states that the Subdirectorate for Collective Negotiations of the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion, in report no. 065-2011-MTPE/1/20.21, communicated the following information:
   • – List of claims 2008–09: case file no. 236983-2008-MTPE2/12.210. Collective bargaining began on 5 September 2008, the principal points of the claims being the following: five-yearly increments; uniforms; increased family allowances; adjustment of voucher values; and duration of benefits, among others. The union on 11 November 2008 sought the conclusion of the direct negotiations stage and the start of conciliation, for which the Subdirectorate for Collective Negotiations scheduled 13 meetings, the last of these on 23 July 2009, at which the union asked that conciliation be declared closed. On 28 September 2009, the union proposed arbitration, an option to which SENCICO agreed; the arbitration award was made on 17 November 2010 and concluded collective bargaining for the period 2008–09. The union nevertheless on 5 January 2011 requested the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion to intervene to enforce the arbitration award. The request was upheld by the labour inspection authority, which carried out inspections in order to verify compliance with the arbitration award; it was found that SENCICO indicated that it had not implemented the award with regard to increased economic benefits as the public sector budget legislation for financial years 2008 and 2009 prohibited such increases;
   • – Collective agreement 2009–10: case file no. 123942-2009-MTPE/2/12.2010. Collective talks started on 4 August 2009 on the following specific points: five-yearly increments; uniforms; increases in family allowances; adjustment in voucher values; and duration of benefits, among others. The union on 15 August 2010 sought the conclusion of the direct negotiations stage and the start of conciliation, for which the Subdirectorate for Collective Negotiations scheduled nine meetings, the last one being on 24 March 2011, at which the union asked that the conciliation be declared closed because, according to SENCICO, the public sector budget legislation for financial years 2009 and 2010 prohibited an increase in economic benefits;
   • – Collective agreement 2010–11: case file no. 105669-2010-MTPE/2/12.210. Collective talks started on 11 August 2010 on the following specific points: five-yearly increments; uniforms; increases in family allowances; adjustment in voucher values; and duration of benefits, among others. The union on 25 November 2010 sought the conclusion of the direct negotiations stage and the start of conciliation, for which the Subdirectorate for Collective Negotiations scheduled six meetings, the last one being on 17 March 2011, at which the union asked that the conciliation be declared closed because SENCICO had not changed its position with regard to the other collective talks that were under way.
3. 1246. The Government adds that the Labour Inspections Directorate conducted the following inspections:
   • – Unjustified dismissal of union official José Luis Amado Travesaño. The Labour Inspections Directorate issued inspection order no. 2527-2009 and the following infractions were noted: (i) unjustified dismissal of the union official José Luis Amado Travesaño; (ii) obstruction of inspection procedures by failing to ensure attendance by company representatives. The Third Labour Inspection Subdirectorate issued resolution No. 639-2010-MTPE/1/20.43 on 5 November 2010 fining SENCICO the sum of PEN3,905 for these infractions.
   • – Non-compliance with the arbitration award (list of claims for 2008–09). In response to the union’s complaint, the Second Labour Inspection Subdirectorate issued inspection order no. 1523-2011-MTPE/1/20/4 on 8 February 2011, instructing the labour inspector to verify that the collective agreement agreed under the terms of the arbitration award was being implemented (list of claims for 2008–09). SENCICO was found to be in default of its obligation to pay the remuneration and economic benefits stipulated in the arbitration award. Accordingly, two infractions were noted: (i) a very serious breach of social and labour provisions in force under article 24, clause 24.4, of Supreme Decree No. 019-2006-TR; and (ii) a very serious breach of inspection procedure under the terms of article 46 of Supreme Decree No. 019-2006-TR. A fine of PEN49,572 was proposed, and the penalty procedure has yet to be implemented.
4. 1247. The Government states that it is important to note that the union officials who were dismissed have initiated judicial proceedings with the aim of enforcing their rights. In the case of Jorge Segundo Pasache Vidal, the 17th Labour Court of Lima (case file no. 0800-2009) has ruled that his application for annulment of the dismissal and payment of wage arrears is admissible, and a single hearing was scheduled for 14 July 2011. As regards the case of José Luis Amado Travesaño, the judicial authority has been asked for information on any proceedings initiated by this official.
5. 1248. As regards Farmacias Peruanas SA (Boticas Fasa), the Government states that it has communicated the complaints to Farmacias Peruanas SA with a view to obtaining its comments on the allegations. The company in question, in a letter dated 22 March 2011, stated the following: (1) staff rotation was ordered in keeping with the employer’s management prerogatives, which allow the employer to organize an employee’s work and determine the form and manner in which the employee is required to work; this is known as ius variandi. Such measures were adopted by the employer in relation to more than 400 workers (both union members and non-members), and the aim was not to obstruct the freedom of association of the union’s members but to improve business and service quality at the company’s branches; and (2) the company indicates that the measure in question had no effect on the collective bargaining round for 2010–11, as the informal meeting arranged by the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion was able to reach agreement on the list of claims, which was presented to the administrative labour authority on 28 January 2011.
6. 1249. The Government adds that without prejudice to anything reported by the enterprise, the National Directorate for Labour Inspections is being asked to carry out inspections at the company Farmacias Peruanas SA, in order to verify the workers’ claims.
7. 1250. According to the Government, Peru, through inspections and informal meetings, protects the right of freedom of association and collective bargaining of the complainant trade union organizations. The fundamental rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining are inherent aspects of labour relations for all Peruvians, and the exercise of those rights is encouraged and guaranteed by the State through the various mechanisms that have been implemented and are referred to throughout this report. Through the measures that have been applied, Peru confirms its unconditional respect for trade union freedom and for workers’ collective rights in general, by promoting collective bargaining and peaceful settlement of labour disputes. Nevertheless, the Committee will be kept informed of any progress made in the proceedings under way before the judicial authorities and of the outcome of the inspections that have been carried out.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1251. The Committee notes that in the present case, the CGTP alleges the dismissal of the organization secretary and the defence secretary and acts of harassment against the General Secretary of SUTSENCICO during collective talks in 2009, as well as obstruction and bad faith on the part of SENCICO in talks on the union’s lists of claims. The Committee notes that the CGTP also alleges the transfer of officials and of all members of SINTRAFASA, and obstruction and bad faith on the part of the company during talks on the union’s list of claims.
   • National Service of Training for the Construction Industry (SENCICO)
2. 1252. As regards the allegations concerning the dismissal of the organization secretary José Luis Amado Travesaño and of the defence secretary, Jorge Segundo Pasache Vidal, the Committee notes that according to the Government, SENCICO has informed it of the following: (1) both dismissals were found to have been entirely justified, given that José Luis Amado Travesaño (organization secretary) had obtained official restricted information from the employer and Jorge Segundo Pasache Vidal (defence secretary) had failed to meet his obligations at work by departing from established procedures; (2) the dismissals were applied in application of the internal regulations and in accordance with the procedures established under law and, (3) both the individuals concerned have initiated judicial proceedings to enforce their rights, and a ruling is still pending. The Committee notes that the Government for its part reports the following: (1) the Directorate of Labour Inspections issued inspection order no. 2527-2009 and the following infractions were noted: unjustified dismissal of the union official José Luis Amado Travesaño; and obstruction of inspection procedures in failing to ensure the presence of company representatives; (2) The Third Labour Inspection Subdirectorate fined SENCICO the sum of PEN3,905 for these infractions; (3) the dismissed union officials have initiated judicial proceedings in order to enforce their rights; and (4) in the case of Mr Vidal, the 17th Labour Court of Lima has ruled his action to annul his dismissal and seek payment of wages to be admissible, and the date of 14 July 2011 has been fixed for the single hearing; while as regards Mr Travesaño, the judicial authority has been asked to provide information on the legal action taken by this union official.
3. 1253. In this regard the Committee recalls that “No one should be subjected to discrimination or prejudice with regard to employment because of legitimate trade union activities or membership, and the persons responsible for such acts should be punished” [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 772]. Under these circumstances, the Committee deeply regrets the dismissal – described by the labour inspectorate as unjustified – of the union official Mr Travesaño, and requests the Government: (i) pending a future ruling, to take measures to bring the parties together with a view to bringing about his reinstatement; (ii) to inform it of the implementation of the fine imposed on SENCICO in connection with the dismissal; and (3) to communicate the final outcome of the judicial proceedings in connection with the dismissal. As regards the dismissal of union official Mr Vidal, the Committee requests the Government to inform it whether the labour inspectorate has given a ruling on this dismissal and to inform it of the final outcome of the relevant judicial proceedings.
4. 1254. As regards the allegation concerning acts of harassment directed against Clemente Rodríguez, General Secretary of SUTSENCICO (detention of the individual in an office where he was questioned and coerced into signing a document without reading it), the Committee notes that the Government has not communicated its observations in this regard. Under these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to investigate these allegations and, if they are found to be true, to apply the appropriate legal penalties.
5. 1255. As regards the allegations concerning obstruction and bad faith on the part of SENCICO in collective talks on the lists of claims presented by the union, the Committee notes the Government’s statements to the effect that according to SENCICO, the list of claims for 2008–09 was settled through arbitration; the lists of demands for 2009–10 and 2010–11 have not yet been settled, and the conciliation stage in the collective bargaining process involving the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion has been concluded. The Government states that the Subdirectorate for Collective Bargaining of the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion has communicated the following information: (1) as regards the list of claims for 2008–09, a settlement was achieved through arbitration but on 5 January 2011, the union sought the intervention of the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion to enforce the arbitration award (the inspection authority noted that SENCICO had not complied and fined it PEN49,572); (2) as regards the list of claims for 2009–10, the union asked for the direct talks to be concluded and for conciliation proceedings to begin in August 2010; the Subdirectorate for Collective Bargaining scheduled nine meetings and the union sought to have this stage concluded because SENCICO had claimed that the public sector budget legislation for 2009 and 2010 prohibited any increase in economic benefits; and (3) as regards the list of claims 2010–11, the union in November 2010 sought to have the direct talks concluded and conciliation to be started, for which purpose the Subdirectorate of Collective Bargaining scheduled six meetings. After the final meeting, the union sought to have that stage concluded because SENCICO had not changed its position in relation to the other collective negotiations that were in progress.
6. 1256. The Committee regrets that despite the efforts that have been made and the time that has passed, SUTSENCICO has been unable to conclude a collective agreement, and that when it was agreed that arbitration should be initiated, SENCICO did not abide by the terms of the arbitration award (according to the Labour Inspectorate). The Committee recalls that “it is important that both employers and trade unions bargain in good faith and make every effort to reach an agreement; moreover, genuine and constructive negotiations are a necessary component to establish and maintain a relationship of confidence between the parties” and emphasizes that “agreements should be binding on the parties” [see Digest, op. cit., paras 935 and 939]. Under these circumstances, although it understands that the requirement to comply with budget legislation may be a constraint on the parties to collective talks in the public sector, the Committee requests the Government to take steps to stimulate and promote the full development of collective bargaining between the union and SENCICO with a view to concluding a collective agreement in the very near future. The Committee request the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
   • Farmacias Peruanas SA
7. 1257. As regards the alleged transfer of officials and all members of SINTRAFASA, the Committee notes that according to the Government the company claims that: (1) staff rotation was ordered in keeping with the employer’s management prerogatives, which allow the employer to organize an employee’s work; (2) such measures were adopted by the company in relation to more than 400 workers (both union members and non-members), and the aim was not to obstruct the freedom of association of the union’s members but to improve business and quality of service at the company’s sites. The Government adds that the National Inspectorate for Labour Inspections was asked to conduct inspections at the company in order to verify the workers’ allegations.
8. 1258. In this regard, the Committee recalls that “Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination should cover not only hiring and dismissal, but also any discriminatory measures during employment, in particular transfers, downgrading and other acts that are prejudicial to the worker” and “a deliberate policy of frequent transfers of persons holding trade union office may seriously harm the efficiency of trade union activities” [Digest, op. cit., paras 781 and 802]. Under these circumstances the Committee requests the Government, as the union has done, to take the necessary steps to investigate these allegations and, if the transfers are shown to be of an anti-union nature, to take steps to ensure that they are annulled. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
9. 1259. Lastly, as regards the allegations regarding obstruction and bad faith on the part of the company in the collective talks on the union’s list of claims, the Committee notes with interest that according to the Government, the company informed it that in an informal meeting arranged by the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion, a settlement was reached on the claims for the period 2010–11, which was presented to the administrative labour authority on 28 January 2011. In the light of this information, the Committee will not pursue its examination of these allegations.