Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 403, June 2023

1. 393. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 9 October 2018 from the Autonomous Confederation of Workers of Peru (CATP).
2. 394. The Government of Peru sent its observations on the allegations in communications dated 6 May and 1 July 2019, 10 August 2022 and 31 March 2023.
3. 395. 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. 396. The complainant states that the Single Union of Mining and Metal Workers of the Argentum Mining Company (STUMMCMA) has, since 2008, bargained collectively with the Argentum Mining Company (hereafter “the company”), a subsidiary of the transnational Pan American Silver S.A.C., with a view to improving the working conditions of its members. The complainant notes that, as a result of non-compliance with the signed agreements and the company’s refusal to engage in dialogue the workers turned to the Huancayo Regional Labour Directorate, which convened a special meeting that the company did not attend, which is why a general strike took place on 2 and 3 May 2017, which concluded with a settlement agreement dated 3 May 2017 in which the company expressly committed not to take reprisals.
2. 397. In spite of the agreement that had been reached, the company took reprisals for the aforementioned industrial action and dismissed four trade union members – Mr Edwin Martel Paucarcaja, Mr Epifanio Ore Eslava, Mr Melecio Crispin Laureano and Mr Jhover Ceras Castillón – charging them with alleged serious misconduct. Only one of those workers, Mr Jhover Ceras Castillón, agreed to drop his legal action in exchange for financial compensation. As a result of these dismissals, which were intended to intimidate and break up the trade union, the workers decided to resume the strike, which took effect on 21 June 2017 and lasted for seven days.
3. 398. At the end of the strike, when the workers arrived at their place of work on the night of 27 June, the security personnel blocked the entry of 160 workers, in spite of the documents that had been given to them when the strike was lifted. The workers had to appeal to the Justice of the Peace in Morococha, go to the city of Huancayo and chain themselves together in front of the Regional Government headquarters in order to be heard, so that the Regional Government would send a labour inspector to verify the allegations. It was only in the presence of the labour inspector that the company management finally allowed all the workers to go back in.
4. 399. Subsequently, in spite of knowing that the measures that the union had taken were legal, the employer continued to take reprisals, such that: (i) alleging non-compliance with the company’s internal labour regulations, they dismissed seven workers (Mr Luis Estrada Torres, Mr Cipriano Montes Boza, Mr José Quispe Hernández, Mr Edwin Ambrosio Bustillo, Mr Ceferino Escobar Acuña, Mr Rusabel Arroyo Quispe and Mr Vicente Rojas Torres) who had participated in the strike; and (ii) suspended 116 unionized workers without pay for periods of three to eight days. The trade union made the relevant complaints to the administrative authority in the Junín region, which, upon verification of the allegations, issued infraction reports for gross misconduct, as well as to the judicial authorities, where File No. 20287 is ongoing.
5. 400. The complainant goes on to state that the union reported a series of illegal acts of wage discrimination by the company to the National Labour Inspection Authority (SUNAFIL), which resulted in the imposition of the following penalties: (i) in infraction report No. 58-2017, the company was fined a total of 492,075.00 Peruvian soles; (ii) in File No. 142-2017, an infraction report was issued for up to a total of 18,225.00 soles for hostility towards a trade union member; (iii) in File No. 520-2017, a penalty of 437,400.00 soles was imposed for blocking entry into the workplace (entry to the mine); (iv) in File No. 143-2017, an infraction report was issued for up to 100,237.50 soles for actions impeding the free exercise of the right to strike, reaching a total sum of 1,047,937.50 soles. In addition, reports were made of discrimination against trade union leaders, as there is a blacklist that includes the names of people who should not be hired by companies because they are trade union activists or members.
6. 401. The complainant adds that the company, in a clear act of interference, has promoted the establishment of a new trade union organization, promising wage increases, cessation of hostilities, recategorization at a higher professional level and other benefits for workers who leave STUMMCMA and join the union sponsored by the company. They declare that through these manoeuvres, the company succeeded in disaffiliating 80 workers from the union. The complainant alleges that, based on this, the company has refused to discuss the draft collective agreement with STUMMCMA since 22 June 2017, considering it to be a minority union. The complainant states specifically in this regard that: (i) 60 days after presenting the draft, the Labour Authority began a special process on 31 August to initiate the collective bargaining process; (ii) during this phase, which lasted until November, the company refused to negotiate seriously, stating that it had already concluded a collective agreement with the other minority union of employees and proposing only to reproduce the clauses that had already been agreed with the other union; (iii) in order to prevent the conclusion of the collective bargaining process and to intimidate the union, the company accused the General Secretary Mr Alejandro Beramendi Soto (who has permanent union leave) of coming in to work intoxicated and assaulting security staff, destroying company property. The company illegally and fraudulently got the La Oroya forensic pathologist to certify these false statements, for which the aforementioned union leader was accused of serious misconduct and dismissed, in spite of having made the relevant defence; the dismissed leader went to the judicial authorities to request reinstatement; (iv) on the basis of the alleged conduct of the General Secretary, the company suspended its participation in the collective bargaining process; (v) in continuation of its acts of intimidation, the company sent letters giving notice to Mr Roly Prieto Huamán, Mr José Pariona Ancieta, Mr Roberto de la Cruz Lazo and Mr Alfredo Tueros Yaurivilca, citing unjustified absences.
7. 402. The complainant goes on to state that: (i) at the request of the trade union, which had made a complaint for obstruction of collective bargaining, on 8 February 2018 the labour authority issued a report on the basis of which negotiations were resumed; (ii) nonetheless, the company did not move from its previous positions; (iii) in order to continue damaging and eliminating union activity, the company decided to deprive STUMMCMA of the necessary economic resources by not depositing union dues in the bank account belonging to the trade union since July 2017; these violations of freedom of association were duly reported to the labour authority and to the company’s general management, but to date no response has been given; (iv) the company broke off direct negotiations on 15 February 2018, but without forwarding to the union the notification of that decision sent to the Ministry of Labour, which demonstrates the complicity of some officials in the Junín Regional Government with the company; (v) in the absence of this information, on 18 February the union requested union leave for Mr Jhonny Avalos Huamán, deputy General Secretary of the union, from 19 to 25 February, in order to continue negotiations; (vi) on the basis of its decision to break off direct negotiations, which had not been communicated to the union, as well as the aforementioned request for union leave, the company dismissed Mr Avalos Huamán on 12 March 2018.
8. 403. The complainant organization adds that, on 9 April 2018, the dismissed General Secretary, Mr Beramendi, was violently assaulted by five individuals who did not steal any money or belongings from him. They affirm that the resulting injuries required a stay of more than 11 days in Huancayo hospital The organization believes that the aforementioned actions constitute violations of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Convention No. 98. They also state that the public authorities have not taken sufficient measures to overcome the obstacles to collective bargaining created by the company’s actions.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 404. In its communication dated 6 May 2019, the Government submitted the company’s response to the various elements of the complaint. In the first instance, the company states that it is greatly saddened by the unjust allegations made by CATP, considering that throughout all its years of operation the company has considered the protection of its workers to be fundamental. With regard to collective bargaining with STUMMCMA and the alleged acts of obstruction, the company states that: (i) the arbitral award granted with regard to this negotiation process (File No. 014-2017-GRD-DRTPE-DPSC-SDNCRG) contains a detailed record of the negotiation that shows the good faith with which the company has attempted to reach fair and appropriate agreements; and (ii) the investigation carried out by SUNAFIL into the suspension of collective bargaining meetings at the initiative of the company concluded that the suspension was carried out in accordance with article 69 of Supreme Decree No. 010- 2003-TR on collective labour relations, recommending that both parties resume and continue collective bargaining.
2. 405. The company goes on to refer to the dismissals of Mr Edwin Martel Paucarcaja, Mr Epifanio Ore Eslava, Mr Melecio Crispín Laureano and Mr Jhover Ceras Castillón. In this regard the company states that: (i) these workers were dismissed for breaching their professional obligations, specifically, for falling asleep during the working day (night shift), putting at risk the health and safety of both themselves and the other workers; (ii) Mr Ceras Castillón acknowledged the misconduct and proceeded to end his employment relationship, while the other cases are still ongoing before the judicial authority; and (iii) there is currently a first instance ruling in favour of the company in the case brought by former employee Mr Ore Eslava.
3. 406. With regard to the strike that took place on 21 June 2017, the company states that: (i) it was declared improper and later illegal by the Administrative Labour Authority (Directive No. 011-2017) because the workers presented their own selection of necessary workers to ensure the essential services of the company, without questioning the list drawn up by the employer in good time; (ii) a group of these workers who did not do their work during the strike were suspended; and (iii) nonetheless, with a view to reaching a peaceful solution, the company and the trade union signed a conciliatory agreement in a legal setting in which the union organization declared that their aims in this regard had been satisfied.
4. 407. With regard to Mr Luis Estrada Torres, Mr Cipriano Montes Boza, Mr José Quispe Hernández, Mr Edwin Ambrosio Bustillo, Mr Ceferino Escobar Acuña, Mr Rusbel Arroyo Quispe and Mr Vicente Rojas Torres, the company stresses that the right to strike is not absolute and that, as a consequence, the group that exercises it must, by law, commit to making available a minimum number of so-called “emergency” workers to the employer. In this regard, STUMMCMA did not comply with making this emergency staff available to the company, which is why it proceeded with the aforementioned dismissals, in accordance with the law.
5. 408. With regard to the dismissal of the General Secretary of STUMMCMA, Mr Alejandro Beramendi Soto, the company states that: (i) the dismissal is not part of any anti-union strategy, but is in fact the result of extremely serious misconduct by the worker who, in a clearly inebriated state, committed serious acts of physical violence towards the company’s security staff and workers, as well as causing damage to company property; (ii) the blood alcohol level test administered by the police showed that Mr Alejandro Beramendi Soto had 1.02g of ethyl alcohol per litre of blood when he caused serious harm to the workers and to company property; and (iii) the legal ruling is still pending in this case. The company adds that it is governed by the principles of integrity and honesty in all its activities which is why it emphatically rejects any insinuation that it might be involved in the alleged physical assault of Mr Beramendi Soto, according to the CATP.
6. 409. With regard to the letters sent to Mr Roly Prieto Huamán, Mr José Pariona Ancieta, Mr Roberto de la Cruz Lazo and Mr Alfredo Tueras Yaurivilca giving notice that they had been absent without cause and requesting them to present a defence, the company states that this was not an anti-union measure in any way, and that, in accordance with the law, after evaluating each case, the aforementioned workers were kept on by the company.
7. 410. With regard to the dismissal of Mr Jhonny Avalos Huamán, the company states that his position as a union leader does not exonerate him from responsibility for serious misconduct. For this reason, the Eleventh Labour Court of the Lima Superior Court of Justice declared that the request for reinstatement for reasons of unfair dismissal was unfounded, as it was proved irrefutably that the former employee had been absent from the workplace without any justification.
8. 411. With regard to the CATP’s allegations relating to the company’s alleged interference in the establishment of a new trade union, the company states that: (i) with regard to the collective rights of its workers, who are entitled to freely choose the union that is aligned with their interests according to the particularities of each occupational group; (ii) it is evident that in this case, members of the employed occupational group made use of their right to meet and unionize to form their own trade union, with different interests to those of the Single Union, which has as members the majority of the workers in the labourer occupational group; and (iii) there has not been any kind of interference by the company, particularly when such comments do not have any foundation.
9. 412. Lastly, the company states that: (i) it is in compliance with its legal labour obligations, including those established in the collective agreements; (ii) it is obvious that the characterizations made by STUMMCMA lack any factual or legal basis, particularly since all the industrial disputes are currently pending resolution in the relevant courts; and (iii) it will comply with the judicial rulings as it has always done.
10. 413. In its various communications, the Government goes on to provide updates on the legal cases relating to the dismissals of the following seven workers: (i) Epifanio Ore Eslava; (ii) Melecio Crispin Laureano; (iii) Edwin Ambrosio Bustillos; (iv) Ceferino Escobar Acuña; (v) Vicente Rojas Torres; (vi) Alejandro Beramendi Soto; and (vii) Jhonny Avalos Huamán.
11. 414. With regard to Mr Epifanio Ore Eslava, the information provided by the Government shows that, by means of a second instance ruling of 2 April 2019, the company was ordered to comply with the reinstatement of the worker; through a resolution of the Permanent Labour Court of Lima, court costs were awarded to the worker. With regard to Mr Melecio Crispin Laureano, the information provided by the Government shows that: (i) the first instance decision to issue a provisional injunction to reinstate the worker was overturned in the second instance; (ii) the worker lodged an appeal for judicial review of the second instance decision that was ruled valid; and (iii) the original court (the Superior Labour Chamber) must issue a new ruling, pending since December 2022.
12. 415. With regard to Mr Edwin Ambrosio Bustillos, the information provided by the Government shows that: (i) the Supreme Court of Justice ruled that the appeal lodged by the company against the ruling of 21 March 2019 from the Eighth Labour Chamber of Lima ordering the reinstatement of the worker was inadmissible; and (ii) the legal case has concluded in the worker’s favour. With regard to Mr Cerefino Escobar Acuña, the information provided by the Government shows that in resolution No. 19, the Second Temporary Labour Court of Lima ordered the company to reinstate the worker; the legal case is in the ruling implementation phase.
13. 416. With regard to Mr Vicente Rojas Torres, the information provided by the Government shows that the parties made a conciliatory agreement in a legal setting. With regard to Mr Alejandro Beramendi Soto, the information provided by the Government shows that: (i) overturning the first instance decision, the second instance ruled that the worker’s dismissal was null and void, ordering that he be reinstated; (ii) on 21 October 2022, the Supreme Court of Justice decided that the appeal for judicial review lodged by the company was admissible, so a court ruling on the merits is now pending. With regard to Mr Jhonny Avalos Huamán, the information provided by the Government shows that the worker’s lawsuit was rejected in the first and second instance, and on appeal, so the case is definitively closed.
14. 417. In its communication dated 6 July 2019, the Government also reports on the actions of the labour inspectorate – through the inspection services of the Junín Regional Government and the National Labour Inspection Authority (SUNAFIL) – with regard to the actions reported by the complainant organization in this case. The Government cites three cases in which the labour inspectorate imposed sanctions on the company for violations of freedom of association: (i) in File No. 194-2017, the company was fined 492,000 soles for having granted a pay rise for workers not affiliated with the trade union and those who gave up their membership during the collective bargaining process, which harmed 312 workers; (ii) in File No. 033-2017, the company was sanctioned for harassment of a unionized worker, Mr Lulo Ponce; and (iii) in File No. 041-2017, the company was sanctioned for obstructing the free exercise of the right to strike of the company’s workers between 21 and 27 June 2017, by suspending numerous workers who had participated.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 418. The Committee notes that the present case refers to allegations of a series of anti-union activities and obstruction of collective bargaining by a mining company. The Committee notes that the complainant organization states that the company: (i) has repeatedly refused to engage in dialogue and negotiate with the union; (ii) in reprisal for two strikes that the union had to carry out, proceeded to suspend and dismiss many workers, including the general secretary and the deputy general secretary of the organization; and (iii) has committed illegal acts of wage discrimination against members of STUMMCMA at the same time as it promoted the establishment of a parallel trade union in the company with which it rapidly signed a collective agreement. The Committee notes that the complainant organization also alleges physical aggression towards the general secretary of the union in the city of Huancayo and regrets the insufficient intervention of the public authorities to protect the right to collective bargaining. The Committee notes that, on the other hand, the company states that it fully respects freedom of association according to the law and that, in this context: (i) it has not refused to bargain collectively, as demonstrated by the arbitral award that ended the negotiation process with the union; (ii) the dismissals reported by the complainant organization were the result of serious misconduct committed by the workers concerned; (iii) it had no involvement in the establishment of another union, as demonstrated by the lack of any proof to support the allegations of interference; and (iv) the various issues mentioned in the complaint are being addressed in judicial settings and the company will, as it always does, comply with the rulings issued by the courts. The Committee notes that the Government, for its part, provides information about a series of administrative and judicial decisions relating to various events in the present case.
2. 419. On the basis of the information and the appendices provided by the parties, the Committee observes that the events contained in the present case took place mainly between May 2017 and March 2018 during a collective dispute relating, in the first instance (May–June 2017), to the application of the collective agreement in force at the time and, in the second instance, to the negotiation of a new agreement. The Committee observes that the period in question was marked by two periods of strike action in May and June of 2017, several interruptions in the negotiation process, and various decisions to suspend and dismiss union members and leaders. The Committee observes that the majority of these events have given rise to administrative and judicial proceedings.
3. 420. With regard to the alleged obstruction of the collective bargaining process by the company and the supposed insufficient intervention of the public authorities in that regard, the Committee notes that the complainant states that: (i) the company took more than two months to sit down to negotiate with the union after the union presented its proposal on 22 June 2017; (ii) it did not enter into real negotiations on the union’s proposals between August and November 2017, on the basis of the conditions negotiated with the other union; (iii) it suspended its participation in the negotiation in November 2017; (iv) without notifying the union, it put an end to its participation in direct negotiation on 15 February 2018; and (v) the numerous anti-union activities reported in the present case aimed to obstruct the union’s capacity to negotiate. The Committee notes that, for its part, the company states that: (i) the arbitral award granted with regard to this negotiation process contains a detailed record of the negotiation that shows the good faith with which the company has attempted to reach fair and appropriate agreements; and (ii) the investigation carried out by SUNAFIL into the suspension of collective bargaining meetings at the initiative of the company concluded that the suspension was carried out in accordance with the legislation on collective labour relations, recommending that both parties resume and continue collective bargaining. In the light of this information and the information contained in the appendices provided by the parties, the Committee observes that: (i) the documents attached by the complainant show that the labour authorities have noted on several occasions that the company did not attend special conciliation meetings between 31 May and December 2017; (ii) the main suspension of the company’s participation in the negotiations in November 2017 followed a controversial event (the alleged assault committed by the general secretary of the union, leading to his dismissal) that is the subject of a court case; (iii) between 15 March and 18 April 2018, the administrative conciliation phase of the negotiation process took place, with the company’s participation in several meetings; (iv) in accordance with the law and at the request of the union, an arbitration process began on 18 April 2018, which concluded on 7 March 2019 with the unanimous adoption by the three arbiters of an arbitral award. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee observes, on the one hand, that the negotiation of the collective agreement took place in a context of high tension between the parties and, on the other hand, that the labour authorities provided active follow up to the process that resulted in the adoption of an award regulating the working conditions of STUMMCMA members. At the same time, the Committee is bound to note that the aforementioned allegations of obstruction of collective bargaining cannot be considered apart from the other allegations of anti-union activity examined below.
4. 421. With regard to the alleged wage discrimination against members of STUMMCMA alongside company’s interference in the establishment of a new trade union in the company, the Committee notes that the complainant alleges that the company: (i) promised workers who left STUMMCMA and joined the union sponsored by the company various economic and professional benefits; (ii) through these manoeuvres, the company succeeded in disaffiliating 80 workers from the union; and (iii) favoured negotiation with the new union, with which it soon concluded a collective agreement, refusing to negotiate different conditions with STUMMCMA. The Committee notes that, for its part, the company: (i) denies any interference in the formation of the new union and points to the lack of any evidence presented by the complainant organization; and (ii) states that the new union is composed of employees while STUMMCMA for the most part is a group made up of labourers, which could explain the disaffiliation of certain employees. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided specific observations on this matter. Whereas the Committee observes that the appendices provided by the complainant and the Government show that: (i) on the basis of inspections carried out between 27 April and 11 July 2017, in the framework of inspection order No. 194-2017, the labour inspectorate found that a very serious violation had been committed and sanctioned the company, in a resolution dated 26 April 2019, for having economically favoured workers who were not members of STUMMCMA, including those who were disaffiliating from the union; (ii) there were a significant number of disaffiliations from STUMMCMA between the months of March and July 2017. The Committee notes however that, in the information provided, there is no concrete evidence of the alleged involvement of the company in the formation of a new trade union in the company. The Committee therefore observes that it is apparent from the above that, on the one hand, there is no proof that the company directly favoured the new union, but on the other hand, it was sanctioned for discriminating against the members of STUMMCMA. Recalling that workers shall have the right to join organizations of their own choosing without any interference from the employer [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 1189], the Committee requests the Government to continue taking the necessary measures to ensure that, in future, freedom of association is respected and that there is strict equal treatment of the different unions existing in the company.
5. 422. With regard to the allegations of the complainant organization that union dues had not been deposited in the union’s bank account since July 2017 and that the labour authority had not ruled on the complaints lodged in this respect, the Committee notes that it has not received specific comments from the Government. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information in this respect.
6. 423. With regard to the alleged anti-union dismissals in the context of the conflict between the company and the union, the Committee notes that the complainant alleges that the company proceeded to dismiss a series of trade union leaders and members in reprisal for the strikes that had taken place and with a view to undermining the negotiating and organizing capacity of the union. The Committee notes that the complainant specifically states that the company: (i) dismissed Mr Edwin Martel Paucarcaja, Mr Epifanio Ore Eslava, Mr Melecio Crispin Laureano and Mr Jhover Ceras Castillón in reprisal for the strike carried out at the beginning of May 2017; (ii) dismissed Mr Luis Estrada Torres, Mr Cipriano Montes Boza, Mr José Quispe Hernández, Mr Edwin Ambrosio Bustillo, Mr Ceferino Escobar Acuña, Mr Rusbel Arroyo Quispe and Mr Vicente Rojas Torres for their participation in the strike of 21 June 2017; (iii) dismissed the general secretary of the union, Mr Alejandro Beramendi Soto during the collective bargaining process; (iv) sent dismissal letters and called for questioning Mr Roly Prieto Huamán, Mr José Pariona Ancieta, Mr Roberto de la Cruz Lazo and Mr Alfredo Tueras Yaurivilca; and (v) dismissed on March 13, 2018, the deputy general secretary of the union, Mr Jhonny Avalos Huamán without informing the union that it had withdrawn from direct negotiations. The Committee notes that, for its part, the company states that all its actions were within the law, that trade union activity and the right to strike does not exempt members of the union from respecting the law and that all the dismissals were based on misconduct, such that: (i) the first group of workers were dismissed for having fallen asleep during working hours; (ii) another group was dismissed for having participated in strike action in spite of being on the list of workers that have to continue their essential security functions during strikes; (iii) Mr Beramendi was dismissed for extremely serious misconduct after assaulting the company’s security staff while intoxicated, causing physical injuries to the workers and material damage to company facilities; (iv) Mr Jhonny Avalos Huamán was dismissed for being absent from his post for several days without the proper authorization; (v) after questioning Mr Roly Prieto Huamán, Mr José Pariona Ancieta, Mr Roberto de la Cruz Lazo and Mr Alfredo Tueras Yaurivilca, examination of their cases permitted the company to decide not to proceed with their dismissals, and so the four workers are still in their posts at the company.
7. 424. With regard to the seven dismissals of members and leaders of STUMMCMA for which the Government has submitted information on the related legal cases, the Committee observes that: (i) in three cases the workers have received definitive rulings of reinstatement (Mr Epifanio Ore Eslava, Mr Edwin Ambrosio Bustillos and Mr Ceferino Escobar Acuña); (ii) in one case, the worker and the company have signed a conciliation agreement (Mr Vicente Rojas Torres); (iii) in one case the worker’s request for reinstatement has been definitively denied (Mr Jhonny Avalos Huamán); and (iv) two cases are still pending final resolution after presenting appeals for judicial review (in the case of Mr Alejandro Beremendi Soto, after a reinstatement ruling in the second instance, the Supreme Court of Justice decided that the appeal for judicial review lodged by the company was admissible, so a court ruling on the merits is now pending; in the case of Mr Melecio Crispin Laureano, the first instance decision to issue a provisional injunction to reinstate the worker was overturned in the second instance; the worker lodged an appeal for judicial review of the second instance decision that was ruled valid; and therefore, the original court must issue a new ruling, pending since December 2022). Recalling that cases concerning anti-union discrimination should be examined rapidly, so that the necessary remedies can be really effective; an excessive delay in processing such cases constitutes a serious attack on the trade union rights of those concerned [see Compilation, para. 1139], the Committee trusts that the two cases pending final ruling will be resolved as soon as possible and requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
8. 425. The Committee notes that it has not received information on the results of the legal challenges of the dismissals of the following workers: Mr Edwin Martel Paucarcaja, Mr Luis Estrada Torres, Mr Cipriano Montes Boza, Mr José Quispe Hernández and Mr Rusbel Arroyo Quispe, in spite of the fact that both the complainant organization and the company noted that the cases have led to legal action. The Committee therefore requests the Government and the complainant organization to provide information on the rulings issued in that regard.
9. 426. With regard to the alleged suspension of numerous workers in reprisal for their participation in the strike carried out from 21 to 27 June 2017, the Committee notes that the complainant states that, at the end of the strike action, the entry of 160 workers was blocked, in spite of the documents that had been given to them when the strike was lifted, and that 116 unionized workers were suspended without pay for periods of three to eight days. The Committee also notes that the company states that: (i) the strike action in question was declared illegal by the Administrative Labour Authority (Directive No. 011-2017) for not having complied with the rules relating to the availability of workers; (ii) a group of these workers who did not do their work during the strike were suspended; and (iii) nonetheless, with a view to reaching a peaceful solution, the company and the trade union signed a conciliatory agreement on the matter in a legal setting. Lastly the Committee notes that the information provided by the Government shows that, in File No. 041-2017, the labour inspectorate sanctioned the company in resolution No. 005-2019 for obstructing the free exercise of the right to strike and freedom of association by suspending numerous workers who had participated in the strike action. In the light of the decision taken by the labour inspectorate and the conciliatory agreement referenced by the company, the Committee will not continue its examination of this allegation.
10. 427. With regard to the alleged assault of Mr Beramendi Soto, General Secretary of the trade union, in the city of Huancayo on 9 April 2018, by several unknown persons, the Committee notes that: (i) the complainant mentions s that the assault, which resulted in 11 days of hospitalization for the victim, did not involve any robbery; (ii) the company emphatically denies any kind of link with the alleged incident; and (iii) the Government has not provided its observations in this regard. The Committee observes that one of the appendices provided by the Government shows that the assault led to a criminal complaint being made to the Provincial Criminal Prosecutor’s Office for Corporate Affairs in Huancayo and that this case was closed on 12 July 2018 in the absence of evidence enabling the identification of the perpetrators, with the possibility to reopen the case if evidence is discovered. The Committee recalls that a free and independent trade union movement can only develop in a climate free of violence, threats and pressure, and it is for the Government to guarantee that trade union rights can develop normally. The Committee also recalls that in cases of physical or verbal violence against workers’ and employers’ leaders and their organizations, the Committee has emphasized that the absence of judgements against the guilty parties creates, in practice, a situation of impunity, which reinforces the climate of violence and insecurity, and which is extremely damaging to the exercise of trade union rights [see Compilation, paras 87 and 108]. Observing that, with the exception of taking into account the testimony of the victim’s daughter, the decision to close the case does not make reference to any specific investigations being carried out, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect.