Interim Report - Report No 310, June 1998

1. 517. The Committee examined this case at its November 1997 meeting and presented an interim report to the Governing Body (see 308th Report, paras. 577-596, approved by the Governing Body at its 270th Session (November 1997)).
2. 518. The complainant subsequently sent new allegations in communications dated 18 November and 15 December 1997.
3. 519. The Government sent new observations in communications dated 31 October and 24 November 1997, 9 March, 17 April and 12 May 1998.
4. 520. 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 521. At the November 1997 meeting of the Committee, the following allegations remained pending: (1) various acts of anti-union discrimination and interference against the Ucayali S.A. branch of the Light and Power Workers' Union, calculated to eliminate and cause the disappearance of trade union activity, including obstruction of collective bargaining, anti-union dismissals, coercion and threats against workers belonging to the Electro Ucayali S.A. trade union branch; and (2) anti-union dismissals and threats in the Eastern Regional Public Electricity Supply Company and Electro Sur Este S.A. (no reply had been received from the Government concerning the latter allegations).
2. 522. Concerning the latter allegations, the Federation of Peruvian Light and Power Workers had alleged that Mr. Jaime Tuesta Linares, secretary of disputes of the Electro Oriente S.A. trade union branch, had been unfairly dismissed by the Eastern Regional Public Electricity Supply Company (Empresa de Servicio Público de Electricidad del Oriente), despite being protected by trade union immunity according to national legislation. The complainant had also alleged that the management of Electro Sur Este S.A. had launched a systematic campaign of threats of dismissal and anti-union harassment of trade union leaders and members, which had caused serious problems for the workers' union branch in Electro Sur Este Abancay. As a result of this campaign, the company had transferred the trade union branch secretary, Mr. Moisés Zegarra Ancalla, to another establishment rather a long way away (Chacapuente-Chalhuanca sub-station), thus preventing him from carrying out his functions as a trade union officer. Finally, the complainant had added that Mr. Adriel Villafuerte Collado, General Secretary of the Electro Sur Este trade union branch, Puno, had been threatened with dismissal by the company, Electro Sur Este S.A. (Puno subregion), for alleged serious misconduct. Despite evidence of innocence provided by the union official, he had been suspended for 30 days without pay as a penalty.
3. 523. The Federation of Peruvian Light and Power Workers had also alleged that in an appeal judgement of 14 August 1996, the Tacna Appeal Court (Corte Superior de Justicia) had found definitively in favour of the Tacna and district branch of the Light and Power Workers' Union, affiliated to the Federation of Peruvian Light and Power Workers, and against Electro Sur S.A., and ordered the latter to pay salary increments to 111 workers, due under the arbitration award of 21 July 1993, as a result of the arbitration process which had followed the collective bargaining for the period 1992-93. The complainant added that, under the judgement varying the judicial decision of 15 May 1995, the parties had agreed, inter alia, to consolidate the arrears in a single exceptional payment of 2,300 new soles, as payment of arrears of wages, and that it would be exempt from social security contributions for IPSS, FONAVI, AFP and income tax, and that, in return, the complainant union branch would drop its action to enforce the court order. The complainant stated that, despite this agreement, Electro Sur S.A. had failed to abide by the above-mentioned agreement and that, in those circumstances, the Tacna and district branch of the Light and Power Workers' Union had been forced to continue proceedings to enforce the court order. The complainant alleged that, in response to the union's action, in an act which was contrary to the exercise of trade union freedoms and the inalienability of workers' rights, Electro Sur S.A., in its letter No. GA-500-97 of 25 August 1997, had arbitrarily abused its powers in designating the non-cessation of legal proceedings as "serious misconduct", threatening to discipline the union representatives and hinting that they would dismiss the union officials if they did not comply with their demands.
4. 524. The Committee had formulated the following conclusions and recommendations (see 308th Report, paras. 589-595):
5. Concerning the ... allegations of the various anti-trade union acts and interference by the company Electro Ucayali S.A. against the Ucayali S.A. branch of the Light and Power Workers' Union, calculated to eliminate and cause the disappearance of trade union activity, the Committee notes with regret that the Government confines itself to replying that they are merely unfounded allegations which do not warrant further investigation. In this respect, the Committee reminds the Government that in ratifying Convention No. 98, it undertook to guarantee the application of Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, which provide that workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination calculated to diminish trade union freedom in respect of their employment, and that their organizations shall have protection against any acts of interference. The Committee requests the Government to carry out an investigation without delay into the allegations listed below, and to keep it informed thereof:
6. (a) making the granting of an open-ended contract of employment conditional on workers resigning their membership of the trade union;
7. (b) the transfer to places other than those specified in their contracts of employment of the majority of workers belonging to the Ucayali S.A. branch of the Light and Power Workers' Union, under the control of the company Electrocentro S.A.;
8. (c) the hostility towards and obstruction of trade union activity, interference in the internal affairs of the union, intimidation of union officials and hinting at the creation of another trade union organization to evade their obligations under prior collective agreements.
9. Concerning the allegation of the refusal by the company Electro Ucayali S.A. to conclude a collective agreement since May 1996, the Committee takes due note that according to the Government, the process of collective bargaining has been concluded to the satisfaction of the parties, agreements having been adopted by direct negotiation, and the list of demands submitted by the trade union having been settled. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to forward a copy of the collective agreements subsequently concluded and requests it to do everything possible to work with the parties so that difficulties that arise in the collective bargaining process are overcome much more quickly.
10. Concerning the allegation of the inclusion in the list for "collective dismissal" of 19 trade union members, including two members of the negotiating committee for the 1996-97 bargaining round, as well as two members of the executive board, the Committee takes due note that according to the Government, the approved list for termination of contracts affects only 14 workers, five of them having been excluded from the measure at the request of the company, and who are now working normally in the company. The Committee recalls that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers 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. This protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they should have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions. The Committee has considered that the guarantee of such protection in the case of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is given to the fundamental principle that workers' organizations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom.
11. Concerning the allegation of coercion by the company of workers belonging to the trade union to resign their membership by threatening to include them on the list for "collective dismissal" if they do not do so, the Committee notes with regret that the Government has confined itself simply to stating that this allegation is not justified. Indeed, the Committee notes that the Government reports that current national legislation in this area protects workers against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, but nevertheless, it does not state whether it has carried out an investigation into the facts of the matter. Furthermore, the Committee expresses its deep concern that following the events that formed the basis of the complaint, the union has had its registration cancelled because the number of members of the union concerned fell below the limit of 20 required by legislation due to the resignations from trade union membership.
12. In this respect, the Committee insists on ... (reminding) the Government once more that in ratifying Convention No. 98, it undertook to guarantee the application of Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, protecting workers not only in law but also in practice against any acts of anti-union discrimination, and their organizations against any acts of interference. The Committee requests the Government to carry out an investigation to determine to what extent the resignation of several members of the trade union was the result of pressure or otherwise by the company, especially taking into account that in this case there are several complaints against the company in question concerning anti-union acts and interference calculated to eliminate and cause the disappearance of trade union activities which have still not been investigated. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the results of such investigations. As for the statement by the Government that the trade union may not immediately obtain new recognition once it has remedied the causes of its cancellation, but only six months later, the Committee reminds the Government that such a provision has recently been the subject of comments by the Committee of Experts as being in contravention of Convention No. 87, for which reason it requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to amend that provision (see Report of the Committee of Experts, 1997, p. 191 of the English version).
13. As concerns the allegations of anti-union dismissals and threats in the Eastern Regional Public Electricity Supply Company and Electro Sur Este S.A., the Committee notes that it has not received the reply of the Government and therefore it requests the Government to submit its observations on this matter without delay. The Committee also requests the Government to communicate its observations on the allegations concerning the failure by the company Electro Sur S.A. to comply with an agreement to vary a judicial order, and the threats of disciplinary action and dismissals of union officials in the company in question.
14. B. New allegations of the complainant organization
15. 525. In its communication dated 18 November 1997, the FTLFP alleges that Mr. Guillermo Barrueta Gómez, Secretary-General of the organization, is the victim of anti-union discrimination by the Electro Sur Este S.A. enterprise which, in violation of the collective agreements in force, unilaterally suspended payment of his allowance for trade union duties on 30 July 1992. After the judicial authorities had ruled twice in favour of Mr. Barrueta Gómez, ordering that he be paid 11,221 new soles, the enterprise lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice invoking its right to due process and claiming that the proceedings should have been for "cessation of harassment" and not for "payment in soles for non-compliance with collective agreements and an arbitration award". The FTLFP points out that Mr. Barrueta Gómez had been receiving the allowance since 1 July 1991, that the other officers of the FTLFP had received it since then and that the reason given by the enterprise for not paying the trade union allowance to Mr. Barrueta Gómez was the fact that, since this trade union officer lived in Lima, he did not travel from one place to another and therefore was not entitled to this right; according to the complainant however this right arises out of the performance of trade union duties or work of this nature carried out by a trade union officer. The complainant considers the decision of the Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declaring the appeal for annulment lodged by the enterprise legitimate to be unlawful.
16. 526. In its communication of 15 December 1997, the FTLFP alleges that in November 1997 the Southern Regional Public Electricity Supply Company (Electro Sur S.A.) dismissed Mr. Walter Linares Sanz, General Secretary of the Tacna branch of the Light and Power Workers' Union, in order to break down the defence of the workers' interests in the proceedings for payment of arrears of wages before the Labour Court of Tacna (in this respect, the complainant states that the Tacna Appeal Court (Corte Superior de Justicia) had already ordered Electro Sur S.A. to pay wage increments to 111 workers due under an arbitration award). Without any evidence whatsoever, the enterprise has accused Mr. Linares Sanz of failing to discharge his duties at work, providing false information to the employer and of a serious breach of discipline for having authorized a representative of the Attorney-General's Office to enter the premises of the enterprise and signing a record as legal representative of the enterprise; the complainant states that the representative of the Attorney-General's Office had come to the enterprise to carry out a procedure in connection with a lawsuit brought by the enterprise against its former financial and administrative manager. According to the complainant, it was shown that Mr. Linares Sanz not only had not authorized the public authorities to enter the premises of the enterprise, but also had not in any way claimed to be the legal representative of the enterprise by signing the record drawn up by the Attorney-General's Office. Moreover, he had not been informed or received any legal or other instructions concerning the imminent procedure resulting from a complaint lodged by the enterprise; he had not failed in his duties by respecting the authority of the representative of the Attorney-General's Office so as not to commit a penal offence; he did not give his employer false information or commit a serious breach of discipline, since he had not even had direct personal, oral or written contact with the representative of the enterprise, but had only placed the fact of his presence on record in the document in question.
17. C. The Government's reply
18. 527. In its communication of 31 October 1997, the Government refers to the allegations concerning the dismissal of trade union officer Jaime Tuesta Linares in Electro Oriente S.A., threats of dismissal against union members in the Apurimac subregional branch of the Electro Sur Este S.A. enterprise and the threat of dismissal made against Mr. Adriel Villafuerte Collado of the Puno subregional branch of Electro Sur Este S.A. In this respect, the Government states that the legislation in force provides for adequate penalties for non-compliance with labour standards to serve as a deterrent against acts restricting workers' freedom of association. In its written communication, the complainant states that "acts such as this one are expressly prohibited by national law, as stipulated by section 29(a) and section 36 of Presidential Decree No. 003-97-TR, the consolidated text of Act No. 728, respecting productivity and competitiveness, which defines as null and void a dismissal on grounds of trade union membership or participation in trade union activities and allows the trade union member to take legal action and bring a suit for nullity before the Peruvian courts within 30 days of the fact, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary". Indeed, national legislation fully protects the exercise of freedom of association, which is guaranteed in article 28(1) of the Political Constitution of Peru of 1993. Section 4 of the Collective Labour Relations Act, Legislative Decree No. 25593, likewise recognizes workers' rights to form trade unions and guarantees the exercise thereof. Moreover, section 30 of this Act confers trade union immunity on certain workers who may not be dismissed or transferred to other establishments of the same enterprise without just cause being duly demonstrated or without the worker's consent. Likewise, the consolidated Act respecting labour productivity and competitiveness provides in section 29(a) and (b) that a dismissal shall be null and void if it is based on grounds of trade union membership or participation in trade union activities or the worker's candidacy as a workers' representative or of the worker's acting or having acted in this capacity. Along the same lines, the Penal Code lays down a penalty of imprisonment for persons interfering with the principle of freedom of association, by stipulating in section 168, as amended by the third repealing and final provision of Legislative Decree No. 857, as follows: "A person shall be sentenced to imprisonment of up to two years if he coerces another, through violence or threats, to perform any of the following acts: (1) join or refrain from joining a trade union; (2) perform work without appropriate remuneration; (3) work without observing the industrial safety and health requirements determined by the authorities. A person shall be liable to the same sentence for failing to carry out decisions handed down by the competent authorities, which have not been appealed or have been rendered executory, or if he diminishes or distorts production, simulates reasons for closing the workplace or abandons the workplace in order to terminate employment relationships."
19. 528. As regards protection against acts of interference by the employer, the Government points out that the Collective Labour Relations Act, Legislative Decree No. 25593, restricts the possibilities for the State, employers and representatives of both to commit acts of interference in trade union activities, by providing in section 4 that they shall refrain from committing any act limiting, restricting or impairing, in any way, the workers' right to organize, and to interfere in any manner in the creation, administration or maintenance of the trade unions set up by the latter.
20. 529. The Government states further that, under the legislation in force, the workers are thus afforded appropriate legal means to enforce any right which they may consider to have been infringed by acts or threats on the part of their employer, as long as they comply with the established legal procedures for asserting their claim. Concerning the alleged threats of dismissal against trade union officers, the Government states that the complainant does not provide evidence that such acts were carried out by the representatives of the Electro Sur Este S.A. enterprise; if, however, acts such as those mentioned prove to have been committed, the relevant legislation, as pointed out above, provides full protection to the workers affected. In this specific case, despite the fact that the complainant recognizes that its claim is protected by the national legal system, it has not availed itself of the legal channels to claim the rights which they consider to have been impaired, and a complaint has been brought directly against the State of Peru before exhausting the appropriate legal channels; the Government therefore requests that these allegations be dismissed.
21. 530. In its communication of 24 November 1997, the Government refers to the allegation to the effect that the administrative and financial manager of the Electro Sur S.A. enterprise requested the trade union representatives through a notary to drop the legal proceedings against the enterprise, threatening to discipline the trade union representatives and hinting that they would be dismissed if they did not comply with their demands. In this respect, the Government states that the complainant does not provide relevant documents in support of its allegations, and only mentions the alleged threats on the part of the financial and administrative manager of the Electro Sur S.A. enterprise, without verifying whether such acts actually took place, adequate penalties for such acts being laid down by the legislation in force, as pointed out above. However, in order to avail themselves of this protection, the trade union officers must use the appropriate legal channels to protect those whose rights may have been impaired by acts committed by their employer. The Government therefore requests that the allegations be dismissed.
22. 531. In its communication of 9 March 1998, the Government refers to the Committee's recommendation that it carry out an investigation into the allegations of various anti-union acts and interference against the Ucayali S.A. branch of the Light and Power Workers' Union. In this respect, the Government reiterates its previous information on legal protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Government adds that, as regards protection against acts of interference by the employer, the Collective Labour Relations Act, Legislative Decree No. 25593, restricts the possibilities for the State, employers and the representatives of both to interfere in trade union activities, by providing in section 4 that they shall refrain from committing any acts limiting, restricting or impairing in any way the workers' right to strike, and from interfering in any way in the establishment, administration or maintenance of the trade union organizations set up by the latter. The above-mentioned provision is intended to provide effective penalties for any act committed by the employer which jeopardizes the collective rights of workers, and the members of the Ucayali S.A. branch of the Light and Power Workers' Union who consider that their trade union rights have been affected must therefore avail themselves of the appropriate legal channels to ensure that their rights recognized by law are protected.
23. 532. As regards the allegation concerning the refusal by the Electro Ucayali S.A. enterprise to conclude a collective agreement since May 1996, the Committee had requested the Government to send it a copy of the collective agreements subsequently concluded and to do everything possible to work with the parties so that difficulties that arise in the collective bargaining process are overcome much more quickly. In this respect, the Government refers to the information it has already given to the Committee. It reiterates that the collective bargaining process was concluded to the satisfaction of the parties, the agreements having been adopted by direct negotiation, and that the list of demands submitted by the trade union organization, a copy of which was sent to the ILO in the Government's previous reply, have been settled; copies of the agreements concluded will be sent to the Committee shortly. The Government points out that it is ensuring a favourable outcome of the collective bargaining between the parties by providing an adequate regulatory framework.
24. 533. Concerning the allegations of coercion by the Electro Ucayali S.A. enterprise with regard to unionized members, to force them to resign their membership, the Government states that these arguments are unjustified inasmuch as the workers have the support of legislation to claim their trade union rights in situations such as that described. If it is true that the workers were subjected to pressure in order to achieve the results described, they should have availed themselves of the machinery provided for their defence in the relevant legislation, which have been described throughout this report.
25. 534. Concerning the impossibility for the trade union of immediately obtaining new recognition once it had remedied the causes of its cancellation, the Government points out that the trade unions must meet a requirement laid down by the law according to which they must have a minimum of 20 members in order to ensure a certain level of representativeness of workers in the workplace. Obviously, if the trade union is not able to achieve this number of members, it cannot claim a representative status which it does not have and therefore, under the legislation in force, it will lose its recognition as a trade union; and the legislation provides for a reasonable period to enable it to remedy the cause of its cancellation and reapply for recognition. Concerning the Committee's request to amend the provision in question, it should be pointed out that there is a possibility that this provision will be revised.
26. 535. Concerning the comments requested with respect to the Eastern Regional Public Electricity Supply Company, the Government states that these will be forwarded to the Committee as a matter or urgency. Regarding the allegation that the Electro Sur Este S.A. enterprise has, since 30 June 1992, suspended payment of the travel allowance to Guillermo Barrueta Gomez, the Government provides details of the court decisions rendered up till now and confirms that, in July 1997, the Supreme Court of Justice granted the employer leave to appeal in this matter. In the light of the alleged breach by the employer of its obligations regarding the payment of the travel allowance for trade union activities, the complainant should have submitted a complaint before the judicial authorities for cessation of harassment. Article 66 of Decree No. 728, concerning the encouragement of employment (which was in force on the date of the suspension of the travel allowance for trade union duties) includes among the acts of harassment, the unjustified breach of legal or contractual obligations. The complainant has the right to use the relevant legal channels to contest the alleged violation of the rights of this trade union officer. The Government stresses that the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice regarding this case, does not amount to a derogation from the jurisprudence or the acceptance of the arguments of the enterprise; the Government further recalls the independent nature of the Court. Given the actual state of events, the allegations made by the complainants are purely speculative. In addition, regarding the dismissal of trade union officer Mr. Walter Linares, the Government repeats its assertion regarding the existence of legal standards and judicial procedures providing protection against anti-union discrimination to which the person concerned has access.

D. The Committee's conclusions

1. 536. The Committee observes that the questions which remain pending in this case concern various acts of anti-union discrimination and interference by the Electro Ucayali S.A., Eastern Regional Public Electricity Supply Company, Electro Sur Este S.A. and Electro Sur S.A. enterprises, as well as the obstruction of collective bargaining by the Electro Ucayali S.A. enterprise.
   • Allegations which remained pending in the previous examination of the case
2. 537. The Committee observes that the following allegations relating to acts of anti-union discrimination remained pending at its previous meeting:
   • -- various acts of anti-union discrimination and interference against the Ucayali S.A. branch of the Light and Power Workers' Union, calculated to eliminate and cause the disappearance of trade union activity, including obstruction of collective bargaining, anti-union dismissals, coercion and threats against workers belonging to the Electro Ucayali S.A. trade union branch;
   • -- the Electro Ucayali S.A. enterprise making the granting of open-ended contracts of employment conditional on workers belonging to the Ucayali S.A. branch of the Light and Power Workers' Union giving up their membership;
   • -- the transfer of the majority of workers belonging to the above trade union to places other than those specified in their contracts of employment, under the control of the Electrocentro S.A. enterprise;
   • -- hostility towards and obstruction of trade union activity, interference in the internal affairs of the above-mentioned union, intimidation of union officials and hinting at the creation of another trade union organization to evade their obligations under prior collective agreements;
   • -- the collective dismissal of 19 unionized workers and coercion of workers by the Ucayali S.A. enterprise of workers to give up their union membership, threatening to include them in the collective dismissal if they refuse (as a result, recognition of the trade union was cancelled as the number of members was reduced to fewer than 20, the legal minimum);
     • (In respect of the above-mentioned questions, the Committee had requested the Government to carry out an investigation without delay.)
   • -- unfair dismissal of trade union officer Mr. Jaime Tuesta Linares by the Eastern Regional Public Electricity Supply Company;
   • -- a systematic campaign of threatened dismissal and harassment against trade union officers and unionized workers in the Electro Sur Este S.A. enterprise, which has caused serious problems for the workers' union branch in Electro Sur Este Abancay; specifically: (1) trade union officer Mr. Moisés Zegarra Ancalla was transferred; (2) the Electro Sur Este S.A. enterprise (Puno subregion) threatened trade union officer Mr. Adriel Villafuerte Collado with dismissal and suspended him for 30 days without pay;
   • -- threats of sanctions and dismissals against trade union officers at the Tacna and district branch of the Light and Power Workers' Union by the Electro Sur S.A. company, which considered that the trade union officers were guilty of serious misconduct for not having dropped their action to enforce a court order in favour of the workers concerning salary increments due to 111 workers.
3. 538. Morover, as concerns the allegation in respect of the refusal of Electro Ucayali S.A. to conclude a collective agreement since May 1996, the Committee had requested the Government to send copies of the agreements concluded subsequent to those referred to in its reply.
4. 539. In this respect, the Committee regrets that, in its replies to allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference, the Government confines itself to pointing out that the legislation prohibits acts of anti-union discrimination and interference and that any victims thereof may appeal to the judicial authorities. The Committee deeply regrets that the authorities have not carried out an investigation into the allegations and that the Government is again merely relying on the existence of provisions concerning protection of freedom of association and judicial remedies or states that the complainant organizations have not provided sufficient evidence. In this respect, the Committee emphasizes that "the Government is responsible for preventing all acts of anti-union discrimination" (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 738). In addition, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that, where cases of alleged anti-union discrimination are involved, the competent authorities should begin an inquiry immediately and take suitable measures to remedy any effects of anti-union discrimination brought to their attention (see Digest, op. cit., para. 754). Moreover, "respect for the principles of freedom of association clearly requires that workers who consider that they have been prejudiced because of their trade union activities should have access to means of redress which are expeditious, inexpensive and fully impartial" (see Digest, op. cit., para. 741). In these circumstances, the Committee once again urges the Government to carry out an investigation without delay into the allegations of anti-union discrimination in the Electro Ucayali S.A., Eastern Regional Public Electricity Supply Company and the Electro Sur Este S.A. enterprise and to take all necessary measures to remedy these serious acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
5. 540. Concerning the allegation relating to the obstruction of collective bargaining by the Electro Ucayali S.A. enterprise, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, the parties reached satisfactory agreements and further notes the Government's statement that it will send the texts of these agreements shortly. The Committee hopes to receive the text of all the agreements concluded without delay and requests the Government to transmit them as a matter of urgency.
   • New allegations of the complainant organization
6. 541. Regarding the dismissal of trade union officer Mr. Walter Linares by the Electro Sur S.A. enterprise, the Committee regrets that the Government's reply to the allegation concerning the dismissal is limited to statements of a general nature concerning the standards and procedures against anti-union discrimination, to which the person concerned has access. As a result, it urges the Government to carry out an in-depth investigation and keep it informed thereof. With respect to the allegation concerning the suspension of Mr. Guillermo Barrueta Gomez's traval allowance for trade union activities, the Committee notes the Government's statement that the complainant should bring this matter before the judicial authorities, invoking pursuant to the law "an act of harassment" for an unlawful breach of legal and contractual obligations, and that, consequently, the Supreme Court of Justice had granted the application for leave to appeal lodged by the Electro Sur Este S.A. enterprise. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed regarding the outcome of the appeal.
7. 542. With respect to the allegation concerning the suspension of Mr. Guillermo Barrueta Gomez's travel allowance for trade union activities, the committee notes the Government's statement that the complainant should bring this matter before the judicial authorities, invoking pursuant to the law "an act of harassment" for an unlawful breach of legal and contractual obligations, and that, consequently, the Supreme Court of Justice had granted the application for leave to appeal lodged by the Electro sur Este S.A. enterprise. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed regarding the outcome of the appeal.
8. 543. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that all cases of anti-union discrimination -- including those presented to the Committee -- may be examined through expeditious and effective procedures.