Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 82, 1965

1. 57. The complaints of the Peruvian Workers' Confederation (C.T.P.) are contained in a communication dated 10 May 1963, in another dated 21 May 1963, forwarded by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and in a third dated 3 June 1963. These were communicated to the Government for its observations, and the Government's reply was transmitted to the I.L.O on 5 January 1965.
2. 58. Peru has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 59. In their communications of 10 and 21 May 1963 the complainants declare that they reject a draft legislative decree which would infringe freedom of association. According to the text of this draft decree, which is attached to the complaints, it is proposed to amend various sections of the Penal Code. This draft aims at establishing so-called offences against freedom to work, and lays down penalties applicable to persons who resort to violence in order to compel another person to take part in a strike or prevent him from entering his workplace; it also lays down penalties for state employees or officials who collectively cease their functions.
2. 60. In their communication dated 3 June 1963 the complainants transmit the text of Presidential Decree No. 009 of 3 May 1961, making rules for the formation of trade union organisations in the country. C.T.P was of the opinion that many of the provisions of this decree violated Convention No. 87, among them the following: section 4 stipulated that no one might be compelled to belong to or not belong to a trade union; section 6 prohibited trade unions from devoting themselves as constituted bodies to political matters; section 7 required a minimum of 20 members for the formation of a trade union, which would prevent the formation of organisations in many small establishments; sections 11 to 19 made the registration of trade unions compulsory; section 23 required a minimum of five trade unions for the formation of a federation and a minimum of ten federations for the formation of a Confederation. Nor had the decree taken into account the formation of horizontal-type organisations which grouped trade unions of different branches or industries, and which already existed in the country under the name of " associations ". Finally, state employees and workers were denied the right to organise.
3. 61. In its reply of 5 January 1965 the Government states that these complaints refer to the same period and events that were dealt with in Case No. 323 concerning a complaint presented by the World Federation of Trade Unions (W.F.T.U) against the Government of Peru. That case was examined in the 70th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, paragraphs 377 to 387, approved by the Governing Body at its 155th Session (May-June 1963), and in the 76th Report, paragraphs 30 to 40, approved by the Governing Body at its 159th Session (June-July 1964). Consequently, the Government considers that on the basis of the considerations expressed when that case was dealt with, the Committee should reject C.T.P's complaint.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 62. The Committee observes that the complaints of W.F.T.U, which were examined in its 70th and 76th Reports when dealing with Case No. 323, referred to the occupation by the Government (at the time the Military Junta) of trade union headquarters and to the detention of trade union leaders. At no time in that case was there any mention of the draft decree amending the Penal Code or of Presidential Decree No. 009 concerning trade union organisations. In other words the events mentioned in the present complaint from C.T.P are quite distinct from those listed by W.F.T.U and examined by the Committee in Case No. 323.
2. 63. As to the period itself in which the events alleged by C.T.P took place, at the time when it examined the complaints from W.F.T.U (concerning events which took place during the period before the present Government came to power), the Committee pointed out that in other cases it had taken the view that there is a degree of continuity between successor governments of the same State, and that while the government in power cannot be held responsible for events which took place under its predecessor, it clearly is responsible for any continuing consequences which they may have had since its accession to power.