Afficher en : Francais - Espagnol
Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body
Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body- 30. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns allegations
relating to the dismissal of trade union leaders of the Single Trade Union of Workers of
Casa Grande and Allied Enterprises (SUTCGA) and other anti-union acts by a sugar
company, at its March 2014 meeting [see 371st Report, paras 744–765]. On that occasion,
the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the trial
concerning the dismissal of six leaders of the complainant union.
- 31. By communications of 15 May and 19 August 2014, 28 August, 9 October
and 3 December 2018 and 22 January 2024, the Government informs that: (i) the dismissal
annulment proceedings initiated in 2013 concluded with respect to four trade union
leaders because three of them conciliated with the sugar company and the judicial
proceedings concerning the fourth leader were brought to an end, given that the facts on
which the proceedings were based had disappeared; (ii) through a second instance
judgment of 2018, the dismissal of the other two union leaders (Mr Saucedo Castillo and
Mr Rubio Oliva) were declared null and void, and their reinstatement was ordered, which
was complied with by the sugar company; and (iii) in 2023, the cassation appeal filed by
the sugar company against this judgment was declared unfounded.
- 32. By means of a communication dated 21 December 2016, the Trade Union
Confederation of Peruvian Workers (CSP) submitted additional allegations concerning
obstructions to the exercise of trade union rights by members and leaders of the
SUTCGA.
- 33. The CSP alleges that, as a result of various claims by the SUTCGA,
the sugar company: (i) generated a conflict between the union leaders of this
organization by having a group of workers related to it attempt to accredit a management
committee of the union for the 2015–17 period before the administrative labour authority
(AAT) to the detriment of another previously registered and led by the two
aforementioned union leaders; (ii) delayed the discussion of the list of claims for the
same period; (iii) coerced the negotiating committee and the leaders of the SUTCGA to
sign an unfair list of claims and to end the strike carried out in March 2016 through
the filing of criminal charges and complaints as well as threats; and (iv) in
retaliation for their participation in the strike, dismissed the two union leaders
mentioned above and other unionized workers and announced the reduction of holidays and
the deduction of social benefits for absences during the strike. The CSP indicates that
it has denounced to the labour inspectorate both the anti-union acts described above and
the illegal withholding of cheques for union dues by the sugar company.
- 34. The CSP also alleges that, illegally and biased towards the sugar
company, the AAT: (i) declared the 2016 strike unjustified after a document submitted by
the SUTCGA (the affidavit of a union leader) was subtracted; and (ii) delayed the
resolution of the proceedings initiated by the SUTCGA in relation to the 2015–17 list of
claims and the 2016 strike.
- 35. With regard to the allegations of anti-union acts, the Government
provides information according to which: (i) there is a conflict between two leadership
groups of the SUTCGA claiming representativeness and legitimacy vis-à-vis the sugar
company and the AAT, which led to the interruption of collective bargaining 2015–17;
(ii) after several conciliation meetings promoted by the AAT in a framework of respect
for freedom of association and good faith bargaining, in June 2016 the sugar company and
the SUTCGA, under the representation of the two union leaders mentioned above, signed
the collective agreement 2015–17; (iii) also in the context of meetings convened by the
AAT, in April and June 2016 the SUTCGA and the sugar company concluded agreements that
addressed both the issue of dismissal and harassment of workers who took part in the
March 2016 strike and the granting of loans to compensate for the discounts for
absenteeism during the strike; (iv) in August 2016, the SUTCGA denounced to the labour
inspectorate the existence of acts of hostility against the workers who took part in the
2016 strike; (v) in August and September 2016, the AAT was informed that the two union
leaders mentioned above had been removed from their positions and that, up to that
point, they had been provisionally reinstated by the sugar company in compliance with a
precautionary measure; and (vi) in 2018, an ex officio inspection procedure was
initiated with respect to the sugar company in order to verify the commission of the
anti-union acts alleged by the CSP, which concluded without finding any legal breaches
of freedom of association.
- 36. In relation to the questioning of the AAT’s actions, the Government
states that: (i) this authority has at all times safeguarded the principles and rights
provided for in the rules governing administrative procedure and collective labour
relations; (ii) the 2016 strike was declared first inadmissible and then illegal because
of inconsistencies, in particular with regard to the number of attendees at the assembly
at which the strike was decided; (iii) the competent provincial public prosecutor’s
office declared that it was inadmissible to open an investigation for offences against
the public administration against the AAT official who was in charge of the proceedings
initiated by the SUTCGA; and (iv) the existence of an internal trade union conflict and
the resolution of the various appeals lodged by the parties concerned had an impact on
the duration of the aforementioned proceedings.
- 37. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the
Government and of the information available on the website of the Peruvian judiciary
concerning the outcome of the dismissal annulment proceedings initiated in 2013 by
leaders of the SUTCGA against the sugar company. The Committee notes that two of the
trade union leaders were definitively reinstated by the company on 20 December 2018 and
that the proceedings were terminated early (without a ruling on the merits) in respect
of the others following, in particular, the signing of several conciliation
agreements.
- 38. The Committee also takes note of the additional allegations made by
the CSP concerning various anti-union acts allegedly carried out by the sugar company to
the detriment of the SUTCGA in the context of collective bargaining 2015–17 and a strike
in 2016. Such acts allegedly include the creation of an internal trade union conflict,
the intentional delay of the collective bargaining process, the withholding of union
dues, company coercion to conclude the negotiations and put an end to the strike, as
well as reprisals against the striking workers by reducing their remuneration (holidays
and social benefits) and the dismissal of several trade unionists, including the two
trade union leaders mentioned in the previous paragraph. The Committee notes that the
CSP also questions the delay and lack of impartiality of the AAT in handling and
resolving the proceedings initiated by the SUTCGA in connection with the collective
bargaining and strike referred to above.
- 39. The Committee notes that in its observations, the Government refers
to the existence of a trade union conflict within the SUTCGA and to the fact that this
conflict is said to have led to the temporary interruption of collective bargaining
2015–17 and, together with other elements, to the duration of the proceedings initiated
by the SUTCGA before the AAT. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that,
following various meetings promoted by the AAT in a framework of respect for freedom of
association and good faith bargaining, in June 2016, the SUTCGA (represented by the two
trade union leaders mentioned above) and the sugar company signed the collective
agreement 2015–17 and concluded other agreements addressing the problem of wage
deductions and dismissals of workers who went on strike in March 2016. The Committee
also notes that the Government indicates that, following an ex officio inspection in
2018, the labour inspectorate did not detect the violations of freedom of association
alleged by the CSP.
- 40. Having taken due note of the elements provided by the parties, the
Committee, on the one hand, recalls that the two trade union leaders – to whose
dismissal the CSP refers – were definitively reinstated in 2018 by the sugar company
and, on the other hand, notes that the remaining allegations of the CSP have already
been addressed in agreements concluded between the SUTGCA and the said company and
through actions by the national authorities.
- 41. With regard to the declaration of illegality by the AAT of the strike
carried out in 2016 by the SUTGCA, the Committee wishes to emphasize that, as recalled
in its previous examination of the case, the responsibility for declaring a strike
illegal should not lie with the government, but with an independent body which has the
confidence of the parties [Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of
Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 907]. The Committee therefore once again
requests the Government to take steps to amend the legislation to take account of this
criterion.
- 42. On the basis of the above and having received no information from the
complainant organizations since 2016, the Committee considers the present case closed
and will not pursue its examination.