Definitive Report - Report No 367, March 2013

1. 950. The Committee examined this case in its June 2011 meeting and submitted an interim report to the Governing Body [see 360th Report of the Committee, paras 1011–1029, approved by the Governing Body at its 311th Session (June 2011)].
2. 951. The Government sent additional observations in communications dated 20 October 2011, 23 February 2012 and 21 January 2013.
3. 952. 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. 953. In its previous examination of the case in June 2011, the Committee made the following recommendations on matters still pending [see 360th Report, para. 1029]:
   • (a) Deeply regretting the acts of anti-trade union discrimination reported by the labour inspection and by the judicial authority in the Court of First Instance, the Committee requests the Government to: (1) inform it as to whether the company TUPEMESA has paid the fine imposed by the administrative authority; (2) in the event that the judicial authority of the Court of Second Instance confirms the judgment ordering the reinstatement of the ten dismissed officials and members in their posts, take steps to ensure that the company complies with this judgment immediately; and (3) takes the necessary steps without delay to ensure that the company recognizes SINUTOE–TUPEMESA immediately. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to institute an inquiry without delay into the allegations that four members of the complainant organization were dismissed on 16 July 2010 and to keep it informed of developments in this regard and, if it is confirmed that the dismissals were anti-trade union in nature, to take all steps at its disposal to ensure the reinstatement of the workers in question and to penalize the company in relation to these offences.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 954. In its communications of 20 October 2011, 23 February 2012 and 21 January 2013, the Government states that Tubos y Perfiles Metálicos SA TUPEMESA paid the fine of 13,428 nuevos soles (PEN) imposed by the administrative authority for the acts of anti-trade union discrimination confirmed by the labour inspectorate, as reported in its previous reply (acts designed to hinder and restrict the right to organize and interfere in the establishment and maintenance of the company trade union, and the dismissal of ten trade union officials in February 2010). In addition, the Government reports that the Court of Second Instance upheld the ruling of the Court of First Instance ordering the reinstatement of the ten dismissed trade union officials, who were indeed reinstated and are now able to carry out their trade union activities. In addition, the labour inspectorate ensures respect for freedom of association through the exercise of its functions and has imposed two fines on the company and a third fine is currently being processed.
2. 955. Lastly, as regards the four members of the complainant trade union who were dismissed on 16 July 2010 (Mr Martín Tuesta Oliveira, Mr Luis Alberto Luyo Manco, Mr Luis Alberto Agapito Hernández and Mr Ronald Edgar Camac Infa), the Government reports that it has ordered the labour inspectorate to carry out inquiries into this matter in the company, which concluded that the dismissal of the first two workers was for gross misconduct (violence against workers and unjustified absence from work); the other two resigned voluntarily.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 956. The Committee notes with interest that, with regard to its previous recommendations, Tubos y Perfiles Metálicos SA TUPEMESA paid the fine of PEN13,428 imposed by the administrative authority for acts designed to hinder and restrict the right to organize and interfere in the establishment and operation of the trade union, and for the dismissal of ten trade union officials. The Committee also notes with interest that the Court of Second Instance upheld the ruling of the Court of First Instance ordering the reinstatement of the ten trade union officials dismissed in February 2010 and that the Government indicates that they have indeed been reinstated in their posts.
2. 957. The Committee also notes that, in its reply, the Government indicates that it has ordered the labour inspectorate to carry out inquiries into the alleged dismissal of four trade union members on 16 July 2010. The Committee notes that the Government reports that, according to the labour inspectorate, two workers were dismissed for gross misconduct (violence against other workers and unjustified absences) and that the other two resigned voluntarily.
3. 958. Lastly, the Committee recalls that in its previous examination of the case, it had requested the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the company recognizes the complainant trade union without delay. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that, following their reinstatement, the members of the trade union executive board are able to exercise their trade union rights; moreover, the labour inspectorate ensures respect for freedom of association through the exercise of its functions and has imposed two fines on the company and a third fine is currently being processed.