Definitive Report - Report No 392, October 2020

1. 878. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Confederation of Workers of Peru (CTP) dated 20 April 2016.
2. 879. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 3 April and 23 August 2017, and 11 February 2019.
3. 880. 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 complainants’ allegations

1. 881. In its communication dated 20 April 2016, the complainant organization alleged obstruction of the exercise of freedom of association by the labour authorities, considering that they had acted in a biased manner, favouring individuals who were former union members and outside the trade union, in order to impede the recognition of the executive committee of the Peruvian Union of Performers, Authors, Composers, Folklore Artists and Allied Workers of Peru (SITAFPERU).
2. 882. The complainant organization stated that in 2015 SITAFPERU had elected its executive committee – led by Mr Carlos Guillen Oporto – and had proceeded to communicate the fact to the labour authorities. It considered that other individuals, under the leadership of Mr Simón Rojas Vidal (who had been dismissed from the trade union for misconduct in the year 2000), could have contributed to impeding the recognition of the elected executive committee.
3. 883. The CTP added that those other individuals had engaged in the appropriation of the trade name of SITAFPERU, misleading the registrar and achieving the registration of a private association with the same name as SITAFPERU.
4. 884. The complainant organization called for the urgent recognition of the executive committee of SITAFPERU represented by Mr Guillen Oporto.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 885. In its communications dated 3 April and 23 August 2017, and 11 February 2019, the Government provided the following information to clarify the facts and respond to the allegations:
2. 886. With said recognition and the registration of the executive committee of the SITAFPERU, the Government considered the claim contained in the complaint to be extinguished.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 887. The Committee notes that in the present complaint the complainant organization alleged obstacles to the registration of the executive committee and appropriation of the tradename of SITAFPERU.
2. 888. From the information provided by the parties, the Committee observes that in this case: (i) it was initially considered that there could be an intra-union conflict as two requests for the registration of executive committees of organizations with similar names had been sent at the same time; (ii) the National Public Records Office carried out the relevant checks and concluded that the names of the legal entities referred to were not the same (SITAFP and SITAFPERU) – and that consequently the trade name of SITAFPERU had not been appropriated; and (iii) once an appeal lodged by the latter entity had been settled and certain aspects of the initial registration request had been rectified, on 6 March 2017 the certificate of automatic registration of the executive committee of SITAFPERU was issued. In light of the above, and emphasizing the importance of ensuring a rapid resolution of issues relating to the registration of the executive committees of employers’ and workers’ organizations, the Committee considers that this case does not call for further examination.