Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 204, Noviembre 1980

1. 285. The complaint is contained in several communications from the Single Union of Employees of SCALA (SUTS) dated 21 March, 11 and 15 April and 19 May 1980. The Government sent its observations on 16 July 1980.
2. 286. Peru has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Eight to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Eight to organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 287. The complainant's allegations concern the dismissal of 17 workers by the firm of SCALA on the ground that they had taken part in a sit-down strike lasting six hours on 25 January 1980 in protest against the firm's refusal to accede to the wage demands of the workers, who had rejected as being insufficient the increase awarded by the labour authorities through Sub-Directoral Order No. 199-80. The complainant claims that the stoppage of 25 January 1980 took place peacefully with no disturbance of public order and that no damage was done to the company's premises or property.
2. 288. The SUTS applied to the officiating Chief of the Complaints Division for the reinstatement of the dismissed workers, claiming that the strike had involved no breach of the law. The union asserted that the purpose behind the mass dismissal was to enable the company to negotiate the reinstatement of the workers in return for acceptance of small wage increase, there being precedents for this.

B. Ministerial Order

1. 289. By Ministerial Order No. 072-80-912200 of 10 March 1980, confirmed on appeal, the Second Complaints Division stated that the stoppage of work at SCALA S.A. had been declared illegal and that the workers dismissed had behaved violently, preventing the public from entering the building and doing business with the company by taking possession of the doors and installations, and uttering insults and offensive slogans about the company and some of its officials, these facts having been confirmed by the investigations carried out by the competent authorities. For these reasons it rejected the application for reinstatement filed by the SUTS.

C. The Government's reply

1. 290. In its reply the Government refers to the orders made in respect of the application filed by the SUTS and concludes by stating that "there has been no denial of freedom of association nor failure to protect the right to organise, since the workers were not dismissed for participating in the stoppage ordered by their trade union but for misusing the right to strike and adopting hostile attitudes irrelevant to the exercise of a right which is fully recognised by our legislation".

D. The Committee's conclusions

1. 291. The Committee observes that the complainant's version and the Government's version contradict each other. Irrespective of which version is correct, the Committee notes that the workers concerned were dismissed on account of their activities in connection with a stoppage lasting six hours, which according to the Government was effected in an unlawful and violent manner, whereas the complainant claims that it took place peacefully. The Committee wishes to emphasise, as it has done in previous cases, that labour relations could be greatly improved if the employers concerned gave serious consideration to the possibility of reinstating the persons affected. It has also emphasised on earlier occasions that serious risks of abuse and threats to freedom of association are involved in dismissals arising out of strikes and that the adoption of an inflexible attitude in the application of excessively severe sanctions to workers is certain to impair the development of labour relations. In the present case, the Committee observes that, even though the authorities did note a work stoppage, it only lasted six hours. The Committee is accordingly of the opinion that it would be appropriate for the Government to take steps to facilitate the reinstatement of the workers dismissed.