Informe provisional - Informe núm. 236, Noviembre 1984

1. 459. The Federation of Peruvian Light and Power Workers submitted a complaint of violations of freedom of association against the Government of Peru in a communication dated 5 May 1983. This Federation subsequently sent further allegations and information in communications dated 12 May 1983 and 13 February 1984. Furthermore, on 13, 15, 16 and 24 February 1984, the Federation of Bank Employees, the Union of Workers in the "CERMOSA" ceramics company, the Peruvian General Confederation of Workers and the Public Records Staff Union submitted allegations in connection with this complaint.
2. 460. The Government submitted certain information and observations in reply to various aspects of the case in communications dated 17 November 1983, 13 and 23 April and 6 July 1984.
3. 461. 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. Allegations of the Federation of Peruvian Light and Power Workers

1. 462. In its communication of 5 May 1983, the Federation of Peruvian Light and Power Workers alleges several violations of freedom of association in this country, in particular the violation of the right to form trade unions freely and of the right of trade union organisations to organise their administration and appoint their representatives independently, and the violation of the right to free collective bargaining and of the right to strike. Furthermore, it also refers to the possibility that legislation might be detrimental to the working conditions obtained by the electricity and power workers.
2. 463. The complainant federation explains that, on 30 June 1982, it submitted a list of demands in the form of a draft national collective agreement at branch level for 1982-83 to all the undertakings in the electrical industry throughout the country. However, on 16 July 1982, the management of the Electro-Peru undertaking objected in writing to the Ministry of Labour about the composition of the workers' delegation involved in this bargaining.
   • It stated that the bargaining committee was too large, that it refused to discuss with some of its members and that it would only accept to bargain with the members of the national executive, which constituted the highest decision-making body within the federation in question.
   • The complainant federation, for its part, considers that the general assemblies of the first-level unions had commissioned the national executive, made up of the secretaries-general of each of the constituent unions in question and the regional heads of the federation, to negotiate the renewal of the collective agreement.
   • However, it explains that, contrary to all expectations, the Minister of Labour supported the employers' position by referring to Supreme Decree No. 12 of 21 August 1982 which stipulates that, in the field of collective bargaining, only the following may represent the workers: (a) the trade union in question, (b) an organisation at the very next level, provided that the subject under discussion refers to workers in several workplaces within the same branch of activity belonging to the organisation in question. The Minister of Labour therefore ruled that the secretaries-general of the member organisations of the national executive should not participate in bargaining because their representation would compete with that of the national leaders of the federation.
3. 464. The complainant confederation therefore considers that the public authorities interfered in the organisation of its administration and the appointment of its representatives and recalls that the Minister of Labour previously refused to admit a similar objection raised by the employers in 1981 and that, at the time, the Minister had merely requested the workers to restrict the number of their representatives responsible for bargaining.
4. 465. The complainant confederation continues by explaining that the draft collective agreement it submitted on 30 June 1982 contained a request for a wage increase to compensate for declining living standards and an increase in productivity. However, the labour administrative authorities had forbidden the complainant federation a priori to request such wage increases, since the collective agreement covering electricity workers provides for a system whereby their wages are automatically adjusted to cost-of-living increases every three months (wage indexation). However, the complainant federation claims that, the previous year, it had obtained a wage increase on the basis of the cost of living and productivity during collective bargaining, which had been approved by the labour authorities. The complainant federation therefore considers that the new ban pronounced by the public authorities infringes the right of free collective bargaining and that only the employer may dispute its request.
5. 466. Furthermore, the complainant federation alleges that on 26 August 1982, the President of the Council of Ministers, who is also Minister of Finance, sent a circular to the management of all state undertakings in the country forbidding them to grant wage increases or improvements in working conditions without first having obtained express approval from the competent minister, the President of the National Development Corporation and the Minister of Finance himself. According to the complainant federation, this is tantamount to introducing a system of prior administrative approval which is contrary to the principle of freedom of voluntary negotiation.
6. 467. Furthermore, the complainant federation alleges that there is no legal right to strike in Peru. Any work stoppage is declared illegal, even although the right to strike is laid down in the Constitution and inscribed in the legislation.
7. 468. Finally, the complainant federation objects to the remarks made by the Minister of Energy and Mines in a public statement which appeared in the newspaper "El comercio" on 3 April 1983; in this statement, he allegedly denounced the "unfair system of renumeration" of electricity workers who, according to him, benefited from a wage system detrimental to the living standards of the rest of the country, introduced by an agreement concluded under the former military regime. According to the complainant federation, the aforementioned Minister announced that this system would be amended by an Act. However, the complainant recalls that the system of automatic wage adjustment, adapted to increases in the consumer price index, was introduced under a collective agreement signed with the state electricity undertakings. It considers that the present Government wishes to do away with an advantage obtained by collective agreement and to submit electricity workers once again to the common wage system, whereas unionised workers throughout the country are struggling to arrive at a protective wage mechanism comparable to that obtained by the Federation of Light and Power Workers.
8. 469. In its communication of 12 May 1983, the complainant federation adds that, on 9 May 1983, under Supreme Decree No. 036/83/PCM, the Government suspended the introduction of new working conditions or changes in those already existing (in so far as they have economic repercussions) in public corporations and in state-owned commercial and industrial enterprises belonging to a sector declared to be in a state of economic emergency (for as long as the state of emergency lasts), if these were included in the statement of demands being negotiated at the time. However, the complainant federation considers that in order to suspend the right of free collective bargaining in this way, the Government should have declared a state of siege, which it did not. It therefore considers that this Decree is unconstitutional and contrary to Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, since it does away with the right to obtain optimum working conditions in some sectors.
9. 470. Finally, in its communication of 13 February 1984, the Federation of Light and Power Workers also alleges that the Government has deviated from the system of automatic wage adjustment by promulgating Act No. 23724 of 13 December 1983. It points out that section 46 of this Act stipulates that increases granted in public undertakings with Government shares shall never be higher than the consumer price index. However, under the 1979 collective agreement on this matter, it was agreed that the percentages reached by the consumer price index must apply to the undertaking's average net income and not only to the average net earned income, implying that workers with an income less than the minimum wage within the undertaking would in fact receive a wage increase slightly higher than the inflation rate. The complainant federation therefore considers that the new legislation undermines the right of workers to bargain collectively.

B. The Government's reply

1. 471. In its communication of 17 November 1983, the Government acknowledges that the complainant federation submitted, on 30 June 1982, a list of claims for the renewal of the collective agreement for the 1982-1983 period and that, on 16 July 1982, the management of Electro-Peru objected in writing to the Ministry of Labour to some of the workers' representatives, refusing to accept the number and legal status of some of the members of the bargaining committee on the grounds that the list of claims should be examined by the officials of the national executive of this workers' federation which legally represents the highest decision-making body within this same federation.
2. 472. With respect to the grievance concerning the independence of trade union organisations in the appointment of their representatives, the Government specifies that according to the legislation (Legislative Decree No. 104, section 8(d)), it is the function of the Minister of Labour to promote collective bargaining by means of conciliation, mediation and arbitration and that the law establishes standards and procedures to settle labour disputes these standards and procedures guarantee an equitable handling of the matter (Supreme Decree No. 006/71/TR of 29 November 1971 and Supreme Decree No. 003/72/TR of 29 February 1972 on the competent bodies in this field). Consequently, in applying Supreme Decree No. 12 of 21 August 1962, the labour administrative authorities accepted the employers' request, since it is stipulated by law that collective bargaining undertaken between an employer and a higher level trade union body must be carried out exclusively by the body in question and that only the highest ranking national leaders in this body, excluding regional leaders, represented workers in this sector.
3. 473. Concerning the allegation that the Government restricted the complainant's scope for collective bargaining by forbidding it to request wage increases and only allowing it to negotiate working conditions and concerning also the allegation that the President of the Council of Ministers had, on 26 August 1982, sent a circular to the management of all state undertakings throughout the country forbidding them to grant wage increases and improvements in working conditions without the express authorisation from several ministers, the Government submits the following observations. it recalls that the complainant federation and the undertakings in the electricity sector had agreed to a system of automatic wage adjustments linked to increases in consumer prices and that any additional wage increases in this sector amounted to a dual benefit, which was obviously not the aim of this agreement. Consequently, the aforementioned workers may only negotiate improvements in their working conditions. As for the circular sent by the President of the Council of Ministers, the Government refutes the complainant federation's allegation, maintaining that the undertakings in the electricity sector and the Federation of Light and Power Workers jointly agreed upon the renewal of the collective agreement submitted on 14 December 1982 and that this agreement was approved by the administrative authorities under Resolution 762/91130.
4. 474. With respect to the alleged violation of the right to strike, the Government refers to the explanations it gave in Case No. 1081 [see 214th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, paras. 255-258], stating that the right to strike is laid down in article 55 of the Constitution of Peru which provides that it must be exercised in the manner established by law; its exercise will therefore be regulated by enactment of a bill, and may in no way be denied or obstructed. The Government reiterates the information it provided within the framework of Case No. 1081, stating that the Bill to regulate the right to strike has been adopted by the Senate but has not yet been promulgated.
5. 475. Finally, concerning the alleged criticisms made by the Minister of Energy and Mines against the system of automatic wage adjustment enjoyed by workers in the electricity sector, a system he allegedly described as "an unfair system of remuneration which is detrimental to the living standards of the rest of the country" and which should be amended by a law, the Government states that these allegations do not constitute sufficient grounds to submit a complaint, especially since such a law has not yet been adopted.
6. 476. In a more recent communication of 6 July 1984, with respect to the allegation concerning section 46 of Act No. 23724, the Government points out that, at the request of the Federation of Light and Power Workers and the Electro-Peru undertaking, a tripartite committee was set up, on 5 March 1984 to examine the issue and give a ruling on the repercussions that this text might have during 1984 for those concerned; this committee is presided over by a representative of the labour inspectorate, three workers' representatives from the Federation of Light and Power Workers and three representatives from the Electro-Peru undertaking. The Government points out that it will communicate all information on the decision reached by the tripartite committee, as soon as this is available.

C. Allegations of the union of workers in the "CERMOSA" ceramics company

1. 477. In its communication of 16 February 1984, this trade union alleges that the Government policy of opening its borders has caused a crisis in the ceramics industry, resulting in many dismissals, wage reductions and infringements of labour legislation.

D. The Government's reply

1. 478. In its communication of 23 April 1984, the Government states that it has asked the General Labour Inspectorate if a complaint of violations of the labour legislation has been lodged by the trade union in question.

E. Allegations of the General Confederation of Labour

1. 479. In a communication also dated 16 February 1984, this confederation refers to Case No. 1138 presented by the Federation of Municipal Workers of Peru and already examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association in its 226th Report (paras. 48 to 56), and to the comments made by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations at its March 1983 Session. It states that the Government refuses to amend the provisions of the 1982 Decrees limiting the trade union rights of public servants which, according to the supervisory bodies, are not in conformity with convention No. 87.
2. 480. This confederation also alleges that it is impossible to, declare a legal strike and adds that a Bill of March 1982, which sets' out to amend article 307 of the Penal Code, intends penalising work, stoppages of a regional nature (by considering them as insurrection) and actions linked with strikes or the downing of tools at the workplace.
3. 481. This confederation also refers to several specific examples' of Government intervention in collective bargaining. It mentions that, since the adoption of a decree of 14 March 1981, employers may obtain the revision of collective agreements concluded between 1974 and 1980 in the press sector. The press undertakings which had' previously been nationalised have been handed back to their previous owners by the Government. Consequently, the unilateral revision of collective agreements covering this sector will henceforth be submitted to an arbitration court for a final ruling on the matter. Furthermore, the complainant confederation adds that under a decree of 22 July 1982, the Government extended the collective labour agreements covering the small and medium-sized mining industries in the country for six months; furthermore, under Decrees 019/82/TRP, 007/83/TRP and 024/83/TR, it fixes the remuneration of this category of workers. The complainant states that in applying Ministerial Resolution No. 207/83/TR of 22 July 1983, the Government had allegedly changed the system of automatic wage adjustments linked to the cost of living for workers in the textiles industry, by imposing a maximum limit of 70 per cent on the increase of the general consumer price index. The complainant confederation also refers to the difficulties encountered whilst registering the collective agreement regulating the telephone sector, on 14 January 1984, but it states that the agreement was finally registered on 25 January 1984. It also states that two undertakings, the Peruvian Steamship Company and Bayer Limited, had been declared to be in a state of economic emergency and were thus prevented from negotiating their working conditions. Finally, it denounces the fact that the Government has amended the collective agreement of 19 July 1977 regulating the fishing industry, since section 2 of Supreme Decree 09/83/PE now stipulates that during the season in which there is no fishing, some labour contracts will be automatically terminated. In concluding, the complainant confederation request that a direct contacts mission be sent to Peru to witness the many violations of collective bargaining.

F. The Government's reply

1. 482. With respect to the allegations submitted by the Federation of Municipal Workers, the Government, in its communication of 23 April 1984, refers to the observations it made within the framework of Case No. 1138, stating the reasons why it had established a minimum of 20 unions to form a federation and a minimum of ten federations to form a confederation. It believes that if this minimum requirement was lowered, the Government would have to deal with countless higher-level organisations.
2. 483. Concerning the alleged violations of the right to strike and of the right of voluntary collective bargaining, the Government points to what it considers the general and vague nature of these allegations; it states that it will refrain from making any comments on this matter until such a time as the General Confederation of, Labour has submitted a detailed and precise list of the facts it claims to denounce.

G. Allegations of the Federation of Bank Employees

1. 484. In its communication of 15 February 1984, this federation alleges infringements of rights acquired by collective agreements.
   • It maintains that under the terms of the collective agreement of 18 June 1951, the workers in this sector could obtain, at their request, an interest-free advance of two month's wages from the banks, in the case of illness or death of parents, spouse or children, or of sickness of the worker himself, even if the workers in question had already obtained other advances on different grounds. Those workers employed for only one year could only obtain an advance of one month' s wages. Furthermore, under the terms of a second collective agreement of 25 June 1951, workers could request advances, the total of which were not, however, to exceed the compensation (severance pay) to which they were entitled; these advances were to be paid off in accordance with the system established by each bank.
2. 485. However, according to the complainant federation, the application by the banks of Act No. 23707 of 6 December 1983 undermines previously acquired advantages. This Act increased the severance pay, based on years of service, of employees in the private sector who began working after 1 July 1962, by granting to those concerned one month of "minimum vital" wages per year of service up to 30 September 1979, with an upper limit of ten months' wages. However, section 4 of the new Act stipulates that those workers who, under the terms of the collective agreement, have obtained advances on their wages or by others means, might, before terminating their employment, choose between the possibility of being paid the highest benefit to which they are entitled by law (in this case, entailing full discharge) and the possibility of being paid severance pay based on experience.
3. 486. The complainant federation explains that the banks then immediately made it a requirement that those workers requesting an advance, in accordance with collective agreements, should fill in a statement declaring that they had received these advances as an advance payment of the severance pay based on experience; the complainant federation immediately disputed this action, by declaring a national strike for 11 days. The Government responded by adopting Resolution No. 002/84/TR of 2 February 1984, in which it acknowledged the supremacy of collective agreements. However, it points out that, in this Resolution, the Government restricted the maximum limit of advances on wages entailing no discharge to two months' wages, which the complainant federation considers to be a unilateral amendment of collective agreements.
   • H. The Government's reply
4. 487. In its reply of 6 July 1984, the Government states that the complainant federation ended the 11-day strike upon the adoption of the above-mentioned Resolution of 2 February 1984, which stipulates that interest-free advances of a maximum of two months' wages should not be deducted from severance pay, in accordance with the provisions of the collective agreements. It adds that the aforementioned complainant federation did not lodge any appeal either against this Resolution or against Decree No. 013/84/TR of 11 April 1984, which on the whole incorporates the provisions of the aforementioned Resolution. As far as the Government is concerned, the 1984 text strictly applies the contents of the collective agreement of 18 June 1951 which clearly granted workers the right to obtain an interest-free advance on up to "two months' wages".
   • I. Allegations of the Public Records Staff Union
5. 488. In its communication of 24 February 1984, the complainant alleges that the workers in public records offices had not received the increases and bonuses it claims they obtained under an agreement adopted by a joint committee, made up of public servants' and workers' representatives, on 11 November 1983. This agreement had been authenticated on 27 December 1983 by the Head of the National Institute of Public Administration, without any comment from the latter. The trade union states that it declared a protest strike.
   • J. The Government's reply
6. 489. In its communication dated 23 April 1984, sent with a covering letter of 6 July 1984, the Government states that it has asked the Head of the National Office of Public Records and the Head of the National Institute of Public Administration for information on this matter and it undertakes to communicate this information as soon as it is available.

T. The Committee's conclusions

• K. The Committee's conclusions
  490. 490 The Committee notes that the present case mainly calls into question the Government intervention in the fixing of wages or working conditions and in the exercise of the right to strike in various sectors of the economy. The case also concerns the Government's refusal to amend the 1982 Decrees restricting the trade union rights of public servants, the interpretation of a collective agreement and the implementation of a wage agreement involving public servants.
  491. 491 Before examining the various aspects of these complaints in more detail, the Committee would like to stress the importance it has always attached to the principle of the independence of parties in collective bargaining. It recalls that this principle was widely acknowledged once again during the preparatory discussion which led to the adoption of the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154) at the International Labour Conference and that, during the preparatory work at the 67th Session of the Conference, in June 1981, the Committee on Collective Bargaining refused to include in Convention No. 154 a provision stipulating that "measures adapted to national conditions should be taken to encourage and facilitate reconciling the specific interests of the parties to collective bargaining with the general interest". [On this matter see ILO. Promotion of Collective Bargaining, ILC, 66th Session, 1980, Report V(2), p. 92, and ILC, 67th Session, 1981, Report IV (1), pp. 20-21.]
  492. 492 Concerning the complainant's specific allegation that an employer had refused to negotiate with some members of a workers' delegation in the electricity sector, the Committee notes the Government's explanation that, in accordance with legislation, the representation of the highest decision-making level within this federation is assumed by national trade union leaders belonging to the national executive, which the complainant confederation does not deny. Furthermore, according to the Government, under the legislation, bargaining undertaken by an employer with a higher-level organisation must be conducted by the said body.
  493. 493 For its part, the Committee recalls the importance it attaches to the principle that employers and trade unions should negotiate in good faith to try and reach an agreement. In the present case, the employer did not refuse to bargain with the trade union; it merely refused to bargain with only a part of the workers' delegation which it considered to be too large. The employer agreed only to bargain with the delegation made up of national trade union officials representing the highest decision-making level within the aforementioned federation. In order to examine this aspect of the case in full knowledge of the facts the Committee requests the Government to supply more detailed information on the reasons for the refusal of the employer to negotiate with the General Secretaries of the affiliates of the national executive council of the organisation.
  494. 494 With respect to the allegation that the Government restricted the scope of collective bargaining by introducing legislation which places a limit on wage increases in public undertakings, stipulating that these should never exceed the consumer price index, the Committee notes that the Government pointed out, in its most recent communication dated 6 July 1984, that, on 5 March 1984, it set up a tripartite committee, composed of workers' and employers' representatives in the electricity sector and Government representatives, to examine the repercussions of the new legislation on the situation of those workers concerned during 1984 and to make a ruling on the matter.
  495. 495 The Committee expresses the firm hope that the aforementioned Committee will reach an agreement in the very near future and requests the Government to keep it informed of the solution reached in this labour dispute.
  496. 496 With respect to the dispute which has developed in the "CERMOSA" ceramics company and which involved the dismissal of many workers, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant's own statement, these dismissals were the result of the Government's policy of opening its borders. It would therefore seem from the evidence provided that these are basically dismissals of an economic nature. Furthermore, the complainants do not mention that these dismissals took place on grounds of anti-trade union discrimination.
  497. 497 In these circumstances, the Committee recalls that it is not competent to make a prenouncement on dismissals of an economic nature, especially when the complainants have not alleged an infringement of freedom of association. It therefore considers this aspect of the complaint does not involve issues relating to trade union rights.
  498. 498 With respect to Supreme Decrees Nos. 003/82/PCM and 026/82/JUS of 1982 respecting public servants' trade union organisations, which contain provisions conflicting with Convention No. 87 and which the Government allegedly refuses to amend, the Committee notes that the Government refers mainly to the observations it made within the framework of Case No. 1138, stating the reasons which induced it to place restrictions on the number of trade unions and federations needed to form a higher-level occupational organisation; in short, it stressed that if this requirement were lowered there would be chaos.
  499. 499 On this point, the Committee can only reiterate the conclusions it made within the framework of Case No. 1138 on the need to amend the Decrees in question to make them compatible with Articles 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Convention No. 87. [See 226th Report, Case No. 1138, paras. 53 and 56.] The Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations once again to this aspect of the case.
  500. 500 Concerning the allegation that legal strikes are impossible and that the Government is intending to amend the Penal Code so that work stoppages of a regional nature and actions linked to strikes or to the downing of tools at workplaces shall be referred to the criminal court, the Committee notes that the Government refers to the explanations it gave within the framework of Case No. 1081, when it maintained that the right to strike is laid down in article 55 of the Peruvian Constitution and is exercised in the manner established by law. The Committee also notes that the Government repeats that the Bill to regulate the right to strike has been adopted by the Senate but has not yet been promulgated. Finally, the Committee notes that the Government made no comment on the allegation that the Penal Code is going to be amended so that some strikes or work stoppages shall be referred to the criminal court.
  501. 501 In these circumstances, the Committee can only insist upon the conclusions it reached in the framework of Case No. 1081, when it expressed its concern about the adoption of a Bill to regulate the right to strike on 27 October 1981 by the Senate because the text in question contains several provisions which fail to conform with the principles of freedom of association. [See 214th Report, Case No. 1081, para. 269.] The Committee trusts that legislation regulating the right to strike, in accordance with the principles of freedom of association, will be adopted in the near future and it draws the attention of the Committee of Experts once again to this aspect of the case.
  502. 502 Concerning the allegations that the Government intervened in collective bargaining in the press, mining and fishing sectors and in the textiles or chemical industry, and more generally in the sectors declared to be in a state of economic emergency, as long as the aforementioned state of emergency lasts, the Committee notes that the Government merely points out that these allegations are vague.
  503. 503 The Committee, for its part, notes that some of the allegations made by the complainants are extremely specific because they refer to the adoption of Supreme Decree No. 036/83/PCM of 9 May 1983, in which the Government forbids the implementation of new working conditions or the amendment of existing ones in public corporations and in state-owned commercial and industrial enterprises belonging to sectors declared to be in a state of economic emergency. They also refer to the introduction of a system of compulsory arbitration in the press sector, the fixing by decree of workers' wages in the small and medium-sized mining undertakings, the restriction by ministerial resolution of wage increases in the textiles industry, the amendment by decree of a collective agreement allowing the termination of labour contracts during the season in which there is no fishing and a supreme decree declaring the state of economic emergy in the Peruvian Steamship Company and Bayer Limited.
  504. 504 The Committee noted the Government's explanations contained in its November 1982 report on the Application of the Right to organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), ratified by Peru, and sent to the ILO in accordance with article 22 of the ILO Constitution, in February 1983. The Committee notes that the Government explains that it introduced a system of wage adjustments to offset inflation. It established monthly projections of inflation, over a six month period, so that these might be taken into account by the bargaining parties and the latter might freely reach agreements on the frequency and amount of wage adjustments. Consequently, according to the Government, in November 1982, there were no restrictions on collective bargaining. The only exception was the mining industry which was in a state of crisis, as it is universally known. In order to avoid having to adopt drastic measures similar to those taken in other countries, such as dismissals for economic reasons, the Government opted to extend the application of collective agreements covering workers in small and medium-sized mining undertakings by granting wage increases on a regular basis to workers in this sector. The Government also explains that the same applies for the system of automatic wage adjustment agreed upon in collective agreements by workers in other sectors. In these cases, wages are increased regularly in line with rises in the cost of living, which gives them a privileged position compared with other workers because of the rapid rate of inflation from which they benefit.
  505. 505 The Committee also notes that the Peruvian legislation stipulates that deputy labour inspectors approve collective agreements, adopt resolutions in the first instance and decide upon any measures that might have to be taken. The regional inspectors of labour, employment and social security enact resolutions in the second and last instance and any measures that might have to be taken. Finally, the General Labour Directorate examines appeals for annulment filed against resolutions, approving collective agreements in the second and third instance (Supreme Decree No. 003/72/TR of 29 February 1972, sections 2, (b) and (c), and 5, last paragraph).
  506. 506 In these circumstances, the Committee feels bound to point out that legislation requiring that a collective agreement be subject to official approval or the approval of the administrative authorities before it can be implemented is not in accordance with principles of voluntary bargaining laid down in Convention No. 98. Furthermore, the Committee considers that state bodies should refrain from interfering in order to change the contents of freely concluded collective agreements.
  507. 507 Nevertheless, the Committee considers that if, as part of its stabilisation policy, a Government considers that wage rates cannot be settled freely through collective bargaining, such a restriction should be imposed as an exceptional measure and only to the extent that is necessary, without exceeding a reasonable period, and it should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers' living standards. [See 132nd Report, Case No. 691 (Argentina), para. 27; and 230th Report, Case No. 1171 (Canada/Quebec), para. 162; and Case No. 1173 (Canada/British Colombia), para. 573.]
  508. 508 Consequently, in view of the many recent allegations of Government interference in collective bargaining, the Committee would like to suggest to the Government of Peru, as it has done in the past in the case of other countries, that the Government envisage the possibility of introducing a procedure whereby the attention of the parties could be drawn, in certain cases, to the considerations of general interest which might call for further examination of the terms of agreement on their part. However, persuasion should also take precedence over constraint. Furthermore, instead of making the validity of collective agreements subject to governmental approval, the Government might provide that every collective agreement filed with the Ministry of Labour should normally come into force a reasonable length of time after having been filed; if the public authority considered that the terms of the proposed agreement were manifestly in conflict with the objects of the economic policy recognised as being desirable in the general interest, the case could be submitted for advice and recommendation to an appropriate consultative body, it being understood, however, that the final decision in the matter rested with the parties to the agreement.
• [See 85th Report, Case No. 341 (Greece), para. 187; 118th Report, Case No. 559 (Trinidad and Tobago), para. 122; and 132nd Report, Case No. 691 (Argentina), para. 28.]
  509. 509 With respect to the issue raised by the bank employees concerning the interpretation of a 1951 collective agreement granting them interest-free advances on their wages within limits on the grounds of ill health or other factors, and the repercussions there had been when the banks applied new legislation granting severance pay to all workers, the Committee notes the Government's explanations. The Committee recalls that the interpretation of collective agreements should, at the national level, be a matter for bodies independent of the parties.
  510. 510 Concerning the allegation that public records staff had not received the increases and bonuses to which they were entitled under an agreement adopted by a joint committee and authenticated by the competent administrative authority on 27 December 1983, the Committee notes that the Government will communicate the information on the matter as soon as it is available.
  511. 511 The Committee recalls generally that the social partners should negotiate in good faith and that the agreements they reach should be binding on the parties. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the final agreements approved by the parties be applied in practice.