Informe provisional - Informe núm. 259, Noviembre 1988

1. 709. The Trade Union of Seamen employed by the CPV presented a complaint
   • alleging the violation of freedom of association by the Government of Peru in
   • a communication of 14 December 1987. Additional information in support of this
   • complaint was sent on 22 January 1988. The Trade Union of Shoreworkers
   • employed by the CPV sent a communication dated 2 February 1988. The Government
   • sent its observations in communications of 6 May and 23 September 1988.
2. 710. 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. 711. In its communication of 14 December 1987, the Trade Union of Seamen
   • employed by the CPV alleges that the Peruvian Steamship Company has violated
   • Convention No. 98 by engaging in anti-trade union discrimination and acts of
   • interference in trade union activities, as evidenced by the daily harassment
   • of workers, the curtailment of long-standing rights, the threat to dismiss
   • workers who do not accept conditions laid down by the undertaking and the
   • replacement of unionised workers by non-unionised workers; these measures have
   • compelled many workers to withdraw from the trade union in order to keep their
   • jobs. Likewise, according to the complainant, the Peruvian Steamship Company
   • owes workers 12 months' basic wages and 12 supplementary bonuses, going back
2. to 1981, as well as an 82 per cent basic wage increase as from 1987, under the
   • terms of a collective agreement and a Supreme Decree of the same year. The
   • company grants workers paid annual leave after two full years of service at
   • ludicrously reduced wages. The company's harassment has led many workers to
   • resign and yet, more often than not, it refuses to pay the required
   • compensation for length of service; in the few cases where it has paid this
   • compensation workers have had to wait up to one year, while the legislation
   • provides for a maximum delay of 48 hours. The company has also failed to abide
   • by medical assistance requirements in spite of the fact that it deducts and
   • withholds contributions to the Peruvian Social Security Institute (IPSS) and
   • contributions for family medical insurance; however, the company does not pay
   • the corresponding contributions to these institutions, thereby making it
   • impossible for these workers and their families to obtain medical care. The
   • complainant's communication adds that by means of wage tactics the company is
   • pitting workers against one another with a view to breaking the trade union:
   • although the company pays ludicrous wages in general, it has created the
     • so-called "positions of trust", which are filled by workers who have left the
   • union. Likewise, the company is in violation of the Labour Stability Act and
   • the Constitution inasmuch as it has over 60 workers on short-term contracts
   • even though they have been working for the company for eight to 20 years
   • without interruption. Lastly, as regards occupational health and safety, the
   • company's boats in collusion with the port authorities at Callas have been
   • granted navigability certificates although they are in a terrible state.
3. 712. In its communication of 22 January 1988, the Trade Union of Seamen
   • employed by the CPV sent copies of complaints presented to the Regional Office
   • of Labour and Inspection and the First Provincial Criminal District Attorney
   • of Callao, as well as copies of the collective agreements which the company is
   • alleged to have violated since 1981.
4. 713. In its communication of 2 February 1988, the Trade Union of
   • Shoreworkers employed by the CPV also alleges the violation of freedom of
   • association by the Peruvian Steamship Company, mentioning acts of anti-union
   • discrimination and interference, including the harassment of workers, the
   • curtailment of acquired rights, the threats to dismiss workers who do not
   • accept the company's conditions and ill-treatment, which have led many workers
   • to resign from the trade union. The communication of the Trade Union of
   • Shoreworkers employed by the CPV alleges that since 1982 the company has not
   • paid collectively bargained remuneration or respected clauses concerning wage
   • restructuring, wage parity, work clothes, industrial safety and occupational
   • hygiene, bonuses for work in refrigerated areas, and hours of work established
   • for several years through agreements and legislation. Likewise, it has revoked
   • provisions concerning job advancement and raises, as defined in collective
   • agreements regulated by the National Statistics Institute. The harassment of
   • longshoremen is constant; the company has gone so far as to send notices of
   • dismissal to workers on sick leave, in violation of legal provisions which
   • prohibit the dismissal of workers while they are receiving sickness benefits.
   • The communication adds that under such great pressure several workers have
   • accepted certain incentives offered by the company and resigned; however, they
   • have been unable to obtain compensation payments or have been able to obtain
   • them only in instalments even though the law provides that such benefits must
   • be paid within a delay of 48 hours. The company constantly dodges its
   • responsibilities as regards medical assistance, and many workers therefore
   • have no family medical insurance.
5. 714. The communication adds that the company is endeavouring to break the
   • union by dividing workers with wage tactics and by creating the so-called
   • "positions of trust" which are given to workers who have left the trade union
   • and who receive twice the normal wage for the same work. Job positions and
   • career paths which have been negotiated with the company, and which therefore
   • have legal force, are violated by Supreme Decree No. 008-86-TC, in spite of
   • the fact that section 2 of this Decree has, in respect of the Peruvian
   • Steamship Company, suspended all instruments, standards and labour and
   • administrative agreements which do not have the force of law. The complainant
   • alleges that the so-called employment contracts are used to compel workers to
   • give up job security, to give up hours of work established by agreement and by
   • law, to give up any other wage increase by way of collective agreement, and to
   • give up any other type of remuneration or improvement in the conditions of
   • work through collective bargaining, by requiring them to resign from the Trade
   • Union of Shoreworkers employed by the CPV, and by making such resignations
   • appear as voluntary. The complainant encloses copies of the collective
   • agreements that the enterprise has allegedly violated, and a copy of Supreme
   • Decree No. 008-86-TC.
6. 715. Lastly, the complainant's communication states that the company has
   • violated several articles of the Constitution, as well as other legislation
   • and Decrees, and that its protests are disregarded by the employer and by
   • government authorities.
   • B. The Government's reply
7. 716. The Government sent its observations in a communication of 6 May 1988.
   • It states that the Peruvian Steamship Company (CPV) is a government-owned
   • corporation subject to private law, which currently finds itself in a
   • difficult economic situation. For this reason, and in order to help it stay
   • afloat, the State has approved a substantial line of credit and given it the
   • necessary financial assistance. Nevertheless, in the light of the complaints
   • presented by the workers, the General Inspection Office and the Ministry of
   • Labour and Social Welfare's First Regional Labour Office were requested to
   • supply information concerning the complaints presented by the Trade Union of
   • Seamen and the Trade Union of Shoreworkers employed by the CPV against the
   • Peruvian Steamship Company, leading to the preparation of reports Nos.
8. 006-88-IN-IP, 004-88-DI-CALL, 004-88-2-DD-CALL, 006-88-IDD-CALL and
9. 001-DN-CALL, in co-ordination with the Regional Labour Office of Callao. The
   • Government attaches these reports to its communication.
10. 717. The Government states that the Regional Director of the First Regional
    • Labour and Social Welfare Office reviewed the documentation submitted by the
    • above-mentioned trade union organisations and found that certain complaints
    • are vague and unfounded, and that others are being examined by labour
    • authorities in accordance with legal procedures established in Supreme Decrees
    • Nos. 006-71-TR, 006-72-TR and 003-82-TR. Since the protests are still being
    • examined, in accordance with the established procedures, it would be premature
    • to state that the company has infringed any regulations, and even more so with
    • the consent of the authorities, as has been stated by the complainant trade
    • union organisations. Moreover, it should be noted that the Director of the
    • First Regional Labour and Social Welfare Office of this Ministry has
    • instructed that the complaints be given prompt consideration.
11. 718. Lastly, the Government states that there is no basis for allegations
    • that Peru fails to comply with the provisions of Convention No. 98, inasmuch
    • as the Government has adopted legal measures compatible with the Convention to
    • ensure its satisfactory application. It has established adequate procedural
    • machinery to which the organisations involved have themselves made recourse;
    • indeed, their claims are being examined as indicated in the previous
    • paragraph. Therefore, the statements made by the complainant trade unions are
    • inaccurate inasmuch as the country has legislation and procedures to examine
    • and sanction the alleged actions.
12. 719. In a communication of 23 September 1988 the Government refers to the
    • comments made by the harbour master of the port of Callas on this matter,
    • which refute the complainant's allegations that he unfairly granted
    • certificates of navigability and explain that these certificates were not
    • issued by him, but by the Director-General of harbour masters and coast
    • guards. Nevertheless, he had received complaints from the complainant union
    • concerning shortcomings in the maintenance of equipment, the poor living
    • quarters and unhealthy conditions on board; in conformity with the law he had
    • forced the accused to remedy the situations and imposed fines on the
    • defaulting parties.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 720. The Committee notes that the allegations presented by the Trade Union
   • of Seamen employed by the CPV refer to the violation of Convention No. 98
   • through acts of anti-union discrimination, the daily harassment of trade union
   • members, the curtailment of workers' acquired rights, threats of dismissal,
     • back-pay owed to staff, curtailment of leave entitlements, overdue payment of
   • social benefits, the lack of medical care, and the infraction of job security
   • legislation and industrial and occupational safety standards.
2. 721. Likewise, the Committee notes that other allegations presented by the
   • Trade Union of Shoreworkers employed by the CPV refer to the partial
     • non-payment since 1982, of wages agreed on in collective agreements on wage
   • restructuring, wage parity, work clothes, bonuses for work in refrigerated
   • areas, hours of work and to the harassment of longshoremen through dismissal
   • notices sent to workers on sick leave, the failure to make severance payments
   • and pay "retirement incentives" within the time-limits set down by law;
   • workers have been compelled to give up the hours of work established by
   • collective agreement, as well as any wage increases, economic benefits, and
   • improvement in conditions of work gained through collective bargaining through
   • the so-called "employment contracts", which moreover require workers to give
   • up their membership in the Trade Union of Shoreworkers employed by the CPV.
3. 722. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government, which
   • states that the Peruvian Steamship Company is a government-owned corporation
   • operating under private law which is experiencing financial difficulties. The
   • Committee notes that with reference to the complainants' allegations, the
   • Government states that it has requested information from the labour
   • authorities concerning the protests made against the CPV; that the Government
   • considers some of these allegations to be vague, and states that others are
   • currently being examined by the labour authorities in accordance with
   • applicable legal procedures. Moreover, the Committee notes that the labour
   • authorities have ordered that these complaints be examined expeditiously, and
   • that the Government affirms that Peru has enacted legal measures which are
   • compatible with Convention No. 98, which guarantee its satisfactory
   • application and which establish pertinent procedural machinery for that
   • purpose.
4. 723. As regards certain allegations presented by the complainants, namely
   • the non-payment by the CPV to workers of 12 periods of basic wages and 12
   • supplementary bonuses, the grant of leave after two years of uninterrupted
   • service, the delays in payment for length-of-service compensation payments,
   • the non-payment by the company of social security contributions and family
   • medical insurance premiums even though it deducts and withholds funds for
   • these purposes, as well as the dismissal of workers while on sick leave
   • contrary to legal provisions, the Committee points out that it is not
   • competent to examine legislation concerning social security or conditions of
   • work, and is therefore not in a position to decide on these allegations. (See
5. 218th Report, Case No. 1113 (India), para. 715.)
6. 724. As regards the complainants' allegations concerning discriminatory
   • anti-union practices and interference, such as the daily harassment of
     • workers, threats of dismissal, the creation of the so-called "positions of
     • trust" filled by workers who have resigned from the trade union and who are
     • paid twice the salary for the same work, and the incentives offered to workers
     • to resign from the trade union, among others, the Committee notes that, on the
     • one hand, the allegations submitted by the complainants are general in nature
     • or insufficiently detailed to enable the Committee fully to examine the
     • problem and, on the other hand, it notes the Government's observations to the
     • effect that these protests have been brought to the attention of the labour
     • authorities who are now examining them.