Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Peru (Ratification: 1964)

The Committee notes the Government's report. It also notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1906, in March 1999 (see 313th Report, paragraphs 169 to 175).

1. Bill to replace the Industrial Relations Act. The Committee recalls that in its previous observation it criticized various provisions of the above Bill and notes that, according to the Government's report, the legislative process of the Bill was not pursued. The Committee requests the Government, if examination of the Bill is recommenced, to take into account the comments that it made in 1998.

2. Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. The Committee had noted: (a) the absence of protection against anti-union discrimination at the time of employment and in the event of prejudicial acts leading to dismissal; and (b) the slowness of the judicial recourse procedures and the absence of effective and dissuasive penalties to guarantee the protection of workers and trade union leaders against acts of anti-union discrimination, or against acts of interference by employers with regard to trade union organizations. The Committee regrets that the Government's report does not contain new information. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to resolve these shortcomings and to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention.

3. Article 4. Requirement of a majority of both the number of workers and of the enterprises to conclude a collective agreement covering the whole of a branch of activity or an occupation (sections 9 and 46 of the Industrial Relations Act). The Committee regrets that the report does not contain any new information. The Committee considers that these are excessive requirements and that the Act should therefore be amended to eliminate the double requirement mentioned so that the parties are able to determine freely the level at which they wish to negotiate. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the measures adopted in this respect and to confirm that the regulation does not impede the parties from negotiating without this double requirement when the collective agreement does not have erga omnes effects.

The Committee had also noted that section 42 of the Employment Promotion Act of 1995 allows the employer to "introduce changes or modify working shifts, days and hours, as well as the form and manner in which work is performed". In this respect, the Committee emphasizes that a legal provision which allows the employer unilaterally to modify the content of previously concluded collective agreements, or requires them to be renegotiated, is contrary to the principles of collective bargaining.

4. The Committee notes the observations made by the General Confederation of Workers of Peru, dated 13 September 1999, and requests the Government to transmit its comments in this respect.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2000.]