Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144) - Peru (Ratification: 2004)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee takes note of the observations of the General Confederation of Workers of Peru (CGTP), the Single Confederation of Workers of Peru (CUT-Peru), the Autonomous Workers’ Confederation of Peru (CATP), and the Confederation of Workers of Peru (CTP), as well as those of the National Confederation of Private Enterprise Institutions (CONFIEP), received on 1 September 2022. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Article 2 of the Convention. Appropriate procedures. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the National Labour and Employment Promotion Council (CNTPE) was no longer meeting because the trade union confederations had suspended their participation in the Council in May 2017 due to their disagreement with the approval of standards on collective stoppages and labour inspection and with the submission to the executive of a series of bills on voluntary arbitration, on the grounds that the bills failed to take account of the confederations’ inputs. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that tripartite consultations on minimum wages and their periodic adjustment were held within the CNTPE between 2018 and 2019. In a complementary manner, a wide-ranging process of social dialogue went ahead on various subjects, such as the National Plan on Competitivity and Productivity. Moreover, in 2019 roundtables were held on a range of social questions with each of trade unions that are CNTPE members. The Committee notes however that the confederations maintain that despite the agreement reached within the CNTPE to submit the National Plan on Competitivity and Productivity to tripartite dialogue, the Government approved the Plan on 28 July 2019 without prior consultations with the social partners. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that between 2020 and 2021, while the COVID-19 pandemic prevented the holding of CNTPE sessions, various bilateral meetings and working groups on social and labour issues took place in the context of the crisis. In that regard, the confederations assert that the social partners were not consulted regarding the abovementioned measures, which also transferred the effects of the health crisis to the workers. They add that they were only convened to meetings at which a restricted range of the measures were presented and were given a very tight deadline to formulate their contributions. Finally, the Committee notes that the Government reports that the relaunching session of the CNTPE for 2021–26 took place on 13 November 2021, in the presence, among other government representatives, of the President of the Republic, as well as representatives of the confederations and of employers’ organizations. ILO officials also attended. The Government reports that the CNTPE held two sessions between January and May 2022.

The Committee notes that the confederations, in their observations, claim that social dialogue and its supporting institution in the country, the CNTPE, are seriously debilitated. They argue that CNTPE activities have lacked continuity, and that between 2016 and 2021 only eight of the 72 ordinary sessions that should have been held took place, the CNTPE internal regulations stipulating one ordinary meeting per month. Moreover, the confederations stress that in Act No. 29.381 of 2009, establishing the organization and functions of the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion (MTPE), all references to the CNTPE as the consultative body of the MTPE were removed. They maintain that although the Regulation on the organization and functions of the CNTPE (Supreme Decree No. 01-2005-TR) remains in force, the CNTPE currently has no organic support guaranteed by a regulation having force of law. The confederations conclude that measures must be urgently adopted to ensure free enjoyment of trade union rights with a view to ensuring a genuine relaunching of the CNTPE.

The Committee notes that the CONFIEP also argues that the Government is not complying with the mechanisms and procedures for prior tripartite consultation established by the Convention. In the first instance, the CONFIEP indicates that the CNTPE is mandated to give opinions on draft legislation drawn up by the Government. In that connection, the CONFIEP accuses the Government of approving, without prior consultation with the social partners, a series of rules altering the regulations governing the outsourcing of services, and the Regulations of the Act on Collective Labour Relations, making structural changes to the regulation of freedom of association, collective bargaining and arbitration. The CONFIEP also indicates that Ministerial Decision No. 232-2021-TR established the Sectoral Commission for the formulation of the first draft of the Labour Code as a temporary body composed solely of representatives of the MTPE. The Sectoral Commission expressly ruled that the first draft would subsequently be submitted to the CNTPE. However, the CONFIEP states that the first draft was not submitted to the CNTPE but was published on the MTPE website, setting a deadline of only 20 days for the submission of general comments in relation to almost 500 proposed provisions. The CONFIEP reports that as a result of these facts, on 25 April and 28 July 2022, with the International Organisation of Employers’ (IOE) endorsement, it sent to requests for urgent intervention to the ILO, alleging serious non-compliance with the Convention and calling for the restoration of tripartite social dialogue in the country without delay. The CONFIEP states that on 26 July 2022, it suspended its participation in the CNTPE because of the serious damage inflicted by the Government on social dialogue and on the CNTPE itself as an institution. In light of the concerns expressed by both the trade union confederations and the CONFIEP, the Committee urges the Government to adopt the necessary measures to guarantee that effective tripartite consultations are held and that the CNTPE can begin functioning again without delay. It also requests the Government to send detailed and updated information on these measures. The Committee firmly hopes that the circumstances obstructing the functioning of the CNTPE can be rapidly resolved.

Article 5. Effective tripartite consultations. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations of the CATP, in which the confederation maintained that the Government sent its reports to the workers’ organizations with very little time for the latter to formulate their observations. In that connection, the Committee expressed the hope that the Government would take steps to establish an adequate timeframe to give employers’ and workers’ sufficient notice to form their opinions and make any comments they consider appropriate on the drafts communicated by the Government. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that during the period covered by the report tripartite consultations were held regarding the submission of the Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190), which was ratified on 8 June 2022. The Government reports that on 23 June 2022 a tripartite workshop on the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, had been planned, with the participation of ILO and MTPE specialists and of the actors concerned. Regarding consultations on the draft reports on ratified Conventions, the Government indicates that these reports were communicated to the most representative organizations of employers and workers to allow them to formulate their comments thereon. For their part, the trade union confederations maintain that they received the drafts on 2 August 2022, which made the presentation of coherent, documented comments before the closing date for submission of reports (31 August) difficult. The confederations also refer to the MTPE “Guidelines for international affairs relative to the International Labour Organization”, which allow a deadline of 20 working days to employers’ and workers’ organizations for the formulation of their opinions on the draft reports. Given the complexity of some of the issues covered by international standards, the confederations stress that the deadlines should be more generous to allow for the collection and processing of information, and should include a stage of face-to-face dialogue between the parties, prior to the sending of the reports. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed and updated information on the frequency, content and results of the tripartite consultations held on all questions related to international labour standards covered by the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the manner in which account is taken of the representative organizations of workers’ opinions on the functioning of the procedures for effective prior consultation required by the Convention, and also on the possibility of establishing modified procedures that answer to the concerns expressed by the trade union confederations in their observations.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

The Committee notes the observations of the Autonomous Workers’ Confederation of Peru (CATP), which were received on 14 September 2017. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard.

Article 2 of the Convention. Appropriate procedures. The Government indicates in its report that the National Labour and Employment Promotion Council (CNTPE) was no longer meeting because the trade union confederations had suspended their participation. In this regard, the Committee notes the CATP’s statement in its observations that since January 2017 the three trade union confederations (the CATP, the Single Confederation of Workers of Peru (CUT Perù) and the General Confederation of Workers of Peru (CGTP)) had decided to participate in the activities of the CNTPE covering 19 draft labour reforms proposed by the Government in relation to collective stoppages, labour inspection and voluntary arbitration, even though they considered that the proposed reforms reduced the rights of workers in the areas concerned. In March 2017, the confederations considered that the reforms were violating labour rights and that there was no consensus on the draft legislation, and so they withdrew from the CNTPE. Nevertheless, the CATP indicates that standards were approved relating to collective stoppages and labour inspection, the bills relating to those areas and to voluntary arbitration were submitted to the executive authority, prior to a tripartite meeting convened on 29 May 2017 by the Ministry of Labour with a view to renewing tripartite dialogue on the pending matters. The CATP adds that the bills did not take account of the confederations’ input from January to March 2017. The CATP also indicates that, as a result, on 31 May 2017, the confederations informed the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion, by official letter No. 004-2017-CENT/SIND, of their decision to suspend their participation in the CNTPE and also in the National Occupational Safety and Health Council, and indicated that they were considering whether or not to withdraw from these bodies on a permanent basis. The Committee hopes that the circumstances which are obstructing the functioning of the CNTPE will be resolved as soon as possible. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the steps taken to ensure that the tripartite consultations held are effective, so that the CNTPE can resume its activities without delay.

Article 5. Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that on 4 May 2017 it proposed to examine, within the CNTPE, the possibility of ratifying the Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930. Accordingly, meetings between the social partners, chaired by the Directorate of Fundamental Rights at Work and Occupational Safety and Health, were held with the aim of examining the Protocol. The Government also indicates that draft reports are sent to the most representative organizations of employers and workers before they are sent to the ILO so that these organizations can send their observations in this regard. The Government adds that the observations made by the social partners are included in its reports. The CATP, for its part, maintains that the Government sends the reports to the workers’ organizations with very little time for the latter to make their observations. The Committee recalls that, in order to be “effective”, consultations must take place before final decisions are taken, irrespective of the nature or form of the procedures adopted. The important factor here is that the persons consulted should be able to put forward their opinions before the government takes its final decision. The effectiveness of consultations thus presupposes in practice that employers’ and workers’ representatives have all the necessary information far enough in advance to formulate their own opinions and make any comments that they consider appropriate (see General Survey of 2000 on tripartite consultation, paragraphs 31 and 93). The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the consultations held on each of the matters relating to international labour standards referred to in Article 5(1) of the Convention. The Committee also expresses the hope, with regard to the procedures required by the Convention, that the Government will take steps to establish an adequate time frame to give employers’ and workers’ organizations sufficient notice to form their opinions and make any comments they consider appropriate with regard to the draft legislation communicated by the Government, in conformity with Article 5(1).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Article 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the observations made in 2014 by the Autonomous Workers’ Confederation of Peru (CATP) and the Single Confederation of Workers of Peru (CUT) regarding the tripartite consultations required by the Convention. The Government describes the activities of the National Labour and Employment Promotion Council (CNTPE) in relation to the discussion of a national employment policy (2011), the increase in the minimum wage (2012), the analysis of the international economic situation and its impact on the Peruvian economy (2013) and the national social security policy (2014). As to consultations on the possible ratification of the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189), the Government indicates that the employers proposed exploring the possibility of ratifying Convention No. 189 at the CNTPE, and the four trade union confederations supported its ratification. However, following bipartite consultations, the employers concluded that Convention No. 189 should not be ratified, while the workers continue to advocate its ratification. The Government considers that the tripartite consultations on this matter have been completed. It also indicates in its report that the meetings of the CNTPE resumed in April 2015 and that Legislative Resolution No. 30312 of 5 March 2015 approved the ratification of the Maternity Protection Convention, 2000 (No. 183). The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the consultations held on each of the matters relating to the international labour standards set forth in the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Article 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. In reply to the 2010 observation, the Government provides a detailed schedule for the submission of observations and draft reports to trade unions, employers’ organizations and public bodies, and the time limits within which the latter are to make their observations and comments. The Government adds that the technical secretariat of the National Labour and Employment Promotion Council is developing and promoting the implementation of mechanisms for the conclusion of agreements with a view to financing the training of the social partners so that they can participate efficiently and effectively in consultation procedures. The Committee notes the observations of the National Society of Industry (SNI), indicating that consultation processes have not been followed as the Government has adopted standards without consulting the employers. The Committee also notes that concerns expressed by the Single Confederation of Workers of Peru (CUT) and the Autonomous Workers’ Confederation of Peru (CATP), which insist that they do not have adequate access to the texts of the reports submitted by the Government, which are untimely referred to the confederations, or are simply not referred to them, and that with the exception of isolated seminars at dates near to the expiry of the time limits for the submission of reports and comments, there is no training programme. The CUT also emphasizes that, despite its requests and specific demands, the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion of Peru has refused to launch the process of the submission to the competent authority of the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189), and that it has not been possible to discuss the ratification of the Convention in any tripartite body. The General Confederation of Workers of Peru (CGTP) emphasizes that, despite the existence in Peru of tripartite dialogue bodies, due to the lack of political will, these bodies have not received even minimum support for the appropriate discharge of their functions, and their meetings have not been held regularly. Taking into account the concerns expressed by the social partners, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the consultations held on each of the matters set forth in Article 5(1) of the Convention. The Committee once again invites the Government to describe the agreements concluded for the financing of any necessary training of participants in consultation procedures (Article 4(2)).

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2015.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Tripartite consultations required by the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s report for the period ending in September 2010 and the comments added by four trade union organizations (Single Confederation of Workers of Peru (CUT), General Confederation of Workers of Peru (CGTP), Autonomous Confederation of Workers of Peru and Confederation of Workers of Peru (CTP)). The Government provides information on action taken in May 2008 by the National Labour Council in relation to the tripartite examination of the instruments adopted by the Conference for submission to the Congress of the Republic (Article 5(1)(b) of the Convention). Furthermore, the Government supplies information on the procedure for the drawing up of reports: (1) the comments of the Committee of Experts are sent to the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations for their information and to enable them to issue an opinion in this regard; (2) the comments from the organizations are taken into account when drawing up the first draft of the report; (3) after the first draft report has been drawn up, this is sent again to the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations so that they can issue their final comments in this respect; (4) the comments are taken into account for preparing the final version of the report, and (5) the final version of the report is sent to the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations as well as to the ILO. The four trade union organizations participating in the National Labour Council claim that the consultation processes are insufficient and do not help to ensure compliance with the Convention, and they refer to the provisions of the Tripartite Consultation (Activities of the International Labour Organisation) Recommendation, 1976 (No. 152). In particular, the four trade union organizations state that requests from the Legal Affairs Office of the Ministry of Labour for commenting on the draft reports do not tally with the schedule for the presentation of reports, with variable deadlines given (in some cases, three days). Nor is there adequate access to the texts of the reports presented by the Government to the ILO. According to the four trade union organizations, there is no training programme either.

The Committee understands the concerns expressed by the four trade union organizations. Under the terms of Article 5(1)(d) of the Convention, consultations must be held on questions arising out of reports to be made to the ILO in connection with the application of ratified Conventions. In such cases, consultations must deal with the content of replies to the comments made by the supervisory bodies. Before adopting a decision, the Government should consult the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations with regard to the problems encountered and the measures to be taken to solve them. This is essential when both employers’ organizations and trade union organizations may hold different positions from that of the Government. As regards the results of the consultations, even though these are not binding on the Government, the latter is still obliged to ensure effective tripartite consultations, in conformity with Article 2(1) of the Convention. In the 2000 General Survey on tripartite consultation, the Committee emphasized that, in order to be “effective”, consultations must take place before final decisions are taken, irrespective of the nature or form of the procedures adopted. The important factor here is that the persons consulted should be able to put forward their opinions before the Government takes its final decision. The effectiveness of consultations thus presupposes in practice that employers’ and workers’ representatives have all the necessary information far enough in advance to formulate their own opinions (paragraph 31 of the 2000 General Survey). The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the consultations held on each of the matters referred to in Article 5(1) of the Convention. In particular, in order to ensure that the views of the representative organizations are taken into account, the Committee requests the Government to consider the possibility with the social partners of establishing a schedule for the drawing up of reports (Article 5(1)(d)). The Committee also hopes that suitable agreements will be reached for the financing of any necessary training of participants in the consultation procedures (Article 4(2)).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Tripartite consultations required by the Convention. With reference to its direct request of 2007, the Committee notes the Government’s report received in September 2008. The Committee notes with interest the approval of an institutional strategic plan of the National Labour and Employment Promotion Council for the period 2007–11, which includes a procedure for the periodic review and analysis of international labour instruments and initiatives to ensure the representativeness and continuity of the tripartite national council. The Committee refers to its observation concerning the constitutional obligation of submission, and notes the establishment of an effective tripartite consultation mechanism with regard to the instruments awaiting submission to the Congress of the Republic (Article 5, paragraph 1(b), of the Convention). Furthermore, the Government has provided information on the new tripartite consultation procedure for the preparation of reports on the implementation of ratified Conventions (Article 5, paragraph 1(d)). The Committee welcomes the strengthening of the role of the National Labour and Employment Promotion Council and trusts that future reports will include updated information on the tripartite consultations relating to international labour standards required by the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

Articles 2, paragraph 1, and 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Tripartite consultations required by the Convention. The Committee notes the first report on the application of the Convention, received in October 2006. The Government provides information on the activities of the National Labour and Employment Promotion Council (Act No. 27771 of April 2002, issuing the internal rules governing the organization and functions of the Council, approved in April 2005). Discussions are held and policies agreed upon in the Council in the fields of labour, employment promotion and social protection in relation to national and regional development. It appears from the report that the social partners have not considered the inclusion on the Council’s agenda of the follow-up to Convention No. 144, even though some of the subjects addressed, and particularly the discussion of possible legislative reforms, are related to the consultations required by the Convention. The Committee notes with interest that the Council has benefited from support and assistance from a project undertaken by the ILO and the Government of Spain with a view to strengthening the institutional machinery for social dialogue and that the Technical Secretariat of the Council has intensified its action to advise and train the social partners in the management and organization of regional tripartite bodies. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the manner in which the tripartite consultations required by the Convention have been promoted both in the context of the Council and in the activities carried out at the regional level. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report how the procedures implemented ensure effective consultations with respect to each of the matters relating to international labour standards covered by the Convention.