Interim Report - Report No 151, November 1975

Case No 762 (Peru) - Complaint date: 22-JUN-73 - Closed

1. 122. The Committee already examined this case in May 1974 and presented to the Governing Body at that session an interim report which is reproduced in paragraphs 136 to 145 of its 144th Report.
2. 123. Peru has ratified both 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. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 124. The complainant organisations alleged that 11 workers had been imprisoned and that massive dismissals of trade union leaders, with loss of social benefits, had taken place. The FESIDETA (Departmental Trade Union Federation of Workers of Ancash) and 42 trade unions in the region requested the ILO to intercede with the Peruvian Government so as to put a stop to these injustices.
2. 125. In its reply the Government indicated that the Chimbote steel works, SIDERPERU, was a state undertaking and that, in March 1973, at a time when production had reached a record level after various problems had been overcome, disturbances broke out in the plant for reasons that had nothing to do with trade union activities. According to the Government, these disturbances, which were nothing else than sabotage, caused considerable damage to the installations of the plant. The Government added that, since the damage was done deliberately, the persons thought to be responsible were being held at the disposal of the judicial authorities.
3. 126. The Government indicated that the complaint failed to give the names of the persons concerned and that the fact that a worker belongs to a trade union does not give him the right to commit offences and remain unpunished. It stated that those responsible for the damage done in the Chimbote steel works, which had nothing to do with trade union activity, would have to be punished by the judicial authorities in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Penal Code. The Government added that it had promulgated Legislative Decree No. 20043 which provided for the reorganisation of SIDERPERU and authorised its management to select appropriate personnel. This recruitment was taking place without any discrimination whatsoever.
4. 127. The Committee had noted in its 144th Report that, according to the Government, the persons had been arrested because damage had been done to the Chimbote steel works for reasons unconnected with trade union activities, and that the persons thought to be responsible had been placed at the disposal of the judicial authorities.
5. 128. On the other hand, the Committee had noted that the Government's reply contained no information with regard to the allegations relating to the dismissal of trade union leaders. The Committee drew attention to the principle that workers - and especially trade union officials - should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment such as dismissal, demotion, transfer or other prejudicial measures; it pointed out, however, that this principle does not necessarily imply that the fact that a person holds trade union office confers on him immunity against dismissal irrespective of the circumstances. The Committee had considered that, in order to enable it to formulate its conclusions on this aspect of the complaint in full knowledge of the facts, it would be useful if the Government were to be requested to give details about the dismissals to which the complainants referred.
6. 129. In these circumstances, the Committee had recommended the Governing Body, in particular, to request the Government-to supply the text of the decisions of the judicial authorities, once it has been issued, together with the grounds adduced therefor in respect of the arrested workers, and to give details as to the circumstances in which the trade union leaders were dismissed, including the grounds on which they were dismissed.
7. 130. The Government supplied further information in a communication dated 11 March 1975. In it stated that SIDERPERU was given over to producing basic materials for national defence and that its activities were directed towards metalworking and the direct or indirect commercialisation of steel and allied products. According to the Government the excellent employer-worker relations existing in the undertaking deteriorated in May 1973 when the trade unions in the organisation called a stoppage as a token of solidarity with other trade union organisations at Chimbote, for reasons which had nothing to do with SIDERPERU itself. The stoppage degenerated into an indefinite general strike which affected the activities of SIDERPERU's Chimbote plant, although declared for reasons which had nothing to do with the organisation. A group of strikers refused to allow personnel responsible for avoiding damage to the blast furnace and to the electronic and automatic equipment in the undertaking to enter the plant. This resulted in serious damage to material and equipment and losses running to several million soles, and the ultimate effects were injurious to the metalworking industry.
8. 131. The Government added that this action constituted a grave offence under the Stability Act, since the activities of certain individuals were detrimental to the finances of the undertaking, and it was punished by the dismissal of 48 workers with loss of social benefits. The Government went on to say that the action taken was supported by a majority of the staff and after the guilty men had been dismissed output became normal again. Under these circumstances, the above-mentioned Legislative Decree No. 20043 respecting the reorganisation of SIDERPERU had been repealed and a Committee set up to consider the case of each worker dismissed with a view to his reinstatement. The Government added that the great majority of those dismissed had found work elsewhere.
9. 132. On the other hand, the Government stated that 12 former workers of the undertaking, four of whom were trade union leaders, were accused of sabotage. None of them was at present being detained: the courts had not yet announced their verdict and investigations were still proceeding. Lastly, the Government indicated that industrial relations in the undertaking were now such that it had been possible to adopt a policy of highly favourable wage increases.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 133. The available information shows that the dispute originated in an indefinite strike as a token of solidarity. Forty-eight workers were dismissed with loss of social benefits and 12 were arrested. According to the Government a group of strikers refused to allow persons responsible for protecting the material and equipment to enter the plant, and this action, resulting in serious material and financial losses, was the reason for the dismissals. In any event a Committee has been set up to consider the case of each worker dismissed with a view to his reinstatement and the great majority of them have found work elsewhere.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 134. As far as the 12 workers charged with sabotage are concerned, the Committee does not have information as to whether the workers concerned are being prosecuted for taking part in strike action or because they caused destruction to material and equipment. However, the courts have not yet announced their verdict. Under these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to furnish details on the charges laid against the 12 workers and to communicate the text of the court decision together with the grounds adduced therefor, it being understood that the Committee will present a further report when it has received this information.