Definitive Report - Report No 190, March 1979

Case No 912 (Peru) - Complaint date: 24-JUL-78 - Closed

1. 29. The complaint is contained in a communication from the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) dated 24 July 1978. The WCL supplied additional information by a further communication dated 14 September 1978. The Government forwarded its observations in a communication dated 15 January 1979.
2. 30. 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. 31. In its first communication the WCL states that it has come to its knowledge that infringement of freedom of association is continuing in Peru on an increasing scale. The complainant organisation alleges that the Government has unleashed a violent campaign of repression against education workers, that numerous primary and secondary schoolteachers have been dismissed from their employment, that a number of schools have been closed and that many teaching staff have been imprisoned and ill-treated and their trade unions dismantled. The WCL considers that an ILO commission should be sent to Peru as a matter of urgency to see the situation for itself and demand that the Government put an end to this open persecution of trade unions. In its second communication, the WCL confirms its desire to present a formal complaint against the Government of Peru for infringement of freedom of association, the right to organise and the right to strike, adding that workers belonging to the National Metal Mining Federation of Peru have also been afflicted by the problem of dismissal, physical ill-treatment and imprisonment. Furthermore, according to the complainant organisation, Legislative Decrees Nos. 22264 and 22265, promulgated by the Government, are prejudicial to the job security of more than 100,000 public employees. The WCL requests the ILO to intervene to secure the repeal of these measures, which it qualifies as anti-unionist.
2. 32. In its reply, transmitted on 15 January 1979, the Government points out that in this case no specific allegation has been made, and the communications received are so vague and imprecise that it is unable to comment on them. The Government vigorously rejects any insinuation that workers have been wrongfully dismissed, imprisoned or ill-treated. It adds that these assertions are completely untrue and damaging to the Government's international image, which is characterised by the humanitarian and Christian spirit which marks its administration.
3. 33. The Government has supplied the texts of the two legislative degrees mentioned in the complaint, both dated 10 August 1978. Legislative Decree No. 22264 lays down rules for the reorganisation of public expenditure under the present budget, with a view, inter alia, to reducing current expenditure so as to be able to invest more. Among other miscellaneous provisions, it authorises a reduction in staff through the curtailment of non-essential activities and programmes. Legislative Decree No. 22265 lays down the rules applicable to the workers affected by this reduction in staff, which provide for the payment during an eight-month period of an allowance equivalent to the last monthly earnings, entitlement to a pension by way of severance pay and facilities for obtaining loans.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 34. The Committee observes that the allegations referring to dismissals, imprisonment and other measures for which the Government is held responsible are not accompanied by more precise information as to the circumstances in which the alleged infringements of freedom of association took place, nor as to the names of the trade unionists affected. The complaining organisation, in availing itself of the opportunity afforded to it under the procedure to supply additional information, has likewise failed to specify the reasons why it considers that the promulgation - or application - of the two legislative decrees mentioned above implies infringement of trade union rights. The Government, for its part, has declared the allegations to be untrue.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 35. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide, for the reasons indicated in the preceding paragraph, that this case does not call for further examination.