Seguimiento dado a las recomendaciones del Comité y del Consejo de Administración - Informe núm. 348, Noviembre 2007

Caso núm. 2286 (Perú) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 05-MAY-03 - Cerrado

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 145. The Committee examined this case, in which it is alleged that, as a result of the establishment of a trade union, its General Secretary was dismissed and a criminal complaint filed against him, and that a number of workers belonging to the trade union were dismissed in order to weaken the organization, at its meeting in June 2006. On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed: (1) of the outcome of the criminal proceedings under way against Mr Leonidas Campos Barrenzuela for allegedly forging documents; (2) of the outcome of the action taken by the administrative authority with regard to the alleged intimidation of workers at Petrotech Peruana SA to force them to leave the trade union; and (3) of the outcome of the special visit to inspect Petrotech Peruana SA ordered by the administrative authority in relation to the alleged dismissal of various workers who belonged to the trade union for alleged serious misconduct, with the sole aim of weakening the new trade union [see 342nd Report, paras 143–147].
2. 146. In a communication dated 25 October 2006, the Government states, with regard to the criminal complaint filed against Mr Leonidas Campos Barrenzuela, that the most recent communication sent by the Criminal Court of Piura reported that the complaint had been dismissed, the judge ruling that there were no grounds for instituting pre-trial proceedings for the offence of forging documents. Petrotech Peruana SA lodged an appeal against this ruling, which was upheld. On 9 August 2006, an official letter was sent to the Criminal Judge of Talara, part of the High Court of Justice of Piura, asking about the outcome of the appeal. To date, no response has been received from the Criminal Court regarding the outcome of the complaint.
3. 147. As to the outcome of the special visit to inspect Petrotech Peruana SA ordered by the administrative authority in relation to the alleged dismissal of various workers who belonged to the Trade Union of Sea and Land Workers of Petrotech Peruana SA for alleged serious misconduct, with the sole aim of weakening the new trade union, the Government states in letter No. 6M-242-2005 dated 22 November 2005 that the legal adviser of Petrotech Peruana SA filed a report on the special inspection visit. In addition, the Regional Directorate for Labour and Employment Promotion in Piura sent documentation referring to the special inspection visit ordered under section 16.3 of Legislative Decree No. 910. The documents state that at 10 a.m. on 28 October 2005, a labour inspector went to Petrotech Peruana SA, where representatives of the enterprise and the trade union were present. The substance of the Labour Inspectorate’s report is as follows: (1) it was found that Mr Leonidas Campos Barrenzuela had been reinstated in his post by Petrotech Peruana SA on 24 December 2004; (2) the inspector took note of reports referring to intimidation of leaders and workers into leaving the trade union, taking statements first from the employers and subsequently from the workers. Petrotech Peruana SA stated that it upholds the law and workers’ rights, both collective and individual, and emphatically denied all accusations of hostility towards its workers. It stated that it has concluded two collective agreements, with another being negotiated with the workers, and that in March 2005, it paid its workers significant additional wages as a share of profits. The enterprise explained that job transfers were permitted by law, provided that they did not affect the worker’s grade or wages, and added that a worker’s membership or non-membership of the trade union had absolutely no bearing on a transfer from an offshore platform to an onshore site or vice versa, since the employment contract signed with the workers expressly states that they may be relocated for operational reasons; (3) the workers stated that as soon as the trade union was established, the enterprise challenged its registration, arguing that there were irregularities in the signatures to its founding statutes; however, the Ministry of Labour confirmed the registration on 4 December 2002; and (4) the labour inspector observed that the trade union is currently affiliated to FENUPETROL, whereas in the complaint presented to the ILO in 2003, it was affiliated to the FENPETROL. The inspector notes that both parties endorsed the contents of the complaint. Once the special inspection visit procedures were finished, the inspector prepared a report for her superiors.
4. 148. The Government adds that, on 31 October 2005, the Trade Union of Sea and Land Workers of Petrotech Peruana SA sent the Head of the Area Division of the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion in Talara (Piura) a document elaborating on and substantiating the trade union’s statements during the special inspection visit. Likewise, on 22 November 2005, Petrotech Peruana SA sent the Head of the Area Division a document clarifying the report of the special inspection visit. It should be noted that the Regional Directorate for Labour and Employment Promotion in Piura, in fulfilment of its role to assist in resolving all forms of labour disputes, summoned Petrotech Peruana SA and the Trade Union of Sea and Land Workers of Petrotech Peruana SA to an out-of-court meeting on 14 November 2005 at 11 a.m. at its offices. In a decision of 21 November 2005, the Regional Directorate for Labour and Employment Promotion in Piura ruled that the special inspection visit was completed, noting in one of its preambular paragraphs that any issues in dispute as a result of the inspection undertaken would not affect the parties’ rights. According to the Government, it can be seen from this that the special inspection visit took place in a congenial atmosphere, with the workers cooperating and speaking without hindrance.
5. 149. The Committee takes note of these statements and requests the Government: (1) to provide information regarding the outcome of the appeal lodged by Petrotech Peruana SA against the decision of the Criminal Court of Piura to dismiss the complaint against Mr Leonidas Campos Barrenzuela for allegedly forging documents; and (2) to inform it whether, subsequent to the special visit to inspect Petrotech Peruana SA, legal or administrative action was taken in relation to the alleged dismissals of workers belonging to the trade union.