Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 367, Marzo 2013

Caso núm. 2874 (Perú) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 30-MAY-11 - Cerrado

Allegations: Obstruction by Ministry of Labour authorities regarding the right to hold trade union meetings

1. 1021. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 30 May 2011 from the Unitary Trade Union of Workers in the Ministry of Labour (SUTMIT). SUTMIT sent additional information in a communication dated 21 July 2011.
2. 1022. The Government of Peru sent its reply in communications dated 26 July 2011, and 24 February and 23 April 2012.
3. 1023. Peru has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978, (No. 151), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 1024. In its communications dated 30 May and 21 July 2011, the SUTMIT alleges that, on 28 April 2011, the Regional Director of the Metropolitan Area of Lima and Callao of the Ministry of Labour tried to prevent the secretary-general, organization secretary and defence secretary of the trade union from participating in a briefing on the “transfer of personnel to the regional government”, on the pretext that the registration of the union’s executive committee had been the subject of observations by the authorities, when in fact said registration had been approved on 1 April 2011 and made public.
2. 1025. SUTMIT adds that its executive committee informed the Ministry of Labour authorities that it would hold a general assembly on 25 May 2011, starting at 5 p.m. (i.e. outside working hours). Nevertheless, ministry authorities denied the use of Ministry of Labour premises to the union, even though the law provides that, within the Government, the union’s general assembly shall be held at government department premises outside working hours.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 1026. In its communications dated 26 July 2011, and 24 February and 23 April 2012, the Government refers to the first allegation and notes that the meeting on the transfer of personnel to the Callao region, referred to by the complainant organization, SUTMIT, was informal and informational, targeting workers subject inter alia to labour regulations under Legislative Decree No. 276, and to the regulations set out in the Administrative Services Contract (CAS). Nevertheless, the SUTMIT executive committee was allowed to participate, and was allowed access to the premises without any problem. The Government adds that the relevant office-in-charge sent proof of the automatic registration of the new SUTMIT executive committee, not subject to previous observations, on 4 May 2011; notification was received the following day in accordance with the relevant internal regulations, respecting the time limits under the law.
2. 1027. With regard to the second allegation by SUTMIT, the Government notes that the use of premises is subject to the provisions under section 9 of Supreme Decree No. 026 82 JUS (public sector labour regulations), which states:
   • Section 9. The general assembly shall be held in government department premises.
   • Both the general assemblies and ordinary meetings shall be held outside working hours. The quorum for a meeting and the adoption of agreements is 50 per cent of union members, or a greater percentage as under the by-laws.
3. 1028. The Government adds that the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion has always stood ready to make the premises in question available to said union. The Government notes that it granted the union’s request to use the first-floor hall of ministry headquarters on 24 May 2011, in order to hold its general assembly. Nevertheless, during the course of the day, SUTMIT decided to cancel that meeting and requested a postponement to the next day (25 May 2011). This new request could not be granted, however, owing to a general suspension of authorization to hold any activity at ministry headquarters facilities on that day, as a safety measure, since another union had scheduled to start an open-ended strike on that same day. The Ministry informed SUTMIT, through subsequent communications, that its premises remained available for SUTMIT to hold its meetings. Attached hereto is an email dated 2 June 2011, informing the secretary-general and some members of the union that the use of the first-floor hall was authorized, should it be of use, since measures had been adopted to ensure the normal running of the Ministry.
4. 1029. Thus, the Ministry is aware of and recognizes the right of union organizations to hold union meetings, as an inherent part of freedom of association. Therefore, fully in line with its policy of respect for freedom of association, it has made its premises available for SUTMIT trade union meetings. Nevertheless, since the premises belong to a public entity, it should be understandable that certain eventualities might be reasonable cause for a temporary suspension of authorization to hold meetings. In this respect, the Government notes that the complaint in question is an isolated and specific instance, and the only reason for the suspension was to ensure the normal running of ministry services, and not in any way to affect SUTMIT members’ freedom of association.
5. 1030. In the light of the foregoing, the Government considers the complaint to be groundless.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1031. The Committee observes that in the present case, the complainant organization alleges that, first, a senior official of the Ministry of Labour “tried” to prevent three members of the executive committee from participating in a briefing on the “transfer of personnel to the regional government” on the pretext that the executive committee’s registration had been the subject of “observations” by the authorities. The Committee notes that the Government states that this was an informal and informational meeting, and that it nevertheless allowed participation by the said members of the executive committee. The Government adds that the complainant organization’s new executive committee was automatically registered without any observation, and notification was provided accordingly. Under the circumstances, since the three leaders of the complainant organization had the opportunity to participate in the briefing session in question, the Committee will not pursue the examination of these allegations.
2. 1032. As regards the complainant’s allegation that, on 25 May 2011, Ministry of Labour authorities denied the union the use of ministry premises to hold the union’s general assembly, the Committee notes that both the complainant union and the Government recognize that, in accordance with the law, general assemblies in the public sector are to be held in government department premises, but outside working hours. The Committee notes the Government’s statements that the Ministry of Labour authorized the union to use the first-floor hall of ministry headquarters to hold the union’s general assembly on 24 May 2011. Nevertheless, the Government points out that, over the course of the day, the executive committee cancelled said meeting and requested its postponement to the following day (25 May 2011), and that it was thus unable to grant the union access to the premises, since another union had already scheduled the start of an open-ended strike on the same day, which led to a general suspension of authorization to hold any activity at ministry headquarters on that day, for safety reasons. The Government adds that on each occasion the Ministry of Labour subsequently communicated to the union that its premises were available for the union to carry out its activities in the first-floor hall of headquarters. In the light of the Government’s explanations, the Committee will not pursue the examination of this allegation.

The Committee’s recommendation

1. 1033. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.