Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2025, published 114th ILC session (2026)

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Peru (Ratification: 1964)

The Committee notes the observations of the Coordinating Committee of the Trade Union Confederations of Peru (which groups together 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), received on 28 August 2025, the observations of the National Confederation of Private Business Institutions of Peru (CONFIEP), received on 29 August 2025, and the observations of the CATP, received on 2 September 2025, all of which relate to matters examined by the Committee in the present comment.

Direct contacts mission. The Committee recalls that in 2023 the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference (Conference Committee), as part of the examination of the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), invited the Government to accept a direct contacts mission (hereinafter: the mission) to follow up its recommendations. The mission took place from 20 to 23 May 2025. The Committee refers below to matters addressed by the mission which have an impact on the application of the present Convention.

Legislative developments. National Labour and Employment Promotion Council (CNTPE). In its previous comment, the Committee noted that the Regulations implementing the Collective Labour Relations Act (LRCT) had been amended by Supreme Decree No. 014-2022-TR and expressed the expectation that any concerns relating to the Supreme Decree would be duly examined within the framework of tripartite social dialogue in the National Labour and Employment Promotion Council (CNTPE) and that any issues obstructing the functioning of that body would be resolved quickly. The Committee observes that the mission gave special attention to the role of the CNTPE and its functioning. Referring to its comment on the application of Convention No. 87, the Committee strongly encourages the Government and all the parties concerned to implement the recommendations made by the mission and to make every possible effort to ensure that the CNTPE continues to play its key role as a tripartite social dialogue body. Like the mission, the Committee also reminds the Government that it is necessary and important to ensure thorough and systematic consultation of the CNTPE before adopting any social/labour legislation. The Committee encourages the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance and requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. Administrative and judicial mechanisms. In its previous comment, the Committee duly noted the aspects of Supreme Decree No. 014-2022-TR aimed at strengthening protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. On the basis of the concerns expressed by the trade unions on the administrative and judicial mechanisms providing protection against anti-union discrimination, the Committee asked the Government to: (i) provide information on the length of judicial proceedings relating to infringements of the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining (taking measures to ensure that proceedings are carried out swiftly), and on the penalties imposed in cases of anti-union discrimination; and (ii) take the necessary measures for the concerns expressed in relation to the inspection services to be duly examined through social dialogue in the CNTPE. The Committee observes that these matters were given special attention by the mission.

With regard to the judicial mechanisms for protection against anti-union discrimination, the Committee notes that the Government indicates the time frames established in the legislation, recognizing that these are affected by various factors which tend to create delays. The Government cites five cases in which judicial proceedings were delayed for between nine and 17 months and refers to a series of regulations issued to reduce the slowness of labour-related judicial proceedings. The trade unions assert that the duration referred to by the Government relates to exceptional cases and that the average length of shortened labour proceedings (for infringements of freedom of association) is three-and-a-half years on account of the limited resources assigned for the implementation of fast-track labour proceedings. CONFIEP indicates that systematic delays in the judicial system nullify the administrative progress achieved in the National Labour Inspection Supervisory Agency (SUNAFIL).

With regard to the administrative mechanisms for protection against anti-union discrimination, the Committee notes that: (i) the Government indicates that it has expanded the inspection services of SUNAFIL with the incorporation of new inspectors and the creation in 2023 of a specialist team of labour inspectors dealing with freedom of association; (ii) the trade union confederations indicate that, although they welcome with interest the setting up of this team, they caution that, in the more than two years since it was established, it has not resulted in greater attention being paid by the labour inspectorate to cases of violations of trade union rights; and (iii) although it appreciates the Government’s efforts to strengthen inspection and training relating to trade union rights, CONFIEP indicates that the main obstacle to ensuring adequate protection is the excessive delays in judicial proceedings.

With regard to penalties actually imposed by SUNAFIL, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that between 2021 and 2025, a total of 76 penalties were imposed for acts of anti-union discrimination, totalling 12,542,740.65 Peruvian soles (approximately 3.5 million US dollars); of these penalties, 57 were final. The Committee also notes that the trade union confederations claim that: (i) both the number of decisions imposing penalties and the number of final decisions decreased significantly between 2021 and 2025; (ii) very few infringement reports give rise to the imposition of penalties; (iii) the penalties imposed (fines) are often challenged in court, sometimes to delay their payment; hence the data on fines imposed does not imply that they have actually been paid; and (iv) the unions have learned that SUNAFIL is drafting a directive on the exercise of inspection activities in the area of freedom of association, an initiative that they view positively and on which they have made suggestions.

The Committee notes the information presented and the continuing concerns expressed regarding the actual impact and deterrent effect of the administrative and judicial mechanisms for protection against anti-union discrimination. The Committee observes that this situation is frequently reflected in the submission of complaints to the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) (for example, Cases Nos 3402, 3359, 3342, 3267 and 3197). While welcoming initiatives to strengthen SUNAFIL’s capacities in the area of freedom of association, the Committee requests the Government to take all necessary steps to: (i) increase the speed and effectiveness of SUNAFIL’s procedures for inspection and the imposition of penalties in the area of freedom of association; and (ii) ensure that the courts have the legal, institutional and material resources to significantly reduce the length of judicial proceedings relating to allegations of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken in this regard and continue providing detailed data on the administrative and judicial penalties imposed in cases of anti-union discrimination, and also on the corresponding time frames for action by the administrative and judicial bodies. The Committee hopes that the Government will continue to avail itself of technical assistance in this regard, as emphasized in the conclusions of the mission.

Workers with fixed-term contracts in the private sector. Noting the high percentage of fixed-term contracts and concerns about the possible non-renewal of employment contracts for anti-union reasons, the Committee asked the Government to submit the issue of protection for such workers against anti-union discrimination to comprehensive tripartite consultations in the CNTPE with a view to identifying specific measures in this regard. The Committee also invited the Government to include in these consultations the possibility of amending the provisions of the Act on the promotion of non-traditional exports, which, as the Government had indicated to the Committee on Freedom of Association, would allow for the recurrent use of short-term contracts. The Committee notes that the mission addressed the impact of the frequent use of temporary contracts on the exercise of trade union rights and, in this regard, refers to its comment on the application of Convention No. 87. The Committee notes that, in the context of the present Convention, the Government: (i) indicates that a bill is before the National Congress for amending the labour regime for workers in non-traditional exports; and (ii) provides information on labour inspections relating to the formalities of employment contracts and distortions of the employment relationship, without including any reference to the unionization of the workers concerned. The Committee observes that the trade union confederations refer to a series of specific cases which, they claim, demonstrate how temporary contracts and special regimes affect the exercise of trade union rights. The union confederations state that the excessive use of fixed-term contracts and infringements of trade union rights are not being addressed through tripartite social dialogue. The Committee notes that CONFIEP considers that, rather than focusing the discussion on limiting contractual arrangements which are legal, necessary and do not restrict rights, the conversation should concentrate on strengthening existing protection mechanisms, such as labour inspection and quick judicial proceedings, to effectively penalize any fraudulent use of contracts and, as a matter of priority, on designing and implementing structural and consensual policies to reduce informal work, which it considers to be the main obstacle to the exercise of freedom of association. The Committee notes with regret that this issue has been coming up for many years and recalls that in several cases (in particular Cases Nos 3065-3066 and 3170), the Committee on Freedom of Association has indicated that fixed-term employment contracts should not be deliberately used for anti-union purposes and that, in certain circumstances, the employment of workers with successive renewals of fixed-term contracts over several years may be an obstacle to the exercise of trade union rights. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to: (i) examine, within the framework of social dialogue, the issue of the effectiveness of protection against anti-union discrimination for workers on fixed-term contracts; and (ii) take all necessary steps to strengthen the effectiveness of SUNAFIL’s actions in this regard. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on any progress made in this respect. With regard to the proposed amendments to the Act on the promotion of non-traditional exports and laws providing for similar labour regimes, the Committee refers to its comments on the application of Convention No. 87.

Workers with fixed-term contracts in the public sector. The Committee recalls that it asked the Government to submit the issue of protection against anti-union discrimination for workers who do not have permanent contracts to comprehensive consultations with the representative trade unions in the public sector. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) on the basis of Act No. 31131 establishing provisions to eradicate discrimination in public sector employment regimes, the Civil Service Authority (SERVIR) has drafted regulations for Legislative Decree No. 1057, aimed at harmonizing the regime for administrative service contracts with the new regulatory framework and ensuring adequate working conditions; (ii) the process included contributions from trade unions and civil society, and the text was presented in May 2025 in the SERVIR Social Dialogue Forum; and (iii) the draft regulations incorporate provisions that strengthen transparency in the management of contracts and prohibits making employment conditional on trade union membership. The Committee notes that the trade union confederations indicate that: (i) although the adoption of Act No. 31131 was a step forward, civil servants under the special administrative service contract regime represented 24.5 per cent of all public servants in 2023; (ii) one of the main problems facing the protection of workers on temporary contracts against acts of anti-union discrimination stems from the fact that the labour inspectorate does not have the power to conduct inspections and impose penalties in the public sector; and (iii) the situation of “service providers” or workers on third-party contracts persists, limiting the effective exercise of trade union rights, in particular collective bargaining (194,000 workers, or 10–15 per cent of all service providers in the public administration), who are prevented from exercising this right. The Committee observes that the mission took note of these concerns and asked SERVIR to take all necessary administrative control measures to resolve this issue and ensure that all public sector workers enjoy the freedom of association recognized by the Convention. While welcoming the adoption of Act No. 31131 and recalling that Peru has also ratified the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), which protects all public administration employees against anti-union discrimination, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures, particularly in terms of inspection and control, to strengthen protection against anti-union discrimination for public sector workers on temporary contracts, including “service providers”. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on this matter, and also on the above-mentioned draft Decree and its impact on the application of the Convention.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Workers on training schemes. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to revise the relevant legislation so as to recognize the right to collective bargaining of workers under training schemes. The Committee points out that since its last comment the International Labour Conference has adopted the Quality Apprenticeships Recommendation, 2023 (No. 208), Paragraph 16(g) of which states that ILO Members should take measures to ensure that apprentices are afforded freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining. In its comment on Convention No. 87, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that even though there are no applications for the registration of trade unions by persons covered by the Training Schemes Act, it is requesting ILO technical assistance to identify good practices in this area. The Committee hopes that the technical assistance requested by the Government will be provided in the near future and expresses confidence that this will contribute to ensuring, in consultation with the social partners, that the Government will revise the legislation without delay in such a way that the collective rights of workers on training schemes, including the right to collective bargaining, is expressly recognized. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Promotion of collective bargaining at all levels. After expressing the hope that the Government would ensure that the autonomy of the parties prevails in the determination of the level of bargaining, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on: (i) the impact of the amendment of section 45 of the LRCT consolidated single text (TUO) on collective bargaining; and (ii) the specific measures taken to promote collective bargaining at all levels, including higher than the enterprise level, and to provide information on the results. The Committee notes that the Government, after recalling the content of the legislation in force, indicates that: (i) collective bargaining is a free and voluntary process and the labour administrative authority acts as a promoter and facilitator, not as a coercive entity; and (ii) since Supreme Decree No. 014-2022-TR was issued, training activities and workshops have been held to promote collective bargaining and dispute settlement mechanisms. The Committee notes that the union confederations indicate that: (i) practices are being used in the public and private sectors to prevent collective bargaining, especially above the enterprise level; (ii) the guarantees established by Supreme Decree No. 014-2022-TR regarding the possibility of establishing unions on the basis of economic groups or subcontracting networks may be ineffective in practice if these types of unions are not encouraged to exercise their right to collective bargaining; and (iii) collective bargaining has not been promoted in the agricultural and irrigation, agro-export and agro-industrial sectors, particularly above the enterprise level, despite the fact that, especially in the agro-industrial sector, there is no collective bargaining above the enterprise level. Recalling that collective bargaining should be possible at all levels, the Committee requests the Government once again to: (i) provide information on the impact of the amendment of section 45 of the of the LRCT TUO; (ii) take specific measures to promote collective bargaining at all levels, including at levels above the enterprise level; and (iii) provide information on the actions taken to apply the general provisions for promoting collective bargaining in the agricultural and agro-export sectors contained in Act No. 31110. The Committee also requests the Government to provide detailed data on the comparative numbers of agreements in force at the enterprise, supra-enterprise and sectoral levels.

Recourse to optional arbitration (arbitraje potestativo). In its previous comment, the Committee noted that, in a context of the very low coverage of collective bargaining, Supreme Decree No. 014-2022-TR had made certain of the conditions more flexible for workers to be able to have recourse to arbitration, in the case of a first negotiation or where bad faith had been demonstrated by the employer, and the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the application of these new provisions so that the Committee could assess their impact on the free and voluntary nature of collective bargaining and its effective promotion, and to engage in thorough dialogue with the representative social partners in the country on the application of these provisions and on any other measures envisaged in this regard. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, although it does not have accurate and complete information on the application of Supreme Decree No. 014-2022-TR in relation to recourse to arbitraje potestativo, as this is not always brought to the attention of the Labour Administrative Authority, the number of cases brought before the Administrative Court in relation to collective bargaining in the private sector has increased from 30 to 52. The Committee notes that the union confederations assert that making access to arbitration more flexible must be complemented by effective active policies to promote negotiation between the parties to determine the level of negotiation and conditions of employment. The Committee notes that CONFIEP reiterates its view that the most damaging change introduced by Supreme Decree No. 014-2022-TR was to grant the workers the exclusive power to unilaterally request arbitration, which affects the principle of voluntary negotiation and turns collective bargaining into a mere formality prior to arbitration. CONFIEP claims that there is legal uncertainty, given that the Ministry of Labour’s list of arbitrators lacks technical filters and suitability criteria to guarantee the quality and impartiality of awards. CONFIEP also states that the direct consequence has been an alarming increase in post-arbitration disputes. The Committee notes that, according to the union confederations and CONFIEP, no measures have been taken to establish a dialogue on the application of the provisions relating to recourse to arbitration and the level of negotiation. The Committee hopes that, within the CNTPE, a broad process of tripartite social dialogue will be established in relation to the application of Supreme Decree No. 014-2022-TR, especially regarding the free and voluntary nature of collective bargaining and its effective promotion. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on: (i) the number of collective bargaining negotiations concluded with and without unilaterally requested arbitration, as well as those that did not result in an agreement or award; (ii) the number of unilateral requests for arbitration that were rejected for failure to comply with the requirements of Supreme Decree No. 014-2022-TR; and (iii) data on the rate of coverage for collective bargaining.

Articles 4 and 6. Promotion of collective bargaining. Public sector workers. The Committee previously noted with satisfaction the conclusion of the centralized collective agreement in the public sector and asked the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the Act and its respective Supreme Decree are implemented in such a manner as to ensure the full exercise by trade unions of state workers of the rights recognized in those instruments and established by the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) SERVIR has issued and published technical reports to support the application of Act No. 31188 and its guidelines (Supreme Decree No. 08-2022-PCM) and has offered technical assistance and training on collective rights; (ii) from 2021 until now, 44 complaints have been received regarding violations of the right to collective bargaining; (iii) Supreme Degree No. 002-2024-TR, which regulates the service for the assessment of workers’ demands and the examination of the economic and financial situation of employers, published on 19 April 2024, strengthened the centralized collective bargaining process, ensuring that union representation on the negotiating committee meets objective criteria taking into account the representativeness of the five trade union confederations with the largest membership in the public sector; the Government also indicates that the Decree, which was disseminated among the union confederations and business associations comprising the CNTPE, reinforced the employer’s duty to provide information in the context of collective bargaining; (iv) a multisectoral working group was created, made up of representatives of the Ministry of Labour and SERVIR to carry out an assessment of the functionality of the register of public service trade unions, which provides information on the trade union membership of state workers. The Committee notes that the union confederations indicate that: (i) Act No. 31188 resulted in progress on the recognition of the collective bargaining rights of public sector workers, enabling the signing of three centralized collective agreements and promoting union membership and registration; (ii) however, the registration of union members has not been completed, which prevents the identification of representative confederations for centralized bargaining, leading to disputes and delays; and (iii) unilateral practices persist which hinder the effective application of the Act and delay negotiations, at both the centralized and decentralized levels.

The Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association referred to it the legislative aspects of Case No. 3477, concerning a complaint alleging that certain provisions of Supreme Decree No. 008-2022-PCM, Emergency Degree No. 006-2024 and Act No. 32103 restricted the right to collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association, noting the creation of a multi-sectoral working group, expressed confidence that the Government, in full consultation with the social partners concerned, will take the necessary measures to ensure the functioning of a reliable mechanism for verifying trade union representativeness in collective bargaining. The Committee on Freedom of Association also asked the Government to: (i) keep it informed of the outcome of the class action presented in relation to section 10.1 of Supreme Decree No. 008-2022-PCM; and (ii) take the necessary measures to guarantee that, in the future, collective bargaining proceedings in the public sector allow the trade union organizations involved to have access to timely and relevant information on the budgetary situation of the public bodies when setting budget ceilings with regard to wages so that they may assess the situation, express their views and positions, and discuss with the authorities the considerations of general interest that the latter may deem necessary to highlight. The Committee on Freedom of Association expressed the hope that the Government will take appropriate measures to ensure that exceptional measures restricting collective bargaining in the public sector are limited to what is necessary, do not exceed a reasonable period, and are accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers’ living standards (412th Report, November 2025). The Committee refers to these recommendations and requests the Government to provide information on measures taken in this regard.

The Committee hopes that the Government will take all the measures referred to in the present comment in order to give full effect to the Convention and hopes that these will be preceded by thorough consultations with the social partners. The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of technical assistance from the Office.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2027.]