Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 415, June 2026

Case No 3508 (Peru) - Complaint date: 17-JAN-25 - Follow-up

Allegations: The complainant organizations allege the refusal by enterprises with links to the communications sector to engage in collective bargaining with SITENTEL Perú, and the existence of a series of anti-union practices

1. 260. The complaint is contained in two communications, submitted by the Single Central Organization of Workers of Peru (CUT-Perú) and the Trade Union of Workers in the Subcontracting Networks or Supply Chain of Telecommunications Operators in Peru (SITENTEL Perú) on 17 January and 24 September 2025.
2. 261. The Government sent its observations on the allegations in communications of 22 January and 17 March 2026.
3. 262. Peru has ratified 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. The complainant’s allegations

1. 263. In communications of 17 January and 24 September 2025, the complainant organizations state that: (i) Integratel Perú – Movistar (the new name of Telefónica del Perú, hereinafter “the telecommunications company”) is a multinational enterprise that operates in the country through subcontracting networks that perform activities essential to the provision of communications and related services (including logistics, customer services and human resources); (ii) SITENTEL Perú represents both workers directly employed by the telecommunications company and those employed within its production chain or subcontracting network, in accordance with section 4 of the Single Consolidated Text of the Collective Labour Relations Act (LRCT), which was adopted by Supreme Decree No. 010-2023-TR; (iii) since November 2023, several enterprises that form part of the alleged subcontracting network serving the telecommunications company have broadly refused to engage in direct bargaining concerning SITENTEL Perú’s list of demands for the 2023–24 and 2024–25 periods and have refused to negotiate, maintaining a consistent and coordinated position of not recognizing the trade union as a legitimate negotiating partner; (iv) these enterprises maintain close economic and administrative ties with the telecommunications company and perform tasks that are essential to telecommunications operations, based on a model of productive decentralization under which activities that are key to the telecommunications company are outsourced to other enterprises in a coordinated manner; (v) although the labour authority – the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion (MTPE) – has recognized SITENTEL Perú’s legal standing to negotiate and initiated an administrative collective bargaining procedure, its response has been passive and insufficient, and it has failed to adopt effective measures to safeguard the right to collective bargaining in the face of the enterprises’ violations and their refusal to negotiate; and (vi) the LRCT is in need of a major structural reform as it contains shortcomings and regulatory gaps that undermine collective bargaining and freedom of association.
2. 264. The complainant organizations further allege that, since October 2023, enterprises that form part of the alleged subcontracting network (BrightCell Logistic S.A.C., hereinafter “Enterprise 1”; Telefónica Ingeniería de Seguridad Perú S.A.C., hereinafter “Enterprise 2 “; TGestiona Servicios Globales S.A.C., hereinafter “Enterprise 3”; Teleatento del Perú S.A.C., hereinafter “Enterprise 4”; Cobra Perú S.A., hereinafter “Enterprise 5”; Gestión de Servicios Compartidos S.A.C. – VALTX, hereinafter “Enterprise 6”; and Telefónica Servicios Comerciales, hereinafter “Enterprise 7”) have engaged in a range of anti-union practices, including: (i) making promotions and pay increases conditional on workers withdrawing their trade union membership (Enterprise 2); (ii) imposing a temporary suspension of the employment contracts of 19 workers who are members of SITENTEL Perú, with the intention of seeking administrative approval for a collective redundancy on economic grounds, a measure affecting only unionized workers (Enterprise 1); the complainant organizations state that the administrative labour authority rejected at all levels the application for a collective redundancy on economic grounds in relation to the workers affected by the temporary suspension of employment contracts and that the application was also rejected by the 25th Specialized Labour Court of the High Court of Justice, which upheld the administrative decisions; however, the MTPE has not taken effective action in response, such as ordering the reinstatement of workers, ensuring the payment of wages, or conducting enforcement measures or inspections; (iii) dismissing workers on the basis of their trade union membership (Enterprises 3 and 6); (iv) applying wage discrimination against unionized workers transferred from subcontracted enterprises to the telecommunications company, by failing to include a bonus in their basic salary; (v) refusing to grant trade union leave to Ms Azucena Vásquez, a member of SITENTEL Perú’s negotiating committee and then dismissing her in retaliation for her trade union activities (Enterprise 6); the complainant organizations note that legal proceedings challenging her unfair dismissal are ongoing; (vi) refusal to deduct union dues (companies 3 and 6); and (vii) the telecommunications company reinstated unionized workers who were unfairly dismissed, but continues to pay them lower wages than other employees performing equivalent duties.
3. 265. Lastly, the complainant organizations allege that, despite repeated requests by SITENTEL Perú, the MTPE has taken a passive approach and has failed to take effective measures to facilitate negotiations and prevent delays. They claim that tools such as inspections through the National Labour Inspection Supervisory Authority (SUNAFIL) have not been used, thereby enabling enterprises that form part of the alleged subcontracting network to evade their obligations.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 266. In its communications of 22 January and 17 March 2026, the Government provides details of the action taken by the MTPE and the inspections carried out by SUNAFIL in relation to the allegations made in this case. In addition, the Government forwards the information provided by the enterprises concerned regarding the allegations. According to the information provided by the Government:
   • • Regarding the collective redundancy of 19 workers, Enterprise 1 states that the General Labour Directorate rejected the application for collective dismissal and that the enterprise filed an administrative appeal with the 25th Specialized Labour Court of the High Court of Justice of Lima. It further states that 5 of the workers involved were dismissed on other grounds and that 14 have been temporarily suspended from work since September 2023.
   • • The telecommunications company states that the complainant organizations have not demonstrated the existence of any subcontracting agreements in force between it and the other enterprises mentioned in the case and that there is no evidence showing that the alleged subcontracted enterprises are carrying out activities for the benefit of the company as part of an interconnected process. Neither is there any evidence showing that any dependency or organizational linkage exists between the company and those enterprises. Furthermore, it reports that various court decisions have confirmed the validity of the outsourcing arrangements with these enterprises, which are established as independent entities. The telecommunications company states that, for this reason, SITENTEL Perú does not have the legal standing to negotiate at the sectoral level or under the supply chain or subcontracting network model. It also reports that it has signed multiple collective agreements directly with SITENTEL Perú concerning its own workers. Regarding the allegations of wage discrimination, it states that there is no collective agreement requiring the incorporation of the bonus into the basic salary and that, with regard to the workers reinstated by court order, the decisions themselves established the conditions for reinstatement, including in relation to remuneration.
   • • Enterprise 2 states that SITENTEL Perú does not have the legal standing to engage in collective bargaining at the enterprise level, as only seven of its employees are members of that union, and that the enterprise does not belong to the telecommunications sector, thus precluding bargaining at the sectoral level. Furthermore, it rejects the allegations that promotions and pay increases were made conditional on members withdrawing their union membership.
   • • Enterprise 3 states that it does not recognize SITENTEL Perú as a trade union with bargaining rights, on the grounds that the enterprise neither belongs to the telecommunications sector nor forms part of a subcontracting network. For the same reasons, it considers that it is not required to deduct union dues from employees that are members of that union, as the union’s scope of activity does not align with that of the enterprise. Furthermore, it rejects the allegations of anti-union dismissals.
   • • Enterprise 4 states that it does not recognize SITENTEL Perú as a trade union with bargaining rights, on the grounds that the union does not have the number of members that it considers necessary to engage in collective bargaining at the enterprise level.
   • • Enterprise 5 states that only one of its employees is a member of SITENTEL Perú and that the union is not mentioned in the court decision ordering the mandatory deduction of union dues.
   • • Enterprise 6 states that it does not belong to the telecommunications sector and that neither is it part of the same business group as the telecommunications company. It further states that SITENTEL Perú does not have the legal standing to engage in collective bargaining and neither is it authorized to represent the enterprise’s workers. For the same reason, it considers that it is not required to deduct union dues or grant union leave to the union’s members. Furthermore, it rejects the allegations of anti-union dismissals.
2. 267. With regard to the allegations concerning the refusal to engage in collective bargaining and the actions of the MTPE, the Government informs that:
   • • In connection with Case No. 59510-2023, SITENTEL Perú submitted its list of demands for the 2023–24 period and requested the initiation of a collective bargaining procedure with the enterprises that form part of the alleged subcontracting network. In April 2024, a decision was taken to formally open the collective bargaining procedure and the case was forwarded to the Collective Bargaining Subdirectorate of the MTPE for the relevant processing.
   • • On 28 October 2024, SITENTEL Perú requested that informal conciliation meetings be held in response to the failure by the enterprises to engage in collective bargaining, despite the decisions issued by the administrative labour authority on 12 April and 22 May 2024 ordering them to do so. The meetings convened between November 2024 and January 2026 were attended only by the trade union representatives. To date, the conciliation process is still ongoing, and another meeting was scheduled for 30 January 2026.
   • • In the context of this case, the enterprises concerned have refused to engage in collective bargaining with SITENTEL Perú, asserting that: (i) their activities do not fall within the telecommunications sector and they are not part of a subcontracting network; and (ii) SITENTEL Perú lacks the legal standing to negotiate and does not represent a sufficient number of workers to enable it to bargain with the enterprises at either the sectoral or the enterprise levels, in accordance with section 47 of the Single Consolidated Text of the LRCT.
   • • The administrative labour authority responded to the arguments put forward by the enterprises to justify their refusal to negotiate with SITENTEL Perú, stating that the representation criteria set out in section 47 of the Single Consolidated Text of the LRCT should not be understood to be an exhaustive or restrictive list that excludes other bargaining levels or units. It further states that, in the event of any opposition to collective bargaining, the labour administration has the authority to issue a technical opinion; however, such an opinion does not constitute an administrative act. In practice, the role of the administrative labour authority is to promote and support collective bargaining, but not to intervene in a decision-making capacity or impose conditions, as the content of any agreement is a matter exclusively for the parties involved.
3. 268. With regard to the inspections carried out by SUNAFIL in connection with the allegations in this case, the Government informs that:
   • • With regard to the refusal to engage in collective bargaining with SITENTEL Perú, SUNAFIL identified conduct by several of the enterprises concerned that might constitute violations of freedom of association. In the case of Enterprise 1, a refusal to provide information on economic, financial and labour matters in the context of the collective bargaining procedure was confirmed, leading to the issuance of an infringement notice; the corresponding sanctioning proceedings are currently under way. As for Enterprise 3, inspections were carried out in 2025 to obtain information previously requested by the General Labour Directorate. Regarding the telecommunications company, a refusal to provide information on economic, financial and labour matters in the context of the collective bargaining case was also confirmed. Inspections conducted in 2024 proved inconclusive and the initiation of a new inspection process was therefore recommended.
   • • Following the refusal by Enterprises 3 and 6 to deduct union dues, infringement notices were issued and fines were imposed. Enterprise 3 was fined 30,282.00 soles, while Enterprise 6 received a fine of 40,556.25 soles. Appeals against these sanctions were rejected and the fines are currently the subject of enforced collection proceedings.
   • • With regard to the allegations of anti-union dismissals affecting both trade union officials and workers on account of their union membership in Enterprise 6, it is noted that a report regarding unfair dismissal was issued on 28 May 2024. Concerning the allegations that members of SITENTEL Perú’s negotiating committee were denied trade union leave during the 2020–21 period, the enterprise was sanctioned with a fine of 36,018.00 soles. An appeal lodged against this sanction was rejected and the fine is currently the subject of enforced collection proceedings.
   • • With regard to the 19 alleged anti-union dismissals attributed to Enterprise 1, which the enterprise justified as a temporary suspension of employment contracts on economic grounds, SUNAFIL informs, first of all, that the matter was subject to legal proceedings and that it does not have the competence to enforce the decision issued in that respect by the 25th Specialized Labour Court of the High Court of Justice of Lima. Secondly, it indicates that its Labour Inspections Unit has issued a statement of charges against the enterprise, with a view to verifying compliance with regulations on collective relations and freedom of association, and that the notification process is currently under way.
   • • With regard to making promotions and pay increases conditional on withdrawal from the trade union (Enterprise 2) and the failure to incorporate bonuses into the basic salary of workers directly employed by the telecommunications company, there is no record of any proceedings specifically related to these allegations.
4. 269. With regard to the dismissal of trade union official Ms Azucena Vásquez, the Government informs that, in accordance with Peruvian legislation, the judiciary is the competent authority to determine whether the dismissal was lawful and that the case is pending a final decision.
5. 270. Lastly, the Government indicates that a sectoral working group was set up to promote due diligence procedures in the context of collective labour rights within supply chains, led by the Technical Secretariat of the National Council for Labour and Employment Promotion (CNTPE), with the aim of strengthening collective bargaining procedures at the level of subcontracting networks and supply chains.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 271. The Committee notes that the present case concerns allegations of violations of freedom of association by enterprises that are said to form part of a subcontracting network in the telecommunications sector, as well as refusal by those enterprises to engage in collective bargaining with SITENTEL Perú at the subcontracting network and supply chain levels. The Committee observes that, for its part, the Government refers to various inspections carried out by SUNAFIL in relation to the anti-union acts alleged in the present case and, with regard to the list of demands submitted by SITENTEL Perú, informs that the labour administration is fully exercising its role in promoting collective bargaining. Lastly, the Committee observes that, according to the information provided by the Government, the enterprises concerned deny having committed anti-union acts and oppose the list of demands submitted by SITENTEL Perú on the grounds that they deny the existence of the subcontracting network in question.
2. 272. The Committee takes note of the allegations made by the complainant organizations, according to which: (i) SITENTEL Perú represents workers employed by a multinational company in the telecommunications sector and by enterprises that form part of the company’s production chain or service subcontracting network, in accordance with section 4 of the Single Consolidated Text of the LRCT; (ii) since November 2023, SITENTEL Perú has sought to engage in direct bargaining regarding its list of demands with several of these enterprises which, according to the union, provide services to the telecommunications company under a subcontracting network model and which have refused to negotiate, as they do not recognize the union as a legitimate negotiating partner; (iii) the telecommunications company and the enterprises that form part of the subcontracting network engage in various anti-union practices against the members and officials of SITENTEL Perú; and (iv) Peruvian legislation must be reformed to ensure the effective protection of collective bargaining and freedom of association.
3. 273. The Committee further notes that the complainant organizations state that the alleged anti-union practices include: (i) making promotions and pay increases conditional on workers withdrawing their trade union membership; (ii) ceasing to deduct trade union dues from workers affiliated to SITENTEL Perú; (iii) imposing a collective redundancy solely on workers belonging to SITENTEL Perú; (iv) dismissing workers on account of their trade union membership; (v) applying wage discrimination against unionized workers and workers who have been reinstated by court order; and (vi) refusing to grant trade union leave to, and subsequently dismissing, Ms Azucena Vásquez, a member of SITENTEL Perú’s negotiating committee.
4. 274. The Committee notes that the complainant organizations also allege that the MTPE has failed to take effective measures to promote collective bargaining and to curb the anti-union practices supposedly perpetrated by the telecommunications company and the enterprises in its alleged subcontracting network.
5. 275. The Committee also takes note of the information provided by the Government in its communications, stating with regard to the collective bargaining procedures that: (i) an administrative collective bargaining procedure was initiated following the submission of the list of demands by SITENTEL Perú for the 2023–24 and 2024–25 periods, which was referred to the competent authority within the MTPE (the Collective Bargaining Subdirectorate); (ii) in view of the refusal by the enterprises concerned to negotiate, conciliation meetings have been convened since 2024, which have been attended only by the trade union; (iii) the enterprises concerned challenged the union’s legal standing to engage in collective bargaining and the scope of its representation, on the grounds that the subcontracting network referred to by the union does not exist. In this regard, the administrative labour authority stated in communications to these enterprises that the representation criteria set out in Peruvian legislation should not be understood to be an exhaustive or restrictive list that excludes other bargaining levels or units; (iv) the role of the administrative labour authority is to promote and support collective bargaining, but not to intervene in a decision-making capacity in these processes; and (v) the CNTPE established a sectoral working group to propose measures to promote due diligence in the context of collective labour rights within supply chains in Peru.
6. 276. The Committee also notes that, according to the information provided by the Government, the telecommunications company states that: (i) it fully respects freedom of association; (ii) there is no subcontracting network linking it to the other enterprises mentioned in the present case; and (iii) it maintains a constructive relationship with SITENTEL Perú, which is part of the Coordinating Body for Trade Unions of Workers in the Telecommunications Sector (CST) and with which it has engaged in bargaining and concluded several collective agreements at the enterprise level.
7. 277. Regarding the enterprises concerned which, according to the complainant organizations, are part of a subcontracting network together with the telecommunications company, the Committee notes that, according to the information provided by the Government, these enterprises: (i) claim that SITENTEL Perú does not have the legal standing to engage in collective bargaining, whether at the enterprise level (on the grounds that the union does not have enough members), the sectoral level (on the grounds that they do not belong to the telecommunications sector) or the subcontracting network level; and (ii) reject the allegations of anti-union practices.
8. 278. The Committee also takes note of the information provided by the Government on the outcomes of inspections and the status of the administrative proceedings by SUNAFIL in respect of violations relating to collective relations and freedom of association, including in relation to: (i) the refusal to deduct trade union dues (fines were imposed on Enterprises 3 and 6); (ii) the refusal to provide information for administrative collective bargaining proceedings with the MTPE (inspections are currently under way in relation to the telecommunications company and Enterprises 1 and 3); (iii) the collective redundancy of 19 workers who are members of SITENTEL Perú (Enterprise 1 – final administrative decisions were issued by the MTPE and the corresponding court decision was handed down rejecting the collective redundancy); and (iv) the refusal to grant trade union leave to members of SITENTEL Perú’s negotiating committee (a fine was imposed on Enterprise 6, which is the subject of enforced collection proceedings).
9. 279. The Committee takes note of these various points. The Committee notes that SITENTEL Perú: (i) is an organization that has been active for several decades in the telecommunications sector and which, following several amendments to its statutes, has successively been established as an industry-specific trade union, a sectoral trade union and, lastly, a production chain or subcontracting network trade union, following the amendment of the Single Consolidated Text of the LRCT under Decree No. 0014 of 2022; (ii) has concluded, together with a trade union coordinating body, several enterprise-level collective agreements with the telecommunications company, the most recent being in 2024; and (iii ) over the years, it has repeatedly attempted to negotiate at levels higher than the enterprise level, and in the course of these attempts it has lodged several complaints that have been examined by the Committee. The Committee also notes that it follows from current Peruvian legislation, as currently interpreted and applied by the competent authorities, that: (i) collective bargaining may take place at various levels, and that the levels expressly specified in legislation (sector and enterprise) do not preclude the possibility of bargaining at other levels; (ii) while majority trade unions negotiate on behalf of all workers in the bargaining unit, minority trade unions may negotiate on behalf of their own members; (iii) while there is a general obligation to negotiate, it is for the parties to decide, by mutual agreement, the level at which they will engage in collective bargaining; any disagreement regarding the level of collective bargaining must be resolved through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms; (iv) in the event of any opposition to collective bargaining, the labour administration has the authority to issue a technical opinion, which does not, however, constitute an administrative act; and (v) in this context, the labour administration acts to promote free and voluntary collective bargaining and to encourage the parties to reach agreement on the bargaining level, but it does not take a position on whether the level proposed by the different parties is appropriate; as provided for in legislation, it is for the relevant tribunal to settle disputes on the bargaining level, should the workers choose to resort to arbitration in that regard.
10. 280. The Committee recalls that the determination of the bargaining level is essentially a matter to be left to the discretion of the parties (see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 1406). The Committee observes that, in the present case, the main obstacle to the advancement of the collective bargaining process that started with the submission of SITENTEL Perú’s list of demands lies in a disagreement over the existence of a subcontracting network according to Peruvian law. In this regard, while it notes that the administrative authority informed the enterprises concerned that the relevant legislative provisions do not preclude the possibility of bargaining at that level, the Committee is not aware of any public authority having ruled on the disputed existence of a subcontracting network. As previously mentioned, the Committee understands that, under the current legislation and practice, it would fall to an arbitration tribunal responsible for ruling on lists of demands to determine whether or not the subcontracting network exists.
11. 281. In the light of the foregoing, and noting the existence of a CNTPE working group aimed at improving the collective bargaining procedure at the subcontracting network and supply chain levels, the Committee invites the Government, in consultation with the social partners and with a view to facilitating a consensus-based determination of the bargaining level by the social partners concerned, to establish an agile mechanism to determine whether or not a subcontracting network exists in the event of a dispute on the matter. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard, as well as of the outcome of the collective bargaining process at issue in the present case.
12. 282. With regard to several of the allegations of anti-union practices, the Committee notes that inspections took place, and that infringement notices were issued and fines were imposed on different enterprises. The Committee trusts that these decisions will contribute to full respect for freedom of association in the enterprises concerned and, in particular, to respect for the right of workers to join the trade union of their own choosing. Furthermore, the Committee observes that administrative proceedings are still ongoing regarding alleged violations in the areas of collective labour relations and freedom of association. The Committee also observes that, according to the information provided by the parties, final judicial decisions are still pending in the cases concerning the dismissal of Ms Azucena Vásquez, a union member and member of the negotiating committee of SITENTEL Perú, and concerning the application for a collective redundancy affecting members of the trade union. The Committee trusts that the relevant administrative and judicial bodies will decide on the pending cases without delay and that their decisions will take due account of the principle of freedom of association. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 283. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee invites the Government, in consultation with the social partners and with a view to facilitating the choice of the bargaining level by the social partners concerned, to establish an agile mechanism to determine whether or not a subcontracting network exists in the event of a dispute on the matter. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard, as well as of the outcome of the collective bargaining process at issue in the present case.
   • (b) With regard to the allegations of anti-union practices, the Committee trusts that the decisions already taken by National Labour Inspection Supervisory Authority (SUNAFIL) will contribute to full respect for freedom of association in the enterprises concerned and, in particular, to respect for the right of workers to join the trade union of their own choosing. The Committee also trusts that the relevant administrative and judicial bodies will decide on the pending cases without delay and their respective decisions will take due account of the principle of freedom of association. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.