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
- 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.
- 261. The Government sent its observations on the allegations in
communications of 22 January and 17 March 2026.
- 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
A. The complainant’s allegations- 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.
- 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.
- 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
B. The Government’s reply- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
C. The Committee’s conclusions- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
The Committee’s recommendations- 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.
