Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 412, Novembre 2025

Cas no 3477 (Pérou) - Date de la plainte: 04-JUIN -24 - En suivi

Allegations: the complainants allege the recent adoption by the Government of two decrees and an act that would impose various limitations on the right to collective bargaining in the public sector, as well as non-compliance with collective agreements in two municipalities

1. 479. The complaint is contained in three communications from the Base – Melgar – Ayaviri – Puno Union of Municipal Workers (SITRAMUN) dated 23 March 2023, and 4 March and 23 September 2024, and in two communications from the Confederation of Peruvian Municipal Workers (CTMP) dated 4 June 2024 and 30 June 2025.
2. 480. The Government of Peru sent its observations on the allegations in two communications dated 13 January and 10 September 2025.
3. 481. 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), and the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

A. The complainants’ allegations

1. 482. In their communications dated 23 March 2023, and 4 March, 4 June and 23 September 2024, the complainants allege that Supreme Decree No. 008-2022-PCM, which approved guidelines for the implementation of Act No. 31188 on Collective Bargaining in the State Sector, limits the right to collective bargaining in the public sector. In particular, they state that by virtue of section 10.1 of the aforementioned decree, if there is more than one union in a municipality, ministry or regional government body, the negotiations must be carried out with the majority union, which discriminates against minority unions.
2. 483. The complainants indicate that a class action was presented against the Presidency of the Council of Ministers in this regard and that the judiciary determined that: (i) the aforementioned section should be amended and plurality in collective bargaining proceedings should be respected; and (ii) if there are multiple trade unions, the majority union should negotiate salaries on everybody’s behalf and the other unions can negotiate working conditions individually. According to the complainants, since then, the National Civil Service Authority (SERVIR) has issued contradictory reports on this matter.
3. 484. In addition, the complainants allege that Supreme Decree No. 008-2022-PCM promotes the interference of the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) in the collective bargaining process. They maintain that while Supreme Decree No. 070-85-PCM (repealed in 2014) was in force, collective bargaining had a constitutional limit, as the Constitutional Court of Peru established ceilings that exceeded the budget of the public bodies, but under Supreme Decree No. 008 2022-PCM, the reports and limits established by the MEF must be respected.
4. 485. The complainants state that the aforementioned bodies use these limits during collective bargaining to argue that there is no budget to increase salaries and that this point cannot be negotiated. They also maintain that workers’ organizations are systematically denied prior access to any information about the budget situation of the public bodies with which they are negotiating. As a result, on several occasions, they wait months to comply with the legal deadlines and obtain authorization to begin collective bargaining, but in the end, their efforts do not result in any agreement or wage increase.
5. 486. In addition, the complainants allege non-compliance with collective agreements by public bodies. In particular, they state that in 2022, SITRAMUN went through a collective bargaining process with the Melgar – Ayaviri Provincial Municipality and the collective bargaining agreement for 2023 was approved, with a minimal increase in remuneration. However, there was a change of authority, and the new administration of the municipality refused to recognize the approved agreement, arguing that the negotiations took place before the issuance of the aforementioned Supreme Decree No. 008-2022-PCM, which establishes the guidelines for collective bargaining.
6. 487. The complainants report that, on 7 September 2023, SITRAMUN lodged a complaint with the municipal authority requesting the implementation of the benefits of that collective bargaining, but did not receive any response. They also point out that when the aforementioned negotiations took place, Act No. 31188 on Collective Bargaining in the State Sector was already in force.
7. 488. Similarly, the complainants maintain that, through a process of collective bargaining carried out in 2022 under Act No. 31188, the Unified Union of Municipal Workers of Santa Anita (SUTRAMUNSA) signed a conciliation agreement with the district Municipality of Santa Anita before the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion (MTPE). Nonetheless, they assert that the municipality did not comply with this agreement, which should have been implemented in January 2023 and provided economic benefits and improved working conditions.
8. 489. Moreover, the complainants allege that Emergency Degree No. 006-2024, which was issued on 23 March 2024 and established extraordinary economic and financial measures for fiscal sustainability, budgetary equilibrium and efficiency in public spending, makes collective bargaining around economic working conditions impossible indefinitely. They make particular reference to section 18 of the aforementioned Decree, which provides that, during the year 2024, in processes at the decentralized level, “collective agreements and conciliation agreements that are signed can only contain clauses that establish employment or working conditions with an economic impact of a temporary nature”.
9. 490. In addition, the complainants state that section 28 of Act No. 32103, which was published on 26 July 2024 and approved supplementary credits to finance higher spending associated with the economic recovery and outlined other measures, introduced another prohibition relating to the right to collective bargaining, by establishing that, in processes at the decentralized level in the state sector, “only employment or working conditions with no economic impact are negotiable matters”. According to the complainants, the low salaries of public sector workers combined with the large increase in the cost of living in 2024 have considerably reduced their purchasing power.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 491. In its communications dated 13 January and 10 September 2025, the Government indicates that 2 May 2021 saw the publication of Act No. 3188 on Collective Bargaining in the State Sector, which aims to regulate the exercise of the right to collective bargaining for organizations of state workers. They add that on 20 January 2022, guidelines for the implementation of this law were published, approved by Supreme Decree No. 008-2022-PCM. According to the Government, these guidelines have clarified the provisions of Act No. 31188 in order for it to be implemented appropriately and efficiently, and enabled various collective agreements to come into force, including matters with an economic impact and increases in remuneration for public servants.
2. 492. With regard to its system of representation in collective bargaining, the Government confirms that, at the decentralized level, in a scenario with a number of different trade union organizations, where a majority organization exists, that one will be empowered to exercise the right of collective bargaining. It also maintains that its legal system provides objective, specific and previously established criteria to determine the representativeness of a trade union organization, making particular reference to section 9 of Act No. 31188, and that there is therefore no discrimination.
3. 493. With regard to Supreme Decree No. 008-2022-PCM, the Government states that its section 10.1 is currently suspended due to a preventive measure granted by the Eighth Permanent Labour Court of Lima that stems from a class action case. However, it points out that this is a court order that has not amended or repealed the provisions of the aforementioned section.
4. 494. In this regard, the Government also states that SERVIR issued a technical opinion on legitimacy to negotiate at the decentralized level. It maintains that, in this opinion, there are possible scenarios outlined where there are a number of minority trade unions, and if there is no majority union, these could be empowered if they present a draft collective agreement within the legally established deadline.
5. 495. Likewise, the Government states that, by means of Ministerial Resolution No. 060-2025-TR, a Multisectoral Working Group was created, composed of representatives of the MTPE and SERVIR, with a view to assessing the functionality of the Register of Trade Union Organizations of Public Servants and the information on the electronic list of state workers’ union affiliation, and to put into effect proposed improvements in that regard, within the framework of the standards that govern collective relations in the public sector.
6. 496. The Government states that this group is addressing structural issues relating to the quality, consistency and availability of information about union affiliation, as well as its impact on the processes for verifying the legitimacy and representativeness of trade union organizations in the context of collective bargaining in the public sector. It maintains that the results and recommendations produced by this group will enable the process of union accreditation to be made more traceable and more technically sound.
7. 497. With regard to the MEF reports on budget availability, the Government states that it is obliged to look after the general public interest, and it needs to harmonize the demands stemming from the fundamental right to collective bargaining and the principle of budget equilibrium. It affirms that for many years the Peruvian legal system has considered issuing reports to analyse the cost of draft collective agreements and guarantee their budget viability.
8. 498. The Government reports that currently, by virtue of section 13 of Supreme Decree No. 008 2022-PCM, in the context of collective bargaining in the state sector, employers must draw up a report that details the cost of implementing a draft collective agreement and their available budget, taking into account a final report on the status of the financial administration of the public sector, drawn up by the MEF, which determines the fiscal space for the implementation of collective bargaining processes. In this regard, the Government also makes reference to a Constitutional Court ruling that determined that the establishment of a negotiable maximum is a legitimate restriction on the exercise of the fundamental right to collective bargaining.
9. 499. With regard to the alleged non-compliance with collective agreements, the Government notes that article 28 of the Political Constitution of Peru establishes the binding force of the collective agreement. It affirms that the nullity of a collective agreement can only be determined by a judicial body and not by a public entity. The Government also maintains that it has respected the competency of judicial bodies to dispense justice with respect to the interpretation and implementation of collective agreements.
10. 500. With regard to negotiable matters and budgetary restrictions, the Government states that section 4 of Act No. 31188 and section 6 of Supreme Decree No. 008-2022-PCM establish that the determination of every kind of employment and working conditions, including remuneration and other conditions that have an economic impact, are subject to collective bargaining. However, it also indicates that the Constitutional Court has signalled that the ability to bargain collectively for wage increases does not mean that this right cannot be restricted in exceptional circumstances, as long as those limitations are responding to objective causes, are reasonable and proportional, and do not apply to all negotiable matters, only those that are strictly necessary.
11. 501. The Government states that in this context Emergency Decree No. 006-2024 was issued, which in section 18 provides that, in collective bargaining processes at the decentralized level, clauses that establish employment or working conditions that have an economic impact can indeed be agreed, but that these must be temporary in nature. It also affirms that it is important to take into consideration what is indicated in the explanation of motivations that supported this Decree, pointing out in particular that: (i) in 2024, the annual fiscal deficit was above the fiscal target; and (ii) since 2022, collective agreements with an economic impact of a permanent nature which had not adhered to the budgetary viability for their implementation had been adopted, and this involved a significant fiscal impact in the context of the national economy in a period of recession. Therefore, it states that the provisions of the aforementioned Decree responded specifically to a temporary budgetary need, supported by the MEF, and applied solely to the year 2024.
12. 502. In addition, the Government confirms that section 28 of Act No. 32103 introduced the restriction alleged by the complainants, by prohibiting the negotiation of employment or working conditions with an economic impact at the decentralized level in the public sector. However, it states that on 28 December 2024, Act No. 32216 was passed, which repealed the aforementioned section.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 503. The Committee observes that, in the present case, the complainants allege that certain provisions of Supreme Decree No. 008-2022-PCM, Emergency Decree No. 006-2024 and Act No. 32103 restrict the right to collective bargaining in the public sector, and that the Provincial Municipality of Melgar – Ayaviri and the District Municipality of Santa Anita did not comply with collective agreements concluded shortly before the adoption of Supreme Decree No. 008-2022-PCM. The Committee also takes note that the Government, for its part, affirms that the measures included in the aforementioned decrees were justified, that Emergency Decree No. 006-2024 and Act No. 32103 only took effect in 2024, and that dispensing justice with respect to the implementation of collective agreements falls under the competence of the judicial bodies.
2. 504. With regard to Supreme Decree No. 008-2022-PCM, which approved guidelines for the implementation of Act No. 31188 on Collective Bargaining in the State Sector, the Committee takes note that the complainants allege that: (i) its section 10.1, which establishes that if there is more than one trade union organization in a particular field of negotiation, the negotiations must be carried out with the majority organization, discriminates against minority unions; (ii) following the presentation of a class action in this regard, the judiciary determined that the section should be amended and that, in such cases, the majority organization should negotiate the wage component on everybody’s behalf, but the other unions could negotiate working conditions individually; and (iii) since then, SERVIR has issued contradictory reports on this matter.
3. 505. The Committee also notes that the Government, for its part, maintains that: (i) section 10.1 of Supreme Decree No. 008-2022-PCM is currently suspended by virtue of a preventive measure authorized by the Eighth Permanent Labour Court of Lima, but it has not been amended or repealed; (ii) section 9 of Act No. 31188 provides objective, specific and previously established criteria to determine the representativeness of trade union organizations, so there is no discrimination; (iii) in a technical opinion issued by SERVIR, the right of minority trade unions to bargain collectively, if there is no majority union, was recognized; and (iv) a Multisectoral Working Group, created in 2025 and composed of representatives of the MTPE and SERVIR, is addressing structural issues relating to the quality, consistency and availability of information about trade union affiliation, as well as its impact on the processes for verifying the legitimacy and representativeness of trade union organizations in the context of collective bargaining in the public sector, and it will issue recommendations that will enable the process of union accreditation to be made more traceable and more technically sound.
4. 506. The Committee takes note of the opposing views of the parties with respect to the role that minority unions should play in collective bargaining, as well as the preventive measure that suspended the application of section 10.1 of Supreme Decree No. 008-2022-PCM following the submission of a class action. In this regard, the Committee recalls that systems based on a sole bargaining agent (the most representative) and those which include all organizations or the most representative organizations in accordance with clear pre-established criteria for the determination of the organizations entitled to bargain are both compatible with Convention No. 98 [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 1360]. The Committee notes that section 9 of Act No. 31188 contains provisions relating to the determination of representativeness. Taking note of the creation of the aforementioned Multisectoral Working Group, the Committee trusts that, in full consultation with the interested social partners, the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure the functioning of a reliable mechanism to verify trade union representativeness in collective bargaining. The Committee also requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the class action presented in relation to section 10.1 of Supreme Decree No. 008-2022-PCM.
5. 507. In addition, the Committee takes note that the complainants also allege that: (i) Supreme Decree No. 008-2022-PCM promotes the interference of the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) in the collective bargaining process, as the public bodies use the reports and limits it establishes to refuse to negotiate salary increases; and (ii) workers’ organizations are systematically denied prior access to any information about the budget situation of the bodies with which they are negotiating. The Committee also takes note that the Government affirms that: (i) in accordance with section 13 of Supreme Decree No. 008-2022-PCM, public employers must draw up a report that details the cost of implementing a draft collective agreement and their available budget, taking into account a report on the status of the financial administration, drawn up by the MEF, which determines the fiscal space for the implementation of collective bargaining processes; and (ii) the establishment of a negotiable maximum is a legitimate restriction of the right to collective bargaining.
6. 508. The Committee recalls that, with regard to the requirement that draft collective agreements in the public sector must be accompanied by a preliminary opinion on their financial implications issued by the financial authorities, and not by the public body or enterprise concerned, it noted that it was aware that collective bargaining in the public sector called for verification of the available resources in the various public bodies or undertakings, that such resources were dependent on state budgets and that the period of duration of collective agreements in the public sector did not always coincide with the duration of the State Budgetary Law – a situation which could give rise to difficulties. The body issuing the above opinion could also formulate recommendations in line with government economic policy or seek to ensure that the collective bargaining process did not give rise to any discrimination in the working conditions of the employees in different public institutions or undertakings. Provision should therefore be made for a mechanism which ensured that, in the collective bargaining process in the public sector, both trade union organizations and the employers and their associations were consulted and could express their points of view to the authority responsible for assessing the financial consequences of draft collective agreements. Nevertheless, notwithstanding any opinion submitted by the financial authorities, the parties to collective bargaining should be able to conclude an agreement freely [see Compilation, para. 1488]. The Committee also recalls that, with regard to the principle relating to the fixing of wage ceilings, it was of the opinion that it was vital for workers and their organizations to have the possibility of participating fully and significantly in the determination of this wider bargaining framework. That would mean their having access to all financial, budgetary or other information to allow them to assess the situation in full knowledge of the facts [see Compilation, para. 1487]. In line with the above, and recalling that it has had the opportunity to examine this matter in previous cases relating to collective bargaining in the public sector in Peru (Case No. 2639, 355th Report, para. 1013; Case No. 3026, 374th Report, para. 658), the Committee requests the Government to 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 concerned 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.
7. 509. With regard to Emergency Decree No. 006-2024 and Act No. 32103, the Committee takes note that the complainants maintain that: (i) section 18 of the aforementioned Decree (adopted in March 2024) provides that collective agreements and conciliation agreements that are signed at the decentralized level in 2024 can only establish employment or working conditions with an economic impact of a temporary nature; (ii) section 28 of the aforementioned Act (adopted in July 2024) establishes that in collective bargaining processes at the decentralized level, only employment or working conditions with no economic impact are negotiable matters, and (iii) the low salaries of public sector workers combined with a large increase in the cost of living in 2024 have resulted in considerably reduced purchasing power. The Committee also takes note that the Government states that: (i) Emergency Decree No. 006-2024 was motivated by temporary budgetary reasons, and applied solely to 2024; (ii) these reasons included the annual fiscal deficit which was above the fiscal target for the year, as well as the adoption of collective agreements with a permanent economic impact which had not adhered to the budgetary viability necessary in the context of a recession; and (iii) section 28 of Act No. 32103 was repealed on 28 December 2024.
8. 510. The Committee takes note that, on the one hand, the Government states that the aforementioned provisions were adopted for economic reasons and only took effect in 2024, and on the other, the complainants affirm that the purchasing power of public sector workers was reduced considerably during that year. While it is not its role to express an opinion on the suitability of the economic arguments presented by the Government to justify its legislative intervention with a view to restricting collective bargaining, the Committee recalls that if, as part of its stabilization policy, a government considers that wage rates cannot be settled freely through collective bargaining, such a restriction should be imposed as an exceptional measure and only to the extent that is necessary, without exceeding a reasonable period, and it should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers’ living standards [see Compilation, para. 1456]. The Committee expects the Government to take appropriate measures to ensure that exceptional measures restricting collective bargaining in the public sector are imposed only to the extent that is necessary, without exceeding a reasonable period, and are accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers’ living standards.
9. 511. With regard to the alleged non-compliance with collective agreements, the Committee takes note that the complainants state that: (i) in 2022, SITRAMUN and the Melgar – Ayaviri Provincial Municipality signed a collective bargaining agreement for 2023, which included a wage increase; (ii) following a change of administration, the municipality refused to recognize the agreement, arguing that the negotiations had taken place before Supreme Decree No. 008-2022-PCM was issued; (iii) SITRAMUN lodged a complaint with the municipal authority that did not receive any response; (iv) in 2022, in the framework of collective bargaining processes, SUTRAMUNSA and the District Municipality of Santa Anita signed a conciliation agreement which provided economic benefits and improved working conditions; and (v) the municipality did not comply with this agreement, which should have been implemented in 2023. The Committee takes note that the Government, for its part, states that: (i) a public entity cannot determine the nullity of a collective agreement; and (ii) it has respected the competency of judicial bodies to dispense justice in this regard.
10. 512. Noting that the Government does not deny the allegations or make any reference to the possible illegality of the agreements mentioned by the complainants, the Committee recalls that mutual respect for the commitment undertaken in collective agreements is an important element of the right to bargain collectively and should be upheld in order to establish labour relations on stable and firm ground [see Compilation, para. 1336] and that agreements should be binding on the parties [see Compilation, para. 1334]. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to enforce the collective agreements signed by SITRAMUN and the Melgar – Ayaviri Provincial Municipality, and by SUTRAMUNSA and the District Municipality of Santa Anita, respectively. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
11. 513. Recalling that Peru has ratified Conventions Nos 98 and 151, the Committee draws the attention of the CEACR to the legislative aspects of this case.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 514. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) Taking note of the creation of a Multisectoral Working Group composed of representatives of the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion (MTPE) and the National Civil Service Authority (SERVIR), the Committee trusts that, in full consultation with the interested social partners, the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure the functioning of a reliable mechanism to verify trade union representativeness in collective bargaining. The Committee also requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the class action presented in relation to section 10.1 of Supreme Decree No. 008-2022-PCM.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to 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 concerned 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.
   • (c) The Committee expects the Government to take appropriate measures to ensure that exceptional measures restricting collective bargaining in the public sector are imposed only to the extent that is necessary, without exceeding a reasonable period, and are accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers’ living standards..
   • (d) The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to enforce the collective agreements signed by the Base – Melgar – Ayaviri – Puno Union of Municipal Workers (SITRAMUN) and the Melgar – Ayaviri Provincial Municipality, and by the Unified Union of Municipal Workers of Santa Anita (SUTRAMUNSA) and the District Municipality of Santa Anita, respectively. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
   • (e) The Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) to the legislative aspects of this case.