Telefónica del Peru Economic Group V Confederation of Peruvian Workers, SITENTAL and PLADES

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 15/11/2010
Case Duration Not known
Host Country Peru  (Adhering Country)
Issue(s) Refusal to engage in collective bargaining
Provisions Cited IV.1-a   
Case Description In November 2010, the Confederation of Peruvian Workers together with the SITENTEL, the trade union representing workers in the telecommunications sector, and PLADES, a Peruvian NGO, submitted a complaint to the Peruvian NCP stating that enterprises that form part of the Economic Group of Telefonica del Peru were unwilling to engage in constructive negotiations to reach collective agreements on employment conditions. Under Peru’s national labour law framework, these negotiations start with proceedings before the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion. However, the claimants contend that objections were presented as part of the proceedings before the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion so that negotiations were unable to start.
Developments CUT PERÚ wrote to the Peruvian NCP on the 22 May 2013 requesting information on the status of the case. The NCP later accepted the case and met separately with the parties. It then invited the parties to mediation. However, Telefónica del Peru refused to particiate in the NCP mediation process because of parallel proceedings.
Outcome As of June 2015 the case is closed and the NCP is preparing its Final Statement.

Companies

Multinational Company Telefónica Group (Home country: Spain)
Subsidiary Telefónica Peru (Home country: Peru)

Complainants

Lead Complainant PLADES : Labour Standards 
Lead Complainant Confederación General de Trabajadores del Perú : National Centre 
Lead Complainant SITENTEL : National Sectoral Union 
Lead Complainant Peru NCP : Single Government Department 

TUAC Analysis

Did the NCP publish its initial assessment? status-icon
Did the case involve parallel proceedings? status-icon
Was the existence of parallel proceedings an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case? status-icon
Was the businsess relationship other than that of a subsidiary? status-icon
Was the nature of the business relationship an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case? status-icon
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its acceptance of this case? status-icon
Did the NCP offer mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Did the company accept the offer of mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Did the complainant(s) accept the offer of mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Was mediation or conciliation held? status-icon
Was mediation or conciliation conducted by a professional mediator? status-icon
Did the parties reach agreement? status-icon
If yes, did the NCP publish this agreement following the consent of the parties? status-icon
If mediation was refused or failed did the NCP make an assessment of whether the company had breached the Guidelines? status-icon
Did the NCP conduct in-host country fact finding? status-icon
Did the NCP make recommendations to the company on the future implementation of the Guidelines? status-icon
Did the NCP publish its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP provide for follow-up of the agreement/recommendations? status-icon
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP inform public pension funds about its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP apply any consequences in this case? status-icon
Did the NCP follow the indicative timescales set out in the procedural guidance? status-icon
Was there a positive outcome for the workers involved in this case? status-icon
Did the filing of the case under the Guidelines have a positive impact for the workers involved? status-icon
Did the lead NCP play a positive role? status-icon
If different, did the home NCP play a positive role? status-icon