Bibliographic citations
Gomez, R., Guerrero, J. (2024). Análisis sobre la prohibición de extender el convenio colectivo por un sindicato minoritario a terceros (Precedente Vinculante: Resolución de Sala Plena Nº 004-2023-SUNAFIL/TFL) [Trabajo de Suficiencia Profesional, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)]. http://hdl.handle.net/10757/675080
Gomez, R., Guerrero, J. Análisis sobre la prohibición de extender el convenio colectivo por un sindicato minoritario a terceros (Precedente Vinculante: Resolución de Sala Plena Nº 004-2023-SUNAFIL/TFL) [Trabajo de Suficiencia Profesional]. PE: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC); 2024. http://hdl.handle.net/10757/675080
@misc{renati/419915,
title = "Análisis sobre la prohibición de extender el convenio colectivo por un sindicato minoritario a terceros (Precedente Vinculante: Resolución de Sala Plena Nº 004-2023-SUNAFIL/TFL)",
author = "Guerrero Castillo, Jose Carlos",
publisher = "Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)",
year = "2024"
}
The present work of professional sufficiency is based on the analysis of the Binding Precedent issued by the Labor Supervision Court - SUNAFIL in accordance with what was debated in the Plenary Chamber Resolution No. 004-2023-SUNAFIL/TFL, which deals with the prohibition of the extension of collective bargaining by minority unions to non-union workers. Although the Supervisory Court established as a binding precedent for future debates in administrative headquarters, that minority unions cannot extend the agreements reached from their collective bargaining to non-affiliated workers, based on jurisprudence and regulatory interpretations, this leads us to reflect if the resolution causes a violation of the right to union autonomy and collective bargaining, rights that are protected by our Constitution and that were the subject of a ruling by the International Labor Body, recognizing said rights to union organizations, in addition to there being mixed positions at the jurisprudential level. on whether such an extension should be prohibited. This work is focused on determining whether what is established in the binding precedent, regarding the prohibition of minority unions to extend their collective bargaining to non-affiliated workers, violates their union autonomy, for which both positions will be examined through doctrine, jurisprudence. and ILO pronouncements, in order to verify if there is an anti-union limitation when it comes to rights that are supposedly recognized for minority unions.
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License