I will keep fighting against fraud and telling the public, the government, and other competent authorities about Ceper-Pirelli’s intention to liquidate the Industrial Community[,] especially now that the company is making big profits, and part of those profits belong to the workers through the Industrial Community. I call on all the employees of Ceper-Pirelli to close ranks against fraud, and to demand the rights and obligations to which we are entitled by law. I ask for the solidarity of all the employee-owner organizations and labor unions in the country in expressing their rejection of the attempts to liquidate the Industrial Communities. 52. In a note dated July 1, 1989,10 the company informed Mr. Lagos del Campo of its decision to terminate his employment, on the grounds of a “serious infraction defined in subsections (a) and (h) of Article 5 of Law 24514, which include the unexcused failure to meet work obligations, serious insubordination, and serious verbal misconduct against employees, their representatives, and coworkers,” based on statements he made in the above-transcribed interview. Specifically, the company maintained that the alleged victim committed a serious infraction when he accused the company’s directors of using blackmail and coercion, of having an understanding with the heads of the Participation Office of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism, and Commerce, of intending to liquidate the Industrial Community, and attempting to influence the elections of the Industrial Community by pressuring a specific group of workers. c. Legal framework applicable to dismissals 53. At the time of the events, Law 24514 of 1986 regulated the right to employment security and the procedure for terminating workers.11 The law states that serious infractions committed by workers are just cause for dismissal (Art. 3) and establishes the following serious infractions (Art. 5): a) The unexcused failure to meet work obligations, repeated resistance to work-related orders of superiors, and violations of the Internal Work and Industrial Safety Rules, duly approved by the administrative labor authority, which in all cases are considered serious; […] h) The commission of acts of violence, serious insubordination, or serious verbal misconduct against the employer, its representatives, senior staff, or coworkers, either in the workplace, or off the workplace premises when the acts stem directly from the employment relationship. 54. When the worker commits a serious infraction, the employer must inform him or her in writing of those acts and of the opening of an investigation (Art. 6). Similarly, the law orders the employer to guarantee the worker’s defense, and to examine the facts within a period of 6 days. Later, if the worker fails to disprove the acts of which he or she is accused, the employer must inform him or her in a notarially recorded letter of the reason for the dismissal and the date of termination, and notify the administrative labor authority of this decision (Art. 7). 55. Finally, the law stipulates that the worker may go before the labor courts if he or she considers the dismissal to be wrongful (Art.8). In such cases, the judge may order the suspension of the dismissal, and the worker may request a temporary assignment from the employer while the case is pending (Art.9). It bears noting that the worker has 30 days from the notice of dismissal to bring a case before the labor judge (Art.10) and that the judge must adjudicate the claim within 4 months. The law expressly provides that the employer bears the burden of proof with respect to the dismissal (Art. 11). If the case is 10 Annex 6. CEPER-PIRELLI. Notarially recorded letter dated July 1, 1989, with a “received” stamp of July 3, 1989 from the Office of Notary Public Javier Aspauza Gamarra. Attachments to the petitioners’ communication of July 23, 1998. 11 Annex 9. Congress of the Republic of Peru. Law 24514. Law on Employment Security. June 4, 1986. Article 4.a. Available at: http://www4.congreso.gob.pe/ntley/imagenes/Leyes/24514.pdf 10