18 on a particular group of workers to make them take part in the elections under threat of dismissal. Do you consider the elections to be legal? No, they are not legal. According to article 61 (15) of Supreme Decree. No. 002-77-IT/DS, for the elections to be valid, 75% of the members of the Community must vote. In these fraudulent elections 148 of a total of 210 members of the Community voted; in other words, 62 members did not vote, thus less than the 75% stipulated in the law voted. In my capacity as president of the Electoral Committee, it was my responsibility to call the election. Nevertheless, the company management convened three members and, in the Industrial Relations Office – take note, in the employer’s office – they called elections for the Community, making a mockery of the law. To this end, they used a group of Community members who served their interests, and with these people they established a slate, which was the only one presented for election. Why didn’t the members of the Community present another slate? For one simple reason. The law on Industrial Community elections establishes that a slate must be composed of members who are manual workers and members who are employees. I would like to clarify an important point: the manual workers have a union, which defends their interests and is relatively independent. The employees do not have a union (they had one previously, but it was dissolved by the employers; the employees were unable to defend their rights). These employees are at the mercy of the employer and are constantly blackmailed by the management; therefore, they are afraid of forming part of a slate that is drawn up by the manual workers who do not enjoy the good graces of the employers. I believe that this was the fundamental reason why another slate was not presented. In light of these abuses by the employers, what measures have you taken in your capacity as president of the Electoral Committee? First, I have denounced the irregularities that the employer has been committing and promoting. I submitted this complaint officially in Communication No. 05824 to the Participation Directorate of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. What has been the response of the Ministry? Here, I have to report that the Ministry’s bureaucracy responded in a vague manner, without making any determination; concluding that the communication was time-barred. As I had presented the communication before the elections, this shows that there was an understanding between the Participation Directorate headed by Alicia Liñán Núñez and the employer. What measures are you considering? I will continue fighting against the fraud, informing public opinion, the Government and other competent authorities, about the attempt by the Ceper-Pirelli company to liquidate the Industrial Community, especially now that the company has been obtaining significant profits, some of which correspond to the workers through the Industrial Community. I call on all the workers of Ceper-Pirelli to close ranks against the fraud, demanding that our legal rights and obligations be respected. I ask for the solidarity of all the country’s industrial communities and labor unions to express their rejection of the attempt to liquidate the industrial communities.” 52. Based on the interview given by Mr. Lagos del Campo, the General Manager of CeperPirelli, in a notarized letter of June 26, 1989,61 “accused” him of work-related misconduct. In particular, the General Manager considered that the employment relationship with Mr. Lagos del Campo could not continue pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (h) of article 5 of Law No. 24514, which consider that unjustified failure to meet work obligations, serious insubordination, and “serious verbal misconduct” against the employer are justified causes for dismissal. According to The notarized letter was delivered to him in accordance with article 6 of Law No. 24514 and article 11 of Supreme Decree No. 03-88-TR (evidence file annex 34 to the State’s answering brief, f. 1457). 61