Guarantee Mechanism for the Fulfillment of Labor Rights in the Civil Construction Industry, Amazonas-Peru

This study examines the systematic violation of labor rights in the civil construction sector of the Amazonas region, Peru, focusing on persistent non-compliance with collectively negotiated wage scales despite existing legal frameworks. Drawing on empirical data from structured surveys administered to 142 construction workers and qualitative analysis of administrative and judicial records from the Regional Labor Directorate (2012–2015), the research finds that 99.3% of workers received wages below collectively agreed rates, while 84.5% filed labor inspection requests and 85.5% pursued administrative conciliation. Nevertheless, 95.3% of judicial claims proved unsuccessful, primarily due to employer evasion strategies — including consortium structures without solidarity clauses and deliberate concealment of attachable assets — resulting in enforcement proceedings averaging 36 months without effective wage recovery. To address this structural enforcement deficit, the study proposes a mandatory guarantee letter mechanism for construction projects exceeding 50 Tax Units (UIT, approximately USD 53,000), issued in favor of administrative labor authorities, to secure wage and social benefit obligations prior to project commencement. This proposal is grounded in a comparative legal analysis of guarantee requirements already operative in regulated sectors, including public procurement, postal services, vehicle inspection centers, and renewable energy generation. The theoretical framework integrates Reales three-dimensional theory of law, the public service doctrine, the ILOs decent work standards, and Banduras sociocognitive theory of moral disengagement. The findings demonstrate that current administrative and judicial mechanisms are structurally insufficient to protect construction workers rights, and that preventive enforcement instruments — operating on employers economic interests before violations occur — offer superior protective efficacy than purely reactive sanctions.