Interim Report - Report No 101, 1968

Case No 503 (Argentina) - Complaint date: 27-DEC-66 - Closed

1. 319. The Committee examined this case previously at its meeting in May 1967, when it submitted to the Governing Body an interim report contained in paragraphs 231 to 265 of its 98th Report, which was approved by the Governing Body at its 169th Session (June 1967).
2. 320. Since the approval of the report fresh allegations or further elements of information have been received in a new communication dated 31 May 1967 from the Latin American Federation of Christian Trade Unions, in two communications dated 29 June and 31 July 1967 from the General Confederation of Labour of the Argentine Republic (C.G.T.), and in a communication dated 17 July 1967 from the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions of Transport Workers. Copies of all these communications have been sent to the Government.
3. 321. The Government has sent further observations and information on 30 May, 30 August, 26 September, 2 October and 24 October 1967 through the Permanent Mission of the Argentine Republic to the International Organisations in Geneva.
4. 322. Argentina has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations concerning the Arrest -the Trade Union Official Eustaquio Tolosa
  323. 323 The complainants alleged that Mr. Eustaquio Tolosa, General-Secretary of the United Argentine Dockers' Union (S.U.P.A.), was arrested on 18 December 1966 at a meeting of his union and that after his release he was again imprisoned on 5 January 1967.
  324. 324 According to the observations of the Government (see paragraphs 246 to 248 of the 98th Report), Mr. Tolosa, who was on trial for his activities in the so-called Action Plan of the C.G.T of 1964, left the country on account of the dockers' strike, without the authorisation of the Court, to settle in Montevideo, where he endeavoured to arrange an international boycott of Argentine ships and aircraft. When Mr. Tolosa returned to the country, the judge who was conducting the proceedings ordered him to be arrested. From various press cuttings supplied by the Government it would appear that later Mr. Tolosa was tried on another criminal charge, namely that of infringing Act No. 14034, which makes an Argentine citizen liable to imprisonment if he promotes economic or political measures against the State by any means whatever.
  325. 325 On the recommendation of the Committee, contained in paragraph 265 (2) of its 98th Report, the Governing Body noted the information supplied by the Government, from which it appeared that court orders had been issued for the arrest of Mr. Tolosa in connection with two criminal cases, one initiated in 1964 and the other initiated in connection with a breach of the penal laws during the dockers' dispute of 1966, and requested the Government to be good enough to supply information on the outcome of the two trials and in particular the text of the verdict or verdicts, once they had been handed down, and the grounds adduced therein.
  326. 326 By a letter dated 30 May 1967 from the Permanent Mission of the Argentine Republic to the International Organisations in Geneva the Government indicates that the arrest of Mr. Tolosa is not a matter for the Executive since he is now at the exclusive disposal of the Judiciary. In a new communication to the Director-General, dated 24 October 1967, the Government states that the trial for infringement of Act No. 14034 began on 20 December 1966 before a federal criminal court. On that occasion the accused was released from custody, without prejudice to the continuation of the case, but on 30 December 1966, in view of new evidence, the judge sentenced Mr. Tolosa to preventive detention, since he considered him to be the perpetrator of an offence under section 1 of the Act. On 6 January 1967 Mr. Tolosa, while detained, appealed against the measure of preventive detention. By unanimity the appeal court confirmed the sentence, which, according to the Government, shows that there exists circumstantial evidence of the offence and persuasive indications of the guilt of the person in question. From that moment it is not possible, in accordance with procedural law, to set him free (a) since the accused has a background of other criminal trials, and (b) in view of the size of the penalty corresponding to the offence in question. In 1965 Mr. Tolosa had been sentenced for having committed " injuries without criminal intent ", and, moreover, other proceedings are continuing against him, in his absence, in connection with the so-called Action Plan.
  327. 327 Section 1 of Act No. 14034 of 30 July 1951 provides, according to the Government, that " any Argentine citizen who by whatever means advocates the application of political or economic sanctions against the Argentine State shall be punished with from five to 25 years' imprisonment and with absolute and perpetual deprivation of certain rights ".
  328. 328 The Government indicates that, after certain proceedings ordered by the judge concerning the submission of evidence, the defence presented in evidence certified copies of reports of meetings of the International Transport Workers' Federation, at which Mr. Tolosa had advocated the adoption of measures against Argentinian ports and transport. The defence requested a definitive suspension of the case, but this was refused on 18 April. After Mr. Tolosa had again been heard on 7 July, the defence requested that the preventive detention order be cancelled, but on 10 July the judge rejected this application. At present, before the hearing of the case is completed, a copy of the reports of the meetings of the International Transport Workers' Federation, which has been requested through diplomatic channels in London, is awaited.
  329. 329 The Government concludes by repeating that Mr. Tolosa is subject to judicial process with all the guarantees of defence established in the National Constitution, which grants complete independence to the Judiciary, a principle which was expressly adopted in the Act of the Argentine Revolution. The Government adds that the offence in question was established by an Act dating from well before the trial, which is equally applicable to any Argentinian who commits acts provided for therein, which shows that the accused's capacity as a trade union leader is quite irrelevant and has in no way motivated the accusation against him.
  330. 330 Without failing to appreciate fully the principle of the independence of the judiciary invoked by the Government, the Committee considers it necessary to recall the importance that the Governing Body has attached in all cases, including those where trade unionists are detained for public offences or common-law crimes that the Government considers to be unconnected with their trade union duties, to the principle that the persons concerned should be tried with all the safeguards of regular judicial procedure at the earliest possible moment and by an impartial and independent judicial authority.
  331. 331 Furthermore, the Committee has already pointed out in this connection the reasons governing its decision, in many cases involving matters which were the subject of pending judicial proceedings, to ask governments to communicate the text of the judgments given and the grounds adduced therein.
  332. 332 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
       • (a) to take note of the Government's statement that proceedings are continuing before a court of ordinary jurisdiction in connection with the prosecution brought against Mr. Tolosa for having contravened section 1 of Act No. 14034;
       • (b) to take note that, in the meantime, Mr. Tolosa continues to be under preventive detention by virtue of the writ issued by the judge in the case and confirmed by the appeals court;
       • (c) to draw the Government's attention to the importance which the Governing Body has always attached to the principle of prompt and fair trial, mentioned in paragraph 330 above, and to request the Government to be good enough to keep the Governing Body informed of Mr. Tolosa's situation, and to be good enough to send the text of the judgment, as well as the grounds adduced therein, once it has been given.
  333. Allegations concerning the Dock Dispute of 1966
  333. 333 At its meeting in May 1967 the Committee considered allegations presented by the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions (I.F.C.T.U.), the Argentine Trade Union Movement (A.S.A.), the Latin American Federation of Christian Trade Unions (C.L.A.S.C.) and the International Transport Workers' Federation (I.T.F.), according to which the Government had established new dock labour regulations by decree, and that the unions concerned, after fruitless efforts to persuade the Government to change its attitude, had declared a strike on 19 October 1966. According to the complainants, the Government had on the same day issued a decree bringing the S.U.P.A under state control.
  334. 334 According to the I.T.F, when the dockers' unions learned of the intention of the Government to issue new regulations governing dock labour, they submitted a memorandum in which they emphasised the need to create a national port policy and expressed their willingness to co-operate for that purpose. As the Government refused to consider this offer of conciliation and co-operation, the dockers' unions declared a strike. According to the I.T.F, the Government maintained an intransigent attitude even though the unions had proposed a solution including, among other points, the lifting of government control of the union, postponement of the enforcement of the new laws for 30 days, the creation of a tripartite committee of employers', workers' and government representatives to study the application of the new laws and the submission of any unresolved matters to arbitration.
  335. 335 The I.T.F also stated that on 31 October it had sent its affiliated organisations a circular requesting the fullest possible demonstration of international solidarity with the Argentine dockers. It also sent a cable to President Onganía " notifying him of the possibility of international action and offering him the assistance of the I.T.F in mediation and negotiation ". Mr. Medrano, Regional Director of the I.T.F for Latin America, met various Argentine authorities, including the Secretary for Labour, who told him that, if the dockers accepted the new regulations on working conditions temporarily, a tripartite committee would be set up to consider the matter. After consulting with the unions, Mr. Medrano submitted a possible solution to the Secretary for Labour, who informed him that the Secretary for Transport would have to be consulted before the Government could give a reply. Finally, the I.T.F stated, the Secretary for Labour accepted a text, a copy of which was enclosed with the complaint.
  336. 336 The checkers' and foremen's unions agreed unanimously to accept the proposed solution and return to work on 19 December. A meeting of S.U.P.A delegates was convened for 18 December, and it was hoped that this would end the strike. Still according to the I.T.F, the unions decided to return to work on 26 December on the basis of the agreement reached with the Secretaries for Labour and Transport, but when the men reported for work they were prevented from entering the dock area by police and troops. In the view of the complainant organisation this showed the intention of the Government to impose its own conditions unilaterally on the trade unions. The Government then tried to enforce the acceptance of strike breakers in the docks. The figures proposed by the harbour-master (see paragraph 241 of the 98th Report), which the complainants say put strike breakers in the majority, deprived most of the Buenos Aires dockers of their employment simply for having acted in defence of their legitimate trade union rights.
  337. 337 According to the I.T.F, the facts set forth constituted violations of International Labour Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, since the Government had: issued provisions to modify conditions of work in ports without prior consultation with the unions concerned; refused to consider the proposals submitted by the dockers' unions and in particular the memorandum on port problems; appointed an administrator to the S.U.P.A.; recruited strike breakers; locked out dockworkers, thereby victimising them for having taken part in a campaign ordered by their union; failed to honour the agreement reached by a representative of the complainant organisation and the Secretaries for Labour and Transport.
  338. 338 In its reply dated 9 May 1967 the Government stated that, with a view to achieving full operation of harbour installations, the rational regulation of work and the elimination of wastage of human and material resources that was detrimental to the entire community, the President of Argentina had exercised the legislative powers conferred on him by the Statute of the Argentine Revolution to approve Acts Nos. 16971 and 16972 and Decree No. 2729, which brought dock labour back within the scope of the general legislation regarding hours of work, days of rest and holidays applicable to all workers in the country. The system modified by these measures had also been set up unilaterally by the State (Legislative Decree No. 6676/63 and Decree No. 6284/60) and had infringed the principle of equality. In spite of these exceptional measures, labour peace in the docks was constantly being disturbed by futile disputes, leading to an exorbitant rise in the cost of labour, so that the ports of Argentina had become the most expensive in the world; this was particularly true of Buenos Aires, which had earned the name of "dirty port", with a resultant increase in freight charges. Act No. 16972 and the regulations issued under it laid down standards to enable port labour to be brought back within the scope of the existing general labour legislation.
  339. 339 The Government took the view that there had been no breach of any international agreement or of any principle or provision of social law or of any previous collective agreements with the trade union organisations. It went on to state that the Acts and decree in question were no sooner promulgated than the S.U.P.A declared a strike for the express purpose of paralysing port activities and requested, through its representatives, the support of foreign trade unions in boycotting Argentine ships and aircraft and all goods carried by them. According to the Government, this behaviour was a veritable rebellion against law and order, since it aimed at damaging vital national interests in open opposition to the authority exercised by the State in protection of those interests.
  340. 340 Lastly, the Government stated that Act No. 14455 recognised among the rights of trade union organisations that of non-intervention in their management and administration by the authority responsible for enforcing the law. However, the rights so recognised were applicable only in respect of lawful activities. The Government took the view that the same principles must also govern the application of international Conventions, since their ratification could not oblige a State to weaken its own action in establishing law and order. The taking over of the trade union decreed by the Government was examined by the National Labour Courts as a result of the appeal lodged by the persons concerned. The National Chamber of Labour unanimously voted that the take-over prescribed by Decree No. 2868/66 should remain fully in force. The Government quoted part of the grounds given in the ruling of the Chamber of Labour, in which it was stated that the application of the new dock labour regulations was vital to the economic policy of the Government and that its national and international implications had a direct effect on activities as essential to the State as the import and export trade. In the opinion of the Chamber of Labour the measures decreed by the Government were necessary to the carrying on of the activities affected by the strike and the international boycott promoted by the trade union, and had been adopted by the Government to overcome the serious emergency created in the country by the union executives.
  341. 341 In paragraph 259 of its 98th Report the Committee recalled that allegations relating to the right to strike were not outside its competence so far as they affected the exercise of trade union rights and that the right of workers and their organisations to strike as a legitimate means of defending their occupational interests was generally recognised. It further recalled that, in cases where restrictions are placed on strikes in essential services, the Committee has always emphasised the importance it attaches to the establishment of adequate guarantees for workers thus deprived of the possibility of protecting their occupational interests and observed that such restrictions should be made subject to impartial and rapid conciliation and arbitration procedures, in all stages of which the parties concerned can take part.
  342. 342 The Committee observed that in the present case the complainants stated that the strike called by the workers and which led the Government to issue a decree taking over the S.U.P.A was due to the Government's having legislated to modify the working conditions of the dockers. The Government, for its part, stated that the previous working conditions had also been established by law and not by collective agreement and the changes decreed, which did not exceed the scope authorised by the general labour legislation, were indispensable to the vital interests of the country. According to the Government, the taking over of the S.U.P.A was designed to protect those vital interests, which were threatened by the strike and by the international boycott instigated by the trade union. The Argentine courts had ruled in favour of the validity and legality of the take-over decree.
  343. 343 The Committee noted the explanations supplied by the Government, but pointed out in paragraph 261 of its 98th Report that one of the trade unions concerned, the S.U.P.A, still appeared to be under government control and that it was not clear whether consideration was being given to the possibility of reviewing the matters in dispute through conciliation or arbitration procedure in all stages of which the union concerned would take part, in accordance with the principles set forth in paragraph 341 above. The Committee therefore recommended the Governing Body (in paragraph 265 (3) of its 98th Report) to request the Government to be good enough to supply its observations on the matters in question. The Committee also pointed out that no observations had yet been received from the Government on its alleged refusal to examine the proposals originally put forward by the workers, on the alleged breaking of an agreement reached with the Secretary for Labour after the strike had begun or on the alleged repressive measures taken against the union (including the recruitment of strike breakers).
  344. 344 In its observations communicated by a letter dated 26 September 1967 the Government replies that, as is stated in the " General programme for the attainment of the arms set forth in annex 3 of the Act of the Argentine Revolution ", the Government intends "...to restrict state control of trade union organisations to the minimum ". It further states that " the existing organisations will continue to function without being taken over so long as their activities conform to the specific aims for which they have been established and to the relevant legislation ".
  345. 345 Therefore, the Government states, in view of the strict fulfilment of these intentions, there can be no grounds for supposing that it means to maintain its control of the S.U.P.A indefinitely; its aim is rather to ensure that the organisation is able to resume normal operation in the near future, and to guarantee it a structure keeping it independent of external interests and deriving from the free choice of its members.
  346. 346 The Government also states that the authorities have never refused to examine the proposals submitted to it on the case to which the complaint relates. There have been no negotiations of any kind with the Secretary of State for Labour, since all that happened was that a proposed settlement was submitted for his consideration with the principal aim of putting an end to the strike, an aim that was frustrated by the inopportune intervention of Mr. Tolosa at the meeting of his union.
  347. 347 Lastly, the Government states that, despite this, the emergency measures were lifted shortly after, that work in Buenos Aires harbour returned completely to normal and that this is still the situation.
  348. 348 In view of the statements referred to in paragraph 344 above, the Committee hopes that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), which has been ratified by Argentina, embodying the right of workers' organisations to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes, and the duty of the public authorities to refrain from any interference that would restrict this right or impede its lawful exercise, the Government will take the necessary measures as soon as possible to restore to the S.U.P.A the full exercise of this right.
  349. 349 The Committee also notes the Government's statement that the emergency measures have been lifted and that work has returned to normal in the port of Buenos Aires (to which the statements of the Government and the complainants seem to show the dispute has been confined). Nevertheless, the Committee also hopes that, when the situation of the trade union has been restored to normal in accordance with paragraph 348 above, the principles enunciated in paragraph 341 above, respecting the guarantees that must be given to the workers in defence of their interests, will be borne in mind if the union should make further claims. In this connection the Committee attaches particular importance to the guarantee that, where restrictions are placed on strikes in essential services, such restrictions should be made subject to impartial and rapid conciliation and arbitration procedures, in all stages of which the parties concerned can take part.
  350. 350 Lastly, the Committee notes that the Government has not furnished its observations on the allegation that most of the Buenos Aires dockers remain without employment for having acted in defence of their trade union interests.
  351. 351 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
       • (a) to take note of the Government's statement that it does not intend to maintain its control of the United Argentine Dockers' Union indefinitely and that it will rather endeavour to ensure that the organisation in question is shortly able to operate normally;
       • (b) to express the hope that the necessary measures will be adopted as soon as possible and to ask the Government to keep it informed of developments in this connection;
       • (c) to draw the attention of the Government to the importance that it has always attached, where restrictions are placed on strikes in essential services, to the subjection of such restrictions to impartial and rapid conciliation and arbitration procedures, in all stages of which the parties concerned can take part;
       • (d) to take note of the statement by the Government that the emergency measures have been lifted and that work in the port of Buenos Aires has been entirely restored to normal;
       • (e) to request the Government to be good enough to reply to the allegation mentioned in paragraph 350 above.
  352. Allegations concerning Measures to Take Over Various Trade Union Organisations or to Suspend Their Trade Union Status
  352. 352 Besides the taking over by the State of the United Argentine Dockers' Union, the complainant organisations denounce, in various communications, measures adopted by the Government in 1966 and 1967 to take over the trade union organisations mentioned below, to suspend their trade union status or to freeze their bank accounts.
  353. 353 Some of these communications allege that the general situation of the trade unions in Argentina is serious. The W.F.T.U, in its communication of 31 March 1957, attributes to the Government the intention of bringing the unions under the control of the public authorities. The C.L.A.S.C, in its letter of 27 March 1967, states that since the end of last year the Government has violated every rule and made an onslaught on the right of the workers to act through their trade unions. In its letter of 13 April 1967 it talks of " a spate of violations of the most elementary trade union rights " and states that " a Government based on military domination " wishes " to subdue all forces defending the workers' interests " and " is responsible for the economic and social problems that oppress the life of the Argentine workers ". The I.F.C.T.U, in its letter of 28 April 1967, expresses the hope that the I.L.O will use every means available to it to ensure that the Government " respects the rights of the workers and their representative organisations and adopts a more reasonable and conciliatory attitude ". The I.C.F.T.U, in its letter of 5 May 1967, states that the measures taken against the Metal Workers' Union appeared to be of an obviously retaliatory nature and curtailed the trade union rights of a large number of workers. The International Federation of Christian Trade Unions of Transport Workers, in its letter of 17 July 1967, refers to " numerous violations of freedom of association committed by the military Government ". The C.G.T, in its letter of 31 July 1967, states that "the trade union situation in Argentina has deteriorated ".
  354. 354 More specifically it is alleged that Resolution No. 119, dated 2 March 1967, of the Secretariat of State for Labour has suspended the trade union status of the following occupational associations: Textile Workers' Union, Tucumán Sugar Industry Workers' Union (F.O.T.I.A.), Chemical and Allied Workers' Union of Argentina (F.A.T.I.Q.A.), the Buenos Aires branch of the Telephone Workers' and Employees' Union (F.O.E.T.R.A.) and the Metal Workers' Union (U.O.M.). It is also alleged that the resolution suspends authorisation to retain dues and other contributions on behalf of these organisations. Resolution No. 104/ 67 of 22 February 1967 had already applied the same measures to the Railway Workers' Union. All these organisations were therefore deprived of the legal right to represent, defend and make claims on behalf of their members. A resolution of the Secretariat of State for Justice had already annulled the legal personality of the Railway Workers' Union, a union with 186,000 members, which was thus prevented even from acting as a civil association.
  355. 355 The Central Bank had ordered the freezing of the trade union funds of the Metal Workers' Union, the Railway Workers' Union, the Textile Workers' Union, the Tucumán Sugar Industry Workers' Union, the Chemical and Allied Workers' Union of Argentina and the Buenos Aires branch of the Telephone Workers' and Employees' Union. According to the C.L.A.S.C, the funds in question exceed some 10 million Argentine pesos, " which belong to the 500,000 workers belonging to these organisations ". The International Metalworkers' Federation stated in a letter dated 8 May 1967 that the Government had informed the Metal Workers' Union that its funds had been released.
  356. 356 The C.L.A.S.C alleges that the measures referred to were taken because of the general strike of 1 March 1967, which was itself provoked by the following facts: the measures taken by the Government in connection with the dock dispute of 1966; the promulgation of Act No. 16936 establishing compulsory arbitration; a situation of enormous social tension (a general crisis due to " an economic policy conducted for the benefit of a minority ", an increase in the cost of living, lockouts and massive unemployment in the sugar industry and the announcement of the reorganisation of the railways with resulting unemployment); and the " hard attitude " of the Government in refusing all possibility of discussion with the workers on these problems. The International Metalworkers' Federation, in its communication of 12 April 1967, and the I.C.F.T.U, in its communication of 5 May 1967, also alleged that the reason for the penalties imposed on the Metal Workers' Union was its participation in the general strike of 1 March called by the C.G.T.
  357. 357 According to the W.F.T.U, the Government ordered the taking over of the unions catering for press employees, tobacco workers, newspaper sellers, university staff, telegraphists and vineyard workers, whose organisations were, at the time of the complaint (31 March 1967), still under the control of government officials.
  358. 358 In its communication of 29 June 1967 the General Confederation of Labour indicated that the Government had already issued various decrees in 1966 providing for the taking over of the following organisations: the Press Union of Buenos Aires, the Union of Newspaper and Periodical Sellers, the Federation of Press Employees, the Tobacco Workers' Union of the Federal Capital and Greater Buenos Aires, the Fishery Workers' Union, the Staff Association of the University of Buenos Aires, and the Forestry Workers' Federation of Santiago. The C.G.T gives the number and date of the decree for each case. It states that the Press Union succeeded in getting the justice of the peace to cancel the take-over, but that the Second Court of Appeal ordered the reinstatement of the trustee.
  359. 359 In connection with the taking over of unions by the State, the I.F.C.T.U, in its communication of 28 April 1967, states that the Government, through Act No. 17238 and Decree No. 4126, both dated 10 April 1967, has arrogated to itself the right to interfere unlawfully in the management and functioning of the trade union movement. According to the complainants, all the powers of the statutory bodies are conferred by these legislative provisions on a military official appointed by the Executive, a state trustee who, by virtue of the Act, " shall be vested with the maximum powers and prerogatives conferred on executive and deliberative bodies by the social laws ".
  360. 360 At its session in May 1967 the Committee recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to supply its observations on the allegations already made concerning these matters (paragraph 265 (3) of its 98th Report).
  361. 361 Among the observations annexed to its communication of 30 May 1967 the Government states that the Latin American Federation of Christian Trade Unions does not confine its complaint to an objective account of the facts, but allows itself assertions that, by reason of their tone and contents, are unacceptable. The Government states that it will answer trade union complaints presented to the Committee provided always that they are serious and couched in a proper style.
  362. 362 In this connection the Committee wishes to observe that its own function consists in examining allegations concerning violations of freedom of association impartially and objectively and it has therefore pointed out that the nature of the task entrusted to it calls among other things for the avoidance of language calculated to embitter rather than to elucidate controversy. The Committee has also pointed out that a government, in replying to a request for observations on a complaint, is not acknowledging the propriety or the validity of the complaint, but is simply co-operating with the Committee and the Governing Body in making possible an impartial examination of the matter. In this case the Committee observes that the Government has replied to the substance of some of the allegations made by the C.L.A.S.C in its observations on other complaints.
  363. 363 In these observations the Government states that the suspension (not the withdrawal) of the trade union status of various unions and the freezing of trade union funds constitute a legitimate exercise of public authority by the Government, which is responsible for the maintenance of peace and order in the country through the machinery and the means conferred on it by law.
  364. 364 The Government indicates that the Secretariat of State for Labour gave public warning to the workers' unions in a communiqué dated 18 February 1967 that the maintenance of attitudes prejudicial to public order and peace and the adoption of measures not specifically connected with the defence of trade union rights might lead to the imposition of the penalties prescribed by law. Nevertheless, in an obvious rebellion against authority, the associations whose status was suspended by Resolution No. 119/67 publicly demonstrated their firm resolve to ignore the warnings. In any case the revolutionary Government of Argentina did no more than use powers conferred on the competent authorities by the law.
  365. 365 The substance of the introductory clauses of Resolution No. 119 dated 2 March 1967 of the Secretariat of State for Labour, the text of which has been sent by the Government, is that the Action Plan of the C.G.T affects national security since it is intended to undermine law and order and social peace; that the direct measures taken successively by different trade unions have not been taken in accordance with the legal requirements; that the actions of certain trade unions have been of a particularly serious nature and show a disruptive intention incompatible with the lawful exercise of trade union rights; and that it is appropriate in consequence to apply the penalties provided for in section 34 of Act No. 14455. Section 1 of the resolution suspends the trade union status of the Textile Workers' Union, the Tucumán Sugar Industry Workers' Union, the Chemical and Allied Workers' Union of Argentina, the Buenos Aires branch of the Telephone Workers' and Employees' Union and the Metal Workers' Union, and section 2 suspends the authorisation to retain dues and other contributions on behalf of these organisations. (The Government has also sent the text of the resolution dated 26 April 1967, which rescinds section 2 of Resolution No. 119.)
  366. 366 The Government has also sent the text of Resolution No. 104 dated 22 February 1967 applying the same penalties to the Railway Workers' Union. Its introductory clauses, which are similar to those of Resolution No. 119, include, however, a statement that on 21 February the Railway Workers' Union communicated to the Secretariat of State for Labour its decision to carry out three strikes in support of the Action Plan of the C.G.T. (a three-hour strike on 24 February, a 24-hour strike on 1 March and a 48-Hour strike on 21 and 22 March). The Government states in its communication of 2 October 1967 that the legal status of the Railway Workers' Union had been withdrawn by a court ruling, but that the measure had later been rescinded after the authorities appointed to administer the union had complied with the laws and regulations, failure to observe which on the part of the union officials had given rise to the court ruling.
  367. 367 With regard to the freezing of trade union funds, the Government states that this was the inevitable consequence of the suspension of trade union status and that it was decreed as soon as the Government had detailed and incontrovertible information that these funds were being managed irregularly and transferred to the private bank accounts of the trade union leaders and their relations and friends with the purpose of avoiding the supervision prescribed by law and of using the funds to sustain an attitude of rebellion that could not be accepted by the Government without detriment to the principle of authority.
  368. 368 In its communication of 26 September 1967 the Government states that Ministerial Resolution No. 280/67 rescinds " the taking over of the unions of the chemical industry ".
  369. 369 The Government, in its communication of 2 October 1967, furnishes its observations on the measures of control forming the subject of allegations by the C.G.T. (see paragraph 358 above). It states that the decree to take over the Press Union of Buenos Aires (Decree No. 321 of 22 July 1966) was issued as a result of disturbances occurring at the headquarters of the union during the meeting held on 19 July 1966 and that its purpose was to safeguard the state of order required for the normal operation of trade union organisations and to restore the operation of the union to normal when circumstances should permit. The Union of Newspaper and Periodical Sellers was taken over (Decree No. 320 of 22 July 1966) because a group of its members had forcibly occupied its headquarters, thrown out the members of the managing committee and illegally assumed the management of the union. The Government appointed a trustee in order to restore the operation of the union to normal as soon as possible. The Federation of Press Employees was taken over (Decree No. 548 of 22 August 1966) for reasons similar to those that had led to the taking over of the Press Union of Buenos Aires and because the Federation was hindering the work of the trustee appointed to the Press Union. The trustee was given instructions to restore the operation of the Federation to normal as soon as possible. The Tobacco Workers' Union of the Federal Capital and Greater Buenos Aires was without officers because it had exceeded the legal periods established for terms of office and because its affairs had not been restored to normal despite the repeated warnings of the administrative and judicial authorities. The Government considered it necessary to take steps making the normal operation of the union possible (Decree No. 594 of 22 August 1966). The Government states that this union has had its situation restored to normal with the assumption of office by the new officials elected in the various branches. A conflict of opposing factions in the Fishery Workers' Union had led to criminal charges of usurpation and the Government ordered its taking over in defence of the members' interests (Decree No. 719). With regard to the decrees of September 1966 concerning the Staff Association of the University of Buenos Aires and the Forestry Workers' Federation of Santiago, the Government refers to the motives underlying the decree applying to the former body, also mentioning that one of the trade union leaders had committed offences against one of the faculties, and it states that the latter body had not observed the laws and regulations governing occupational associations (failure to bring the union rules into conformity with Act No. 14455, despite repeated warnings, and the fact that the election of union officials had not been carried out in conformity with section 11 and the other relevant sections of this Act).
  370. 370 The Committee observes that the organisations affected by section 1 of Resolution No. 119 of the Secretariat of State for Labour appear to remain deprived of their trade union status, with the possible exception of the Chemical and Allied Workers' Union of Argentina, to which the Committee understands the Government to be referring in reporting the cancellation of " the taking over of the unions of the chemical industry ". The Railway Workers' Union also appears to remain deprived of its trade union status and under government control.
  371. 371 With reference to the financial measures, it appears from the information supplied by the Government that section 2 of Resolution No. 119 has been rescinded (suspension of authorisations to retain dues and contributions). It does not appear that the corresponding provision affecting the Railway Workers' Union has been rescinded. With reference to the lifting of the measures for the freezing of bank accounts-measures that, according to the Government, were intended to prevent the funds being transferred to private accounts so that they could be used to create disturbances-the Committee has at its disposal only the information supplied by the International Metalworkers' Federation, according to which the Metal Workers' Union has been informed that the right to dispose of its funds has been restored to it.
  372. 372 In examining Case No. 308 concerning Argentina in its 73rd and 74th Reports, the Committee pointed out that section 34 (2) of Act No. 14455 confers on the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, as the authority responsible for enforcing the law, the power to withdraw or suspend the trade union status of occupational associations. On that occasion the Committee referred to the conclusions it had already reached in previous cases concerning Argentina. In these cases the Committee had stated that in Argentina, " from the strictly trade union point of view, the functions allotted to the unions without trade status were extremely limited " and that " in view of the statutory distinction between organisations possessing trade status and ordinary trade unions, the Committee considered that organisations without trade status do not have the right to organise in freedom their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes ".
  373. 373 In Case No. 308 the Committee considered that the possibility under Argentine legislation of the adoption with immediate effect of such measures as the suspension or dissolution of a workers' organisation by administrative authority constituted a violation of the provisions of Article 4 of Convention No. 87. The Committee considered that in matters of this kind it must look beyond the form of the action taken to its substantial nature and effect. While the organisations in question might not have been formally suspended or dissolved, the action taken in respect of them was tantamount to suspension or dissolution in its practical effect. The Convention as a guarantee of a fundamental freedom, the Committee added, was concerned not only with words but also with realities, and the Committee must therefore look beyond the form to the substance.
  374. 374 On the same occasion the Committee recalled that, as it had already emphasised in the past, where suspension measures were issued by administrative authority there might be a danger that they would appear to be arbitrary, even though they were issued only temporarily or for a limited time as a preliminary to subsequent court action. The Committee considered that " for the satisfactory application of the principle contained in Article 4 of Convention No. 87, it is not sufficient for legislation to grant the right of appeal against suspension or dissolution decisions issued by administrative authority, but such decisions should not come into effect until the statutory period has expired, without an appeal being lodged, or until they have been confirmed by a court verdict ". In paragraph 88 of its 74th Report the Committee recommended the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to the principle contained in Article 4 of Convention No. 87, and to request the Government to examine the possibility of amending the provisions of its legislation accordingly. The 74th Report of the Committee was approved by the Governing Body at its 159th Session (June-July 1964).
  375. 375 In the report presented by the Argentine Government in accordance with article 22 of the I.L.O. Constitution for 1964-66 on the application of Convention No. 98, a summary is given of a judgment issued on 28 June 1966 by Tribunal V of the National Chamber of Labour to the effect that " the introduction of an appeal against the cancellation of the trade union status of a trade union has a suspensory effect " and " the union whose trade union status has been cancelled retains this status until a decision is given in the appeal introduced against the suspension ". The Committee observes that this decision refers to the cancellation of trade union status and not to its suspension.
  376. 376 The Committee, therefore, without prejudice to its right to reiterate the importance of the principle embodied in Article 4 of Convention No. 87, considers it most desirable to know whether the interpretation of the courts also gives suspensory effect to an appeal against administrative resolutions, such as Resolutions Nos. 119 and 104, suspending the trade union status of trade union organisations.
  377. 377 With regard to the decrees on the taking over of various trade unions and the freezing of bank accounts, it should be pointed out that Article 3 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), provides that workers' organisations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes, and that the public authorities shall refrain from any interference that would restrict this right or impede its lawful exercise. The Committee has already had occasion to consider the taking over of trade union organisations by the Government in earlier cases concerning Argentina. In these cases the Governing Body decided to draw the attention of the Government to the importance that it attached to these provisions of Article 3 of Convention No. 87, which had been ratified by Argentina. In Case No. 385 concerning Brazil the Committee, dealing with a similar situation, recommended the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that the placing of trade union organisations under control might entail a serious danger of restricting the right of workers' organisations to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organise their administration and activities.
  378. 378 In the present case the Committee, in view of the motives that appear to underlie the decrees taking over unions and freezing bank accounts, recalls that in earlier cases it has considered that the principles embodied in Article 3 of Convention No. 87 do not pre vent the control of the internal acts of a trade union if these violate legal or statutory provisions. Nevertheless, the Committee has also considered that it is of the greatest importance, in order to guarantee an impartial and objective procedure, that this control should be exercised by the relevant judicial authority.
  379. 379 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
       • (a) to take note that the Government has rescinded section 2 of Resolution No. 119/67, which suspended the authorisation to retain the dues and contributions of members of five trade union organisations, and that the Railway Workers' Union has recovered its legal status;
       • (b) with regard to the measures to suspend trade union status, to point out again to the Government, for the reasons expressed in paragraphs 372 to 374 above, the importance of the provision in Article 4 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), which has been ratified by Argentina, to the effect that workers' organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority;
       • (c) to request the Government to be good enough to explain whether a legal appeal against a resolution suspending trade union status has suspensory effect;
       • (d) with regard to the decrees to take over various trade union organisations and the measures to freeze their bank accounts, to draw the attention of the Government once more to the importance of the provisions of Article 3 of Convention No. 87 and the principle mentioned in paragraph 378 above;
       • (e) to express the hope that the measures referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (d) of this paragraph that are still in force will be rescinded in the near future and to ask the Government to be good enough to keep it informed of any developments in this connection.
  380. Allegations concerning the Interference of the Authorities in the Affairs of the General Confederation of Labour
  380. 380 The General Confederation of Labour (C.G.T.) alleges in its communications of 29 June and 31 July 1967 that the Government appointed supervisors by a resolution of July 1966 to check compliance with the Confederation's Constitution, the number of members and payers of dues, the documentation and the holding of a C.G.T. Congress. It also states that the Government has placed administrative obstacles in the way of the legal recognition of the election of new officers, in accordance with the rules, at the meeting of the Central Committee of the Confederation held on 24 and 25 May 1967, " with the result that union funds deposited in banks have been virtually frozen ". The National Council for Broadcasting and Television, for its part, had issued instructions that radio and television stations should prevent the publication of news or notices referring directly or indirectly to the C.G.T. Plan of 3 February.
  381. 381 The Government replies that the Secretariat of State for Labour, as the authority responsible for the application of Act No. 14455, must exercise a right of regular supervision over the various stages in the electoral procedure through which trade union bodies elect new managing committees. It was expressly stated in the July 1966 resolution that supervision was to be exercised without interference in the management and administration of the bodies in question or in the electoral procedure, and this is what actually happened. With regard to the prohibition of radio news about the C.G.T. Action Plan, the Government states that, as it has already pointed out, it considered the C.G.T. Action Plan to be subversive and prejudicial to peace and public order and that it had not been motivated by trade union considerations. The Government therefore considered it appropriate to restrict news tending to provoke the disturbance of public order or the perpetration of acts of violence.
  382. 382 In view of the Government's declaration that the resolution on the supervision of C.G.T elections in 1966 excluded all interference in the administration of the bodies concerned or in the elections themselves and since the allegation concerning this point is couched in very general terms, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this particular aspect of the question does not call for further examination.
  383. 383 On the other hand, the Committee recalls that in various earlier cases, it has maintained that the right to express opinions through the press or in any other way is certainly one of the essential elements of trade union rights. It therefore considers it necessary, before continuing the examination of this aspect of the case, to request the Government to be good enough to send more detailed information on the reasons for which it considered that the C.G.T. Action Plan was subversive and that news of it from trade union sources might provoke disturbances of public order. Moreover, since the Government has not yet sent its observations on the allegation concerning the administrative obstacles placed in the way of the recognition of the new officials of the C.G.T in May 1967, the Committee also requests the Government to be good enough to send its observations in this connection.
• Allegations concerning Measures Taken against Trade Union Leaders and Members
  384. 384 According to several complaints, penalties have been imposed on officials and members of various organisations on account of their trade union activities and in particular because they supported the strike declared by the C.G.T. Twenty officials of the Railway Workers' Union were dismissed and 116,000 railway workers were reduced in grade or suspended. The dismissal was decreed of 120 employees of the Greater Buenos Aires Electricity Department (S.E.G.B.A.), of a number of workers of the Water and Power Departments and of 24 workers of the National Telecommunications Undertaking. Suspension was imposed on 1,500 members of the State Workers' Association, employed in arsenals, the Valentin Alsina Steel Works and elsewhere. It is also alleged that 20 workers, including members of the " internal committee " and leading officials, were dismissed from the San Nicolás Steel Works and 200 workers from a Buenos Aires factory making electrical equipment. Lastly, 135 members of the Telephone Workers' and Employees' Union were dismissed and more than 2,000 of them were reduced in grade or suspended.
  385. 385 In its supplementary observations of 30 August 1967 the Government states that the allegations that railway workers have been dismissed merely because they went on strike for occupational reasons are untrue. It adds that it has already declared its firm resolution to respect trade union rights, but that it has no inclination to tolerate any infringement of its right to exercise authority in consequence of attitudes or actions going beyond the scope of trade unionism and assuming a political form or endeavouring to influence the course of government.
  386. 386 In view of the general character of the government reply mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the Committee, before continuing to examine this aspect of the case, requests the Government to be good enough to supply more detailed observations in reply to the various specific allegations referred to in paragraph 384 above.
• Allegations concerning the Civil Defence Act
  387. 387 Several of the complainant organisations, in particular the World Federation of Trade Unions and the Latin American Federation of Christian Trade Unions (C.L.A.S.C.), referred to the promulgation by a decree dated 4 March 1967 of the Civil Defence Act. In the opinion of the C.L.A.S.C the Act prejudices the exercise of trade union rights by granting the public authorities the power to call up all citizens over the age of 14 to safeguard national security and internal order. In the opinion of the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions the matter should be studied in the light of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29).
  388. 388 The Government, in the observations attached to its communication of 30 May 1967, states that the Act in question governs the universally recognised obligation of the population to contribute to the defence of the country and is not intended to obstruct the advancement of trade union rights.
  389. 389 From the text of the Act, which has been sent by the complainants, it appears that its provisions are applicable to all inhabitants of the country, with exceptions provided for on grounds of age, diplomatic immunity, etc.
  390. 390 In these circumstances, and in view of the government declaration and the fact that the complainants have produced no evidence that the Act is or has been applied to the prejudice of freedom of association, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the allegations in question do not call for further consideration.
• Allegations concerning Compulsory Arbitration and Collective Bargaining
  391. 391 The C.L.A.S.C alleges that Act No. 16936/66 on compulsory arbitration abolishes the right to strike, cancels the provisions of Act No. 14250 on collective agreements and violates the relevant international standards. The C.L.A.S.C refers to the arbitration to which the sugar workers' union was subjected against its will, in which a decision not subject to appeal fixed a wage increase of 13 per cent whereas the increase in the cost of living was over 60 per cent. The General Confederation of Labour mentions the promulgation of this Act.
  392. 392 Furthermore, according to information supplied by the Telephone Workers' and Employees' Union and attached to the communication of the C.L.A.S.C dated 2 May 1967, by virtue of two recent Acts (No. 17224 referring to private concerns and No. 17131 referring to the public sector), " the joint agreements on collective bargaining have been abolished ". At a meeting of the Joint Committee convened by the Ministry of Labour to discuss new wage scales for telephone and telecommunications workers, a government representative stated that " by order of authority, the National Joint Committee is dissolved ", and that the provisions of the Acts in question must be observed. According to this information, Act No. 17224 fixes percentage wage increases on the basis of the expiry dates of the respective agreements, whereas Act No. 17131 provides that wage increases for the staff of the public services and decentralised bodies shall be fixed by an Advisory Committee on Wages Policy without the participation of trade union representatives.
  393. 393 With regard to Act No. 16936 respecting compulsory arbitration in labour disputes, the Government, which supplies the text, explains in its communication of 2 October 1967 that the Act owes its existence to the need to seek appropriate formulae to settle labour disputes that may affect vital national interests and delay the process of recovery to which the Argentine revolution is committed. The Government denies that Act No. 17224 constitutes a violation of freedom of association and states that its purpose is to harmonise and co-ordinate the economic recovery of the country and at the same time to ensure the workers a genuine wage by means of graded increases according to the expiry dates of the various agreements.
  394. 394 The Committee observes that section 1 of Act No. 16936 empowers the national authority responsible for the application of the Act to arrogate to itself the hearing and settlement of collective disputes, whether on matters of law or of interest, that arise in the following cases:
       • (a) in places subject to the national jurisdiction;
       • (b) when their nature places them beyond the jurisdiction of a single province;
       • (c) when by their nature they affect national economic activity, productivity, development and progress or the security and welfare of the community.
  395. 395 In accordance with section 2 of the Act, the same authority may submit these disputes to compulsory arbitration by issuing a resolution without appeal, ordering the cessation within 24 hours of any measures of direct action that may have been adopted. In a dispute submitted to compulsory arbitration the arbitrator is the Minister of Labour and Social Security or the person whom he appoints, who will be chosen from officials trained for the purpose or from persons conversant with economics or labour law (section 3). The decision will be handed down within a period of ten working days (section 5) and appeal against it may be lodged within three days, " only for annulment based on the judgments having been given on irrelevant questions and/or having been given outside the period laid down " (section 6). Where the collective dispute is one of interest, the decision will have the effect of a collective agreement and will be in force for a minimum period of one year (section 7). Where the dispute concerns a matter of law, the parties may, after complying with the decision, introduce a legal action for its revision (section 8). Section 9 prescribes penalties for the employer or worker who does not comply with the order to cease direct measures or with the decision handed down: the employer will be liable to a fine and the worker will be liable to justified dismissal, and this will be without prejudice to the legal provisions concerning the legal personality or the trade union status of the occupational associations concerned.
  396. 396 The alleged elimination of specific joint machinery and the powers conferred on the Minister by Act No. 16936 appear to raise questions that must be examined in the light of certain generally recognised principles respecting freedom of association and, in any case, in the light of that contained in Article 4 of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), which has been ratified by Argentina. In accordance with this Article, " measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organisations and workers' organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements ". The Committee observes that under section 11 the provisions of Act No. 16936 shall remain in force until 31 December 1967.
  397. 397 In view of this and the fact that the observations of the Government have been expressed in general terms and concern only part of the allegations mentioned in paragraph 392 above, the Committee deems it advisable to postpone consideration of these allegations until its next meeting.
  398. 398 The Committee therefore requests the Government to be good enough to report on specific cases in which Act No. 16936 is applied during the period of its validity and also to send the text of Acts Nos. 17224 and 17131.
• Other Allegations
  399. 399 The General Confederation of Labour (C.G.T.), in its communication of 29 June, lists a series of facts that, taken in conjunction with the other allegations already examined in earlier paragraphs, constitute the basis of its complaint. The C.G.T quotes government provisions on the taking over of the Federal Social Security Council, the National Council for the Living Wage and other bodies and on the establishment of a committee of control for the social work of the trade unions. It also states that on 8 February 1967 the Public Prosecutor sought the indictment of the trade union leaders who had voted for the C.G.T. Action Plan on 3 February, but adds that on 5 April the judge decided to grant the accused a stay of execution. The C.G.T attributes to " police excesses " the death of Mrs de Molina, wife of a Tucumán trade union leader, and mentions the death of a worker, Mr. Pampillón, during a student demonstration.
  400. 400 The C.G.T also mentions the reintroduction on 2 March 1967 of Decree No. 969/66 issuing regulations under the Act on occupational associations.
  401. 401 In its communication of 2 October 1967 the Government replies to these points separately, stating in essence that the taking over of public bodies like the Federal Social Security Council, which is not a trade union organisation, has no connection with alleged infringements of freedom of association. The taking over of the National Council for the Living Wage was intended to bring social policy into line with economic planning and the Committee of Control of Trade Union Assistance Services is intended to co-ordinate and harmonise the operation of these services. The death of Mrs de Molina is a police matter, in which action has been taken by the judicial authorities, and this is also true of the death of the student Pampillón, which occurred during a student protest demonstration.
  402. 402 The Government further states that the adoption of Decree No. 969/66 has had the sole purpose of guaranteeing to the workers the possibility of electing trade union officers by direct and individual vote.
  403. 403 In view of the replies furnished by the Government to the allegations mentioned in paragraphs 399 and 400 above, which are worded in very general terms by the complainants, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further consideration.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

• Request for the Institution of a Committee of Inquiry
  404. 404 In its communication of 2 May 1967 the C.L.A.S.C asked the I.L.O to take steps to set up a Committee of Inquiry, " to go to the Argentine Republic and investigate on the spot the serious nature of the systematic repression that has been unleashed against trade unionism in that country ".
  405. 405 In view of the observations and information sent by the Government in respect of the various allegations and of the conclusions and recommendations made by the Committee to the Governing Body, including the recommendation that it should request the Government to furnish certain additional information, the Committee thinks that it would be premature at this stage in the examination of the case to consider the request of the C.L.A.S.C referred to in the preceding paragraph.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 406. In these circumstances, and with regard to the case as a whole, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) for the reasons expressed in paragraphs 382, 390 and 403 above respectively, to decide that the allegations concerning the interference of the Government in the 1966 Congress of the C.G.T, the Civil Defence Act and various points mentioned in general terms in the C.G.T complaint do not call for further examination;
   • (b) with regard to the arrest of the trade union leader, Eustaquio Tolosa:
   • (i) to take note of the Government's statement that proceedings are continuing before a court of ordinary jurisdiction in connection with the prosecution brought against Mr. Tolosa for having contravened section 1 of Act No. 14034;
   • (ii) to take note that, in the meantime, Mr. Tolosa continues to be under preventive detention by virtue of the writ issued by the judge in the case and confirmed by the appeals court;
   • (iii) to draw the Government's attention to the importance which the Governing Body has always attached to the principle of prompt and fair trial, mentioned in paragraph 330 above, and to request the Government to be good enough to keep the Governing Body informed of Mr. Tolosa's situation, and to be good enough to send the text of the judgment, as well as the grounds adduced therein, once it has been given.
   • (c) with regard to the 1966 dock dispute:
   • (i) to take note of the declaration by the Government that it does not intend to maintain its control of the United Argentine Dockers' Union indefinitely and that it will rather endeavour to ensure that the organisation in question is shortly able to operate normally;
   • (ii) to express the hope that the necessary measures will be adopted as soon as possible and to ask the Government to keep it informed of developments in this connection;
   • (iii) to draw the attention of the Government to the importance that it has always attached, where restrictions are placed on the right to strike in essential services, to the subjection of such restrictions to impartial and rapid conciliation and arbitration procedures, in all stage of which the parties concerned can take part;
   • (iv) to take note of the statement by the Government that the emergency measures have been lifted and that work in the port of Buenos Aires has been entirely restored to normal;
   • (v) to request the Government nevertheless to be good enough to reply to the allegation that most of the port workers of Buenos Aires have been deprived of employment for having acted in defence of their trade union interests;
   • (d) with regard to the measures to take over various trade union organisations or to suspend their trade union status:
   • (i) to take note that the Government has rescinded section 2 of Resolution No. 119/67, which suspended the authorisation to retain dues and contributions on behalf of and that the Railway Workers' five trade union organisations, Union has recovered its legal status;
   • (ii) with regard to the measures to suspend trade union status, to point out again to the Government, for the reasons expressed in paragraphs 372 to 374 above, the importance of the provision in Article 4 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), which has been ratified by Argentina, to the effect that workers' organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority;
   • (iii) to request the Government to be good enough to explain whether a legal appeal against a resolution suspending trade union status has suspensory effect;
   • (iv) with regard to the decrees to take over various trade union organisations and the measures to freeze their bank accounts, to draw the attention of the Government once more to the importance of the provisions of Article 3 of Convention No. 87 relating to the right of workers' organisations to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes, and to point out to it also the importance, where trade unions violate legal or statutory provisions, of ensuring that control is exercised by the judicial authorities with a view to guaranteeing an impartial and objective procedure;
   • (v) to express the hope that the measures referred to in clauses (ii) and (iv) of this subparagraph that are still in force will be rescinded in the near future and to ask the Government to be good enough to keep it informed of any developments in this connection;
   • (e) to take note of this interim report, it being understood that the Committee will present a new report on the aspects of the case that are still pending when it has received the additional information mentioned in points (b) (iii), (c) (ii) and (v), (d) (iii) and (v) of this paragraph and the additional information requested by the Committee in paragraphs 383, 386 and 398 of the present report.