Definitive Report - Report No 108, 1969

Case No 553 (Argentina) - Complaint date: 03-MAY-68 - Closed

Display in: French - Spanish

Go to:

68. The complaint of the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions (I.F.C.T.U.) is contained in two communications dated 3 May and 10 July 1968 and the complaint of the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions of Transport Workers (I.F.C.T.U.T.W.) in a communication dated 28 May 1968. Copies of these communications were sent to the Government, which presented its observations through the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Argentina to the International Organisations in Geneva on 17 September 1968.
69. 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).

70. In its first communication the I.F.C.T.U requested the I.L.O. to intervene on account of the many arrests carried out by the Argentine authorities during the May Day demonstrations. Three Christian trade union officers were said to be among the persons arrested. In its second communication the I.F.C.T.U complained of the imprisonment of Mr. Julio Guillán and other officers of the Argentine General Confederation of Labour. The I.F.C.T.U.T.W also referred to the arrest of a large number of those taking part in the May Day demonstrations and mentioned by name Mr. Carlos Custer, Mr. Emilio Valenti, and Mr. Juan Carlos Loureiro. Both organisations maintained that through these measures the Argentine Government had violated the International Labour Conventions on freedom of association.
71. In its reply the Government refers only to the two communications of the I.F.C.T.U and states that the arrests of the trade unionists mentioned in the complaint were carried out as a result of their participation with other active members in the disorders occurring on 1 May and 28 June 1968 in connection with unauthorised public activities. The arrests were carried out to safeguard public order, and " all those arrested were soon restored to liberty ". The Government declares that measures of this kind cannot be confused with the infringement of trade union rights and encloses a copy of the police regulations on disorders.

72. In earlier cases the Committee has considered that the right to organise public meetings, particularly on May Day, is an important aspect of trade union rights, The Committee has also considered, however, that it rests with the Government, which is responsible for the maintenance of public order, to decide in the exercise of its police powers whether meetings, including trade union meetings, may in certain special circumstances endanger public order and security, and to take adequate preventive measures.
73. In the present case it appears from the communication of the Government that the persons referred to in the complaints were arrested for participation in disorders arising in connection with certain unauthorised public activities. The persons were not prosecuted on these grounds, however, and they were soon restored to liberty. The Committee understands that these persons included the trade unionists mentioned by name in the I.F.C.T.U.T.W complaint, since the Government states that all those arrested during the May Day disorders have been released.

74. In these circumstances, and subject to the principles expressed in paragraph 72 above, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the present case does not call for further examination.