Definitive Report - Report No 132, 1972

Case No 691 (Argentina) - Complaint date: 10-FEB-72 - Closed

1. 20. The complaint is contained in a communication addressed direct to the ILO by the General Confederation of Labour on 10 February 1972. This complaint was supported by the International Federation of Chemical and General Workers' Unions, the International Metalworkers' Federation, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, the International Federation of Building and Woodworkers, the International Transport Workers' Federation and the International Union of Food and Allied Workers' Associations.
2. 21. The complaint was transmitted to the Government of Argentina, which forwarded its observations in two communications dated 27 April and 16 May 1972.
3. 22. 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

1. 23. The complainants maintain that the right to conclude collective agreements, laid down in Convention No. 98, is likewise embodied in the National Constitution and in Act No. 14250 of 1953. This Act has been continuously in force, with the exception of a few periods in recent years when it was suspended by the Government. The complainants state that fresh negotiations were to be held to revise the collective agreements reached in 1971, and that the revised agreements would have come into force on 1 April 1972. Before the expiry of the old agreements, however, the Government promulgated Act No. 19403 whereby the collective agreements in force were extended until 31 October 1973 and absurdly low percentages fixed for wage increases. By this action, the complainants maintain, the Government infringed not only a Constitutional guarantee but also Convention No. 98. The General Confederation of Labour appealed to the President to have the wage measures repealed, but to no avail.
2. 24. In its communication of 27 April 1972, the Government states that the Constitutional provision to which the complainants refer does not prevent the State from postponing collective bargaining when the economic situation makes such action advisable, or from promulgating legislation ensuring decent conditions of work and fair wages for the workers in accordance with the terms of the Constitution itself. Act No. 19403 has neither abolished nor suspended the system of collective agreements but has merely extended the agreements already in force. In so doing, the Government has taken account of an exceptional economic and political situation and its aim is to check the inflation that is reducing the purchasing power of the population. The President has stated that the Government's fundamental objectives are the maintenance of real wages, a high rate of investment in public works, the prevention of recession, the slowing down of the rate of inflation by means other than purely monetary measures, the reorganisation of public finance on a sound footing, increased domestic savings and the rational use of foreign savings.
3. 25. The Government concludes by saying that to enable workers to keep up with the rising cost of living, the above-mentioned Act (No. 19403) has also established percentages for wage increase for the periods 1 January to 30 June 1972 and 1 July to 31 December 1972. As part of a coherent wage policy, a reasonable increase has also been made in the minimum living wage.
4. 26. In its communication of 16 May 1972, the Government states that on 27 April 1972 the President announced important economic and social measures. The decisions taken included one concerning the convening, during the second half of the current year, of the joint committees provided for in Act No. 14250 " to draw up the new collective agreements that will come into force on 1 January 1973 ". The Government adds that this is proof of the firm intention of the authorities to comply with Convention No. 98.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 27. The Committee recalls that it has already stated in the past, in two cases concerning Argentina, that if, as part of its stabilisation policy, a government considers that wage rates cannot be settled freely through collective bargaining, such a restriction should be imposed as an exceptional measure and only to the extent that is necessary, without exceeding a reasonable period, and it should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers' living standards.)
2. 28. The Committee has also referred in the past to certain procedures designed to ensure that the parties to collective bargaining have regard voluntarily in their negotiations to considerations relating to the economic or social policy of the government and the safeguarding of the national interest. In this respect the Committee has pointed out that it was necessary first of all that the objectives to be recognised as being in the general interest should have been widely discussed by all parties on a national scale through a body such as a national social policy advisory board, in accordance with the principle laid down by the Consultation (Industrial and National Levels) Recommendation, 1960 (No. 113). It might also be possible to envisage a procedure whereby the attention of the parties could be drawn, in certain cases, to the considerations of general interest which might call for further examination of the terms of agreement on their part. If the public authority considered that the terms of the proposed agreements were manifestly in conflict with the economic policy objectives recognised as being desirable in the general interest, the cases could be submitted for advice and recommendation to an appropriate consultative body, it being understood, however, that the final decision in the matter rested with the parties to the agreement.,

29. The Committee notes with interest the information supplied by the Government, and particularly the latter's statement concerning the resumption of collective bargaining in the coming months. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to the considerations set out in the preceding paragraph and to decide that this case calls for no further examination.