Definitive Report - Report No 214, March 1982

Case No 1067 (Argentina) - Complaint date: 24-JUL-81 - Closed

1. 190. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) presented complaints regarding the violation of trade union rights in Argentina in telegrams dated respectively 24 and 27 July 1981. The ICFTU sent additional information in a letter dated 13 August 1981. The Government forwarded its observations in a letter dated 5 August 1981 and in a further communication received at the ILO on 9 November 1981.
2. 191. Argentina has ratified both 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. The complainants' allegations

1. 192. In their telegrams, the ICFTU and WCL refer to the arrest of trade unionists following a general strike organised by the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) of Argentina on 22 July 1981 in support of the workers' social and economic demands. The complainant organisations mention several trade union leaders as having been arrested: Saúl Ubaldini, Secretary-General of the CGT; JOSE Rodriguez, Secretary-General of the SMATA trade union; Lesio Romero, Secretary-General of the rubber trade union; Ricardo Pérez, Secretary-General of the truckers' trade union; Manuel Diaz Rey, Secretary-General of the commercial travellers' trade union; Antonio Cladera, dockers' trade union; Oswaldo Borda, rubber trade union; and Fernando Donaires, member of the executive Committee of the CGT. According to the ICFTU, the trade unionists face a possible ten-year prison sentence.
2. 193. In its letter dated 13 August 1981, the ICFTU explains that the CGT had issued a strike order in June 1981 in support of the mainly economic demands of the workers, hitherto ignored by the employers and Government of Argentina. The union action was planned for 22 July 1981. On 20 July, the Government announced that it would severely repress "any show of force constituting a threat to internal peace and security".
3. 194. The 22 July day of protest whereby, according to the ICFTU, the Argentinian workers wished to show their concern in face of the steady drop in purchasing power and the constant increase in unemployment culminated in a display of severe repression by the authorities. The ICFTU further claims that 33 CGT leaders were arrested several of whom, at the time the complaint was presented, were still in prison. According to an official statement, all these union leaders were liable to indictment for violation of the law prohibiting the use of force or the state of emergency and face heavy prison sentences.

B. The Government's reply

1. 195. In its letter dated 5 August 1981, the Government states that José Rodriguez, Lesio Romero, Ricardo Manuel Pérez, Manuel Diaz Rey and Alberto Alfonso Cladera were placed under preventive arrest by the police on 22 July 1981 for instigating a strike. They were all released on 24 July, in accordance with a decision of the national judge of first instance. The Government adds that Saúl Ubaldini, arrested on 23 July 1981, was also released.
2. 196. The Government further claims that Fernando Donaires and Oswaldo Borda were not detained but were cleared of all charges by the judge.
3. 197. According to the Government the "day of protest" was aimed at bringing political pressure to bear on the Government and that the direct action resorted to by the persons involved was not concerned with any labour dispute or the defence of occupational interests.
4. 198. In its November 1981 communication, the Government explains that the organisation which calls itself the CGT decided to call a "day of protest" on 22 July 1981. The decision was contained in a document dated 19 July, in which the CGT proposed a combined action by the national community in the form of a total stoppage of activities for 24 hours.
5. 199. A few days earlier, the Minister of Labour had declared that direct action of this nature was not called for. He had stated that, in the circumstances prevailing in the country, dialogue and participation by the sectors concerned was the proper method for resolving the problems facing the capital and labour sectors. He further observed that the two sectors involved were very clearly defending their interests and that each was aware that, over and above its own interests, there was a higher general interest, which was the interest of an entire society.
6. 200. In the Government's view, the motive behind the day of protest and its expected outcome were clearly political. As for the significance of the protest, the Government points out that the majority wing of the trade union movement, namely the National Labour Commission and the Group of 20, expressed its disagreement with the stoppage of activities proposed by the CGT. These organisations, moreover, publicly announced their intention to pursue the dialogue proposed and successfully conducted by the Government.
7. 201. The Government goes on to remark that the National Labour Commission and Group of 20 were designated to represent the workers in Argentina's tripartite delegation to the International Labour Conference and that their powers could not legitimately be contested. In the Government's opinion, this had some bearing on the political connotation given to the call for a day of protest. The Government also claims that the CGT's day of protest was observed partially in the industrial suburbs of Buenos Aires, was less successful than expected by the CGT leaders in the interior of the country and went virtually unnoticed in the federal capital.
8. 202. According to the Government, none of the many instances of direct action that have taken place recently have been countered by repression on the part of the authorities. In this case, however, and because of the urgency of the situation, the political connotation given to the proposed movement resulted in the application of national security legislation as an exceptional measure in order to prevent the use of strike action for motives that were unrelated to the defence of occupational interests.
9. 203. Following the day of protest, several persons were called before the national judge of first instance. These included Saúl Ubaldini, Alberto Cladera, Ricardo Pérez, Oswaldo Borda, Fernando Donaires, José Rodriguez, Manuel Diaz Rey and Lesio Romero. Of these, Fernando Donaires and Oswaldo Borda, who were in hiding, were not charged but a "provisional accusation" was registered against them. The other persons charged were released after having been kept in preventive detention. The prosecutor appealed against the decisions but his appeal was rejected and the decision to release the persons held and not to charge the others was confirmed.
10. 204. As regards the other unionists who had been arrested and whose names were not given in the complaints, the Government states that they have all been released and that none were detained for more than 48 or 72 hours.
11. 205. In conclusion, the Government invokes certain principles of the Committee on Freedom of Association relating to political strikes and requests that the complaint be rejected.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 206. This case relates essentially to the day of protest and work stoppage called by the General Confederation of Labour of Argentina on 21 July 1981. As a result of this action, the principal leaders of the CGT and several unionists were arrested. All these persons were brought to trial and eventually released.
2. 207. The complainants allege that the action was called to support the economic and social demands of the workers. On the other hand, the Government claims that the movement had political connotations and that its objective was not the defence of the workers' occupational interests.
3. 208. The Committee has always considered that the right to strike is a legitimate and, indeed, an essential means whereby workers may promote and defend their occupational interests. However, the right to strike constitutes a fundamental right of workers and their organisations only in so far as it is utilised as a means of defending those interests. Accordingly, the prohibition of strikes designed to coerce the Government, if they are not occupational in character, does not constitute an infringement of freedom of association. Nevertheless, the right to strike should not be restricted solely to industrial disputes likely to be resolved through the signing of a collective agreement. Workers' organisations should be allowed to express in a broader context their dissatisfaction as concerns economic and social matters affecting their members' interests.
4. 209. In the present case, the contradictory statements of the complainants and of the Government make it impossible to establish beyond doubt the precise nature of the strike called by the CGT. Be that as it may, the Committee is obliged to note, as it did previously in connection with Case No. 842 which concerns Argentina, that the right to strike has been suspended in this country for over five years. In these circumstances, the Committee feels that it should once again recall that a general suspension of the right to strike is a major obstacle to the exercise of the right of trade unions to organise their activities which is not in conformity with the generally recognised principles of freedom of association.
5. 210. With regard to the arrests that took place in connection with the day of protest, the Committee notes that the persons detained have been released. It would, however, emphasise hat the preventive detention of trade unionists can lead to a serious interference in union affairs and that the police authorities should therefore be given precise instructions so as to prevent people being arrested, in cases where public order is not seriously threatened, simply for having organised or participated in a demonstration.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 211. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve the following conclusions:
   • (a) with regard to the general suspension of the right to strike, which has lasted for over five years, the Committee recalls that a measure of this nature is a major obstacle to the right of trade unions to organise their activities which is not in conformity with the generally recognised principles of freedom of association;
   • (b) as regards the arrests, the Committee notes that the persons detained have been released. It emphasises, however, that the police authorities should be given precise instructions so as to prevent the arrest of persons, in cases where public order is not seriously threatened, simply for having organised or participated in a demonstration.