Definitive Report - Report No 217, June 1982

Case No 1125 (Argentina) - Complaint date: 31-MAR-82 - Closed

1. 336. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) presented complaints of violation of trade union rights in Argentina in communications dated 31 March and 6 April 1982, respectively. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 12 April 1982.
2. 337. 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. The complainants' allegations

1. 338. The ICFTU states in its complaint that almost all the members of the executive Committee of the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) were arrested on 30 March 1982 because of a peaceful demonstration which they had intended to organise at the Plaza de Mayo, where the palace of the President of the Republic is situated, to protest against the restrictions on freedom of association, inflation and unemployment and in favour of better wage conditions.
2. 339. According to the ICFTU, the police hampered the demonstration by arresting the CGT leaders and a considerable number of demonstrators.
3. 340. The WCL expresses its concern over these incidents. It adds that even if the leaders and active trade unionists have been released, a whole range of restrictions will certainly continue to affect the workers' trade union organisation and restrict the full exercise of trade union activities.

B. The Government's reply

1. 341. The Government explains that "the movement which is called the CGT" decided to organise a public meeting on 30 March 1982 in the Plaza de Mayo without requesting the police authorisation required by Act No. 20.120 of 25 January 1973. Under the terms of this Act, such advance authorisation is in fact required for the holding of meetings in public places or places which are usually open to the public.
2. 342. According to the Government, the aims of the meeting were extra-occupational, the proof of which being that the organisers had been trying to arrive at an agreement with certain political groupings. The Government points out that the majority wing of trade unionism within the National Labour Commission (CNT) and the "20" ignored the call for a demonstration. Even within the CGT certain currents were against it. After the 29 March announcement that a demonstration was being organised, the Ministry of the Interior released a statement, which was widely disseminated, recalling that the state of siege was still in force and that Act No. 20.120 regulated freedom of assembly.
3. 343. In addition, the Government states that it was announced that since such meetings could be used to attack public security and order, the necessary measures would be taken to guarantee the strict application of the legislation in force and to safeguard social peace. A few days beforehand the organisers had in fact announced publicly their decision not to request authorisation.
4. 344. Consequently, the Government took certain security measures to maintain the calm of the population which had largely not responded to or supported the call for a meeting. According to the Government, police and security forces were restricted to ensuring order and the normal carrying out of activities in the country.
5. 345. Some incidents did take place as a result of the intemperance of the organisers who would not renounce their wish to upset the social peace. Therefore some arrests had to be made. Ir. the majority of cases, after identity checks, those concerned were immediately released; 102 persons were detained for disobeying an order to disperse given by the police; this should entail a punishment of five days' detention. They were finally freed, on the Government's orders, after 72 hours.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 346. The Committee notes the Government's observations, in particular that the CGT had not requested previous authorisation to organise a public demonstration for 30 March 1982.
2. 347. In this regard, the Committee must recall that, if the organisers must respect the general provisions relating to meetings in public places which apply to everyone, this principle being also set out in Article 8 of Convention No. 87 according to which workers and their organisations must respect the law of the land, the right to hold trade union meetings is an essential element of freedom of association.
3. 348. However, in the present case, the Committee must note that the restrictions imposed in the country on trade union organisation in general - and in particular on Confederations, especially the CGT - have not been lifted by the terms of Act No. 22.105 of November 1979 and consequently are liable to lead to situations of conflict such as the subject of the complaints. As the CGT has not in fact been recognised by the Government, it had an even greater reason not to be able to obtain authorisation to organise public demonstrations for the purpose of making its claims known. Such a situation can therefore only help in dissuading it from requesting the necessary authorisation.
4. 349. As regards the arrests carried out during the meeting, the Committee notes that the persons concerned have been released.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 350. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this report, in particular the following conclusions:
   • (a) The Committee recalls that if trade union organisations must respect the general provisions relating to meetings in public places which apply to everyone, the right to hold trade union meetings is an essential element of freedom of association.
   • (b) However, it notes that the restrictions imposed on trade union organisations and particularly Confederations are liable to lead to situations of conflict such as the subject of these complaints.
   • (c) The Committee notes the release of the persons arrested during the demonstration.