Interim Report - Report No 358, November 2010

Case No 2726 (Argentina) - Complaint date: 06-JUL-09 - Closed

Allegations: The complainant alleges the violent occupation and theft of materials from its headquarters in the city of Comodoro Rivadavia, in the Province of Chubut, a firearms attack on the home of an UOCRA leader and on a union headquarters building, temporary detention of leaders and workers who took part in a protest, temporary kidnapping of a UOCRA leader, etc.

1. 172. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Argentinean Building Workers’ Union (UOCRA) dated 6 July 2009. UOCRA sent further information in a communication dated 16 July 2009 and more allegations in communications dated 14 August and 1 December 2009.
2. 173. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 27 May 2010.
3. 174. 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 complainant’s allegation

1. 175. In its communication of 6 July 2009, UOCRA states that it is making a formal complaint against the Argentinean Government and the Province of Chubut for violation of the principles of freedom of association. UOCRA states that it is a primary trade union organization that operates throughout Argentina. The scope as to categories of persons and geographical area covered by it come under the terms of the official trade union status, which was granted to the organization under section 17. Law No. 23551 and its regulatory Decree No. 467, both passed in 1988, are the source of regulation for workers’ trade union associations. This legal agreement comes under the federal authority’s regulatory powers and is applied in an exclusive and excluding manner throughout the country. UOCRA states that it is making this clarification because, for the purposes of the complaint, it should be pointed out that Argentina has a federal system and comprises 23 provinces and an autonomous city, which are autonomous districts that exercise all the powers that have not been delegated at the federal level. Standards relating to trade unions and trade union activities have remained under the competence and control of the federal authorities.
2. 176. UOCRA emphasizes that the scope of its representation is national. The legal basis for its representation originates in the standards mentioned and in the instrument registering official trade union status. This accords exclusive representation to UOCRA for all construction workers, and it has duly demonstrated that it is a sufficiently representative organization by the number of its members throughout Argentina. While no dispute has arisen that questions this status of being sufficiently representative, no other bodies or non-members of UOCRA can be authorized to carry out trade union activities under current legislation.
3. 177. UOCRA indicates that the alleged incidents were carried out at the request and instigation of the Chubut provincial authorities, and with their consent and participation. UOCRA states that, as will rapidly be deduced from the events described below, actions and practices that infringe on the exclusive rights of the organization have occurred and continue to occur at the provincial level, with the highest authority and Chubut provincial executive authority officials with competence in labour relations compromising trade union autonomy and, as a result, the principles and guarantees of freedom of association. This situation has been affected and made worse by the intervention of the representative of the federal administrative labour authority who, together with the provincial labour authority: (1) firstly adopted an administrative decision in an alleged labour dispute that was non-existent and was in fact a criminal offence of usurpation – the violent occupation of the headquarters of a branch of UOCRA; and (2) secondly, conferred de facto legitimacy to a group with no representation but which ended up being endorsed by the Chubut provincial authorities.
4. 178. The complainant adds, moreover, that the federal administrative authority representative was not authorized to receive the keys of a building owned by UOCRA, as there was a court order to return them to their legal owner, the trade union. Ultimately, the national Government should take responsibility and guarantee freedom of association to all extents and purposes, as stated by the Committee on Freedom of Association.
5. 179. UOCRA also states that actions aiming to discredit it and hamper the free exercise of its trade union functions originated at the highest levels of the provincial government. The malicious intention of such actions was to encourage the creation of a new local body to be organized and to act in conformity with the authorities’ wishes. It should be mentioned that UOCRA respects the free expression and decisions of the workers, but it warns that this right is being manipulated by the authorities. Therefore, from the point of view of freedom of expression, this is illegal because the will of the workers has been distorted by the authorities because it was done through unlawful violent acts.
6. 180. According to the complainant, the provincial authorities have been involved, whether through action or negligence, in perpetuating an extreme situation, including by supporting the violent occupation of the headquarters building of a branch of UOCRA and by a series of actions and offences of varying magnitude, all aimed at excluding UOCRA from the provincial arena and preventing it from exercising legitimate rights to defence and representation on behalf of its construction worker members. The Governor of the Province of Chubut, under the pretext of an objective analysis of the situation but actually in his own political interests, hampers the professional development of UOCRA, publically discredits its leaders and questions its actions and methods. He does not do this in a detached and disinterested way, however; he does it at the same time as encouraging the creation of a new trade union that acts in his interests. In this situation of abuse and suppression of freedom of association, the Governor has made public statements, saying: “Gone is the complicity between unscrupulous employers and trade union officials, trade unionists that negotiate behind the backs of the workers: they are the ones that discredit genuine trade union organizations acting in defence of the workers, unions formed of responsible and rational men who can feel on an equal footing with their employer and discuss relevant matters. Gone are unfair and arbitrary candidate selections, of whoever they may be. I have said this to Gerardo Martínez as it concerns him; he may be secretary of UOCRA, but I am the Governor of all the workers.” (These statements were published in the newspaper, the Diario de Madryn, on Friday, 26 June 2009.)
7. 181. UOCRA states that what he did not say was that he agreed to the violence, the coercion and the attack on the lawfully constituted trade union. UOCRA indicates that the Governor of the Province of Chubut seems to consider himself the “owner” of the workers of the province that he governs and that he has the right to decide “who” should represent them and “how that should be done”; as if that is not enough, he also offends UOCRA officials and trivializes the lawful representation of the officials elected directly by all UOCRA members, who account for 75 per cent of registered construction workers.
8. 182. UOCRA states that, because of the nature of the complaint, it should be categorized as serious and urgent, with the consequences that that implies. This is a serious violation of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and of the 1952 resolution of the International Labour Conference concerning the independence of the trade union movement. UOCRA adds that it is a primary trade union organization (its members are individual workers throughout Argentina). In accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIV of the Social Statutes, its work in the different areas is done through its branches and divisions. In the Province of Chubut, the Comodoro Rivadavia branch, among others, has been in existence for a long time. This branch includes workers from that particular area of the province.
9. 183. The complainant alleges that the violent occupation of the building that functions as a trade union headquarters – located at Rawson 1405, Comodoro Rivadavia, Chubut Province – took place on 12 March 2009. This was promptly reported to the local criminal justice authorities and a claim – that the municipal, local and national officials have not acted on – was lodged with the authorities concerning illegal deprivation of liberty, usurpation and damage to property, all as actual concurrent offences, before the Criminal Court in case No. 20571, entitled Muñoz, Sergio J. concerning UOCRA claim of usurpation, court application No. 2493. It is worth mentioning that, as a result of this violent action, which lasted more than 30 days, the defence of the rights of the construction workers of the area was seriously compromised because of the unlawful and abrupt ceasing of trade union activities, caused by the non-permitted entry and continued presence of an armed group in the abovementioned headquarters and nearby streets.
10. 184. In addition to being deprived of the use and the enjoyment of its property, UOCRA suffered the following consequences as a result of the violent occupation of its headquarters: (a) discontent from the community over, among other things, the difficulties experienced by residents because of vandalism and police barriers; (b) the destruction and breakage of different items in its property, such as computers, furniture and the building itself; (c) the misappropriation of documents and valuables; and (d) the damage to other institutions near the headquarters, which affected, for example, the daily running of a health-care institution providing services for construction workers and their families.
11. 185. The complaint draws attention to the local court’s delay in ordering the eviction. The Public Prosecutor’s Office requested an eviction order from the judge, but she turned it down. Faced with the provincial criminal courts’ clear lack of willingness to evict the usurpers, an application for amparo (protection of constitutional rights) was brought (UOCRA v. Fernández Darío and others concerning application for amparo, dossier No. 141/2009, before Civil and Commercial Court No. 1 of the Comodoro Rivadavia district). As a precautionary measure, the court’s presiding judge ordered the return of the building to UOCRA, instructing the head of the provincial police force accordingly. Following the operational difficulties expressed by the police, owing to a lack of staff and the impossibility of maintaining order for a period of time that could be extended or extensive, the action was carried out after a longer-than-usual delay, which once again revealed the provincial authorities acting in their own interest and interfering. Not satisfied with meddling in the business of the trade union, the authorities tried to do the same to the judicial body, even infringing the separation of powers, by doing everything possible to postpone the fulfilment of the judge’s orders. No other conclusion can be arrived at if it is taken into account that, in order for an eviction to be carried out, the courts need the assistance of the provincial police, which is under the direct control of the provincial authorities.
12. 186. The eviction did not happen and UOCRA was badly affected when the usurpers gave the keys of the trade union premises, the building that had been vandalized by them, to the federal administrative labour authority. Subsequent legal action was necessary to make the Ministry allow access to the abovementioned building. UOCRA always requested a complete investigation of the events and the identification of the persons that had usurped the trade union headquarters building and it submitted all the evidence available to it, through the correct legal channels, to the judicial authorities. However, the provincial authorities did not have the same attitude, despite knowing that many of them were not construction workers, and that the reasons for the usurpation were clearly political and unrelated to the trade union. The usurpers clearly relied on the consensus and support of the authorities whose leader, confidently and in his own interest, promoted and used the press to demonstrate his liking and preference for that group, and did not condemn in any way the vandalism and unlawful criminal acts of the persons used to achieve his aim of chasing UOCRA from the province.
13. 187. Once again, the provincial labour authorities sanctioned this group, letting it take part in labour policy through site inspections that, shockingly, were not limited to the specific geographical area of its place of work, the Cerro Dragón, but which took place throughout Comodoro Rivadavia, in the Province of Chubut. Once again, this showed their clear intention of pushing out the UOCRA union. Showing his preference and allegiance, the Governor intervened directly into the trade union’s activity in the province, in violation of all the rules of freedom of association, and encouraged the establishment of provincial trade unions that followed his political agenda.
14. 188. UOCRA adds that, at about the same time, and as another example that the authorities’ endorsement of vigilante justice over the law causes more violence, on 10 June, the house of the head of the Comodoro Rivadavia branch of UOCRA, Mr Ricardo Luis Cheuquepal, was attacked. Unknown persons shot high-powered weapons at the house (located in the Trespinos area) while his youngest children were at home.
15. 189. UOCRA asks the Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association to request a preliminary direct contacts mission to raise awareness of the relevant principles of freedom of association and the procedures of the International Labour Organization, and to gain an informal overview, on the ground, of the circumstances that have been brought to the Committee’s attention. At the same time, and separate from the conclusions reached with regard to the abovementioned request, UOCRA requests the Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association, to communicate the above –without further delay and as a matter of utmost seriousness – and ask the Government of Argentina to agree to the sending of a direct contacts mission, which should focus its cooperation efforts on the situation of freedom of association in the Province of Chubut and, through the national authorities, ensures the full enjoyment of the rights and guarantees of freedom of association in Chubut, compensating for the consequences of past actions, immediately ceasing current actions, and ensuring that such actions do not happen again.
16. 190. In its communication of 16 July 2009, UOCRA alleges further actions linked with the violations of freedom of association duly communicated to the Committee. According to UOCRA, there are additional circumstances and further incidents that confirm the extreme seriousness of the account given, demonstrating the Governor’s encouragement of the formation of violent groups and his support of them as part of an attempt to promote the establishment of a new trade union that acts in accordance with his local and national political interests.
17. 191. UOCRA adds that, in addition to the events reported in its submission of July 2009 and in view of the upcoming closure of a political campaign that he was directly involved in, the Governor of the Province of Chubut took part in a public event to support the campaign. During this event, the violent groups showed their support. These are the groups, duly reported above, that are trying to exercise de facto trade union representation of construction workers. He was probably thanking them for their support and showing his in turn, linking his policies with the new trade union. The political and economic support is obvious. Those that would accept the new trade union have shown it in public, as stated in this newspaper report: “The head of Los Dragones yesterday received the strong support of Governor Mario Das Neves to establish a new trade union for construction workers that will be separate from UOCRA” (as reported in the Crónica daily newspaper). Further on in this report it states: “The Governor was the only one who supported us until now and this is why we are confident that he will know how to resolve the issues that may arise in this difficult fight. ”
18. 192. UOCRA alleges that, in addition to the events described above, there has been a new development that is as much or even more serious. According to UOCRA, this was part of a plan to persecute its leader using political and trade union means, with the aim of excluding it from the Province of Chubut and replacing it with the trade union favoured by the local authorities, which is suggestible and acts in their interests. In a surprising move that shows the clear control that the authorities have over the judiciary, and their disregard for fundamental republican guarantees, there was an attempt to relaunch an old criminal case against members of the Puerto Madryn branch of UOCRA, which had been thrown out of court.
19. 193. In particular, at the instigation of the authorities, local criminal justice officials have infringed, in each and every headquarters building, guarantees under due process, reopening a criminal case that, at the time, was closed, with the single aim of politically persecuting the General Secretary of the Puerto Madryn branch of UOCRA and attempting to imprison him. In an attempt to justify such actions, the Public Prosecutor’s Office argued that it had “made a previous error” and, going back on steps it had already taken, submitted the issue before a clearly incompetent judge, removing the case from the general jurisdictional court and disregarding other, extremely relevant, points, such as: full freedom of association; the existence of privileges for express constitutional and legal obligations; the need for specific and separate proceedings; and the powers of UOCRA, among others.
20. 194. As can be seen, the actions described amount no more and no less to an attempt to infringe the standards of the constitution of Chubut and the non bis in idem principle, which is enshrined in the national Constitution of Argentina. Aside from that, a shocking lack of impartiality and independence has been shown by the judiciary, which does not hesitate to demonstrate its functions and its loyalty to the authorities by assisting them in their assault, not only against a trade union, but against freedom of association itself. This cannot and must not be tolerated, especially since it is similar to suspect practices that have caused such harm in Argentina.
21. 195. According to UOCRA, it emerges from the facts described that the authorities know no limits in interfering and attempting to increase interference in its trade union autonomy. A campaign has been put together to persecute UOCRA and its leaders that involves interference by the justice system and inaction and a lack of collaboration by the political authorities in the face of violence towards the leaders and their families and trade union property. All of these actions are clearly aimed at promoting and establishing a new trade union that is controlled by the provincial government.
22. 196. UOCRA alleges that all of the conduct and practices discussed have had an immediate effect. Appeals by several prominent figures from the province, including employers, about the attempted discrediting and criminalizing of UOCRA in order to benefit a new trade union, led them to also falling victim to criminal acts of violence. In the absence of an investigation into or condemnation of the actions against UOCRA, and with the consent of the provincial authorities, who turned a blind eye, several businesses began to fall victim to the new trade union’s violent practices that were aimed at imposing its so-called representatives. Even the Comodoro Rivadavia council did not escape the violence and vandalism by the groups associated with the new trade union who, brandishing firearms, invaded the municipal headquarters, destroyed furniture and detained people for a considerable period of time.
23. 197. According to UOCRA, all of these events clearly show that the local authorities’ aim is nothing less than violating trade union autonomy, excluding UOCRA representation from the province and creating a trade union that is suggestible and sympathetic to its political interests and carries out violence that they cover up.
24. 198. In its communication of 14 August 2009, UOCRA states that, in addition to the events alleged in the complaint, a further event has occurred; namely the use of electronic means by someone identified as being from the Governor’s office, referring to a hypothetical presentation given at the International Labour Organization, containing opinions and assessments that are not only damaging to UOCRA but also to members of executives, who have been elected by members in a direct, secret vote. UOCRA considers that this communication brings a very serious fact to the attention of the Committee because, up until the time in question, the violence had been carried out by groups with “official connections” and discussed by the Governor himself. However, in this case, it can be said that the violence originated at the State level and it confirms that the actions taken against UOCRA were orchestrated and covered up by the provincial authorities. According to UOCRA, the person in question is, and has been, a Chubut government official. That is to say, it is a “political commissar” of the Chubut provincial government, not even a senior official of the workers involved in the dispute, who is intensifying violations of freedom of association Conventions and institutions.
25. 199. In its communication of November 2009, UOCRA alleges further events that corroborate its complaint that the authorities of the Province of Chubut, at the request of their highest authority, the Governor of the Province, have planned and carried out a campaign of persecution against local UOCRA leaders and, in particular, the General Secretary of its Puerto Madryn branch.
26. 200. UOCRA indicates that the events, which were limited in number in its initial submission, have increased following the submission of the first complaint. This requires the immediate intervention of the Director-General, with due consultation with the Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association, and a preliminary direct contacts mission should be carried out as a matter of urgency. The justification for this exceptional step is the unusual situation of the Province of Chubut where, not only does official interference in trade union activities take place, but it is becoming more widespread. UOCRA alleges that, on 11 November 2009, approximately 33 workers out of a total of 70 were dismissed. These were construction workers involved in the resurfacing of provincial road No. 2 for the company Dycasa. The workers affected by the company’s arbitrary and unilateral decision were: Santiago Carrizo, Marco Ceballos, Mario Bisoso, Luca Paz Galván, Leandro Marfil, Luis Romero, Franco Secco, Orlando Tenorio, Milton Tolava, Darío Valenzuela, Omar Vallejo, Juan Vargas, Gabriel Villegas, Jorge Orrego, Nicanor Carlos, Catriel Pichun, Jorge Pérez, José Peredo, Jorge Franco, José Fuentes, Pablo Huenilian, Andrés Jofre, Rafael Loscar, Nelson Meruglia, César Olivares, Roberto Araya, Walter Busto, Fernández Díaz, Diego Sánchez, Pablo Rivero, Sergio Aciar, Iván Joi and Julio Arévalo.
27. 201. UOCRA states that, following this unilateral and arbitrary move by the company, the workers, honouring the principle of solidarity, decided to protest near the worksite along with their leaders, including Mateo Suárez, General Secretary of the Puerto Madryn branch of UOCRA. UOCRA alleges that the workers, who simply wanted to defend their jobs through this legitimate course of trade union action in the absence of a reply from the company or the government, were subjected to excessive and harsh police repression at the instigation of the provincial authorities. In this way, the right of the workers to assemble and petition was unfairly denied by the provincial authorities, which instructed the chief of the provincial police to suppress and disperse the protestors and imprison their leaders.
28. 202. The complainant indicates that, at this time, the trade union leader, Mr Suárez, who has already been persecuted by the provincial and judicial authorities, was detained, imprisoned and charged with several crimes, such as disregard for the law (article 239 of the Penal Code), blocking a road (article 194 of the Penal Code), and incitement to commit a crime (article 209 of the Penal Code). Mr Suárez was not the only one detained: the animosity of the police towards trade unions was demonstrated once again with the detention of ten other leaders and activists. They were also victims of an excessive police operation that included many officers and a special riot force, the special police operations group. The following persons have been detained: (1) Mateo Suárez, General Secretary of the Puerto Madryn branch of UOCRA; (2) Jonathan Suárez, trade union activist; (3) Benjamín Bustos, trade union activist; (4) Alejandro Jiménez, trade union activist; (5) Richard Villegas, Records Secretary of the Puerto Madryn branch of UOCRA; (6) Eliseo Amaya, Dycasa workers’ representative; (7) Diego Paz, trade union activist; (8) Mario Bisoso, dismissed Dycasa worker; (9) Félix Díaz, Dragados y Obras Portuarias SA representative; (10) Carlos Muñoz, Dycasa worker; (11) Darío Valenzuela, dismissed Dycasa worker; and (12) Jorge Franco, dismissed Dycasa worker.
29. 203. UOCRA adds that all these leaders, activists and workers were also hit and shoved by the police. Given this unusual and violent response, and in view of the legitimacy of the demands, the General Confederation of Labour of the Rio Chubut Lower Valley, together with other major unions, expressed their disapproval and repudiation and demanded the release of the detained men in front of the local police station. They were freed as a result.
30. 204. The complainant indicates that, while these events were going on, the Governor of the Province (also the local police chief and controller) did not listen to the complaints or assist in resolving them, but instead ordered brutal suppression and tried to justify it under a pretext that not only turned out to be false, but also demonstrated his open and obvious enmity towards UOCRA and its leaders. Added to the other events that have been reported in this dossier, this is clear evidence of his favouritism and preference for another trade union. At about the same time that the events described took place, the Governor stated that Mr Mateo Suárez “is not a trade union leader, he is a criminal”. In his attempt to justify his excessive and illegitimate actions, he stated that “we said that we were not going to let him block the road in any way. And for this, legal authorization is not required. Blocking the road is a crime and the police have to be called and they have to take action. If the police are resisted, what happened is an obvious consequence. He resisted the police and broke the law, and so he was arrested. The next step is up to the judge, who will probably release him” (see the 13 November 2009 edition of the newspaper Diario el Chubut).
31. 205. UOCRA adds that, following the abovementioned arrests, Mr Miguens, General Secretary of the Trelew branch, was kidnapped in public by persons unknown who held him at gunpoint and threatened the lives of his family. They forced him to make public statements on the radio against Mr Suárez. Once freed, Mr Miguens immediately retracted those statements and reported the events to the police and the court. He named the authorities as responsible for what had happened to him.
32. 206. Lastly, UOCRA states that the authorities tried to create chaos and confusion, facilitating action by armed groups unconnected with UOCRA, which brandished high-powered weapons and threatened the safety of UOCRA leaders, workers and activists. On 18 November 2009, the UOCRA headquarters in Puerto Madryn were attacked and in the afternoon of the same day, the UOCRA headquarters in Comodoro Rivadavia were shot at by supporters of the Governor called “Los Dragones” (“The Dragons”). All of these related events, of institutional importance, demonstrate that the trade union’s existence in the Province of Chubut is at risk and, for this reason, this case should be considered serious and urgent.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 207. In its communication of 27 May 2010, the Government states that this case clearly includes practical, social and labour-related aspects. It concerns an issue that, owing to the nature of the dispute, had consequences at both the federal and provincial levels. It is linked, above all, to the autonomy of the provinces and the relations between the national and provincial authorities; in particular, in this case, the executive authority.
2. 208. The Province of Chubut has been notified about these actions but there has not yet been any response about their exact nature and about the various different instructions arising from them, which should be followed up at the federal level. Therefore, the response is based on the files produced at the national level, but they will be completed when the province provides the relevant information.
3. 209. With regard to the action taken by the national Ministry of Labour, the initial intervention by the administrative labour authority was made at the request of the Governor of the Province, who was aware that the situation could not be controlled by political means. Moreover, it should be pointed out that, during the legal proceedings for usurpation launched by UOCRA, entitled Muñoz, Sergio J. concerning UOCRA claim of usurpation, case No. 20571, the provincial Public Prosecutor questioned the chief of the regional board of the national Ministry of Labour for Comodoro Rivadavia about whether the national Ministry of Labour had taken any action and, if so, what form that took and whether it had achieved any results.
4. 210. In compliance with the guidelines, this regional board replied, in a note of 18 March 2009, stating that the national Ministry of Labour had been unable to intervene in the situation described, as it was within the “exclusive competence” of UOCRA to make decisions on the matter. The position of the Ministry fully complies with the provisions of ILO Convention No. 87. This did not prevent the Governor of the Province of Chubut requesting the assistance of the national labour authorities on the grounds that, given the complexity and sensitive nature of the events, mediation might be able to get the situation under control. The violence, with further damage, destruction and possible casualties, was a distressing situation, against the background of which the national labour authorities began taking unofficial steps to offer the workers occupying the trade union headquarters an opportunity for negotiation, with the result contained in the note replying to the request from the Public Prosecutor. This action by the Ministry meets international standards.
5. 211. It should be noted that the actions by the national Government did not violate the freedom of association of the complainant trade union at any time, given that UOCRA had lost the capacity to recover its trade union building, which was occupied by persons defined by the trade union as “unconnected to the organization”. Against the background of this distressing situation, events occurred that led to the national Ministry of Labour being identified as the mediator for a situation whose nature and scope were unconnected to it. Far from acting in a manner contrary to freedom of association, the Ministry took it upon itself to bring about social dialogue during the emergency. According to the Government, it acted in a way that promoted freedom of association by defending the complainant’s property and bringing about a controlled and peaceful ending to a highly tense political situation. The Government affirms that the course of action taken by the Ministry was also in accordance with the highest international standards, given that in the Resolution of 1970 concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties it states that it is the duty of States to ensure the security of persons and the protection of the property of trade union organizations.
6. 212. The Government indicates that the situation became more complicated and the effects of the dispute increased and extended to several companies. The southern regional representative of the national Ministry of Labour, the regional national representative, the Secretary of Labour of the Province and several companies who proved that the dispute was affecting other areas all assisted in the surrender of the keys of the trade union premises and the relinquishing of the usurped building.
7. 213. Faced with the outsourcing of the dispute, the federal authorities classified the situation as falling under article 2 of Act No. 14786, and called for compulsory conciliation. This Act states that: “in the event that parties are unable to settle a dispute, either party, prior to taking direct action, should give notice to the administrative authorities for the launching of the compulsory conciliation procedure. The Ministry shall act ex officio if deemed appropriate, taking into account the nature of the dispute.” The Government wishes it to be made clear that, during this period, the national Ministry of Labour – which took charge in the dispute in accordance with the abovementioned international standards – complied with the legal requirements, making an inventory of the organization’s assets and depositing the keys within 24 hours of them being surrendered by the occupants, as ordered by the Civil and Commercial Court of First Instance No. 1 of the judicial district of Comodoro Rivadavia – secretariat No. 2.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 214. The Committee notes that, in this case, the complainant organization alleges that, against the background of a smear campaign initiated by the authorities of the Province of Chubut against UOCRA and their encouragement of the creation of a new trade union at the local level, the following acts were committed against the organization and its members: (1) on 12 March 2009, an armed group violently occupied its headquarters in Comodoro Rivadavia for more than 30 days, destroying furniture and computers and stealing documents and valuables (according to UOCRA, an eviction took place after it brought a legal application for amparo (protection of constitutional rights) and the keys of the premises were surrendered to the administrative labour authorities and UOCRA had to request their return with an injunction); (2) on 10 June 2009, the home of Mr Ricardo Luis Cheuquepal, a member of the Comodoro Rivadavia branch of UOCRA, was shot at; (3) at the request of the provincial authorities, a closed criminal case was reopened against members of the Puerto Madryn branch of UOCRA; (4) at the same time that UOCRA was being discredited and criminalized in order to promote a new trade union, with the assent of the provincial authorities, several businesses began to be attacked by this group and the Comodoro Rivadavia council was also subject to violent actions by armed persons; (5) a Chubut provincial government official used electronic means to express insulting opinions and assessments about UOCRA members and union officials; (6) workers members of UOCRA, accompanied by trade union leaders, including the General Secretary of the Puerto Madryn branch, Mr Mateo Suárez, protested against the dismissal of more than 30 workers and were violently repressed by the provincial police and 12 of the protestors (including Mr Suárez) were temporarily detained; (7) the General Secretary of the Trelew branch of UOCRA was kidnapped and, following death threats against his family, was forced to make radical statements against Mr Suárez; and (8) on 18 November 2009 armed groups known as “Los Dragones” (The Dragons) attacked UOCRA headquarters in Puerto Madryn and Comodoro Rivadavia.
2. 215. With regard to the alleged violent occupation by an armed group of the UOCRA headquarters on 12 March 2009 in Comodoro Rivadavia, that lasted more than 30 days and included the destruction of furniture and computers and the theft of documents and valuables, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that: (1) this case clearly includes practical, social and labour-related aspects and that it concerns an issue that, owing to the nature of the dispute, had consequences at both the federal and provincial levels that are related to the autonomy of the provinces and relations between the national and provincial authorities; (2) the Province of Chubut has been notified about the complaint but its reply has not yet been received, so the Government’s reply is based on the files produced at the national level; (3) given the complexity and sensitive nature of the events, the Chubut provincial authorities requested mediation by the national Ministry of Labour to get the situation under control; (4) the distressing violence led to the national labour authorities taking unofficial steps to offer the workers occupying the trade union headquarters an opportunity for negotiation; (5) the actions by the national Government did not violate the freedom of association of the complainant, given that UOCRA had lost the capacity to recover its trade union building, which was occupied by persons unconnected to the organization; (6) the national Ministry of Labour promoted freedom of association by defending the property of UOCRA and bringing about a controlled and peaceful resolution to the situation; (7) the dispute extended beyond the original dispute and extended to companies and, according to the statement of the regional delegation of the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security that the Government sends with its response, the workers that occupied the UOCRA headquarters surrendered the keys of the premises to the representative of the national Ministry of Labour; (8) faced with the outsourcing of the dispute, the federal authorities called for compulsory conciliation; and (9) during this period, the Ministry of Labour, in compliance with legal requirements, made an inventory of the trade union’s assets and deposited the keys, as ordered by the Civil and Commercial Court of First Instance No. 1 of the judicial district of Comodoro Rivadavia – secretariat No. 2.
3. 216. The Committee looks forward to receiving a response to these allegations from the Chubut provincial authorities. However, taking into account the date of the submission of the complaint, the Committee emphasizes that “the inviolability of trade union premises is a civil liberty which is essential to the exercise of trade union rights” and recalls that, when examining allegations of attacks carried out against trade union premises, it stated “that activities of this kind create among trade unionists a climate of fear which is extremely prejudicial to the exercise of trade union activities and that the authorities, when informed of such matters, should carry out an immediate investigation to determine who is responsible and punish the guilty parties” [Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, paras 178 and 184]. Under these circumstances, the Committee, noting that no judicial authority has ordered UOCRA to evict its trade union premises in Comodoro Rivadavia, expects that the judicial authority that received the keys to the trade union headquarters from the national Ministry of Labour has returned those keys to UOCRA and expects that UOCRA can once again use its headquarters in Comodoro Rivadavia. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard. The Committee further urges the Government to take the necessary measures for carrying out a thorough investigation on the alleged destruction and misappropriation of UOCRA property and valuables during the occupation of the headquarters and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
4. 217. Moreover, the Committee notes with concern the gravity of the rest of the allegations made in this case (violent repression of protestors, temporary detention of trade union leaders and protestors, firearms attacks on the home of a trade union leader and UOCRA headquarters, temporary kidnapping with the aim of intimidating a trade union leader and interference by the provincial authorities in the establishment of a trade union, etc.). The Committee notes the Government’s statement to the effect that this case includes practical, social and labour-related aspects and that it concerns an issue that, owing to the nature of the dispute, had consequences at both the federal and provincial levels that are related to the autonomy of the provinces and relations between the national and provincial authorities, and that the Province of Chubut has been notified about the complaint but its reply has not yet been received, as a result of which the Government’s reply is based on the files produced at the national level. In this respect, although it understands the difficulties of sending a complete response, owing to the different judicial authorities (provincial and national) involved in the case, the Committee regrets that, despite the time that has passed and the gravity of the allegations, the Government has only sent its response to one of the allegations made. In these circumstances, the Committee deeply regrets the climate of violence that emerges from the allegations, and urges the Government to take immediate action to ensure that investigations are carried out into all the allegations and to send its observations and those of the Chubut provincial authorities thereon.
5. 218. Lastly, the Committee notes that, at the time of submitting its complaint, the complainant requested that a preliminary direct contacts mission be carried out to transmit to the competent authorities the concern to which the events described in the complaint have given rise and to explain to these authorities the principles of freedom of association involved and, at the same time, given the serious nature of the allegations, requested that the Government be encouraged to agree to a direct contacts mission that should focus its cooperation efforts on the situation of freedom of association in the Province of Chubut. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations in this respect.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 219. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee requests the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee notes with concern the gravity of the allegations made in this case (violent repression of protestors, temporary detention of trade union leaders and protestors, firearms attacks on the home of a trade union leader and UOCRA headquarters building, temporary kidnapping with the aim of intimidating a trade union leader and interference by the provincial authorities in the establishment of a trade union, etc.), deeply regrets the climate of violence that emerges from the allegations, and urges the Government to take immediate action to ensure that investigations are carried out into all the allegations and to send its observations and those of the Chubut provincial authorities thereon.
   • (b) The Committee expects that UOCRA can once again use its headquarters in Comodoro Rivadavia. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed in this respect. The Committee further urges the Government to take the necessary measures for carrying out a thorough investigation into the alleged destruction and misappropriation of UOCRA property and valuables during the occupation of the headquarters and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect. The Committee awaits the response of the Chubut provincial authorities on these allegations.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government to send its comments on a possible direct contacts mission that should focus its cooperation efforts on freedom of association in the Province of Chubut.
   • (d) The Committee draws the Governing Body’s attention to the extreme seriousness and urgent nature of this case.