Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 122, 1971

Caso núm. 636 (Argentina) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 09-JUL-70 - Cerrado

1. 33. The complaint by the Latin American Federation of Christian Trade Unions is contained in a communication dated 9 July 1970. It was transmitted to the Government of Argentina, which sent its observations on 5 January 1971.
2. 34. 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. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 35. The complainants allege that on 2 June 1970 the workers of the automobile mechanics section represented by the Union of Automobile Mechanics and Allied Workers of the City of Córdoba initiated a dispute with the firm of IKA-Renault which had refused to discuss the collective agreement that had just expired. As a reprisal the firm dismissed 980 workers. In addition, with the acquiescence of the provincial government, the company's security guards forcibly entered the private homes of workers and arrested them. A total of 98 members of the union were detained.
2. 36. In its reply the Government states first of all that in Argentina a magistrate is alone entitled to authorise the police to enter premises and that private individuals are in no circumstances authorised to do this.
3. 37. Concerning the collective dispute to which the complaint refers, the Government presents the following observations. Under Act No. 14250 concerning collective agreements, the IKA-Renault firm began negotiations with the union in question. When it was found impossible to reach an agreement, the members of the union raided and occupied various factory premises on 2 June 1970, taking several executives of the firm as hostages. The persons presumed responsible for these incidents have been indicted for violation of individual freedom, usurpation and unlawful association. On 6 June several workers were dismissed on these grounds.
4. 38. On 3 June the Secretariat of State for Labour issued a resolution calling for an end to the strike and providing for compulsory conciliation to be initiated in accordance with Act No. 14786 concerning conciliation and arbitration in collective disputes. These instructions were not heeded, nor were conciliation proceedings started, and the Secretariat for Labour then issued a new resolution similar to its previous one. When the dispute continued, a further resolution was issued on 2 July repeating the instructions to stop the strike, and the firms affected were called upon to suspend the dismissals and other action taken since 13 June, the parties being summoned to a conciliation meeting.
5. 39. The conciliation proceedings finally began on 7 July the parties declaring that they would abide by the instructions mentioned above. Negotiations continued until 7 August, on which date the IKA-Renault firm made proposals that included the reinstatement of 221 workers (which was in fact carried out, more than this number being reinstated), payment of dismissal allowances to persons not reinstated and payment to the trade union leaders in the same situation of the dismissal allowance plus 50 per cent. The trade union leaders refused this proposal and requested the referral of the dispute to compulsory arbitration as established under Act No. 16936. The Secretariat of State for Labour did not accept this request on the grounds that the Act in question was not applicable in the circumstances. The Government states in conclusion that the dispute has in fact been settled, almost every worker involved having individually accepted the firm's proposals.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 40. The Committee observes that, under Act No. 14786 concerning conciliation and arbitration in collective disputes, when the parties fail to reach an agreement compulsory conciliation is required through the intervention of the Labour Authority. Until the dispute is referred to conciliation and during the relevant proceedings the workers are not allowed to declare a strike. This possibility is open to them only if conciliation breaks down and it is not agreed to submit the dispute for arbitration.
2. 41. The Committee has always considered that allegations concerning the right to strike are not outside its competence in so far as they affect the exercise of trade union rights. The Committee has also on numerous occasions observed that the right of workers and their organisations to strike as a legitimate means of defending their occupational interests is generally recognised. Nevertheless, the Committee has indicated that the right to strike may be subject to temporary restrictions placed thereon such as suspension of strikes during conciliation and arbitration proceedings in which parties can take part at every stage.
3. 42. In the present case in the absence of agreement on the negotiations not only did the workers declare a strike without going through compulsory conciliation, but some of them also occupied work premises and took several executives of the undertaking as hostages. Subsequently the strike continued despite the initiation of conciliation proceedings ordered by the Labour Authority. This resulted in the indictment of a number of workers for the offences stated by the Government and the dismissal of workers. Finally, the dispute was concluded and the dismissed workers were reinstated or compensation was paid to those not reinstated in almost all cases.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 43. In view of these circumstances and in the light of the considerations stated above in paragraph 41, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this case calls for no further examination.