Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 60, 1962

Cas no 231 (Argentine) - Date de la plainte: 28-AVR. -60 - Clos

1. 190. The Committee already examined this case at its 28th Session (May 1961) and, with the exception of one allegation by the complainants, submitted its final conclusions to the Governing Body concerning the case as a whole. These conclusions were adopted by the Governing Body at its 149th Session (June 1961).
2. 191. 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. 192. The allegation still outstanding concerns the posting by the management of the National Bank of Mr. Raúl Ignacio Robacio, General Secretary of the Buenos Aires Bank Employees' Union (S.E.B.B.A.), to a branch 670 kilometres away from Buenos Aires-this is said to be a measure of anti-union discrimination-while at the same time an administrative charge was initiated against him designed to convert this posting into an outright dismissal.
2. 193. The complainants state that the S.E.B.B.A then applied to the judge for an injunction to prevent any modification in Mr. Robacio's position until judgment had been given in a lawsuit brought by the union. Although the judge granted this injunction, the Bank refused to comply with it, despite a further sentence by the same judge against the Chairman of the Bank for contempt of court. The Bank authorities having appealed against the labour judge's decision, the Labour Court of Appeal on 19 April 1960 affirmed the interlocutory injunction granted by the judge. The National Bank refused to comply with this order also.
3. 194. Having noted that the Government in its reply had refrained from making any comment on this point, the Committee took the view at its 28th Session (May 1961) that it would be advisable to adjourn examination of this particular aspect of the case pending receipt of information from the Government, and it made a recommendation to the Governing Body to this effect.
4. 195. The Committee's conclusions as adopted by the Governing Body, and in particular the request for information on the matters mentioned above, were brought to the notice of the Government by a letter from the Director-General dated 7 July 1961.
5. 196. The Government replied by a communication dated 11 September 1961. This reply, however, still contained no information on the points referred to above.
6. 197. In these circumstances the Committee at its 29th Session (November 1961) recommended the Governing Body to request the Government once again to furnish information in respect of the allegations to the effect that the management of the National Bank had not complied with the injunction granted by the labour judge, and subsequently affirmed by the Labour Court of Appeal, relating to the situation of the General Secretary of the S.E.B.B.A.
7. 198. In a communication dated 21 November 1961 the Government forwarded some further information concerning the allegation.
8. 199. In its communication dated 21 November 1961 the Government states that Mr. Raúl Ignacio Robacio's posting was a normal one for which provision was made in the statutory regulations governing public employees, and that in any case Mr. Robacio did not accept his posting and refused to take up the new duties assigned to him. The Government adds that Mr. Robacio then lodged an appeal for protection with the sitting labour judge, who ordered the Bank not to proceed with the posting, but the Bank refused to acknowledge the competence of the labour court and lodged an appeal to have the decision quashed. The Labour Court of Appeal - continues the Government - affirmed the decision in that the court was competent to hear the case, but quashed the judge's decision in favour of protection. The Government concludes by stating that Mr. Robacio had opened to him all legal avenues for establishing his rights, " which proves the existence of effective legal guarantees such as characterise a system of justice ".

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 200. The Committee observes that the complainants' statements and those of the Government are not in themselves contradictory to each other. The Committee also observes, however, that while the Government confirms the complainants' statement to the effect that when Mr. Robacio appealed to the labour judge for protection the latter ordered the Bank not to proceed, and that later the Labour Court of Appeal affirmed the decision as to the competence of the court to hear the case, it makes no reference to the contempt of court alleged by the complainants to have been committed by the National Bank in declining to accept the rulings of the labour judge and of the Labour Court of Appeal that they should not go forward with Mr. Robacio's posting.
2. 201. In these circumstances the Committee considers that it is essential, if it is to reach a decision on this aspect of the case, for it to know if it is correct-as the complainants allege-that the National Bank on a number of occasions flouted the decisions of the judicial authorities and, if so, what measures have been taken by the Government in this respect.
3. 202. Furthermore, the Committee feels that it would be difficult for it to take a decision without knowing the exact circumstances surrounding this particular allegation, and to this end it would be advisable, in accordance with its usual practice, to request the Government to forward copies of the judgments, together with all the conclusions of law and findings of fact given in this connection by the judge of first instance and the Labour Court of Appeal, instead of a summary of the dispositive part of these judgments such as the Government gave in its communication of 21 November 1961.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 203. In consequence the Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to furnish as early as possible information concerning the allegations to the effect that the management of the National Bank has on a number of occasions flouted the decisions of the judicial authorities and, if this is the case, on the measures that the Government has taken in this connection, as well as copies of the judgments, together with all the conclusions of law and findings of fact, given by the judge of first instance and, in particular, the Labour Court of Appeal.