Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 412, November 2025

Case No 3463 (Argentina) - Complaint date: 25-APR-24 - Follow-up

Allegations: The complainant organizations allege mass dismissals of workers’ representatives in the public sector, lack of consultation with trade unions in that regard and police presence and intimidation at Ministry of Justice premises on days of trade union action linked to the dismissals

1. 146. The complaint is contained in communications from the Trade Union of Civil Personnel of the Nation (UPCN), the Confederation of Workers of Argentina (CTA-T) and the Association of State Workers (ATE) Executive Board for the Federal Capital dated 25 April, 5 June, 15 August and 18 December 2024.
2. 147. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 10 March and 15 September 2025.
3. 148. Argentina has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. The complainants’ allegations

1. 149. In a communication dated 25 April 2024, the UPCN alleges that from late 2023 and throughout 2024, the State, in its capacity as employer, adopted an unprecedented, disproportionate measure in that it ordered the mass dismissal of 80 trade union representatives in different state bodies. The UPCN indicates that those dismissals lacked justification and grounds, provides a list of the full names of the workers affected in different bodies across the country and highlights that it is the responsibility of the State, in its capacity as employer, to guarantee the freedom of association of the workers’ representatives in those bodies. The UPCN alleges that the workers’ representatives received dismissal notices, violating guarantees set out expressly in Argentine legislation (articles 48 and 52 of Act No. 23.551 on Trade Union Associations), as well as the ILO Conventions that safeguard rights linked to freedom of association. The UPCN also indicates that several legal proceedings have been brought in relation to the allegations and are currently pending before the courts.
2. 150. In communications dated 5 June and 15 August 2024, the CTA-T alleges the promulgation of decrees, resolutions, provisions and administrative decisions that systematically violate social rights and guarantees, including freedom of association. Specifically, the CTA-T alleges that: (i) on 11 December 2023, Emergency Decree No. 8/2023 was issued, amending Ministries Act No. 22.520 and seeking to “streamline and render more efficient” the country’s ministerial structure; (ii) on 26 December 2023 Decree No. 84/2023 was published through which the executive branch prohibited the renewal of the contracts of staff recruited to the national public service during 2023 and ordered a review of recruitment prior to that year; (iii) article 4 of that Decree requires the competent authorities to place on leave, within the set time frame, staff recruited before 1 January 2023 in order to assess the renewal of their contracts which, if granted, must be fully reasoned; (iv) article 3 of the Decree limits the renewal of contracts signed prior to 1 January 2023 to a maximum duration of 90 days, a limit that was extended until the end of June 2024 through Emergency Decree No. 286/2024 of 3 April 2024; (v) at least two rounds of dismissals were recorded: the first in 2023 – including recently recruited workers – and the second in late March 2024, in total affecting approximately 20,000 state employees; and (vi) the situation was exacerbated by an imminent third round of dismissals expected in late June 2024 given the President’s public statements in which he announced his intention to dismiss around 70,000 workers.
3. 151. The CTA-T alleges that: (i) worker numbers have been cut through dismissals and voluntary retirement without consultation or mediation with the trade unions representing workers in the sector; and (ii) the State failed to invite the trade union organizations (the ATE Executive Board for the Federal Capital) to ensure the transparency of the restructuring and recruitment evaluation processes. The CTA-T also alleges that, during the mass dismissals, 10 per cent of the transvestite, transgender and transexual persons comprising the quota set out in Act No. 27.636 were dismissed, and the trade unions were not invited to support those dismissed persons. The CTA-T alleges that this constituted a violation of the aforementioned Conventions and an act of trade union discrimination since the Government does not wish to engage in mediation with the trade unions, as reflected in statements by the President in which he described trade unionists as part of a “caste”, insinuating that his aim was to eliminate those organizations.
4. 152. In a communication dated 18 December 2024, the ATE, an organization affiliated with the CTA T, indicates that: (i) through Decree No. 696/2024 the unprecedented decision was made to dissolve the National Institute to Combat Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism (INADI) and transfer its resources to the Ministry of Justice; (ii) on 15 August 2024 Decree No. 735/2024 was adopted which provided for the restructuring of that Ministry, creating new directorates within its Subsecretariat for the Promotion of Human Rights that absorbed INADI’s functions and staff; and (iii) the relocation process for INADI staff specifically excluded ATE representatives.
5. 153. The ATE also alleges that on 17 December 2024, the Ministry of Justice issued Resolution No. 376/2024 ordering the dismissal of 2,500 workers to take effect on 31 December 2024, including 15 ATE representatives. It is alleged that, in addition to the dismissals, the Subsecretariat for Spokespersons and Communication stigmatized the affected workers, stating that more than 2,400 persons with irregular contracts who had been recruited through the Argentina Automotive Dealers’ Association (ACARA) cooperating agency had been dismissed, and that such workers had been recruited in an irregular manner for decades, outside the legal mechanisms of the national public employment system.
6. 154. The ATE indicates that its Executive Board for the Federal Capital had organized peaceful protests at all State bodies in relation to the mass dismissals, including assemblies, strikes and work stoppages. The ATE alleges that police officers intervened in these peaceful actions, violating the right to freedom of association. The ATE further alleges that since the start of the current administration, the presence and visibility of the Federal Police at Ministry of Justice premises have increased notably, particularly in certain locations. Specifically, the ATE alleges that: (i) on 27 March 2024, during a day of trade union action at the Secretariat for Human Rights linked to the dismissal of more than 100 contracted workers, a security guard attempted to draw his weapon in front of the demonstrators and was prevented from doing so by a female worker; and (ii) representatives and workers reported being shoved and intimidated by police officers during that day. The ATE alleges that the Secretariat for Human Rights accused the workers present at the event of attempting to disarm the guard. The ATE also alleges that on 3 April 2024 an operation involving more than 15 agents of the Federal Police and the infantry corps was carried out at the Secretariat for Human Rights and that similar military action was reported at other premises belonging to the Ministry of Justice; those operations coincided with the second round of mass dismissals.
7. 155. The ATE also alleges that: (i) between 9 and 10 April 2024 the authorities ordered the removal of signs relating to the dismissals and refused to enter into dialogue with the trade union; (ii) on 24 May 2024 representatives were informed that trade union activity was not permitted during the working day; (iii) on 28 June 2024, during an assembly at the Secretariat for Human Rights, the authorities asked the participants to make recordings and take photographs, carrying out espionage, and placed police officers at the door to monitor the persons entering; and (iv) on 5 September 2024 a disproportionate police operation took place during a trade union assembly at the National Registry, part of the Ministry of Justice, with uniformed officers monitoring access. The ATE also alleges that: (i) the trade union was prohibited from organizing mass assemblies at the Ministry, with many police officers in attendance and the blinds being closed during such events; (ii) police officers continued to attend trade union activities in September and October, and on 14 November 2024 the Ministry of Justice announced on social media that it would bring legal proceedings against the trade union for a series of peaceful protests; and (iii) half an hour before a press conference organized to denounce the adjustment plan and the threats received on 14 November, a communication was disseminated warning that participants faced dismissals and sanctions.
8. 156. In their communications, the CTA-T and the ATE indicate that they would accept the creation of a forum for dialogue to resolve the conflict.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 157. In communications dated 10 March and 15 September 2025, the Government indicates that: (i) the measures adopted by the State were not disproportionate given the situation that awaited the Government on assuming power which required the adoption of necessary administrative measures to support its policy of stability and the State’s efforts to bring about monetary stability and address the country’s complex economic situation; (ii) those measures are part of a necessary process of fiscal discipline in response to a structural fiscal deficit that has been in existence for more than 60 years and was exacerbated by an increase in poverty and precarious employment; (iii) the positive results of those measures are reflected in concrete indicators, such as a decrease in the poverty index to 38.5 per cent in 2024, wage recovery of 3.8 per cent by the end of November 2024 and sustained economic growth over the last ten months, particularly in February 2025; (iv) those actions form part of a structural adjustment to the economy and can in no way be considered anti-union measures; and (v) the country has enjoyed wage recovery and economic stabilization, confirming the legitimacy of the measures adopted.
2. 158. Moreover, the Government indicates that: (i) the guarantees set out in Conventions Nos 87 and 98 and in Act No. 23.551 have not been violated, since the dismissals were not motivated by trade union membership, nor did they constitute acts of anti-union discrimination or practices threatening freedom of association, and blacklists or mechanisms prejudicial to trade union activity have not been established; (ii) the reduction of staff was not a consequence of anti-union acts, nor did it affect, directly or indirectly, the situation of unionized workers or their organizations, rather, it arose exclusively from the country’s critical economic situation; and (iii) the dismissals were lawful and non-arbitrary as reflected in the decisions judgments of the judiciary, which has ruled in favour of complainants in only a minority of cases, confirming that the decisions made were reasonable.
3. 159. Furthermore, the Government indicates that: (i) as part of the restructuring process, Emergency Decree No. 267/2015 empowered the National Communications Body (ENACOM) to survey the activity undertaken in local decentralized offices throughout the country, on the basis of which it was determined that activity had fallen significantly since the option of conducting official procedures remotely was introduced; (ii) consequently, it was decided to close some local offices; and (iii) the complainant ENACOM workers provided services in provincial offices that were formally closed and were consequently no longer exercising their representation functions, and there did not exist a body where they could exercise those functions; the State did not, therefore, act in such a way as to violate freedom of association.
4. 160. The Government also indicates that: (i) Decree No. 84/2023 did not prejudice the staff recruited in 2023 but surveyed their aptitudes, a logical measure for a new government, which must understand the true composition and capacities of its workforce; (ii) the workers evaluated were not permanent staff members, but had been recruited by the previous administration on temporary contracts; (iii) 99 per cent of those workers passed the aptitude test satisfactorily, and their initial three-month contracts were subsequently extended for one year; and (iv) that evaluation cannot be deemed discriminatory since it is currently a general requirement for all persons wishing to join the public administration.
5. 161. The Government also indicates that: (i) it is untrue that consultation with the social partners did not take place – indeed, the Government has engaged in social dialogue repeatedly, including during crises; (ii) some trade union organizations deliberately avoided any form of dialogue, adopting confrontational positions and questioning measures that fall within the exclusive competence of the administrative authority, thereby interfering in governance and the decisions that must be taken to ensure the country’s stability; (iii) effective consultation requires basic conditions to be met: the mutual recognition of roles, acceptance of the legitimacy of a government democratically elected through the will of the people and a willingness to build agreements within the institutional and republican framework, and these conditions have not been met by the complainants; and (iv) the response from certain trade unions has been hostile and threatening, to the point of denying the Government’s legitimacy to implement the necessary state restructuring measures.
6. 162. The Government goes on to indicate that, by means of Ministry of Justice Resolution No. 376/2024, the employment of staff of the Ministry of Justice and its agencies through the ACARA cooperating agency was terminated as of 31 December 2024. The Government indicates that, for decades, the recruitment of officials through cooperating agencies created an abnormal situation that distorted the wage structure and human resource management and resulted in differences between officials within the Ministry, violating the right to equality. The Government indicates that consequently, with a view to correcting and protecting the recruitment of Ministry of Justice staff, and with the fair and necessary aim of ensuring that all Ministry officials receive equal pay for identical work, it was right for ACARA to cease its role as employer.
7. 163. With regard to the dissolution of INADI and the allegation that ATE representatives were expressly excluded from the process of relocating INADI workers to offices within the Ministry of Justice, the Government indicates that the decrees relating to INADI’s dissolution and the restructuring of the Ministry were issued by the President by virtue of his authority under the Constitution.
8. 164. The Government provides information on the 29 ongoing legal proceedings relating to the dismissal of trade union representatives and indicates that: (i) it has accepted the requested reinstatement of workers with trade union protection in five cases; and (ii) the large majority of the cases are in the evidentiary phase, while some are under appeal (the Government indicates that it will provide additional information periodically). With regard to ACARA, the Government states that the ruling handed down by the National Labour Court of First Instance No. 29 on 26 December 2024 (File No. 51024/2024) provided that: (i) the preventive measure requested by the ATE against the Ministry of Justice should not be imposed; (ii) the measure sought by the ATE against ACARA was rejected since the latter had already ceased to act as an employer; (iii) the preventive measure requested by the ATE on behalf of five workers was rejected; and (iv) documentation must be sent to the Ministry of Justice and the National Labour Secretariat to allow them, together with the ATE, to establish a forum for dialogue and follow up to the dismissals already ordered to ensure that they are carried out in the most appropriate manner, guaranteeing dialogue and social peace.
9. 165. With regard to the presence of uniformed and armed Federal Police officers at Ministry of Justice premises and the alleged acts of intimidation by police officers, the Government: (i) denies that workplaces of the Ministry of Justice have been militarized; (ii) denies that police officers committed acts of intimidation during the days of trade union action in 2024; (iii) indicates that the General Security Coordinator of the Ministry of Justice provided notice that the police presence in the buildings was intended to safeguard state property and the wellbeing of public officials, employees and the general public; (iv) indicates that the main purpose of the additional police officers posted at the Ministry of Justice is to avert any type of threat or harassment to public officials, employees or citizens attending the offices and to prevent vandalism, damage and theft; and (v) clarifies that the Federal Police officers are engaged in passive surveillance.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

Public sector dismissals and consultation with trade union organizations in that regard

Police presence and intimidation at Ministry of Justice premises during days of trade union action linked to the dismissals

1. 166. The Committee notes that this case concerns allegations relating to: (i) mass dismissals of workers’ representatives in the public sector; (ii) lack of consultation with trade unions in that regard; and (iii) police presence at Ministry of Justice premises, as well as intimidation by police officers on days of trade union action linked to the dismissals. The Committee takes note that the Government states that: (i) the dismissals formed part of a structural adjustment to the economy and cannot be interpreted as anti-union measures; (ii) the trade union organizations were invited repeatedly to take part in social dialogue but decided to avoid that dialogue; and (iii) there was no militarization of workplaces nor acts of intimidation during days of trade union action in 2024.
2. 167. The Committee notes that, according to the allegations of the UPCN: (i) from late 2023 and throughout 2024 the State, in its capacity as employer, ordered the mass dismissal of more than 80 trade union representatives in different state bodies (including ENACOM); and (ii) those acts lacked justification and grounds, and the affected workers received dismissal notices, violating guarantees of freedom of association. The Committee also notes that, as alleged by the CTA-T: (i) Emergency Decree No. 8/2023 was issued in 2023, aiming to “streamline and render more efficient” the country’s ministerial structure, together with Decree No. 84/2023 through which the executive branch prohibited the renewal of the contracts of staff recruited to the national public service during 2023 and ordered a review of recruitment prior to that year; (ii) between 2023 and the start of 2024 approximately 20,000 state employees were dismissed; and (iii) the President announced his intention to dismiss around 70,000 workers. The Committee also notes that the ATE alleges that: (i) on 17 December 2024, the Ministry of Justice issued Resolution No. 376/2024 ordering the dismissal of 2,500 workers to take effect on 31 December 2024, including 15 ATE representatives; and (ii) following the dissolution of INADI in 2024, and although its functions and staff were absorbed by new directorates within the Subsecretariat for the Promotion of Human Rights under the Ministry of Justice, the relocation process specifically excluded ATE representatives.
3. 168. The CTA-T also alleges that: (i) the reduction in staff members through dismissals and voluntary retirement was undertaken without consultation with, or the participation of, the trade unions representing them; (ii) the State failed to invite the trade union organizations to ensure the transparency of the restructuring and recruitment evaluation processes, including the dismissals of transvestite, transgender and transexual persons comprising the quota set out in law; and (iii) these facts constitute a form of anti-union discrimination since the Government avoided mediation with the trade unions.
4. 169. The Committee notes that, in that regard, the Government indicates that: (i) the measures to reduce staff numbers in different state bodies were part of a structural adjustment to the economy in the context of a serious fiscal deficit and can in no way be considered anti-union measures; (ii) the measures have had positive results in terms of a decrease in the poverty index, wage recovery and economic growth; and (iii) the dismissals were not motivated by trade union membership, nor did they constitute acts of anti-union discrimination, and blacklists or mechanisms prejudicial to trade union activity have not been established. With regard to ENACOM, one of the bodies affected, the Government indicates that: (i) following a survey carried out under Emergency Decree No. 267/2015 (which empowered the body to organize its structure, including the opening or closing of local offices in different regions of the country), a number of ENACOM offices across the country were closed owing to low levels of activity; and (ii) those offices were formally closed, and the trade union leaders were consequently no longer exercising their representation functions, and there did not exist a body where they could exercise those functions; the State did not, therefore, act in such a way as to violate freedom of association. Regarding the allegation that ATE representatives were excluded from the process of relocating workers dismissed from INADI, the Government indicates that the decrees ordering INADI’s dissolution and the restructuring of the Ministry of Justice were issued by the President by virtue of his authority under the Constitution.
5. 170. The Committee similarly takes note that the Government indicates that: (i) Decree No. 84/2023 did not prejudice the staff recruited in 2023 but surveyed their aptitudes; (ii) 99 per cent of those workers passed the aptitude test satisfactorily, and their initial three-month contracts were extended for one year; and (iii) that evaluation is a requirement for all persons wishing to join the public administration. The Government also indicates that: (i) the trade union organizations were invited repeatedly to take part in social dialogue but decided to avoid that dialogue, adopting confrontational positions; and (ii) the response from certain trade unions has been hostile and threatening, even to the point of denying the Government’s legitimacy to implement the necessary state restructuring measures.
6. 171. The Committee notes that, according to the information provided by the complainant organizations and the Government: (i) 29 of the 80 trade union representatives dismissed in 2024 from various state bodies in 2024, including ENACOM and INADI, brought legal proceedings; (ii) to date, preventive measures for the reinstatement of five ENACOM workers with trade union protection have been granted and the Government indicates that the State has accepted those measures; (iii) in other cases, the preventive measures were overturned on appeal by the State; (iv) in some cases the preventive measures were rejected, whether in the court of first instance or in both courts; and (v) the large majority of the cases remain in the evidentiary phase or are under appeal.
7. 172. Furthermore, the Committee takes note that, according to the Government, a ruling handed down by the National Labour Court of First Instance No. 29 on 26 December 2024 rejected the preventive measures requested by the ATE on behalf of five dismissed workers who had been recruited via the ACARA cooperating agency. The Government indicates that court ruled that ACARA, the body against which the amparo [protection of constitutional rights] action was brought, had ceased its role as an employer.
8. 173. The Committee recalls that it is not within its purview to pronounce itself on allegations relating to restructuring programmes, even when these involve collective dismissals, unless they have given rise to acts of anti-union discrimination or interference [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 1114]. In this context, the Committee notes that, according to the information set out above, the Government indicates that it accepted the preventive reinstatement measures granted to five representatives who enjoyed trade union protection. The Committee observes that it does not have further details in that regard, or copies of any of the legal rulings handed down to date. The Committee observes that, in any event, all the legal proceedings linked to the matters in the present case remain ongoing and have not been resolved definitively.
9. 174. Recalling that cases concerning anti-union discrimination should be examined rapidly, so that the necessary remedies can be truly effective, and that an excessive delay in processing such cases constitutes a serious attack on the trade union rights of those concerned [see Compilation, para. 1139 ], the Committee requests the Government and the complainant organizations to provide full, updated information on the status of the legal proceedings relating to the trade union representatives, including copies of the rulings handed down.
10. 175. The Committee observes that the complainants and the Government hold contrasting views in relation to the lack of consultation of the trade union organizations on the restructuring processes, including the dismissals. The Committee wishes to recall in this respect the importance it attaches to the promotion of dialogue and consultations on matters of mutual interest between the public authorities and the most representative occupational organizations of the sector involved (see Compilation, para. 1523). The Committee also recalls that, with the necessary limitations of time, the principles governing consultation remain valid during crises that require the taking of urgent measures (see Compilation, para. 1527). Observing that in the aforementioned ruling of 26 December 2024, the court referred to the creation of a forum for dialogue between the ATE, the Ministry of Justice and the National Labour Secretariat to ensure that the dismissals were carried out according to the principles of dialogue and social peace, and taking note that, in their communications, both the CTA-T and the ATE confirmed their willingness to establish a forum for dialogue that allows the conflict to be resolved, the Committee urges the Government to establish a forum for dialogue with the organizations concerned, so as to allow the different matters in this case to be addressed.
11. 176. The Committee takes note that the ATE alleges that, since the start of the current administration, the police presence at Ministry of Justice premises has increased notably and that police officers intervened in the peaceful protests carried out at different State bodies in response to the mass dismissals. The ATE alleges that: (i) operations involving agents of the Federal Police and the infantry corps have been carried out at the Secretariat for Human Rights, and similar military action was reported at other premises belonging to the Ministry; (ii) police officers were present at trade union activities at the Secretariat for Human Rights, the removal of signs referring to the dismissals was ordered, and it was communicated that trade union activity would not be permitted during the working day; (iii) photographs of assembly participants were taken, and access to the assemblies was monitored by uniformed officers; and (iv) the Ministry of Justice warned on social media of possible legal action against the ATE for the peaceful protests and threatened dismissals and sanctions against persons participating in a press conference on the adjustments and dismissals.
12. 177. The Committee notes that, in that regard, the Government: (i) denies the militarization of workplaces and any act of intimidation during the days of trade union action in 2024; (ii) indicates that the General Security Coordinator of the Ministry of Justice provided timely notice of the police presence in the buildings, which aimed to safeguard state property and the wellbeing of public officials, employees and the general public, avert any type of threat or harassment against public officials, employees or citizens attending the offices and prevent any vandalism, damage or theft; (iii) indicates that the presence of additional police officers sought to prevent threats, harassment and criminal acts; and (iv) clarifies that the surveillance undertaken is passive in nature.
13. 178. The Committee notes the discrepancies between the complainants and the Government both in terms of the grounds justifying the police presence and its possible effect on trade union activities. The Committee observes, however, that neither the complainants nor the Government has referred to acts of violence during the trade union activities carried out.
14. 179. The Committee recalls that the authorities should resort to the use of force only in situations where law and order is seriously threatened. The intervention of the forces of order should be in due proportion to the danger to law and order that the authorities are attempting to control and governments should take measures to ensure that the competent authorities receive adequate instructions so as to eliminate the danger entailed by the use of excessive violence when controlling demonstrations which might result in a disturbance of the peace [see Compilation, para. 217].
15. 180. The Committee also recalls that trade unions should respect legal provisions which are intended to ensure the maintenance of public order; the public authorities should, for their part, refrain from any interference which would restrict the right of trade unions to organize the holding and proceedings of their meetings in full freedom [see Compilation, para. 226]. The Committee recalls that the right to express opinions, including those criticizing the Government’s economic and social policy, is one of the essential elements of the rights of occupational organizations [see Compilation, para. 245). The Committee also recalls that the authorities’ threatening to press criminal charges in response to legitimate opinions of trade union representatives may have an intimidating and detrimental effect on the exercise of trade union rights [see Compilation, para. 237].
16. 181. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in the future to guarantee that the legitimate rights of workers’ organizations can be exercised in a climate that is free from pressure or threats of any kind against their leaders and members, as set forth in these conclusions.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 182. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government and the complainant organizations to provide full, updated information on the status of the legal proceedings relating to the trade union representatives, including copies of the rulings handed down.
   • (b) The Committee urges the Government to establish a forum for dialogue with the organizations concerned, so as to allow the different matters in this case to be addressed.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in the future to guarantee that the legitimate rights of workers’ organizations can be exercised in a climate that is free from pressure or threats of any kind against their leaders and members, as set forth in these conclusions.