Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 412, Novembre 2025

Cas no 3325 (Argentine) - Date de la plainte: 28-AOÛT -18 - En suivi

Allegations: the complainant organizations allege a violation of the right to collective bargaining through the amendment or abrogation of clauses of a collective agreement applicable to an energy supplier company in the province of Córdoba as well as violations of the right to strike (in relation to compulsory arbitration and the definition of minimum services), as a result of the adoption of successive provincial laws

1. 80. The complaint is contained in communications dated 27 August 2018 and 26 April 2021.
2. 81. The Government sent its replies in communications dated 4 June 2019 and 15 September 2025.
3. 82. 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 Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. The complainants’ allegations

1. 83. The complainants indicate that the Union of Electricity and Energy Workers of Río Cuarto, province of Córdoba, together with other trade union organizations in the sector operating in the province of Córdoba, signed collective labour agreement No. 165/75 with the Córdoba Province Public Power Corporation (EPEC, hereinafter “the company”). They allege that relations between the company and the trade union had been harmonious until 2015, but that the situation deteriorated radically following changes of government at the national and provincial levels.
2. 84. The complainant organizations allege that articles 10 and 77 of the agreement establish, respectively, that the company will make contributions to a retirement fund and that it will assume the cost, in part or in full depending on volume, of workers’ electricity consumption, but that both benefits were affected by provincial legislation. They allege that, despite what had been agreed freely by the parties: (i) Act No. 10.549/2018 eliminated employer contributions to any fund and (ii) Act No. 10.548/2018 reduced substantially the conventional benefit of lower electricity rates, indirectly causing an unacceptable decrease in remuneration. In the complainant organizations’ view, this constitutes undue interference by the State in the negotiations and agreements between the trade union and the company, as well as wholly contradicting the duty to promote collective bargaining as set out in Conventions Nos 98 and 154.
3. 85. The complainant organizations also allege that Act No. 7.565/1987 of the province of Córdoba, which establishes the mechanisms through which the administrative labour authority is authorized to intervene in collective disputes, allows in article 14 the authority to impose compulsory arbitration when collective disputes involve public services or essential operations of the provincial State or its autonomous or mixed-ownership enterprises. The complainants are of the view that the inclusion of public services in general exceeds the limited procedure established by the ILO supervisory bodies, while the reference to essential operations without further detail leaves the door open to government discretion in the matter. They also allege that article 15 of the provincial Act, after establishing that the decision to submit a collective labour dispute to compulsory arbitration is the unappealable decision of the administrative labour administration, provides that the authority may order the use of the security forces to bring an end to direct action or enforce any administrative resolution that it may issue under the provincial Act, constituting a new threat that discourages workers from exercising the right to strike.
4. 86. Moreover, the complainant organizations allege that in 2017 the provincial legislature of Córdoba adopted Act No.10.461 establishing a system of minimum services that goes beyond the limits imposed by national legislation (Act No. 25.877), excluding the social partners from the process of determining those services and providing for sanctions for non-compliance – up to five days’ community work – which, in the complainants’ view, constitutes the extraction of forced labour and, therefore, a serious threat to the exercise of the right to strike.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 87. In its communication dated 4 June 2019, the Government states that, with regard to collective labour agreement No. 165/75 with the company, the crux of the matter is the continuing effect of collective agreements and that, in its opinion, the definitive judgment of the courts should be awaited. With regard to the clause in the agreement relating to the company’s contributions to the retirement fund which have been superseded by Act No. 10.549, the Government states in its communication dated 15 September 2025 that on 12 September 2022, the Labour Chamber, Secretariat No. 1, Río Cuarto, of the Judicial Authority in the province of Córdoba, issued judgment No. 249 (file no. 7728175) declaring that “article 1 of Act No. 10.549 adopted by the legislature of the province of Córdoba is unconstitutional since it ‛eliminates’ the employer contributions set out in article 10(c) of collective labour agreement No. 165/75 by exceeding its legislative powers and constituting state interference in collective bargaining. The Government indicates that the judgment has been appealed and proceedings are ongoing. The Government annexes to its communication a copy of a collective agreement between the company and the regional trade union of electricity and energy workers (dated December 2018) and a copy of a collective agreement between the company and the Union of Electricity and Energy Workers of Río Cuarto (dated May 2019) on the implementation of certain regulations contained in collective labour agreement No. 165/75.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

Collective labour agreement No. 165/75

Compulsory arbitration and minimum services

1. 88. The Committee observes that this case concerns allegations relating to a violation of the right to collective bargaining through the amendment or abrogation of clauses of a collective agreement (collective labour agreement No. 165/75) applicable to an energy supplier company in the province of Córdoba (hereinafter “the company”) as well as violations of the right to strike (in relation to compulsory arbitration and the definition of minimum services), in both cases as a result of the adoption of successive provincial laws.
2. 89. The Committee notes that the complainant organizations indicate that the Union of Electricity and Energy Workers of Río Cuarto, province of Córdoba, together with other trade union organizations in the sector operating in that province, signed collective labour agreement No. 165/75 with the public company. The Committee takes note that they allege in this regard that: (i) relations between the company and the trade union had been harmonious until 2015, but the situation deteriorated radically following changes of government at the national and provincial levels; (ii) articles 10 and 77 of the agreement establish, respectively, that the company will make contributions to a retirement fund and that it will assume the cost, in part or in full depending on volume of workers’ electricity consumption; (iii) despite what had been agreed freely by the parties, provincial Act No. 10.549/2018 eliminated employer contributions to the fund (article 10 of the collective labour agreement) and Act No. 10.548/2018 reduced substantially the conventional benefit of lower electricity rates for the company’s staff.
3. 90. The Committee notes that in its communication dated 4 June 2019, the Government states that the crux of the matter is the continuing effect of collective agreements and that, in its opinion, the definitive judgment of the courts should be awaited. With regard to the clause in the agreement relating to the company’s contributions to the retirement fund which have been superseded by Act No. 10.549, the Committee duly notes the information provided by the Government in its communication of September 2025, according to which the Labour Chamber, Secretariat No. 1, Río Cuarto, of the Judicial Authority in the province of Córdoba, in its judgment No. 249 of 12 September 2022, declared article 1 of Act No. 10.549 unconstitutional, since it “eliminates” the employer contributions set out in article 10(c) of collective labour agreement No. 165/75 by exceeding its legislative powers and constituting state interference in collective bargaining. Taking note that the Government indicates that the judgment has been appealed, and recalling that the interruption by law of provisions in already concluded collective agreements is not in conformity with the principles of free collective bargaining and that legislative intervention is not a substitute for free and voluntary negotiations over the terms and conditions of employment of public employees who are not engaged in the administration of the State [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, paras 1446 and 1474], the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed concerning the definitive judgment of the courts in that regard. Concerning the allegations relating to Act No. 10.548, which would reduce substantially the conventional benefit of lower electricity rates, and noting with regret that the Government has not provided its observations in that regard, the Committee understands that this matter has been brought before the courts and requests the Government to provide information on the pending judicial proceedings relating to challenges to the effects of Act No. 10.548 on collective bargaining.
4. 91. The Committee notes that the complainant organizations allege that: (i) Act No. 7.565/1987 of the province of Córdoba, which establishes the mechanisms through which the administrative labour authority is authorized to intervene, allows in article 14 the authority to impose compulsory arbitration when collective disputes involve public services or essential operations of the provincial State or its autonomous or mixed-ownership enterprises; (ii) the inclusion of public services in general exceeds the limited procedure established by the ILO supervisory bodies, while the reference to essential operations without further detail leaves the door open to government discretion in the matter; and (iii) article 15 of the provincial Act, after establishing that the decision to submit a collective labour dispute to compulsory arbitration is the unappealable decision of the administrative labour authority, provides that the authority may order the use of the security forces to bring an end to direct action or enforce any administrative resolution that it may issue under the provincial Act, constituting a new threat that discourages workers from exercising the right to strike.
5. 92. The Committee takes notes that the complainant organizations allege, furthermore, that in 2017 the provincial legislature of Córdoba adopted Act No.10.461 establishing a system of minimum services that goes beyond the limits imposed by national legislation (Act No. 25.877), excluding the social partners from the process of determining those services and providing for sanctions for non compliance – up to five days’ community work – which, in the complainants’ view, constitutes the extraction of forced labour and, therefore, a serious threat to the exercise of the right to strike.
6. 93. The Committee regrets that, despite the time that has elapsed since the complaint was presented, the Government has not provided information on these allegations.
7. 94. With regard to recourse to compulsory arbitration, the Committee wishes to recall that compulsory arbitration to end a collective labour dispute and a strike is acceptable if it is at the request of both parties involved in a dispute, or if the strike in question may be restricted, even banned, i.e. in the case of disputes in the public service involving public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population [see Compilation, para. 816].
8. 95. Concerning the matter of minimum services, the Committee recalls that the establishment of minimum services in the case of strike action should only be possible in: (1) services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (essential services in the strict sense of the term); (2) services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term but where the extent and duration of a strike might be such as to result in an acute national crisis endangering the normal living conditions of the population; and (3) in public services of fundamental importance [see Compilation, para. 866]. The Committee also recalls that minimum service should be restricted to the operations which are necessary to satisfy the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while ensuring that the scope of the minimum service does not render the strike ineffective [see Compilation, para. 874] and that the workers’ and employers’ organizations concerned must be able to participate in determining the minimum services which should be ensured, and in the event of disagreement, legislation should provide that the matter be resolved by an independent body and not by the administrative authority [see Compilation, para. 882].
9. 96. With regard to the alleged use of the security forces under aforementioned Act No. 7.565/1987, the Committee also wishes to recall that while workers and their organizations have an obligation to respect the law of the land, the intervention by security forces in strike situations should be limited strictly to the maintenance of public order [see Compilation, para. 933]. Lastly, regarding the alleged community work sanctions imposed for non-compliance with Act No. 10.461, the Committee wishes to recall that penal sanctions should not be imposed on any worker for participating in a peaceful strike and that penal sanctions should only be imposed if, in the framework of a strike, violence against persons and property or other serious violations of the ordinary criminal law are committed, and this, on the basis of the laws and regulations punishing such acts [see Compilation, paras 954–955].
10. 97. In light of this, the Committee trusts that the competent authorities will take into consideration the conclusions in this case in order to amend, in consultation with the representative social partners, the content of provincial Acts Nos 7.565/1987 (with regard to compulsory arbitration) and 10.461/2017 (with regard to the definition of minimum services and the imposition of community work sanctions for non-compliance), in the manner indicated by the Committee. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on this matter.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 98. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) Taking note that the judgment of 12 September 2022 – which declared unconstitutional the elimination of employer contributions to the retirement fund agreed in collective labour agreement No. 165/75 – has been appealed, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed concerning the definitive judgment of the courts in that regard;
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the pending judicial proceedings relating to challenges to the effects of Act No. 10.548 on collective bargaining;
   • (c) The Committee trusts that the competent authorities will take into consideration the conclusions in this case in order to amend, in consultation with the representative social partners, the content of provincial Acts Nos 7.565/1987 (regarding compulsory arbitration) and 10.461/2017 (regarding the definition of minimum services and the imposition of community work sanctions for non compliance), in the manner indicated by the Committee. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on this matter.