Informe provisional - Informe núm. 151, Noviembre 1975

1. 185. The complaint was submitted by a communication of 3 December 1°74 and the complainants, provided additional information by a letter of 11 December 1974. The Government sent its observations in a communication of 8 April 1975.
2. 186. 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

• Preliminary Question regarding the Receivability of the Complaint
  187. 187 The complaint is signed by Mr. Manuel Lezama on behalf of the Co-ordination Committee of the Buenos Aires Printing Workers' Federation. In a communication of 8 April 1975, the Government states that the person signing the complaint has no authority to represent the union and that, in addition, he refers to a body which does not exist according to the statutes of the organisation. The Government considers that in view of these facts the complaint should not be examined.
  188. 188 The Committee has stated, in paragraph 20 of its 9th Report, that complaints must be presented in writing duly signed by a representative of a body entitled to present them. Complaints are generally signed by persons indicated in the union statutes as empowered to act on behalf of the organisation in question. It can happen, however, that exceptional circumstances prevent the union leaders from performing this duty. In such cases, the union concerned would be unable to deposit a complaint where it considered that there had been violations of trade union rights if the Committee did not accept the complaints presented on behalf of the organisation in question by union members who did not usually act on behalf of the union.
  189. 189 In the case in question, the allegations related to the withdrawal of trade union status (personeria gremial) from the FGB and intervention by the authorities in its management and to the arrest of four of the leaders of that union. According to the complainant, the Government is in addition on the point of handing over trade union assets to a group led by persons expelled from the union for serious infringements of union rules. The events alleged appear to constitute sufficient reason to explain why the union representatives defined by the FGB statutes were unable to sign the complaint themselves and to examine the substance of it. Moreover, the Government has replied to these allegations. Under these conditions, the Committee considers that the complaint as submitted is receivable under the procedure in force.
• Allegations regarding the Withdrawal of Trade Union Status from the FGB
  190. 190 The complainant states that legal recognition as a trade union was withdrawn and that action was taken by the authorities because it would not bow to the dictates of the "Social Covenant" concluded between the Government and the employers' organisations. This covenant unilaterally and arbitrarily freezes wages for an indefinite period, when, in the absence of any serious check on prices, articles of prime necessity are getting dearer day by day, with the result that workers' purchasing power is seriously dropping. The complainants add that the Government is at the point of handing over trade union assets to an irresponsible group led by persons who, like Jorge Zakour and Dante Oberlin, were expelled by the organisation for serious infringement of union rules.
  191. 191 The Government states in its reply that Resolution No. 330/74 of the Ministry of Labour annulled the union status of the FGB under section 42, (2)(a) and (b) of Act No. 20615 respecting workers' occupational associations, for violation of the legal and statutory provisions and non-observance of the orders of the competent authority in the exercise of its legal powers. The organisation in question appealed to the Chamber of Labour Appeals, which confirmed the administrative decision by a judgment of 19 December 1974. The FGB did not take account of the formal notice delivered by the Ministry of Labour to renounce the use of direct action, which was applied in open violation of the "national compromise settlement", given force of law by section 9 of Act No. 20517.
  192. 192 This legal instrument which was totally ignored by the FGB, adds the Government, resulted in the latter's decision to achieve a compromise reflecting the efforts of all social sectors in the process of national reconstruction. One of the aims agreed upon between the Government, employers and workers was to ensure workers their share in the national revenue by the maintenance of real income. Successive meetings of the National Joint Commission (comprising representatives of the national government, the General Labour Confederation and the General Economic Confederation) resulted in the readjustment of pay scales and stabilisation of purchasing power. Energetic action to contain the rise in costs together with the highest level of employment for decades contributed to the achievement of this aim. The joint commissions were convened again to renegotiate (in accordance with the system set up by Act No. 14250) the collective labour agreements due to come into force on 1 June 1975.
  193. 193 In addition to the fact that it used illegal force, continues the Government, the union in question also violated its own statutes. It withdrew large sums from the Argentine National Bank, thus violating its own statutes and creating a serious and useless risk for its social assets.
  194. 194 As the Committee has pointed out in previous cases concerning Argentina, the withdrawal of trade union status from an organisation does not entail its dissolution. However, from the strictly trade union point of view the role assigned to organisations without legal status is extremely limited and, in view of the statutory distinction between organisations having trade union status and ordinary trade unions, it would seem that organisations which do not have trade union status do not have the right to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes freely.
  195. 195 According to the Government, the withdrawal of trade union status from the FGB is due partly to the use of direct action in contravention of the provisions of the national compromise settlement, which has force of law, and partly to irregularities in the financial management of the organisation. The Committee considers firstly that, if the authorities found irregularities which could be detrimental to the union's social assets, rather than adopt measures depriving the union of all possibility of action they should have taken legal action based on these irregularities against the persons responsible.
  196. 196 As regards the national compromise settlement, this is an agreement between the central government, the General Labour Confederation and the General Economic Confederation which, amongst other things, places certain restrictions on collective bargaining. By a Decree No. 901 of 24 December 1973, collective agreements in force were extended for the duration of the settlement, i.e. up to June 1975. From that time onward, any collective agreements which had been concluded would take effect. The Committee has already stated in the past that if a Government considers at a certain moment that the economic situation in the country requires certain stabilisation measures it may for a reasonable period and as an exceptional measure restrict the free negotiation of wage rates provided that such measures are applied only to the extent necessary, and are accompanied by adequate safeguards, to protect workers' living standards. In this case, the FGB did not respect the temporary restrictions and its appeal against the withdrawal of union status was rejected. It is nevertheless true that such withdrawal may result in depriving the printing workers of a representative trade union organisation and the Committee considers it desirable under these conditions that the Government consider the possibility of reconsidering the sanction it has imposed.
• Allegations regarding the Arrest of Mr. Ongaro and Other Trade Union Leaders
  197. 197 The complainant also states that Raimundo José Ongaro, leader of the Printers' Union, was arrested on 30 October 1974 at the same time as Alicia Fondevilla, Margarita González and Enriqueta Castro, who, like him, are leaders of the FGB and of the Argentine Printing Workers' Federation.
  198. 198 The Government states that it was obliged in application of the Constitution and existing legislation to proclaim a state of emergency throughout the country by Decree No. 1368 of 6 November 1974 because of the situation with which it was faced, and consequently to suspend the individual guarantees recognised by the Constitution, within the limits foreseen therein. Mr. Ongaro and the three other trade union leaders, continues the Government, were arrested and charged with contravening section 189(bis) of the Penal Code, which prohibits the possession of war weapons and ammunition. The Committee notes that according to certain information which appeared in the Argentine press, Mr. Ongaro and the other leaders were discharged. However, according to the Government, Mr. Ongaro was subsequently handed over to the national executive authorities because of his clear efforts to create a disturbance and engage in action prejudicial to the national reconstruction programme.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 199. The Committee has already had occasion to consider questions of arrest during states of emergency, specifically in a case concerning Argentina and a previous arrest of Mr. Ongaro. Although it has always refrained from expressing an opinion on the political aspects of a state of emergency, it has emphasised that such measures should be accompanied by adequate judicial safeguards applied within a reasonable period and that a person under arrest should be afforded the guarantee of regular judicial proceedings with the least possible delay.