Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 313, Mars 1999

1. 67. The complaint in this case is contained in a communication from the Association of Aeronautical Personnel (APA) dated 21 November 1997. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 22 May and 6 and 28 October 1998.
2. 68. 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. The complainant's allegations

1. 69. In its communication dated 21 November 1997, the Association of Aeronautical Personnel (APA) alleges that the enterprise Aerolíneas Argentina S.A. (Argentine Airlines Ltd.) set up a controlled cargo-handling undertaking (Aerohandling) to which workers of another enterprise operating at airports were transferred. After the APA decided to begin negotiations with the company with a view to concluding a collective agreement, the company, after much procrastination, delay and obstruction of the negotiations, finally appointed representatives who, however, did not respond to the proposal put forward by the trade union organization, did not meet with union representatives and did not recognize the union's rights.
2. 70. The complainant organization adds that during the period of the negotiations, the company dismissed the union official, Sergio Irigoyen, who had been participating in the negotiations.

B. The Government's reply

1. 71. In its communications of 22 May and 6 and 28 October 1998, the Government states that the dispute between the enterprise Aerohandling and the Association of Aeronautical Personnel (APA) ended with the signing of an agreement between the two parties; the trade union delegate Mr. Irigoyen had the agreement officially registered.
2. 72. As regards the dismissal of Sergio Irigoyen, the Government supplies the following: (1) a copy of the ruling (No. 60) handed down by the National Labour Court of First Instance which excludes the union delegate from the terms of the guarantee set out in section 52 of National Act No. 23551 ("fuero sindical"); in the reasons given for the ruling, reference is made to the fact that the defendant did not contest the notification of the charge made against him by the employer enterprise (obstructing the work of other workers, verbal and physical assault, etc.), and consequently none of the allegations made by the enterprise and cited to justify the action taken against Mr. Irigoyen could be deemed to have been contested; (2) a copy of the decision by the Appeal Court concerning the appeal lodged by Mr. Irigoyen against the ruling of the lower court; this decision confirms the original ruling and states, among other reasons given for the decision, that Mr. Irigoyen says nothing concerning the events of 29 October 1997 in which he was involved; (3) a copy of the court ruling which notes the fact that Mr. Irigoyen withdraws his action against the employer enterprise for reinstatement; the ruling notes that Mr. Irigoyen expressly withdraws the action and waives any claim in respect of the measures taken by the company, which implies tacit recognition that the company is in the right.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 73. The Committee notes that in the present case, the complainant organization alleges that the company Aerohandling obstructed and delayed the negotiations of a collective agreement and, during the period of the talks, dismissed a trade union delegate (Sergio Irigoyen) who was taking part in them.
2. 74. As regards the allegation concerning the obstructive attitude of the company Aerohandling during the negotiations of a collective agreement, the Committee notes with interest the Government's statement to the effect that the dispute has ended with the signature of an agreement between the parties. This being the case, the Committee will not proceed with the examination of this allegation.
3. 75. As regards the allegation concerning the dismissal of the trade union delegate Sergio Irigoyen during the period of collective negotiations in which he was participating at the company Aerohandling, the Committee notes the Government's statement to the effect that Mr. Irigoyen expressly withdrew his action for reinstatement before the judicial authority. The Committee also notes that previously, Mr. Irigoyen did not, when appearing before courts of various instance, contest the charges made against him by the employer enterprise (obstructing the work of other workers, verbal and physical assaults, etc.), nor did he respond expressly to the allegations made against him. This being the case, the Committee will not proceed with the examination of this allegation.