Interim Report - Report No 49, 1961

Case No 192 (Argentina) - Complaint date: 16-JAN-59 - Closed

1. 158. The original complaint of the W.F.T.U is contained in two communications, the first dated 16 January 1959 and the second 26 February 1959; they contain allegations relating to the strike of railway workers which took place in November 1958 and that of the workers of the national refrigeration plant, which subsequently developed into a general strike, in January 1959 and the manner in which they were repressed.
2. 159. When the Committee examined the case at its meeting in May 1959, it had before it a communication from the Government, dated 8 April 1959, which contained observations on the railway workers' strike, and a further communication, dated 12 May 1959, which replied in part to the allegations concerning the strike of the workers at the refrigeration plant and stated that the Government would forward its further observations at a later date.
3. 160. In the circumstances the Committee submitted its recommendations on the allegations relating to the strike of railway workers in November 1958, and the manner in which it was refused, to the Governing Body; these recommendations, contained in its 36th Report, paragraph 116 (a), (b) and (c), were approved by the Governing Body at its 142nd Session (May-June 1959). Consequently, these allegations will not be taken into consideration in the present report.
4. 161. At the same time, the Committee deferred consideration of the allegations concerning the strike of the workers in the refrigeration plant pending receipt of the full reply of the Government. In letters dated 3 July and 24 November 1959 the W.F.T.U submitted further information on these allegations, together with new allegations; at the same time the Permanent Liaison Committee of the Unified Workers' Movement of Argentina submitted a further complaint. In a communication dated 22 June 1960 the Government submitted observations supplementary to those supplied earlier in its letter of 12 May 1959. The present document is concerned exclusively with the allegations still before the Committee.
5. 162. 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

• Allegations relating to the Strike of Workers in the National Refrigeration Plant (Which Developed into a General Strike)
  163. 163 According to the complainants, as a result of the handing over of the Lisandro de la Torre national refrigeration plant to a private company by a government decree, the 8,000 workers employed in the plant came out on strike in protest. The Government sent troops, supported by tanks, to dislodge the workers who were peacefully occupying the plant, as a result of which many workers were injured and many arrested. Other trade unions in Argentina called a sympathetic strike, with the result that the strike became general. The strikers demanded the rescinding of the decree concerning the refrigeration plant, the demobilisation of the railwaymen, the quashing of the sentences imposed by the military tribunals, an increase of 1,500 pesos per month in all wages and effective measures to deal with the high cost of living and unemployment. The Government declared these strikes unlawful and ordered the mobilisation of the petroleum workers and the transport workers of the city of Buenos Aires, and declared certain areas to be military areas. Notwithstanding the fact that between 20 and 22 January the strikes were called off, the Government closed down six of the principal trade union organisations and subsequently placed them under the control of the military. Five hundred workers and trade union leaders had been arrested and the military tribunals had resumed their activities. The authorities themselves had declared that 264 of the persons detained were being kept at the disposal of the executive authority, that is to say without any legal safeguard. The complainants contend that these facts, together with those already described in the letter of 16 January 1959 proved " the wide scope of the Argentine Government's anti-democratic and anti-trade union policy and the urgency of effective action by the I.L.O with a view to securing respect for freedom of association in Argentina ".
  164. 164 The Committee observes that the complainants refer to the events described above as measures taken by the Government as a result of the general strike which had developed out of the strike of the refrigeration workers. A similar allegation is made in brief terms in the letter of 3 November 1959, to which reference has already been made, and which contains the following statement: " Since January of the present year, as a result of the justified general strike launched by the workers of Argentina in opposition to the employers' efforts to impose less satisfactory conditions of life and of employment, the Government has undertaken a campaign of violent repression."
  165. 165 The Government replied to the above allegations in its letter of 12 May 1959. In that letter the Government stated that the allegation that the Lisandro de la Torre refrigeration plant was handed over to a private company by a decree of the Argentine Government was not in accordance with the facts. What actually happened was that on 14 January 1959 the legislature passed Act No. 14801 (the text of which is appended) authorising the Government to sell, at auction or by private treaty, or to lease out the plant within six months from the date of promulgation of the Act. The wage earners and salaried employees of the plant called a strike and seized it, barricading themselves inside; this was an act of insurrection against an Act of Congress, aggravated by the fact that the strikers were state employees. The strike was declared illegal on the grounds that it was not directed to trade union ends but had a political objective, namely the reversal of decisions taken by the public authorities in the exercise of their Constitutional powers. It was untrue to say that the armed forces had carried out " brutal repressive action ", since only the police took an active part in the expulsion of the workers from the premises which they had occupied by force. The support given by the troops was purely passive in character; their very presence sufficed to convince the workers that they could not proceed in their attitude of insubordination and violence. Similarly, there was no truth in the statement that many workers had been injured as a result of the intervention of the troops; this could be proved from the official report issued by the medical authorities of the general hospital adjoining the refrigeration plant, which states that only 11 cases of bruises were recorded, none of them serious, and that the persons concerned were able to go home unaided. The bruised persons had hurt themselves in the course of their disorderly withdrawal from the premises.
  166. 166 The reply then went on to explain the legal position. Article 14bis of the National Constitution specifically recognised the right to strike; but that right, like any other right, had its limits, which were laid down in the legislation regulating its exercise. Thus, the legal authorities and the courts had held that the Constitution itself made it possible to restrict the exercise of the right to strike by legislative process or to declare strike action illegal in particular cases without thereby affecting the essence of the right to strike. Hence, strikes by workers employed in national, provincial or municipal government or any official or semi-official undertakings responsible for public utilities were illegal. Moreover, the courts had distinguished certain classes of strike as " revolutionary " or " insurrectional " strikes and had held them to be unlawful, as they were directed to subversive ends or designed to impair the established rule of law. They had also defined another class of strike as "political" strikes, the characteristic feature of which was an intention on the part of the trade unions to impose their will on an organ of government; in such strikes the stoppage of work was dictated by political rather than by occupational motives. The Government claimed that the strike of the workers in the refrigeration plant was both an insurrectional and a political strike, since firstly it involved a state undertaking, the employees of which were government employees and secondly, its objective was to defy an Act of the national Congress.
  167. 167 It is clear from both the statements of the complainants and the reply of the Government that the cause of the strike was the decision of the Government to dispose of the refrigeration plant. The legal basis for this decision was Act No. 14801, dated 14 January 1959. Here the workers were protesting against a change of employer. The other organisations which joined the strike did so, as the complainants themselves admit, in sympathy. Consequently, the purpose of this strike does not appear to have been the obtaining of better working conditions, although advantage was taken of it to put various claims forward. But the main and immediate purpose of the strike was to protest against a measure taken by the Government and to attempt to have it reversed. This is made perfectly clear by the complainants in their letter, dated 26 February 1959, which contains the following statement: "After the Lisandro de la Torre national refrigeration plant in Mataderos had been handed over to a private company by government decree, at the instance of the Workers' Union for the Meat Products Industry, the 8,000 workers in the plant went on strike as a protest on 17 January 1959. "
  168. 168 In a number of cases in the past, the Committee has pointed out that the right to strike is generally accorded to workers and their organisations as an integral part of their right to defend their collective economic and social interest. However, it has rejected allegations relating to strikes by reason of their non-occupational character or where they have been designed to coerce a government with respect to a political matter or have been directed against the government's policy and not " in furtherance of a trade dispute ". In the present case it would seem clear that the strike was not called in furtherance of a trade dispute but in protest against the application by the Government of legislation providing for a change in the form of ownership of the undertaking concerned.
  169. 169 In these circumstances, therefore, the Committee considers that it should follow its previous practice of not entertaining allegations regarding strikes of such a nature and, therefore, recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
• Allegation relating to the Strike of Banking and Insurance Employees
  170. 170 In its communication, dated 3 July 1959, the W.F.T.U, after accusing the Government of having mobilised workers, arrested trade unionists and interfered with trade unions, stated that all those methods had again been employed in the case of a recent strike of banking and insurance employees. According to the complainants, the history of the strike was as follows. As a result of the increase in the cost of living the Banking Employees' Union demanded a salary increase. After several months of fruitless negotiations, on 10 April 1959, the Minister of Labour notified the leaders of the Union of his intention to repeal section 31 of Decree No. 3133/58, which made statutory provision for review of banks' salary scales, and stated at the same time that not only would there be no collective agreement, but also no salary increase. In view of the attitude taken by the Minister, declare the complainants, the Bank Employees' Union decided to call a 24-hour strike on 14 April and, if no settlement of the problem was reached, to declare a general strike, whereupon the Ministry of Labour decreed that the Union, the premises of which had been occupied by the police on 14 April, should be placed under government control, and some 20 members of the Union were arrested. The strike was declared illegal, and employees who did not return to work were threatened with dismissal. The bank employees were still on strike and, it is alleged, were subject to victimisation and repression. On 22 May the Minister of Labour had officially announced that all bank employees still on strike-over 40,000 persons in all-were automatically dismissed. The complainants stated in conclusion that the last-mentioned example was merely a further confirmation of the various methods employed by the Argentine Government to violate trade union rights.
  171. 171 The concrete allegations contained in this aspect of the complaint relate to government interference in the activity of the bank employees' trade union and to the measures taken against the strikers, including arrest and dismissal. In its reply the Government makes no specific reference to these allegations, although it does make comments on other allegations relating to interference with trade unions and to the arrest of trade unionists.
  172. 172 The Committee, therefore, has requested the Government to furnish its observations on the allegations relating to the strike of banking and insurance employees, including information concerning the grounds on which it declared that strike illegal. Pending the receipt of that information the Committee has adjourned consideration of this aspect of this case until its next meeting.
• Allegation relating to the Mobilisation of Petroleum Workers, Railwaymen and Transport Workers
  173. 173 In their communication of 3 July 1959 the complainants allege that at that time 40,000 petroleum workers, 280,000 railwaymen and 50,000 transport workers were mobilised and were subject to military discipline, even though at its meeting of 4 June the Chamber of Deputies had requested that the mobilisation orders affecting the workers should be rescinded and the arrested trade union leaders released. The workers who had been called up were subject to all the rigours of army discipline. During the period 20 to 26 March 1959 disciplinary action was taken against 162 railwaymen working at Floresta Station. According to the complainants, they were compelled to perform what amounted to forced labour outside ordinary working hours and without pay because they had reported for work a minute or two late. In June 1959, it is alleged, 15 employees in the workshops of the San Martin Railway Company were accused of disobedience and placed under arrest and were to appear before a military tribunal.
  174. 174 In its reply the Government makes no reference to this allegation. At its May 1959 Session, however, when it examined an allegation relating to a previous mobilisation of the railwaymen, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that trade union rights may be endangered by the mobilisation of workers in industrial disputes and to emphasise the undesirability of recourse to such measures except for the purpose of maintaining essential services in circumstances of the utmost gravity.
  175. 175 As the circumstances in the case of the petroleum, railway and transport workers raised in the present allegations appear to involve questions of principle similar to those considered by the Committee in the earlier case of the railwaymen, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to the view previously expressed by the Governing Body.
• Allegation relating to the Arrest and Imprisonment of Trade Unionists
  176. 176 The complainants allege in their communication of 3 July 1959 that the arrest of trade union leaders was continuing. On 12 February 1959 Rubens Iscaro, the General Secretary of the Federation of Building Workers, an officer of the Movement for Trade Union Unity and Co-ordination, and a member of the Executive Committee of the W.F.T.U, had been taken into custody; he had, however, been released as a result of the unanimous protests made by the organisations to which he belonged. Under similar circumstances Arturo Vásquez and Vicente Marischi, respectively the General Secretary and Deputy General Secretary of the Federation of Workers in the Timber and Allied Trades, and Andrés Framini, the Secretary of the Textile Workers' Association, had also been arrested; the first two were still in prison. It is alleged that the imprisoned workers were being maltreated; for instance, the railway, tramway and petroleum workers detained in Magdalena Prison for having taken part in the strike had been compelled to work for the authorities without pay, even though that was expressly prohibited by the prison regulations. Those who refused to work were punished and confined to their cells and deprived of recreation, visits and correspondence. The prison governor is alleged to have employed the workers on paving jobs for the account of a private undertaking. In fact, in the complainants' view, the case was a further example of forced labour in Argentina.
  177. 177 In the complaint that it submitted on 3 November 1959 the Permanent Liaison Committee of the Unified Workers' Movement of Argentina puts forward further evidence in support of these allegations. This complainant alleges that it had become a regular practice for agents of the Government of Argentina to take trade union leaders away from their homes at late hours of the night, arrest them and, for no sound reason and without any trial or public explanation of the offences they were accused of having committed, hold them at the disposal of the executive authorities and imprison them either in the capital or in the interior. At that time, it is contended, there were approximately 100 trade union leaders in prison, including Andrés Framini, the General Secretary of the Textile Workers' Association; Rubens Iscaro, General Secretary of the Union of Building Workers; Luis Panni, Josh Rucci and Luis Hinojosa of the Metal Workers' Union, and many others, while a number of workers had been sent to concentration camps which had been reopened in Patagonia, such as those of Viedma and Esquel.
  178. 178 The W.F.T.U, in its communication of 24 November 1959, makes new allegations of a similar nature. It states that, using the state of emergency as a pretext, the Argentine authorities have arrested scores of trade union leaders and members. As a result of the 48-hour general strike organised on 23 and 24 September by the unions belonging to the United Labour Movement large numbers of arrests were made. More than 100 trade union leaders and militants are stated to have been imprisoned and confined in inhospitable areas in the southern part of the country, where they were being held on orders from the government authorities, although no court of law had ever ordered their detention. The persons so imprisoned are alleged to have included Rubens Iscaro, General Secretary of the Federation of Building Workers and a member of the Executive Committee of the W.F.T.U, Andrés Framini, General Secretary of the Federation of Textile Workers and Luis Trossi, the Organising Secretary of the Federation of Building Workers. A list of 176 trade union militants stated to have been under arrest on 5 October of that year is appended to the complaint. The complaint goes on to allege that in November 1959 several of the arrested trade union leaders were deported to places remote from Buenos Aires where their families lived. It gives the names of ten persons stated to have been deported to Viedma and of three others sent to the prison of Santa Rosa in the province of La Pampa. In addition, it is alleged, the police arrested Josh Miguel Zárate, Deputy Secretary of the Federation of Building Workers and a member of the Unified Labour Movement on 7 November 1959, while the first national plenary assembly of the Unified Labour Movement was being held.
  179. 179 The Government replied to the above allegations in a communication dated 22 June 1960. It states that in view of the numerous acts of terrorism which had been committed in different parts of the country-which had had disastrous consequences and caused enormous damage-the Government was compelled to bring into force the State Security Plan, known as the Conintes Plan (the text of which is appended to its reply). The intervention of the military under this plan brought the situation back to normal, and inquiries were undertaken in every place where such outrages had been committed; it was necessary at the time to arrest all those involved, including the persons listed by the complainants in the annex to their complaint, but all of them have since been liberated except three, who are being held at the disposal of the Executive. The Government states in conclusion that as regards the judicial procedure followed with respect to writs of amparo (habeas corpus) the manner in which the cases have been heard clearly shows that the institutions of the judiciary are functioning normally in a manner indicative of a situation governed by the rule of law in which workers can use all legal channels of appeal in defence of their rights.
  180. 180 The list of persons annexed to the complaint of the W.F.T.U. (militants held in five different prisons), all but three of whom are stated by the Government to have been liberated after having been arrested during the investigation into the disturbances, in fact included the names of Messrs. Rubens Iscaro, Luis Panni, José Rucci and Luis Hinojosa (whose cases are referred to in paragraph 176 above), and Mr. Luis Trossi (see paragraph 177 above). It is not clear, however, what is the position with regard to Mr. Arturo Vásquez and Mr. Vicente Marischi, General Secretary and Deputy General Secretary of the Federation of Workers in the Timber and Allied Trades, and Mr. José Miguel Zárate, Deputy Secretary of the Federation of Building Workers, or with regard to the workers alleged to have been deported to Viedma, Esquel and Santa Rosa. Nor does the Government comment on the alleged maltreatment of workers held in the Magdalena Prison (which is not one of the five prisons referred to in the annex to the complaint of the W.F.T.U.).
  181. 181 In these circumstances the Committee has requested the Government to furnish further information with respect to these specific points as a matter of urgency.
• Allegations relating to Government Interference with Trade Union Administration
  182. 182 In their communication of 3 July 1959 the complainants allege that on 6 March 1959 the Ministry of Labour and Social Security published a new decree removing the elected leaders of the organisations mentioned in the communication of 26 February from office and authorising the appointed controllers-high-ranking military officers -" to appoint new officers to be responsible for representing the workers in their individual and collective disputes, to negotiate agreements on conditions of work and to exercise such administrative and judicial functions as may be necessary for the continuance of trade union affairs ".
  183. 183 In the communication dated 3 November 1959 the complainants repeat their earlier allegations. They state that the Government took control of about a dozen workers' federations and placed them under the supervision of military officers backed by troops; these officers, it is alleged, acted in a way clearly intended to destroy the trade union organisation. At the same time the Government had reasserted and was still asserting its control over the General Confederation of Labour, which had been deprived of its independence for four years at the time of writing.
  184. 184 In the communication of 24 November 1959 the complainants state that although the Government rescinded some of the " trade union intervention " orders in July 1959, it was continuing to impose control by military administrators on the following organisations: The Federation of Building Workers; The Bank Employees' Association; The Argentine Federation of Chemical Workers; The Federation of Workers in the Timber Industry; and The State Petroleum Workers' Union.
• Furthermore, it had kept the General Confederation of Labour, the workers' national central organisation, under government control since 1955.
  185. 185 The Government referred to this point in its reply of 22 June 1960. It stated that the " trade union interventions " edicted by Decree No. 16200 of 4 December 1959 were effected on the basis of Act No. 14785 (the Act declaring a state of emergency). Moreover, in his message to the Chamber of Deputies, dated 1 December 1959, the President of the Republic had stated that the Executive had every intention of bringing all such " interventions " to an end as soon as possible, and to return the administration of the unions to their properly elected authorities, as soon as the existing state of emergency came to an end.
  186. 186 When the Committee examined this case at its meeting on 25 and 26 May 1959, it considered allegations that the Railwaymen's Union and certain of its locals had been placed under the control of military administrators and recommended the Governing Body, in paragraph 116 (c) of its 36th Report, to draw the attention of the Government to the importance which it attaches to the generally accepted principle that the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict the right of workers' organisations to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organise their administration and activities. The 36th Report of the Committee was approved by the Governing Body at its 142nd Session (May-June 1959).
  187. 187 In Case No. 172, relating to the Argentine Republic, the Committee examined allegations concerning the placing of the Bank Employees' Association under administrative control. It had before it a statement by the Government in a communication dated 13 March 1960 that it intended to end its intervention in the affairs of the Bank Employees' Association and to have elections held as soon as the situation permitted. The Committee, therefore, recommended the Governing Body to take note of the Government's declared intention to bring to an end all control of the Bank Employees' Association and to express the hope that the removal of this control would take place in the near future, and also recommended the Governing Body to reaffirm the importance which it attached to the principle enunciated in paragraph 186 above and set forth in Article 3 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), ratified by the Argentine Republic. These recommendations were approved by the Governing Body at its 145th Session (May 1960).

The Committee's recommendations

1. 188. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to draw the attention of the Government to the recommendations approved by the Governing Body when it adopted paragraph 116 (c) of the Committee's 36th Report and paragraph 60 (a) and (b) of the Committee's 47th Report, and to reaffirm the importance which it attaches to the principle, embodied in Article 3 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), ratified by the Argentine Republic, that workers' organisations should have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organise their administration and activities and that the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof;
   • (b) to note the reference in the Government's letter of 22 June 1960 to the statement by the President of the Republic of 1 December 1959 that the Executive had every intention of bringing all such " interventions " to an end as soon as possible, and to return the administration of the unions to their properly elected authorities;
   • (c) to note further, however, that in its letter dated 22 June 1960 the Government does not refute the allegation that the " intervention " was still being maintained in the case of a number of important trade union organisations, including the General Confederation of Labour;
   • (d) to request the Government to inform the Governing Body as to when it intends to permit all the trade unions, including the General Confederation of Labour, to resume their activities in freedom under the administration of their own fully elected officers and committees;
   • (e) to decide, having regard to the ratification by the Argentine Republic of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), to bring these conclusions to the notice of the I.L.O Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.
2. 189. In all the circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to decide that, for the reasons indicated in paragraphs 163 to 169 above, the allegations relating to the strike of workers in the national refrigeration plant (which developed into a general strike) do not call for further examination;
   • (b) to decide, with regard to the allegations relating to the mobilisation of petroleum workers, railwaymen and transport workers, to draw the attention of the Government, as it did with reference to similar allegations in another connection when adopting paragraph 116 (a) of the Committee's 36th Report, to the fact that trade union rights may be endangered by the mobilisation of workers in industrial disputes and to emphasise the undesirability of recourse to such measures except for the purpose of maintaining essential services in circumstances of the utmost gravity;
   • (c) to decide, with respect to the allegations relating to government interference with trade union administration:
   • (i) to draw the attention of the Government to the recommendations approved by the Governing Body when it adopted paragraph 116 (c) of the Committee's 36th Report and paragraph 60 (a) and (b) of the Committee's 47th Report, and to reaffirm the importance which it attaches to the principle, embodied in Article 3 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), ratified by the Argentine Republic, that workers' organisations should have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organise their administration and activities and that the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof;
   • (ii) to note the reference in the Government's letter of 22 June 1960 to the statement by the President of the Republic of 1 December 1959 that the Executive had every intention of bringing all such " interventions " to an end as soon as possible, and to return the administration of the unions to their properly elected authorities;
   • (iii) to note further, however, that in its letter dated 22 June 1960 the Government does not refute the allegation that the "intervention " was still being maintained in the case of a number of important trade union organisations, including the General Confederation of Labour;
   • (iv) to request the Government to inform the Governing Body as to when it intends to permit all the trade unions, including the General Confederation of Labour, to resume their activities in freedom under the administration of their own fully elected officers and committees;
   • (v) to decide, having regard to the ratification by the Argentine Republic of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), to bring these conclusions to the notice of the I.L.O. Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations;
   • (d) to take note of the present interim report of the Committee with respect to the allegations relating to the strike of banking and insurance employees and to the arrest and imprisonment of trade unionists, it being understood that the Committee will submit a further report thereon when it has received further information requested from the Government.