Definitive Report - Report No 320, March 2000

Case No 2029 (Argentina) - Complaint date: 30-JUN-99 - Closed

Allegations: Disciplinary sanctions following a strike

1. 123. The complaint is contained in a communication sent in June 1999 by the Union of Judicial Employees of Misiones Province (UJPM). This organization sent additional information in August 1999. The Government replied in a communication dated 21 January 2000.
2. 124. 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. 125. In its communications of June and August 1999, the Union of Judicial Employees of Misiones Province (UJPM) explains that, when the provincial government illegally introduced the "emergency solidarity tax" followed by a "special temporary emergency tax", workers went on strike and took other trade union action. The complainant alleges that on 15 October 1998 it announced that it would be carrying out direct action involving the withdrawal of workers from the workplace for the last two hours of the day. The UJPM alleges that it always maintained a minimum service, but the Misiones High Court nevertheless ordered that workers who had participated in the strike should lose one day's pay for the two-hour stoppage. The UJPM adds that the union leader Mr. Julio Argentino de los Santos was docked one day's pay and also fined 8 per cent of his salary as a disciplinary measure.

B. The Government's reply

1. 126. In its communication of 21 January 2000 the Government indicates that the UJPM sent a note to the Freedom of Association Committee (a copy is supplied) in which it states that "relations between the organization which we represent and the government of Misiones province, including the judicial authorities, have been virtually normalized and a number of specific measures have already been adopted including the return of sums of money previously deducted, and that there is a willingness at the highest levels to examine the issues raised by the UJPM", and asks the Committee to keep this in mind when it examines the case.
2. 127. The Government adds that the judicial authorities of the province supplied documents which indicate that at no time was the UJPM restricted or limited in the exercise of its constitutional right to strike, nor were disciplinary measures taken against the union or the strikers. It is incorrect to regard the loss of one day's wages as a disciplinary measure, as this was in fact the logical consequence of the principle of "a day's pay for a day's work" and of the constitutional principle of equality with regard to workers who did carry out their duties.
3. 128. There is a distinction to be drawn between the measures described in the previous paragraph and disciplinary sanctions in the true meaning of the term (which were not applied in the present case). The latter would include measures such as summary proceedings against strikers, suspension, dismissal, union deregistration proceedings, etc.
4. 129. As regards the alleged sanction imposed on Mr. Julio Argentino de los Santos involving a fine of 8 per cent of his salary, the Government indicates that the public prosecutor's office in Misiones province accepted Mr. de los Santos' petition and recognized the rights he claimed. The matter was thus resolved and the fine was not imposed.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 130. The Committee notes that in the present case the complainant alleges that, following a two-hour strike in the judicial sector, employees who took part were docked five-and-a-half hours' pay (i.e. an amount equivalent to a day's pay), and the union leader Mr. Julio Argentino de los Santos was in addition fined 8 per cent of his salary. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the state prosecutor's office accepted Mr. de los Santos' submission, recognized the rights which he had invoked and quashed the fine. The Committee also notes that the Government emphasizes that the right to strike is a constitutional right, that disciplinary sanctions were not imposed against the strikers and that docking a day's pay is not a disciplinary sanction but a means of applying the principle of "a day's pay for a day's work".
2. 131. The Committee notes the complainant's allegation, which has not been denied by the Government, that workers lost five and a half hours' pay although the stoppage lasted for only two hours. In any event, the Committee notes that "relations between the parties have been virtually normalized, that a number of specific measures have already been adopted including the return of sums of money previously deducted, and that there is a willingness at the highest levels to examine the issues raised by the UJPM". The Committee considers that there is no need to pursue its examination of these allegations.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 132. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.