Definitive Report - Report No 333, March 2004

Case No 2219 (Argentina) - Complaint date: 30-SEP-02 - Closed

Display in: French - Spanish

Go to:

Allegations: Workers were sanctioned following their participation in a strike to claim back pay at the town council of the City of Salta

231. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Confederation of Argentine Workers (CTA) and the Association of State Workers (ATE) dated September 2002.
232. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 9 April and 10 and 15 September 2003.
233. 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).

234. In their communication of September 2002, the Confederation of Argentine Workers (CTA) and the Association of State Workers (ATE) allege that sanctions were imposed, in violation of Convention No. 87, on workers of the town council of the City of Salta by way of Ruling No. 140 issued by the general directorate of human resources of that municipality, for having participated in a strike convened by the ATE to claim back pay.
235. The complainants state that the delay in the payment of wages that occurred at the end of 2001 led to a series of legitimate claims and protests. The conflict worsened and in May 2002 a strike was held to claim the pay corresponding to February, March and April 2002. The measure was decided at an assembly convened by the ATE, the employer and the administrative authority were notified of it, and it had the support of 80 per cent of the workers.
236. Ruling No. 140 (the text of which was attached to the complaint) imposes one day of suspension with the corresponding deduction in pay for workers who participated in the strike, and constitutes, according to the complainant organizations, a clear violation of Convention No. 87.

237. In its communication dated 9 April 2003, the Government said that it had submitted the complaint to the relevant provincial and municipal authorities, requesting them to provide their observations. In its communications of September 2003, the Government states that Ruling No. 378, issued by the general directorate of human resources of the Municipality of the City of Salta (the text of which was attached), set aside Ruling No. 140 and ordered that the workers in question be reimbursed the deductions made in accordance with it. As the allegation underlying the claim has disappeared the Government considers that this case requires no further action.

238. The Committee observes that this case relates to the imposing of a sanction of one day’s suspension on workers of the town council of the City of Salta by way of Ruling No. 140 issued by the general directorate of human resources of that municipality, for having participated in a strike convened to claim back pay. The Committee notes with interest the Government statement that Ruling No. 378, issued by the general directorate of human resources of the Municipality of the City of Salta, set aside Ruling No. 140 and ordered that the workers in question be reimbursed the deductions made in accordance with it. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the new Ruling is fully implemented.

239. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendation:
- The Committee notes with interest Ruling No. 378, issued by the general directorate of human resources of the Municipality of the City of Salta, which sets aside Ruling No. 140 and orders the reimbursement to workers of the deductions made, and requests the Government to ensure that the new Ruling is fully implemented.