Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 344, March 2007

Case No 2456 (Argentina) - Complaint date: 30-SEP-05 - Closed

Allegations: The complainant organization alleges that, after participating in a trade union assembly, several workers were dismissed and others penalized by the Aerohandling S.A. enterprise

269. The complaint is contained in a communication of the Central of Argentinean Workers (CTA) dated 30 September 2005.

1. 270. The Government sent its observations in a communication of 11 August 2006.
2. 271. 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. 272. In its communication of 30 September 2005, the Central of Argentinean Workers (CTA) alleges that the Aerohandling S.A. enterprise, which is controlled by the Aerolíneas Argentinas S.A. enterprise, owned in turn by the Transnacional Marsans enterprise, which has its corporate headquarters in Spain, has been pursuing a policy of overt prohibition and repression of any trade union activity by its employees. The CTA adds that the Aerohandling S.A. enterprise engages in arbitrary, unlawful and fraudulent practices such as concluding a series of casual or fixed-term contracts with the same worker for the same job, and that, faced with this situation, the workers’ representatives at the workplace complained to the enterprise management, in view of the impact on job stability and other labour rights of the workers they represent.
2. 273. The CTA states that, following the assembly held on 23 and 24 March 2005 and in the context of the dispute, on 30 March 2005 the enterprise dismissed six employees: Martín Pucheta, Andrés Chavez, Fabián Ross, Fabián Aquino, Guillermo Cortegoso and Walter Bergon, on the grounds that they had “participated in an assembly called by the internal trade union committee”. In addition to the dismissals, all the members of staff who had participated in the assembly were subjected to persecution. The workers concerned were individually summoned, pressured to give an explanation, and told to repent. Workers who argued or defended themselves were labelled “dissenters” or “intractable” and accordingly severely penalized with warnings and suspensions.
3. 274. The CTA concludes that the Aerohandling S.A. enterprise has exerted anti-union and discriminatory, and hence unlawful, pressure in the form of dismissal and suspension of workers, both union members and non-members, thus overtly violating the principles of freedom of association enshrined in Act No. 23551 on trade unions and article 14bis of the national Constitution, as well as ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.
4. B. The Government’s reply
5. 275. In its communication of 11 August 2006, the Government states that the National Directorate for Labour Relations informed it that “the complaint presented by the Association of Aeronautical Personnel (APA) against the Aerohandling S.A. enterprise was filed under No. 1.100.424/04”. The file shows that after a number of hearings, the parties requested a recess as they were engaged in direct negotiations. After notification of the parties, they did not submit any petition in the proceedings, and the case was accordingly shelved for lack of submissions on 25 October 2005. In the light of this information, the Government considers that the complaint is moot.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 276. The Committee observes that in this case the complainant organization alleges that the workers’ representatives submitted complaints to the Aerohandling S.A. enterprise, that in this context a workers’ assembly was held on 23 and 24 March 2005 and that on 30 March six workers were dismissed for having participated in that assembly called by the internal trade union committee. The complainant organization states further that in addition to the dismissals, the enterprise began persecuting the staff who had participated in the assembly (according to the CTA, the workers were individually summoned, required to give an explanation, and told to repent; workers who argued or defended themselves were penalized with warnings and suspensions).
2. 277. The Committee notes that the Government states that the National Directorate for Labour Relations informed it that the Association of Aeronautical Personnel (APA) filed a complaint against the Aerohandling S.A. enterprise (No. 1.100.424/04) and that after a number of hearings, the parties requested a recess (suspension of the administrative proceedings in order to reach a settlement) as they were engaged in negotiations. The Government adds that, after notification of the parties, they did not submit any petition in the proceedings, and the case was accordingly shelved on 25 October 2005.
3. 278. In this regard, the Committee recalls that it has emphasized on several occasions that “the right of occupational organizations to hold meetings in their premises to discuss occupational questions, without prior authorization and interference by the authorities, is an essential element of freedom of association” and that “no person should be dismissed or prejudiced in employment by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, and it is important to forbid and penalize in practice all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of employment” [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, paras 130 and 771].
4. 279. The Committee expects that the dispute in question will be settled by the parties in the very near future, bearing in mind the principles mentioned above, and requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard, and in particular to indicate the employment situation of the workers alleged to have been dismissed.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 280. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendation:
   • The Committee expects that the dispute in question will be settled by the parties in the very near future, bearing in mind the principles mentioned above, and requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard, and in particular to indicate the employment situation of the workers alleged to have been dismissed.