Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 274, Junio 1990

Caso núm. 1456 (Argentina) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 08-JUN-88 - Cerrado

1. 2. The Committee had before it a number of complaints of infringements of trade union rights in Argentina presented by the Co-ordinating Council of Supervisory Staff Organisations (Case No. 1456), the Federation of Supervisory Staff Associations of State Enterprises (Case No. 1496), the Federation of Personnel of National Roads and Highways (Case No. 1515) and a representation made by the Industrial Union of Argentina under article 24 of the ILO Constitution, alleging non-observance by Argentina of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) (Case No. 1455).
2. 3. The Committee submits, for the Governing Body's approval, a report on the pending cases and the representation presented by virtue of article 24 of the Constitution of the ILO.
3. 4. The cases against the Government of Argentina pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association were originally presented by the Industrial Union of Argentina (UIA) in June 1988, supported by the Argentine Chamber of Construction in July 1988 (Case No. 1455), the Co-ordinating Council of Supervisory Staff Organisations (CEGJ) in June 1988 (Case No. 1456) and May 1989 (Case No. 1496), the Federation of Supervisory Staff Associations of State Enterprises in February 1990 (Case No. 1496) and the Federation of Personnel of National Roads and Highways in October 1989 (Case No. 1515). The Government sent its replies in respect of Cases Nos. 1455 and 1456 in communications dated April 1989.
4. 5. In November 1989, the Government requested the ILO to send a direct contacts mission "to examine the issues raised" by the complainant organisations in the representation and in the outstanding complaints, "with the participation of the employers' and workers' organisations". At its February 1990 meeting the Committee proposed to examine Cases Nos. 1455, 1456, 1496 and 1515 at its next May meeting in the light of the information obtained by the direct contacts mission (see 270th Report of the Committee, para. 10).
5. 6. The Committee notes that the Mission took place from 19 to 23 March 1990 and was conducted by Mr. José Vida Soria, former rector of the University of Granada, member of the Committee of Independent Experts of the European Social Charter (Council of Europe) and Professor of Labour Law, accompanied by Mr. Alberto Odero, an official of the Freedom of Association Branch of the ILO. The Committee notes with interest that the Mission conducted its work in a very cordial and co-operative atmosphere and was offered every facility, and wishes to thank Mr. Vida Soria for his detailed report on the issues raised in the various cases, following his interviews with Mr. Jorge Alberto Triaca, Minister of Labour and Social Security, and senior officials of the Ministry, and with representatives of the legislature, the judiciary, the CGT (Azopardo), the CGT (San Martín) and the complainant organisations. The Committee has taken due note of the Mission's report (see Annex).
6. 7. 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. Cases Nos. 1455, 1456 and 1496 (Procedural questions)

1. 8. The Committee notes from the Mission's report that, on its arrival in Buenos Aires, it was informed that a document had been signed on 16 March 1990 in which the Industrial Union of Argentina called on the ILO to suspend proceedings with respect to the complaints it had presented (Case No. 1455), and the Ministry of Labour and Social Security undertook to support this request inasmuch as it was designed to make possible the direct settlement of the issues raised by the parties concerned (through a special joint committee), without prejudice to the right of the parties to inform the ILO of the outcome. Similarly, in a document signed on 15 March 1990, the representatives of the Co-ordinating Council of Supervisory Staff Organisations stated that they were withdrawing the complaints submitted to the ILO (Cases Nos. 1456 and 1496) and that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security had undertaken to set up a special committee to examine the issues raised in the complaints and to propose solutions.
2. 9. It will be recalled that Cases Nos. 1455 and 1456 refer to Act No. 23551 of 14 April 1988 on trade union associations and to Decree No. 467/88 issuing regulations under that Act, which - according to the complainant organisations - contain provisions that are in violation of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. The allegations Case No. 1496 relate to the implementation of the Act in practice and, in particular, to excessive delays and red tape in the processing of registration and recognition formalities, or the refusal to do so.
3. 10. It should also be recalled that the Committee's procedure contains a rule concerning withdrawal of complaints (see Digest of Decisions and Principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, third edition, 1985, para. 52) which states the following:
   • When the Committee has been confronted with a request submitted to it for the withdrawal of a complaint, it has always considered that the desire expressed by an organisation which has submitted a complaint to withdraw this complaint constitutes an element of which full account should be taken, but it is not sufficient in itself for the Committee to cease automatically to proceed further with the case. In such cases, the Committee has decided that it alone is competent to evaluate in full freedom the reasons put forward to explain the withdrawal of a complaint and to endeavour to establish whether these appear to be sufficiently plausible so that it may be concluded that the withdrawal is being made in full independence. In this connection, the Committee has noted that there might be cases on which the withdrawal of a complaint by the organisation presenting it was the result not of the fact that the complaint had become without purpose but of pressure exercised by the government against the complainants, the latter being threatened with an aggravation of the situation if they did not consent to this withdrawal.
   • With regard to requests for the postponement or suspension of the examination of cases submitted by a complainant organisation or by the government concerned, the Committee's practice has been to decide in full freedom once the reasons given have been evaluated and bearing in mind the circumstances of the case.
4. 11. It is now for the Committee to decide on the requests for suspension of the proceedings and for withdrawal of the representation and complaints presented, respectively, by the Industrial Union of Argentina and by the Co-ordinating Council of Supervisory Staff Organisations. The Committee observes that the Government supports these requests and that, according to the Mission's report, they were made freely and without any kind of pressure. The Committee notes further that according to the documents signed by the complainant organisations and the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, which are given in full in the Mission's report, the parties decided to set up special committees to examine the issues raised in the complaints and to propose solutions.
5. 12. In these circumstances, the Committee decides to accede to the requests for suspension or withdrawal of the representation and complaints and welcomes the fact that the discussions among the parties concerned on the complaints and issues still pending before the Committee prior to the Mission's arrival have resulted in an agreement to settle the issues directly.
6. 13. The Committee further welcomes the fact that the agreements reached by the parties concerned include: (1) the setting up of a tripartite committee composed of representatives of the UIA and other bodies representing the employers' sector, as well as the workers represented by the CGT and the administrative authority for labour affairs, to examine the socio-economic and the labour situation and to consider current or future plans to amend the labour and social security legislation. This could mean, as the Mission's report indicates, "... for the first time the country was deliberately embarking upon a course of negotiation and agreement with the social partners"; and (2) the undertaking of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security to "allow the participation of the Co-ordinating Council of Supervisory Staff Associations in the discussion of the issues affecting the institutions and staff it represents". Finally, the Committee notes that the ministerial authorities told the Mission that they were optimistic that an agreement could be reached "on the amendment of the regulations made under the Act whereby the points currently at issue might find a solution".

B. Case No. 1515

1. 1. Allegations of the Federation of Personnel of National Roads and Highways
2. 14. Since the allegations of the Federation of Personnel of National Roads and Highways and the Government's reply are reproduced in full in the Mission's report annexed to the present report, the Committee wishes to draw attention to the relevant section of the Mission's report and will proceed directly to its conclusions on this case.
3. 2. The Committee's conclusions
4. 15. The allegations originate in a split within the Federation of Personnel of National Roads and Highways and refer to the interference of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security in the internal functioning of the complainant Federation. Specifically, they refer to the suspension of the ordinary congress convened for 27 and 28 April 1989, which elected a new executive board, and the ministerial order declaring the April congress null and void and the Federation leaderless and appointing a ministry official as trustee (delegado normalizador), with instructions to convene a new congress to elect new officials and to appoint the Federation's delegates to the CGT Congress.
5. 16. In its reply the Government makes the following points: (1) in January 1989 two congresses were convened representing conflicting factions which both claimed to be the Federation's legitimate representatives: the January congress of the section of the Federation which is the complainant in this case was convened by officials whose mandate was challenged by the other faction of the Federation; (2) the January congress of the complainant's section met without the statutory quorum; (3) given this confused, uncertain situation, the Ministry ordered the opposing parties to refrain from taking any action that might alter the existing situation, until such time as the organisation's internal problems were resolved, and accordingly ordered the suspension of the congress convened by the complainant's section for 27 and 28 April; (4) the April congress took place nevertheless and the Ministry therefore annulled it and declared the organisation leaderless and appointed a trustee.
6. 17. The Committee notes that, in a ruling handed down on 13 December 1989, the National Labour Appeals Court revoked the ministerial decision ordering the suspension of the ordinary congress of April 1989. It also notes that, in rulings handed down in December 1989, the National Labour Court of First Instance (1) quashed the ministerial decision declaring the April congress null and void, the organisation leaderless and appointing a trustee and (2) ordered the reinstatement of the officials elected at the April congress. The Committee observes that neither of these rulings is as yet definitive since appeals have been lodged with the higher judicial authority.
7. 18. The Committee notes from the Mission's report that the complicated internal dispute that gave rise to this complaint has been compounded since the two January 1989 congresses by a highly complex question of interpretation of the legal duration of the mandate of the Federation's executive board. The Committee notes further that, according to the Government, the January 1989 congress of the complainant's section of the Federation met without the statutory quorum and that each faction contested the authority of the other. Whatever the facts of the matter and their correct juridical interpretation, the Government itself has stated that the executive powers of the complainant Federation's officials have now been fully restored, while the latter have informed the Mission that there is no longer any internal dispute as an agreement has been reached enlarging the executive board appointed at the April 1989 congress in order to ensure representation of sections not present at the January 1989 congress convened by the complainant's section of the Federation. Lastly, the Committee notes that the judicial authorities have handed down rulings which, though not yet definitive since they have been appealed by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, are nevertheless in favour of the complainant Federation. The Committee observes that the Mission was informed by the ministerial authorities that the appeal is not directed against the present officials of the Federation but seeks a proper interpretation of the law as regards the scope of the powers of the Ministry in certain cases of internal conflict within a trade union organisation.
8. 19. In these circumstances, and since the situation of the complainant Federation has now been resolved both in fact and in law, it only remains for the Committee to request the Government to send it the text of the court's decision as regards the appeals lodged by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security concerning certain issues raised in the present case, in particular concerning the scope of the powers of the Ministry in certain cases of internal conflict within a trade union organisation.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 20. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) With respect to Cases Nos. 1455, 1456 and 1496, the Committee recommends that the Governing Body accept the requests of the complainant organisations to suspend its examination of Case No. 1455 and to consider Cases Nos. 1456 and 1496 withdrawn, so that the complainant organisations and the competent authorities can settle the issues raised directly.
   • (b) With respect to Case No. 1515, noting that the internal conflict within the complainant Federation has now been resolved and that its officials may now fully exercise their functions, the Committee requests the Government to send it the text of the court's decision regarding the appeals that have been lodged in connection with certain aspects of this case.

Z. ANNEX

• Report on the direct contacts Mission to Argentina from 19 to 23 March 1990
  1. 1 In November 1989 the Government of Argentina requested the ILO to send a direct contacts mission "to examine the issues raised" by the complainant organisations and the outstanding complaints before the Committee on Freedom of Association against the Government of Argentina concerning alleged violations of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, "with the participation of the employers' and workers' organisations". At its February 1990 meeting, the Committee proposed to examine the cases involved (Cases Nos. 1455, 1456, 1496 and 1515) at its next May meeting in the light of the information obtained by the direct contacts mission (see 270th Report of the Committee, para. 10).
• The Mission took place from 19 to 23 March 1990 and was conducted by Mr. José Vida Soria, former rector of the University of Granada, member of the Committee of Independent Experts of the European Social Charter (Council of Europe) and Professor of Labour Law, accompanied by Mr. Alberto Odero, an official of the Freedom of Association Branch of the ILO.
• The Mission met Mr. Jorge Alberto Triaca, Minister of Labour and Social Security, Senator Oraldo N. Britos, President of the Senate Committee on Labour Affairs, Mr. Rodolfo Díaz, Secretary for Labour Affairs, Mr. Enrique Osvaldo Rodríguez, representative of Argentina to the ILO and Chief of the Advisers to the Ministry of Labour, Mr. Ubaldini, Secretary-General of the CGT (Azopardo) Mr. Andreoni, Secretary-General of the CGT (San Martín), the Attorney-General for Labour Affairs, and a number of judges. The Mission held working meetings with officials of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security at various levels and with spokesmen for the Federation of Personnel of National Roads and Highways, the Co-ordinating Council of Supervisory Staff Organisations and the Industrial Union of Argentina (see Appendix I for complete list of persons interviewed by the Mission).
  2. 2 The Mission conducted its work in a very cordial and co-operative atmosphere and was offered every facility. For this it wishes to express its profound and sincere thanks to all those it encountered and also to the Office of the ILO in Buenos Aires for the support it received.
  3. 3 The outstanding cases before the Committee on Freedom of Association were presented by the Industrial Union of Argentina supported by the Argentine Chamber of Construction (Case No. 1455, which originated from a representation made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution), the Co-ordinating Council of Supervisory Staff Organisations (Cases Nos. 1456 and 1496), the Federation of Supervisory Staff Associations of State Enterprises (Case No. 1496) and the Federation of Personnel of National Roads and Highways (Case No. 1515).
• Cases Nos. 1455 and 1456 refer to Act No. 23551 of 14 April 1988 on trade union associations and to Decree No. 467/88 issuing regulations under that Act, which the complainant organisations claim contain provisions that are in violation of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and of sections 28 of the Act and 21 of the Decree (number of dues-paying members required for an association that has not been granted recognition to take the place of an association covering the same area which has already been granted recognition), section 29 (conditions for a trade union at the enterprise level to be granted recognition) and section 30 (conditions for the granting of recognition to trade unions covering a particular occupation, profession or category) of the Act and the sections of the Act that grant exclusive rights to recognised organisations (representation of collective interests, collective bargaining, administration of activities having the nature of social work, deductions from pay (check-off) of trade union dues, tax exemption and trade union immunity of their representatives, etc.). The Government had already sent the Committee on Freedom of Associaton a written reply concerning these cases.
• In Case No. 1496 the complainant organisations submitted allegations concerning the enforcement of the Act in practice, in which they denounced the excessive delays and red tape in the processing of registration and recognition formalities, or the refusal to do so, the failure to approve union by-laws "adapted" to the new Act on trade union associations, etc. The Government had not yet sent the Committee its reply to these allegations.
• Case No. 1515 referred to a number of incidents of interference by the authorities in the internal affairs of the Federation of Personnel of National Roads and Highways, including the suspension of a trade union congress and the appointment by the authorities of a trustee (delegado normalizador). The Government sent the Mission a communication responding to this allegation and which is embodied in the present report; the Mission also received the text of a judgement handed down by a court of second instance concerning the substance of the complaint.
  4. 4 On its arrival in Buenos Aires the Mission was informed that a document had been signed on 16 March 1990 in which the Industrial Union of Argentina requested the ILO to suspend the proceedings with respect to the complaints it had presented (Case No. 1455) and the Ministry of Labour and Social Security undertook to support this request inasmuch as it was designed to make possible the direct settlement of the issues raised by the parties concerned, without prejudice to the right of the parties to inform the ILO of the outcome.
• The representatives of the Co-ordinating Council of Supervisory Staff Organisations had likewise signed a document on 15 March 1990 to the effect that it withdrew the complaints submitted to the ILO (Cases Nos. 1456 and 1496). The complete text of the aforementioned documents are reproduced below:
• "In the City of Buenos Aires, on 15 March 1990, in the presence of the Minister of Labour and Social Security, Mr. Jorge Alberto Triaca, the representative of Argentine to the ILO, Mr. Enrique Osvaldo Rodríguez, and the representatives of the Co-ordinating Council of Supervisory Staff Associations, Mr. Daniel Sacayan, President, Mr. Osvaldo Elcarte, Vice-President, and Mr. Juan R. Viana, Secretary for Organisational and Trade Union Affairs, it is agreed that:
  1. "(1) By decision of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security a Special Committee shall be set up to examine the issues raised in the complaints brought before the ILO and to propose solutions as appropriate.
  2. "(2) The guide-lines for the Committee shall be the provisions laid down in Act No. 23551 on trade union associations and ILO Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 151 and related instruments.
  3. "(3) The Committee shall be composed of three representatives of the Co-ordinating Council of Supervisory Staff Associations which it shall propose within ten days of the signing of the this document and three representatives of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, and shall hold its first meeting on 27 March 1990 at 4 p.m. on the Ministry's premises. The representatives of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security shall have the power to take decisions.
  4. "(4) The representatives of the Co-ordinating Council of Supervisory Staff Associations declare that they withdraw the complaints submitted to the ILO under article 24 of its Constitution.
  5. "(5) The representatives of the Co-ordinating Council of Supervisory Staff Associations confirmed the affiliation of the Federation of Supervisory Staff Associations of State Enterprises to the body they represent.
  6. "(6) The Ministry of Labour and Social Security shall allow the participation of the Co-ordinating Council of Supervisory Staff Associations in the discussion of the issues affecting the institutions and staff it represents.
• "In the light of the foregoing and to signify their agreement, those present append their signatures below."
• "In the City of Buenos Aires, on 16 March 1990, in the presence of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, Mr. Jorge Alberto Triaca, the representative of Argentina to the ILO, Mr. Enrique Osvaldo Rodríguez, and the representatives of the Industrial Union of Argentina (UIA), Mr. Roberto Fevelevic, Mr. Daniel Funes de Rioja and Mr. Darío L. Hermida Martínez, it is agreed that:
  1. "(1) By decision of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security a Special Committee shall be set up to examine the issues raised in the complaints brought before the ILO and to propose solutions as appropriate.
  2. "(2) The Committee shall be composed of three representatives of the UIA which it shall propose within ten days of the signing of this document and three representatives of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security.
  3. "(3) The representatives of the UIA state that they will request the ILO to suspend proceedings with respect to the complaints submitted to it, and the Ministry of Labour and Social Security undertakes to support this request inasmuch as it is designed to make possible the direct settlement of the issues raised by the parties concerned, without prejudice to the right of the parties to inform the ILO of the outcome.
  4. "(4) The Ministry of Labour and Social Security shall set up a tripartite Committee composed of the UIA, other representative bodies of the employer's sector, the workers represented by the General Confederation of Labour and the administrative authority for labour affairs. The purpose of the Committee shall be to examine the socio-economic and labour situation and to consider current or future plans to amend the labour and social security legislation.
• "In the light of the foregoing and to signify their agreement, those present append their signature below."
• A communication dated 20 March 1990 sent to the Mission by the representatives of the supervisory staff organisations indicates that "the document that has been signed paves the way for an examination and solution of the problems facing the trade unions of Argentina, for the achievement of concrete results in the matter at hand and to the promotion of respect for freedom of association by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security in our country as a whole ... In the light of the foregoing, our Executive Committee has decided to withdraw the complaints it has presented, on the understanding that it will keep the Committee on Freedom of Association informed of any progress made by the Special Committee composed of the signatories to the document."
• In the course of a meeting with the members of the Mission, the representatives of the Co-ordinating Council of Supervisory Staff Organisations referred to a number of commitments entered into or being negotiated with the Ministry of Labour which they stated would entail: strict observance of the legal time-limit of 90 days for registration of trade union associations; automatic check-off of contributions to bodies affiliated to a recognised federation of supervisory staff associations; processing of current registration and recognition formalities; broadening of the scope of the Decree issuing regulations under the Act on trade union associations in order to ensure its correct interpretation; creation of the Committee referred to in the aforementioned document of 15 March 1990; and participation of the Co-ordinating Council of Supervisory Staff Organisations in the Argentine workers' delegation to the next International Labour Conference.
• The Mission ascertained that the request that the complaints referred to be withdrawn or suspended was made freely and without any kind of pressure.
  5. 5 This new situation with respect to Cases Nos. 1455, 1456 and 1496, which covered all the aspects of the complaints concerning the trade union legislation and its application, obviously entailed the Mission changing its approach and methods. Bearing in mind that, according to normal procedures in the Committee on Freedom of Association, the withdrawal by an organisation of its complaint or a request that proceedings be suspended is not a mere formality, and without disregarding the substantive issues involved, the Mission felt that it should attach more importance to the global aspects of the situation than to the strictly analytical aspects, thereby conferring an exceptional character on the meetings and discussions held (this was by and large also the approach spontaneously adopted by those whom the Mission interviewed).
• The Mission can accordingly summarise its views and conclusions as follows.
  6. 6 With regard to its conclusions of a general nature, the Mission draws attention to the following points:
     • - All those it interviewed emphasised to a greater or lesser degree or accepted that, before it was submitted to Parliament, the new Act on trade union associations was supported by all trade union circles and by the political parties, with the exception of the UIA which is governed by the Civil Code and did not express its views on the matter. However, the Co-ordinating Council of Supervisory Staff Organisations stated that it was unable to take part in the general consensus.
     • - As was pointed out by the labour authorities and members of Parliament, the Act was unanimously endorsed by Parliament.
     • - The labour authorities and the President of the Senate Committee on Labour Affairs further stressed that since the adoption of the Act no alternative Bill had been brought before Parliament.
     • - All those the Mission interviewed observed that, in their opinion, the Act was a definite improvement on the previous legal situation of trade unions in Argentina, especially as regards trade union autonomy and the reduction of the power of the administrative authorities for labour affairs to interfere. Even so, the complainants stressed that the Act contained points which they viewed as a violation of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, as they had stated in their complaints.
     • - The CGT (Azopardo) and the CGT (San Martín) expressed their whole-hearted support of the Act.
     • - Finally, the labour authorities made a number of points that they felt might be of interest, even though they did not specifically concern the complaints. They mentioned, for example, that the UIA's decision to suspend its complaint might be a sign that for the first time the country was deliberately embarking upon a course of negotiation and agreement with the social partners. The Mission is in fact able to bear witness to the formal constitution of a multi-party Committee to determine the various issues on which negotiation and agreement are to be sought. Moreover, the ministerial authorities themselves were very optimistic in this respect and saw the withdrawal of the complaint submitted by the Co-ordinating Council of Supervisory Staff Organisations as the first step in what would inevitably be an extensive and in-depth review of Argentina's trade union system and, therefore, as conducive to an agreement on the amendment of the regulations made under the Act whereby the points currently at issue might find a solution. Although the Co-ordinating Council has direct criticisms to make of the Act, it considers (pragmatically) that its demands might be satisfied through just such an amendment of the regulations.
  7. 7 Within this general framework it is now possible to examine one by one the various substantive issues in respect of which the complainants still have objections.
• The main objection concerns the legal procedure and formalities for the transfer of official recognition, whereby the number of dues-paying members of the petitioning association must be "considerably higher" than that of the association which was granted recognition earlier (section 28 of the Act) or "at least 10 per cent" higher (section 21 of the Decree issuing regulations under the Act). This issue, which was emphasised by the complainants in their written communications, was also frequently mentioned in the course of the direct contacts because of the difficulty it entails for supervisory staff associations in particular to carry out their trade union activities normally. In discussing this matter, the ministerial authorities said that they accepted the objections raised on this point by the Committee of Experts of the ILO and virtually undertook to envisage a modification to the requirement of 10 per cent more dues-paying members that is currently stipulated in the regulations.
• The second major issue concerns sections 29 and 30 of the Act on trade union associations, namely the impossibility for a trade union at the enterprise level to be granted recognition if another base-level trade union is already operating within the geographical area or the area of activity or category covered, and the fact that the granting of recognition to a trade union covering a particular occupation, profession or category when another trade union association covering a particular activity already exists is subject to there being "different" trade union interests which justify special representation.
• On this point, the Mission was able through its contacts to make the following observations:
  • - In the first place, it was emphasised that any administrative decision in this respect is by law open to appeal through the courts (this was confirmed by the ministerial and judicial authorities and by the complainants themselves). The Mission was assured, furthermore, that there had been so far been no instance of any trade union being denied registration on the grounds that there were no "different" interests at stake.
  • - The point was made, however, that there was no case law on the subject inasmuch as - no doubt because the Act had been passed only recently - the courts had not yet been called upon to make any ruling.
  • - The ministerial authorities have in any case recognised the contradictory, and above all ambiguous, nature of section 30, which was the outcome of various compromises that had to be accepted in the course of the Act's passage through Parliament; this suggests, as was emphasised to a greater or lesser extent in the course of the conversations held, that it might be possible to resolve satisfactorily the impasse to which the wording of the section leads by issuing appropriate regulations.
  • - In order to appreciate all the implications of these two issues for supervisory staff unions, the Mission focused its attention on two particular aspects: the situation of supervisory staff unions vis-à-vis second- and third-level trade union organisations, and the attitude of the trade union confederations towards supervisory staff unions.
• As regards the first point, it is a fact that some supervisory staff unions are members of the Co-ordinating Council and part of the existing trade union structure; that there is no ban on supervisory staff unions joining second-level trade union organisations as well as base-level trade unions; and that some unions originally affiliated to the CGT are now members of the Co-ordinating Council.
• To understand this somewhat confusing situation properly, it must be borne in mind that the recognised supervisory staff unions were set up earlier and under a different Act. The current unions insist that, under that Act, no new supervisory staff unions were officially recognised. It would, however, appear to be true that any official decision in this respect is open to appeal through the courts.
• Be that as it may, it is quite obvious that the supervisory staff unions find it difficult to operate. Moreover, as the ministerial authorities in particular pointed out, the unions that may be encountering difficulties are those operating in the public sector or in state enterprises. It also seems quite clear that there is some tension between base-level unions and supervisory staff unions, though this of course might be a question of trade union strategy rather than a strictly juridical matter. The tension is in any case apparently less virulent when the staff association coexists not with one but with several base-level unions (again perhaps a question of trade union strategy).
• As to the other aspect referred to in this paragraph (the attitude of the two established trade union confederations towards the spread of supervisory staff associations), the secretaries-general of both confederations said more or less the same thing in their talks with the Mission, namely that they are prepared to accept this singular phenomenon of Argentina's trade union movement which in any case has substantially different implications in the present-day context than it would have had in the past.
• On this subject, both the ministerial authorities and the trade union confederations stressed the difficulty for a movement that has evolved over many years to adapt its structure to this new state of affairs, though they were quite prepared to accept it. (One should bear in mind here the undertaking of the government authorities already referred to in this report to instigate negotiations in order to overcome this difficulty which, today, is in any case a fact of life.)
• To summarise, therefore, nobody seems to deny that the issues raised in the complaint do indeed raise certain difficulties from the standpoint of the regulations issued under the law; moreover, it is apparently true that a right of appeal does exist in practice; lastly, there seems to be a real desire to overcome these difficulties, if necessary by issuing appropriate regulations.
  8. 8 The second set of issues confronting the Mission were procedural, though the complainants pointed out that they could raise questions of substance and, above all, be used to justify administrative interference with trade union autonomy.
     • - One way in which this could happen, according to the complainants, was through "tacit refusal" to register a trade union. The Ministry's failure to act upon a request for registration could in their view constitute a virtual denial of trade union freedom and autonomy.
  9. The ministerial authorities explained that, although there had been instances of registration being refused between 1983 and 1986, the 1988 Act did provide for a right of appeal against such decisions (see above). Since then there had been no cases of actual refusal. According to the law, tacit refusal (90 days) may be directly appealed to the courts and final decisions may be challenged in court once administrative remedies (through the Ministry of Labour) have been exhausted.
     • - A related question, though of different origin, is the "adaptation" of the by-laws of trade union organisations established previously to the new legislation. This is another instance of administrative inactivity referred to in the complaints which can have the effect of denying recognition to bodies that have submitted their statutes for "adaptation" but have received no reply. The Minister recognised that there had been some delays but said that they were due to administrative shortcomings and to the difficulty of checking the by-laws in detail. The Mission was informed that, of 3,000 requests received since 11 July 1989, 2,500 had been dealt with and only 500 remained, thanks to a new administrative system that had speeded up the checking process.
  10. Furthermore, the Mission's attention was drawn to the fact that, from the legal standpoint, trade union bodies whose by-laws were simply "not adapted" to the Act could nevertheless continue negotiating collective agreements by exercising their trade union rights in the normal way.
      • - Another "procedural" question that arose concerned the legal prerequisite that the evidence adduced by a petitioning association seeking recognition be communicated to the association which had been granted prior recognition. The Mission was assured that this legal requirement did not mean that the latter was in any way officially involved in the proceedings; it was simply a request for information to facilitate the quantitative assessment of representativity (i.e. the existence of the majority required by law). The Co-ordinating Council of Supervisory Staff Organisations stressed however stressed that, irrespective of any juridical implications, the failure to reply of the association thus consulted constituted a "justifiable" delay (to use the official terminology) at the administrative level and hence, in practice, a denial of recognition for the petitioning association.
  9. 9 With respect to the remaining aspects of current trade union legislation (namely, the exclusive rights of the recognised associations) that were raised before the Committee, these were touched upon in the course of the discussions held by the Mission. The ministerial authorities stated explicitly that they were not aware that any request had been made or action taken to modify the laws and regulations as they related to exclusive rights. However, the Co-ordinating Council was particularly concerned that non-recognised associations affiliated to a recognised federation of supervisory staff associations should be able to take advantage of the check-off system and benefit from adequate protection (especially compensation for dismissal) against anti-union discrimination vis-à-vis the supervisory staff leaders while their trade unions are being constituted. Lastly, the leaders of staff associations mentioned that they sometimes received anonymous threats on account of their trade union activities.
  10. 10 The third matter that the Mission took up was that raised in Case No. 1515 submitted by the Federation of Personnel of National Roads and Highways. Since no reply had been received from the Government, the Mission dealt with this case separately and in greater detail. At its first working session with the ministerial authorities, the Mission indicated that it would like first of all to have the Government's official reply; this was communicated to the Mission and is reproduced below preceded by the allegations of the Federation of Personnel of National Roads and Highways.
• Allegations of the Federation of Personnel of National Roads and Highways
• The Federation of Personnel of National Roads and Highways (FPVN) alleges in its communication dated 30 October 1989 that, after having been taken over by the military dictatorship on 1 April 1976, it had at the end of a long struggle reverted to its previous status on 26 May 1986, when it elected an executive board for four years (1986-90), in accordance with Act No. 23071; these officials were accordingly certified by the Ministry of Labour and recognised as such without discussion.
• In January 1989 the FPVN convened an extraordinary congress to adapt its by-laws to the new Act on trade union associations (No. 23551), at which the assembly decided to elect a new executive board before 30 April 1989 in spite of the fact that the mandate of the previously elected officials had more than a year to run.
• The FPVN states that between the congress and the end of April 1989 the Secretary for Labour Affairs of the Ministry of Labour summoned the members of the executive body and first suggested and then demanded that the names of the presiding officers of the congress to be held in April be decided in his office; this suggestion was rejected by the trade union authorities. As a result, the Ministry of Labour did not approve the by-laws of the FPVN that had been adapted to the new trade union legislation.
• The FPVN recalls that section 64 of the new trade union legislation requires the Ministry of Labour to approve the by-laws of each association (contrary to section 24(a) of the same Act and Convention No. 87) and states that on 26 February 1989 the Ministry of Labour issued a decision ordering the executive board to refrain from taking any action that might alter the existing situation (created by the Ministry of Labour itself). Ignoring this Order, the FPVN convened an ordinary congress for 27 and 28 April 1989, as decided at the previous assembly. Although it was not empowered to do so, the Ministry of Labour decided to suspend the congress (attended by five-sixths of the affiliated associations) hours before it was due to start and even prohibited it from availing itself of sections 6 and 56 of the Act on trade union associations. The congress was nevertheless attended by more than two-thirds of its representatives who unanimously adopted the agenda and elected new officials, including its delegates to the Congress of the General Confederation of Labour.
• The Ministry of Labour, continues the FPVN, maintained silence and refused to certify the said officials. With the change of government in July 1989, it decided to appoint a Ministry official as trustee (delegado normalizador) of the trade union organisation, on the grounds that it had no leaders (the only means left to the Ministry to intervene in the affairs of trade unions without seeking authorisation of the labour tribunal). The FPVN stresses that at no moment did either the former union officials (who had been certified as such up to May 1990) or the newly elected officials question the decision of the congress.
• The FPVN adds that the trustee designated five delegates to attend the CGT Congress that was held on 10 and 11 October 1989, refusing to recognise those appointed at the FPVN congress.
• Finally, the FPVN states that, acting in obvious collusion with the Ministry of Labour, the credentials committee of the ordinary Congress of the CGT decided to recognise the credentials granted by the Ministry official and not to recognise the officials unanimously elected at a regularly held ordinary congress of the FPVN. Fifteen other trade union organisations were affected by the attitude adopted by the credentials committee and the Ministry of Labour, and this provoked a temporary split in the General Confederation of Labour with over 50 per cent of the delegates present withdrawing from the congress in protest.
• Written reply of the Government to the Mission
• In a communication dated 22 March 1990 the Government states that the Federation of Personnel of National Roads and Highways bases its complaint of violation of freedom of association on the Ministry of Labour's failure to approve the new by-laws adopted at the Federation's extraordinary congress on 5 and 6 January 1989; on a 26 February 1989 decision of the National Directorate of Trade Union Associations attached to the Ministry ordering the conflicting factions of the organisation to refrain from taking any action that might alter the internal situation that had arisen; on a subsequent decision of the Directorate dated 24 April 1989 ordering the postponement of an ordinary congress convened for 27 and 28 April 1989 to elect new officials; on a third decision of the Directorate dated 26 July 1989 which declared the congress null and void and appointed a trustee to administer the leaderless Federation; and, lastly, on the designation by the trustee of five delegates of the Federation to attend the Congress of the General Confederation of Labour.
• In order to give a clearer picture of the situation, the Government observes that, since the complainants fail to mention a series of incidents that gave rise to the measures adopted by the Ministry, it is necessary to summarise them briefly so that the reasonable nature of the decisions that the competent authority had to adopt in the emergency can be fully appreciated.
• Following a series of internal disputes between conflicting factions of the Federation, the executive board split and found itself with two parallel sets of officials representing the two factions.
• Consequently, two extraordinary congresses were convened simultaneously, one on 4 January 1989 by a self-styled Federative Council which dismissed the members of the national secretariat and appointed a Provisional Committee in their place, and the other on 5 and 6 January 1989 by certain members of the national secretariat - those referred to by the complainants - who amended the by-laws in force and convened an ordinary congress for April to elect new officials.
• Because they had been adopted by a congress which in addition to being contested by part of the affiliates had been convened by officials whose mandate had been challenged by the other faction, the Ministry was unable to approve the new by-laws because it was impossible to know for sure who the Federation's legitimate representatives were. Moreover, there had not been the necessary quorum at the congress to adopt them, since fewer than half of the 23 member unions took part.
• With each faction contesting the authority of the other, the situation was so confused that the competent administrative authority - the National Directorate of Trade Union Associations attached to the Ministry - ordered the opposing parties on 26 February 1989 to refrain from taking any action that might alter the existing situation, until such time as the organisation's internal problems were resolved.
• When in spite of this Order the congress was convened from 27 and 28 April, a new order postponing it was issued in 24 April since any meeting was against the Ministry's decision and constituted a substantial change in the existing situation within the organisation.
• Since the congress was nevertheless held in defiance of the ministerial orders and elected new officials, the National Directorate of Trade Union Associations issued a further Order on 27 July 1989 declaring the congress null and void and the organisation leaderless.
• In accordance with section 56(4) of Act No. 23551, therefore, a trustee was then appointed to convene a new congress immediately so as to designate the legitimate officials of the organisation within 60 days.
• Given these exceptional circumstances, the measures adopted by the administrative authority clearly did not entail any violation of freedom of association but had to be taken because of the state of anarchy into which the conflict between the internal factions had plunged the Federation. Far from undermining any of the rights of the parties concerned, the measures were intended to guarantee the normal functioning of the organisation and to settle the controversy once and for all.
• As to the appointment of delegates to the Congress of the General Confederation of Labour, the trustee was obliged to take this decision under the powers vested in him because of the imminence of the congress and the impossibility of restoring the Federation to normal beforehand. Moreover, the Confederation's credentials committee itself, which is the only body empowered to rule on the legitimacy and validity of the delegates' mandates, did not impugn their credentials.
• It should be obvious from the foregoing that none of the competent authorities' decisions could be described as violating the principles of freedom of association embodied in Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and that the complaint is in fact and/or in law completely baseless and should be rejected.
• Irrespective of the foregoing, it should be noted that the legislation in force in the country guarantees associative bodies the right to challenge decisions of the administrative authority in court, in order to ensure the most absolute respect for trade union rights (sections 61 et seq., Act. No. 23551).
• The complainants themselves did in fact exercise that right of appeal against the measures adopted by the competent authority, and in certain cases were upheld by the court.
  • - Case No. 10.011/89: FEDERATION OF PERSONNEL OF NATIONAL ROADS AND HIGHWAYS v. NATIONAL DIRECTORATE OF TRADE UNION ASSOCIATIONS, brought before National Labour Court of First Instance No. 44.
• The plaintiff sought the quashing of the 26 February 1989 decision of the National Directorate of Trade Union Associations ordering the parties to refrain from taking any action liable to alter the existing situation.
• The Court of First Instance on 31 October 1989, considering that in so far as the Ministry was acting in an administrative capacity the decision adopted did not constitute interference in the affairs of the organisation but the regular exercise of the powers vested in it by section 58 of Act No. 23551, confirmed the aforementioned ministerial order.
• This ruling was further confirmed on 13 December 1989 by the National Labour Appeals Court (Chamber III), which recognised the power of the competent authority, acting in the supervisory capacity conferred upon it by the Act, to require the parties to the dispute to ensure the orderly management of the internal situation that had arisen within the organisation.
  • - Case No. 15.478/89: SALACEVICIUS, Wenceslao v. NATIONAL DIRECTORATE OF TRADE UNION ASSOCIATIONS, brought before National Labour Court No. 44.
• The plaintiff sought the quashing of the decision of 24 April 1989 ordering the suspension of the ordinary congress of 27 and 28 April.
  31. On 31 October 1989 the Court of First Instance again ruled in favour of the competent authority on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not furnished evidence of the arbitrary nature of the decision taken.
• In a ruling handed down on 13 December 1989, the National Labour Appeals Court (Chamber III) revoked the said decision on the grounds that the powers of administrative supervisor vested in the Ministry of Labour were restrictive and that, although the Labour Portfolio did indeed carry with it the said powers, once the anomaly had come to its attention the Ministry should have applied to the courts to resolve the matter.
• This ruling is not yet definitive as an extraordinary appeal has been lodged against it with the Supreme Court of Justice.
  • - Case No. 28.612/89: FEDERATION OF PERSONNEL OF NATIONAL ROADS AND HIGHWAYS v. NATIONAL DIRECTORATE OF TRADE UNION ASSOCIATIONS, brought before National Labour Court of First Instance No. 39.
• The plaintiff sought the quashing of the decision of 26 July 1989 declaring null and void the April congress and appointing a trustee to administer the affairs of the organisation on the grounds that it was leaderless.
• In a ruling handed down on 15 December 1989, the Court quashed the decision on the grounds that the State department had exceeded the supervisory powers vested in it by the Act. It based its ruling on that of Chamber III cited in the previous case, which had been placed on record by the plaintiff and which, as already noted, is not definitive.
• In an interlocutory injunction of 21 December 1989, the Court ordered the reinstatement of the officials elected at the congress previously referred to; this was done on the same day of 21 December 1989.
• The injunction is still under appeal, pending the ruling of the higher court.
• It should be noted that all the court rulings - and specifically those quashing the decisions of the competent authority - were handed down after the conclusion of the administrative procedure on 26 July 1989, and that the ministerial decisions cannot therefore be described as running counter to the spirit of the court rulings.
• Consequently, and in the light of the intervention of the judiciary at the request of the interested parties as a result of which the plaintiffs' mandates were restored with the full concurrence of the Ministry, it must be concluded that, irrespective of the validity or otherwise of the complaint brought before the Committee, it is now purely academic as those concerned now enjoy the full exercise of their office.
• Information obtained by the Mission
• Confirming the above, the ministerial authorities questioned by the Mission expressed the view that the matter was now purely academic as a result of two developments that had occurred prior to the Mission's arrival: first, the judiciary had ruled in favour of the complainant organisation (and the Ministry had complied with the ruling); secondly, the conflict within the Federation had in the meantime been resolved. It must nevertheless be emphasised that the Ministry has lodged an extraordinary appeal (similar to an appeal on grounds of unconstitutionality) on which the competent court has not yet ruled. According to the ministerial authorities, the appeal is not directed against the present officials of the Federation but seeks a proper interpretation of the law as regards the scope of the powers of the Ministry in certain cases of internal conflict within a trade union organisation.
• Further to the information contained in its allegations, the Federation emphasised that the origin of the conflict was, in its opinion, one of interpretation of and compliance with its by-laws. It gave the following version of events. Prior to the congress that was held to adapt the by-laws to the new Act on trade union associations, the base-level trade union in the capital found itself liable to be excluded for failure to pay its contributions and thereby lose the right to vote. In these circumstances, the Federation's secretariat split in January 1989 and two separate congresses were organised. Whereas the Federation's secretariat that had lodged the complaint with the Committee on Freedom of Association continued to operate, the secretariat supporting the base-level union in the capital dissolved shortly after. The base-level trade union nevertheless appealed to the courts to issue an order preventing the congress organised by the faction of the Federation that continued operating from being held in April 1989. The courts turned down this request. However, the base-level trade union then appealed to the Ministry of Labour which acceded to its request and issued a ban on any further action in order to prevent the April congress from taking place. The complainants claimed that it was at this point that the ministerial authorities notified them that they should draw up the list of members of the executive board together with them and that, upon their refusal to do so, the Minister suspended the April congress.
• This whole internal wrangling is complicated by a highly complex question of interpretation of the legal duration of the mandate of the Federation's executive board (four years if, as the complainant federation maintains, one applies the criterion of the 1985 Emergency Act No. 23061 adopted to allow the normal functioning of the trade unions that had been taken over during the period of military government, and three years, as the Ministry of Labour and Social Security argues, if one applies the criterion of the new Act on trade union associations). The complainant Federation claims that the Ministry initially accepted a four-year mandate in writing. Furthermore, the conflict had implications for the designation of delegates to the CGT Congress, and this could affect the balance of forces within the Congress.
• The April congress was held but the Ministry declared the Federation leaderless and appointed a trustee on the basis of its own interpretation of the situation, as indicated above. This decision was subsequently quashed in a court ruling requested by the complainant Federation (and currently under extraordinary appeal). The Federation claims, however, that in spite of this ruling and the fact that there is no longer any internal dispute (the executive board appointed at the April congress has been enlarged to ensure representation of factions not present at the January 1989 congress convened by the faction represented by the complainant Federation), the Ministry of Labour has still not certified the officials' election.
• The Mission has sent the Office all the documents (legal texts, court rulings, etc.) turned over to it by the persons it interviewed.
  9. 9 April 1990 José Vida Soria.
• APPENDIX I
• LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED
• Executive
  • - Jorge Alberto Triaca, Minister of Labour and Social Security.
  • - Rodolfo Díaz, Secretary for Labour Affairs.
  • - Enrique Osvaldo Rodríguez, Chief of the Advisers to the Ministry of Labour and representative of Argentina to the ILO.
  • - Raúl Balsells, Director-General for International Affairs.
  • - Mario Maffei, Director-General for Trade Union Associations.
  • - María Cristina Claudia Conti, Assistant Director-General for International Affairs.
  • - Gloria Carolina Conti, Adviser and Public Relations Officer, Ministry of Labour and Social Security.
  • - Héctor F. González Villaveirán, Chief, General Directorate for International Affairs.
  • - Gerardo Torres, Lawyer, Ministry of Labour.
• Legislature
  • - Oraldo N. Britos, Senator, President, Committee on Labour Affairs and Social Welfare.
• Judiciary
  • - Horacio Bilioch Caride, President, National Labour Appeals Court.
  • - Ricardo A. Guibourg, Judge, National Labour Appeals Court.
  • - Jorge Bermúdez, Attorney-General for Labour Affairs.
• CGT (Azopardo)
  • - Saúl Ubaldini, Secretary-General.
  • - Mr. Baldasini, member of the Executive Board.
  • - Manual Diz Rey, Secretary for International Affairs.
  • - Mr. Recalde, Legal Adviser.
  • - Horacio Ferro, Legal Adviser.
• CGT (San Matín)
  • - Güerino Adamo Andreoni, Secretary General.
  • - José Pedraza, Secretary for Occupational and Domestic Affairs.
• Industrial Union of Argentina
  • - Hugo R. Carcavallo, President, Social Policy Committee.
  • - Daniel Funes de Rioja, Secretary, Social Policy Committee.
  • - Darío L. Hermida Martínez, Vice-president, Social Policy Committee.
• Federation of Personnel of National Roads and Highways
  • - Eduardo Hugo Otero, Secretary-General.
  • - Juan Olmedo, Records Secretary.
  • - Oscar Caliva, Press Secretary.
  • - Mariano Acevedo, Legal Adviser.
  • - Domingo Flores, Legal Adviser.
• Union Co-ordinating Council of Supervisory Staff Organisations
  • - Daniel O. Sacayan, President.
  • - Osvaldo Elcarte, Vice-President.
  • - Pablo Rodríguez, President, Federation of Supervisory Staff Associations of State Enterprises.
  • - Juan Carlos Cazenave, Vice-President, Federation of Supervisory Staff Associations of State Bodies.
  • - Roberto Beltrán, President, Association of Senior Water and Electrical Energy Staff.
  • - Arturo Sánchez Blánez, Secretary-General, Association of Supervisory Staff of the MCBA.
• APPENDIX II
• TEXT OF PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ON TRADE UNION ASSOCIATIONS AND THE DECREE ISSUING REGULATIONS UNDER THE ACT, CONCERNING THE PRINCIPLE LEGAL ASPECTS DEALT WITH BY THE MISSION
• Section 28 of the Act
• Where one trade union association has been granted recognition, the same status may be afforded to another association (for purposes of undertaking action in the same area and activity or category) only to the extent that the number of dues-paying members of the petitioning association has been, during a continuous period of at least six months preceding the filing of the petition, considerably higher than the number of dues-paying members of the association which was granted recognition earlier.
• Once the foregoing prerequisite has been fulfilled, the evidence in this respect shall be communicated within 20 days to the association which was granted prior recognition, so that it may prepare its defence and present evidence.
• That association's reply shall be transmitted to the petitioning association within five days. The evidence shall be verified by a review by both associations.
• When a decision is taken to grant recognition to the petitioning association, the association having been granted prior recognition shall continue to be registered.
• When the highest-level decision-making body of an association which had been granted recognition expressly agrees that the petitioning association may be granted recognition, this may be done without regard to the formalities set forth in this section.
• Section 21 of the Act
• When two associations cover the same area, the association claiming recognition shall have at least 10 per cent more dues-paying members than the association which has already been granted recognition.
• Section 29 of the Act
• A trade union at the enterprise level may be granted recognition only when another base-level trade union and/or a union does not already operate within the geographical area or the area of activity or category covered.
• Section 30 of the Act
• When a trade union association which has been granted recognition has decided upon the form of the union, association or trade union covering a particular activity, and the petitioning association has adopted the form of a trade union covering a particular occupation, profession or category, recognition may be granted if there are different trade union interests which justify special representation and if the requirements set forth in section 25 have been met, provided that the pre-existing trade union or union does not already include such workers in its scope of representation.
• Section 31 of the Act
• A trade union association which has been granted recognition shall have the folowing exclusive rights:
  • (a) to defend and represent the individual and collective interests of the workers vis-à-vis the State and the employers;
  • (b) to participate in the activities of institutions involved in planning and inspection, in accordance with the provisions of relevant standards;
  • (c) to participate in collective bargaining and oversee the implementation of labour and social security legislation;
  • (d) to collaborate with the State in studying and seeking solutions to workers' problems;
  • (e) to establish earmarked funds which shall enjoy the same rights as co-operatives and mutual societies;
  • (f) to administer their own activities having the nature of social work and, as appropriate, to participate in the administration of activities undertaken pursuant to law or to collective agreements.
• Section 38 of the Act
• Employers shall be required to act as "holding agents" for sums which workers are to pay in membership fees and other contributions to trade union associations which have been granted recognition.
• For this obligation to be enforceable, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security shall have issued a decision providing for dues check-off. Such a decision shall be adopted upon the request of the trade union association concerned. The Ministry shall render its decision within 30 days of receiving the request. If the Ministry has failed to act in that period, tacit approval of dues check-off shall be presumed.
• An employer who fails to fulfil the duty to act as a "holding agent", or promptly to pay over the sums retained, shall be considered as owing a personal debt. Default penalties shall apply automatically in such cases.
• Section 39 of the Act
• Documents and property of trade union associations having been granted recognition, which are designed specifically for use in carrying out the functions of the association, as set forth in sections 5 and 23, shall be exempt from all types of duty, levy and tax. This exemption shall be granted automatically upon the trade union association obtaining recognition ...
• Section 48 of the Act
• Workers who cease to perform work because they occupy elective or representative posts in trade union associations which have been granted recognition or in bodies which have petitioned for recognition, or because they hold public office, shall automatically be entitled to take leave without pay, to have their post reserved for them, and to be reinstated to it upon ceasing to exercise their functions. Except in cases where there is just cause for dismissal, they may not be dismissed for a period of one year following the expiry of their term of office ...
• Section 52 of the Act
• Workers protected by the guarantees set forth in sections 40, 48 and 50 of this Act may not be dismissed or suspended, or have their working conditions changed, except by means of a prior judicial decision excluding them from the scope of such guarantee in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 47. As a precautionary measure, the judge or the court in such a case may, within five days of the employer's request, order the worker suspended from work when his or her continued presence in the post or the absence of change in working conditions would pose a danger to the safety of persons or property in the enterprise ...