Visualizar en: Francés - Español
Allegations: Annulment by a provincial government of a collective agreement that
was in force through the withdrawal of the decision approving the agreement
- 79. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Confederation
of Workers of Argentina (CTA Workers) dated 3 August 2020.
- 80. The Government sent observations by communications dated 20 May 2021
and 2 May 2022.
- 81. Argentina has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of
the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective
Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention,
1978 (No. 151), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).
A. The complainant’s allegations
A. The complainant’s allegations- 82. The complainant organization alleges that the government of Tierra
del Fuego Province arrogated to itself the authority to annul a collective agreement in
force that was applicable to the public employees of the province, by simply revoking
the administrative decision that had approved the collective agreement. In this
connection, the CTA Workers requests the Committee to urge the Government to overturn
the administrative revocation immediately and to resume dialogue with the trade union
organizations representing public employees.
- 83. The complainant indicates that: (i) the collective agreement for the
staff of the provincial public administration was concluded on 28 November 2019, then
approved by Decision No. 217/19 of the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social
Security (MTEySS) and published in the Official Bulletin of Tierra del Fuego Province on
6 December 2019; (ii) the signatories of the collective agreement were the Association
of State Workers, the National Civil Servants’ Union and the Association of Health
Workers of Argentina; (iii) the collective agreement in question had been concluded
after a laborious process fraught with difficulties, which had lasted more than 20 years
(from the opening of the bargaining on the basis of the approval of Provincial Law No.
113 until the conclusion, registration, approval and publication of the final text);
(iv) the collective agreement was approved by the provincial administrative authorities
and its provisions came into effect immediately – with the exception of any that
involved changes to budget lines – hence the text of the collective agreement indicated
that, in accordance with Provincial Law No. 113, it would become applicable only after
approval by the provincial legislature; (v) after new government authorities took office
as a result of the democratic electoral process, the Provincial Attorney General issued
an opinion pointing to the existence of inconsistencies that must be reviewed, but did
not indicate any specific measures to be adopted; (vi) following this opinion,
Provincial Decree 101/20 was issued, instructing the Ministry of Labour to “issue an
administrative decision revoking Decision MTEySS No. 217/19 on the grounds of
illegitimacy”, whereupon the Provincial Ministry of Labour issued Decision MTyE No.
20/20 revoking Decision MTEySS No. 217/19 (which had approved the collective agreement)
“on the grounds that it is contrary to the provincial public order and is a matter of
administrative law”; (vii) the administrative decisions that resulted in the revocation
were issued without the parties having had any opportunity to submit their arguments,
thereby wholly contravening the guarantees provided by the right to effective
administrative and judicial oversight; (viii) as a result of the revocation of the
approval of the collective agreement, the local authorities understood that they must
return to the provisions applicable before the collective agreement entered into force
(in other words, based on the interpretative approach, Decree Law 22.140, which emanated
from the last dictatorship that was de facto in power in Argentina, came back into
effect); (ix) legal proceedings were lodged before the competent labour court but were
rejected on formal grounds (specifically, the court held that the application for amparo
[protection of constitutional rights] was not the appropriate route to handle the
claims, and found that arbitrariness and unlawfulness had not been demonstrated and
that, as “approval is a general administrative decision”, it is by definition
“essentially revocable” by the provincial executive power); and (x) this meant that the
public servants of the province were wholly deprived of the collective agreements and
their rights derived from them.
B. The Government’s reply
B. The Government’s reply- 84. In its communication of 20 May 2021, the Government transmits the
observations of the authorities of the province concerned, which indicate that: (i) the
issues that gave substance to the revocation of the approval decision were established
after an exhaustive examination of the respective actions and procedures, in particular
the considerations of the Attorney General of Tierra del Fuego Province, which the legal
services of the ministerial bodies did not consider to be open to criticism; (ii) they
also note that none of the trade unions who were signatories to the collective agreement
took action to challenge or appeal against the administrative decision in question;
(iii) a collective agreement is currently being negotiated with the same trade union
organizations that were involved in the impugned agreement whose approval was revoked;
(iv) in the context of legal proceedings related to the issues raised by the
complainant, the judicial authority held that approval is a general administrative
decision and, by definition, is essentially revocable by the executive power of the
province; and (v) with the exception of the observations that led to the decision on the
revocation of approval, the provincial Ministry of Labour has never registered any
complaints from any trade union concerning past or present actions that limit or
restrict the validity of the rights to freedom of association or the continuation of
bargaining with a view to concluding a collective agreement for the staff of the
provincial public administration.
- 85. By a communication of 2 May 2022, the Government submits the dossier
concerning the collective bargaining process and informs the Committee of the signing of
a new collective agreement which, according to the parties concerned, amply resolved the
conflict. As a result, the Government requests that the case be closed.
C. The Committee’s conclusions
C. The Committee’s conclusions- 86. The present complaint reports that a collective agreement that was in
force was annulled by a provincial government through the revocation of the
administrative decision approving the agreement. The Committee observes that the
provincial authorities indicate that the issues which gave substance to the revocation
of the decision approving the agreement followed an exhaustive examination of the
actions and that the judicial authority affirmed that approval is a revocable
administrative decision.
- 87. The Committee observes that the reasons stated in the respective
decisions to revoke the approval include matters such as a lack of the requisite
consideration of budgetary implications, irregularities in the administrative
proceedings or in equal representation, and contradictions of the legal or public order
in labour matters. In this connection, the Committee notes that the text of Provincial
Decree 101/20, which was enclosed with the complaint, indicates that “the Attorney
General held that the collective agreement did not undergo an in-depth legal analysis
concerning the rules of the provincial public order that must be respected … nor was an
exhaustive examination undertaken of the provisions that directly entailed budgetary
commitments or changes", having observed "irregularities in the administrative
procedures followed by the competent ministerial portfolio, resulting from the existence
of three separate dossiers, and non-observance of the established bargaining system or
the points/agenda items established by the Ministry; nor was the participation of duly
appointed equal representatives observed … which leads to the conclusion that the
procedure followed in the bargaining did not contribute to making it transparent and
legitimate". Furthermore, “the Committee observes that Provincial Decree 101/20 held
that "the collective agreement has clear flaws which disrupt the public order in labour
matters … such as the Argentinian nationality entry requirement for the public
administration" or contradict provincial legislation and alludes to the existence of
provisions of the collective agreement that have budgetary implications that were not
analysed in advance and included by the government authorities. In this connection, the
Committee considers that the lengthy negotiation process (of more than 20 years) should
have allowed all the necessary verifications to be carried out ex ante and that the
unilateral revocation of the legal effects of the collective agreement after its entry
into force, as in the case of the present complaint, does not help in the promotion of
collective bargaining.
- 88. Furthermore, the Committee duly notes that, according to information
provided by the Government in its communication of 2 May 2022, the subsequent
negotiations concluded with the signing of a collective agreement that amply settled the
conflict, according to the parties involved. In the light of the foregoing, the
Committee considers that this case does not call for further examination and is
closed.
The Committee’s recommendation
The Committee’s recommendation- 89. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the
Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.