Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the comments made by the Argentinian Workers' Congress (CTA) and the Confederation of Education Workers (CTERA).

With regard to the comments made by the Argentinian Workers' Congress (CTA), criticizing Executive Decree No. 2184/90, the Committee observes that the Committee on Freedom of Association has already examined a complaint on the content and application of the Decree (see 292nd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, Case No. 1679 (Argentina), paras. 79-100). The Committee shares the view of the Committee on Freedom of Association and wishes to state in particular that with regard to the imposition of minimum services during strikes, this should be possible only: for services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; in cases of strikes where the extent or duration could cause an acute national crisis such that the normal living conditions of the population could be in danger; and in "public services of essential importance". The Committee therefore requests the Government to take measures with a view to modifying the law to the effect that the final decision on the illegality of strikes (section 5 of the Decree) and the provision of minimum services in the event of lack of agreement between the parties (section 10 of the Decree) is not taken by the Government but by a tribunal, a bipartite or tripartite body, or another independent authority. The Committee requests the Government to inform it in its next report of all measures adopted in this matter.

With regard to the comments made by the Confederation of Education Workers of the Argentine Republic (CTERA), the Committee observes that this organization criticizes Decree No. 5863/94 of the Entre Ríos Province on deferred payment of salaries in the civil service, complaining that the provisions of section 3 of the Decree violate the right to strike of workers. The Committee states that the section in question provides that "non-payment of wages within a time-limit less than that provided in the preceding article shall not be considered a justified reason for not providing the usual work or not attending the place where this is usually provided". The Committee observes that while the Decree in question does not expressly prohibit the right to strike, the provision under criticism is confused and could be interpreted in such a way as to affect the exercise of this right. The Committee recalls that the prohibition of the right to strike in the public service is admissible only in regard to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or to workers in essential services, to which the education sector does not belong. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the Decree in question is not applied in such a way as to restrict the right to strike of staff working in education.