Interim Report - Report No 359, March 2011

1. 214. The Committee last examined this case at its May–June 2010 meeting, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 357th Report, paras 143–164, approved by the Governing Body at its 308th Session (June 2010)].
2. 215. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 12 July 2010.
3. 216. 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 217. In its previous examination of the case, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 357th Report, para. 164]:
2. (a) The Committee requests the Government to carry out an investigation without delay into all the acts of discrimination and interference mentioned in the complaint, and to determine the reasons for the dismissal of trade union officer Mr Rubén Óscar Godoy and other union members (a total of 15) of the Supermercados Toledo SA enterprise after holding a strike, and, should they be found to be based on anti-union motives, to take steps to bring the parties together with a view to reinstating the dismissed workers. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to inform it whether those adversely affected have taken legal action.
3. (b) As regards the allegation to the effect that on 18 April 2008, the day of the strike, the police used force against the strikers, leaving seven injured (one of them, Mr José Lagos, seriously), the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that an investigation is carried out in this respect by an authority independent from those involved, and to inform it of the outcome. The Committee also requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the complaints filed against those acts by the trade union with the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires Province.
4. B. The Government’s reply
5. 218. In its communication of 12 July 2010 the Government states that, in accordance with its previous partial reply, it is reproducing the reply sent by the employer, Supermercados Toledo SA, which reads as follows:
6. Firstly, we hereby state that the complaint submitted by the CTA to the ILO is riddled with fallacies and we therefore need to describe the real situation concerning the company, the work therein and the dispute in question.
7. As stated when summoned to the La Plata headquarters of the Ministry of Labour of Buenos Aires Province (file No. 21504-28069-08), we consider that the complainant (CTA) has no legal authority to make demands involving our company inasmuch as it is a third-level organization and none of the trade unions which represent the workers of our enterprise is affiliated to this confederation per se or through any particular federation.
8. Accordingly, we are bound to reiterate that we consider it deplorable that a submission to the highest international body for the defence of workers, the ILO, is as riddled with fallacies as the communication to which we have to respond. We are therefore obliged to describe as clearly as possible the situation referred to in this libel, which we reject totally for its untruthfulness. The company denies the existence of the Trade Union of Poultry Slaughtering and Processing Plant and Allied Workers and indicates that this was merely a meeting of a number of workers from a single shift (the morning shift) at a single plant (located at the Industrial Estate) belonging to a single company (Supermercados Toledo SA), at which, moreover, there is adequate trade union representation. In general terms, the company rejects all the complainant organization’s allegations.
9. Specifically:
10. I. The company. The poultry processing plant. Our company has a number of supermarkets, various farms (including a pig farm) and a pork product processing plant. The Mar del Plata Industrial Estate has a bakery, a poultry processing plant and an egg incubation plant. Supermercados Toledo SA has a total staff of over 2,400. The location with which the complaint is concerned is the poultry processing plant, which has 160 workers, of which 150 are employed in slaughtering, with 90 on the morning shift and 60 on the afternoon shift. The plant in question is a model establishment equipped with hi-tech equipment imported from Italy in 1998. At the end of last year the tenth anniversary of its inauguration was celebrated, in the presence of the directors and senior staff of the firm, all the plant staff and their families, at a gathering of more than 300 persons who, far from dwelling on the temporary nature of the dispute in question, are continuing their important day-to-day work at the plant, fostering their individual and collective development.
11. Conditions of employment at the processing plant. Discussions concerning the trade union framework and worker representation. In stark contrast to the claims of “very poor” conditions made elsewhere by the complainants, the staff work under optimum safety and health conditions at the plant. The other conditions of work more than fulfil the requirements of the law, being more favourable than any of the collective agreements in force. Since the outset, the applicable agreement was CCT No. 130/75 concerning employees in commerce (this being the principal activity of the company), though there have been specific requests for the application of CCT No. 398/05 concerning foodstuffs. In this connection a dispute arose between the Trade Union of Commercial Employees of the Atlantic Zone (SECZA) and the Trade Union of Foodstuff Industry Workers (STIABA), which gave rise to MTESS procedure No. 1226424/07. As evidence of the improved conditions beyond the minimum requirements laid down by collective agreement, an agreement was signed on 28 March 2008 between the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (procedure No. 1164383/06) and the representative trade union (SEZCA), awarding workers at the plant greater benefits, a new pay scale and higher classification. Prior to the agreement being signed, the workers signed an affidavit approving the implementation of the agreement, despite which – as will be seen – a group of workers subsequently provoked an unprecedented situation absolutely contrary to any legitimate labour claim without the slightest attempt at dialogue.
12. The dispute of April 2008. 1. Occupation of the works canteen. After the agreement between the Ministry and the workers’ representatives (including the trade unions and staff delegates) had been signed, improving the workers’ conditions of employment (especially pay), a series of actions followed which we consider had nothing whatsoever to do with labour or union activity at the plant. On 9 April 2008 a group of workers on the morning shift decided to stop work, occupying the works canteen and denying people access, with some of the group claiming to belong to the executive committee of a non-existent trade union and effectively obliging their colleagues also to stop work and remain on the premises. Having been sent by the company, the human resources manager informed the workers that if there was any disagreement over payments or any particular problem or grievance, he proposed to deal with them one by one until they were resolved. This was rejected by the group in question. Seemingly – in the absence of any written presentations or minimum formalities – one of the persons involved in the occupation happened to be Mr Rubén Godoy, who had been the defeated candidate at the elections held at the plant by one of the trade unions (foodstuffs) and was now the self-proclaimed leader of the non-existent union. Five hours after the canteen had been occupied, the notary Oscar Pagni appeared and – at the request of the company and seeing that the situation was unchanged – asked the workers to resume their work on threat of dismissal, an instruction which was ignored. Subsequently, with the entry of the afternoon shift, a small group remained on the spot to ensure that the workers on the new shift adopted the same attitude, forcing most of them into a position which they were evidently reluctant to adopt.
13. II. Dismissal of a number of workers. Having established that there had been several serious instances of non-compliance, such as refusal to perform company duties without any justification, unlawful occupation of the works canteen, incitement of colleagues to adopt the same attitude, including those on a different (afternoon) shift, and remaining at the plant outside working hours in order to prolong the occupation, the company considered at the time, quite reasonably and proportionately, that misconduct as defined in section 242 of the Employment Contract Act (LCT) had occurred and dismissed 11 workers on justified grounds (those who had continued to occupy the premises, who had incited their colleagues, etc.).
14. III. Subsequent situation. Affidavit drawn up by the two unions vying for representation of the workers. Although attempts were made initially to reach some kind of negotiated solution, this was not possible owing to a series of violent actions directed not only at the plant itself but also at various branches of the company by the dismissed workers with the participation of a number of outsiders, including the lawyer supposedly representing the workers in question. This ended any possibility of conciliation or interaction with the persons concerned and led to the series of violent actions of which the company was the main victim. From the outset the representative trade unions (namely, the two unions which assumed the role of representation, the Trade Union of Commercial Employees of the Atlantic Zone (SECZA) and the Trade Union of Foodstuff Industry Workers (STIABA)) and the Ministry of Labour of Buenos Aires Province were informed of the situation. A hearing was held on 14 April 2008 at which – something vitally important to this presentation – the representatives of both trade unions declared that they had nothing to do with the dispute and the demands submitted, making the following statement in an affidavit (procedure No. 21528-42604/08 of 14 April 2008): “... there is no union or inter-union dispute, the workers having submitted a complaint on an individual basis without it being authenticated through the trade union organizations presented here, thus necessitating continuation of the same through the appropriate channels ...”. Signed by: Mr Jorge Trovato, SEC union secretary, Mar del Plata, and Mr Marcelo Wagner, STIABA union secretary.
15. It should be noted that both trade unions are discussing the matter of worker representation, including at ministerial level; the membership of both unions accounts for the vast majority of staff at the plant; staff delegates have been elected both by SECZA and STIABA and are still performing their duties today; the dismissed workers participated in the delegate elections, one of the candidates (Mr Godoy) failed to be elected, and in his regard the guarantee laid down by section 50 of Act No. 23551 concerning trade union associations expired.
16. IV. Features of the dispute. Non-existent dialogue. Ministerial hearings. Refusal of procedure. Interference by the CTA. Given this situation and following the dismissal, various attempts were made through different interlocutors to converse with the dismissed staff but on each occasion they all refused to participate in any talks, stating that they would only act through their lawyers. Thereupon the dismissed workers plus a number of other employees and various persons not employed by the company and having no connection with it (for example, political activists who had also taken part in other disputes in the zone) occupied the entrance to the industrial estate, preventing the entry or exit of people, transport and/or goods, especially those intended for the company. Their main aim was to prevent the plant from resuming operations and they were thus responsible for preventing their colleagues, even when the latter had police assistance, from returning to work (for example, they pelted the buses carrying the workers with stones and threatened the people travelling on them). We reiterate that constant attempts were made to dialogue with the dismissed workers but they refused, saying that it was necessary to speak to their lawyer, who, as can be seen from various actions, personally assumed the role of leader in the dispute, going far beyond his duties as a lawyer. All that most of the workers wanted was to return to work. After a couple of attempts to allow the workers to enter with police protection had failed, the entrance gate to the industrial estate was cleared by the police on the express orders of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the plant finally reopened completely (a few days earlier it had re-opened partially), whereupon almost all the workers (with the obvious exception of those who had been dismissed) returned to work. The CTA – which is apparently a third-level trade union organization and whose interest or participation in this matter we fail to understand – did not act until many days after the situation had begun (25 April), when all the workers had already resumed work. This was when a newspaper cutting stated that it was a “union and political ...” matter and that one of its goals was to “... force the hand of the executive authority ...” (El Atlántico newspaper, Saturday 26 April 2008). Clearly this was all totally unrelated to the activity of the company, which has always wanted simply to work in peace and harmony with its workers. Incidentally, what is now being referred to as the “strike” was never declared as such, even by the CTA, regardless of the fact that neither the CTA nor the bogus, non-existent trade union possessed the authority to make such a declaration.
17. V. Legal framework of the matter, according to our company. A number of questions arise apart from the factual issues (basically relating to the attitudes of the parties, in the exercise of their rights). Act No. 23551 concerning trade union associations cannot be classified as restrictive but simply as governing trade union activity at the company, accepting representation of organizations that have official trade union status (in the large majority of cases) and those that are merely registered (in those cases that have been settled). However, the “pseudo-union” of workers on the morning shift at the plant concerned did not contain the minimum number of workers required when established, did not have approved statutes and was not officially registered, let alone not having legal personality. Despite CTA claims, it was a non-existent trade union organization without participation or membership.
18. VI. Trade union activity. As is well known, trade union activity can occur inside or outside the organizational sphere of the union. However, for the special protection of the law to apply (see, for example, ATE v. Ministry), a number of requirements have to be met, and the recommendation made by the ILO Committee of Experts in its analysis of Convention No. 87 should be observed, namely: “the mere fact that the law of a country draws a distinction between the most representative trade union organizations and other trade union organizations is not in itself a matter for criticism”. But then what role should be played by an organization which is not even in the process of being recognized and which seeks to participate in industrial action ordered by itself, without the approval of the other workers and/or the recognized organizations and/or the stewards freely elected by their own colleagues? Perhaps it can engage in trade union activity, but only in the form of simple demands or complaints, without bypassing the representatives elected by the workers or arrogating to itself representative functions or protections which the law has reserved for those who comply with the minimum requirements. Exaggeration of the necessary protectionism (with a clearly protective character vis-à-vis possible excesses or discriminatory acts) cannot and must not go to the other extreme, namely creating the possibility that every worker could be designated either by himself or by a colleague as a union representative of the majority.
19. VII. The strike. National and supranational standards, case law and doctrine have all been concerned with defining who shall be entitled to the right to strike, establishing it in our country at the base of the system of freedom of association, whose pyramid is to be found in the National Constitution and which has been expressed in Act No. 23551 in terms of organizations with official trade union status, regardless of the fact that strike action (a collective refusal to perform duties) may appear legitimate (as in certain cases) or be absolutely unlawful (as in this case and with regard to the question concerning who is officially responsible for a strike which has not even been declared). Even the text of the complaint itself shows that there was no strike and/or industrial action declared according to the terms of the law. Not even the labour authorities (provincial and national Ministries of Labour) whose officials are now being accused accepted that there was a collective dispute (since none existed in reality); they therefore rejected the request for compulsory conciliation and accepted the simple “refusal of procedure” on our part. The workers involved and their legal representatives subsequently requested a hearing at the provincial Ministry of Labour (procedure No. 21528-42558/08) but did not attend the first hearing that was scheduled, at which our party established the position of “refusal of procedure”, according to the terms of provincial Act No. 10149.
20. The Ministry then scheduled a new hearing, of which we were not informed but also which we were not obliged to attend on account of the “refusal of procedure” already established. Here one of the workers and their lawyer (17 April 2008), after formulating a series of incongruent requests, “considered the administrative procedure to have been exceeded”, whereupon all action by the Ministry was ended at the request of both parties (first the company and then the workers). Nevertheless, after both “refusals of procedure”, to our surprise we were summoned to La Plata at the request of the CTA, whose presentation to you actually predated this hearing. At the hearing, preceded by a written “refusal of procedure”, we repeated our refusal to recognize the CTA representatives and reiterated the company’s absolute compliance with the law, and the fact that the disciplinary measures taken had nothing whatsoever to do with any trade union activity on the part of the dismissed workers. Nor do we accept that this was a collective dispute and, given the damaging false charges of non-compliance brought against us (including MTESS Decision No. 481/02), we emphasize that the company fully complied with the legislation in force.
21. The intention of the CTA, in a dispute with which it had nothing to do whatsoever, was to exclude the workers and the company from the benefits of abovementioned MTESS Decision No. 481/02 and from the subsidies awarded by the “Productive recovery programme”, thereby threatening the very survival of the jobs concerned, and for this reason their plan was rejected by all the parties concerned. Hence we requested the Minister to recognize that the present situation had acquired political overtones and was improper, and that it had been treated like a test case or something similar. It is time to stop confusing the Ministry, public opinion and even the international labour organizations [sic] since Supermercados Toledo SA has acted wholly in accordance with the law and its conduct has been beyond reproach in both legal and moral terms. It is not certain that there has been any discrimination or anti-union activity. The plant in question has stewards from the two unions which are vying for representation of the workers, including workers who indicated that they belonged to the trade union which was not even officially registered and who continue to work normally.
22. Conclusions
23. The complainant has sought to “validate” the existence of a trade union, the existence of anti-union action, and the existence of a collective dispute. As has been seen, when a trade union is referred to, it is done in general, almost abstract terms, where reference should perhaps rather be made to an “attempt to establish a trade union”, to which only some workers from a single shift at a specific establishment appear to belong. In other words, in order to make it clear who is being referred to, the complainant should perhaps have used the name “Union of workers of the morning shift at the Supermercados Toledo SA poultry processing plant.” Its simple registration procedure and its claimed affiliation to a multi-activity organization without trade union status, such as the CTA, do not change its status since a union in the process of registration is not considered a trade union under the terms of Act No. 23551 and therefore does not exist as such. Perhaps in terms of lege ferenda it is possible to speak of the rights of the founder etc. but this is not even the issue here since the would-be “trade union” had no possibility of being viable given the prior existence of two entities having official trade union status which had even participated in discussions at the Ministry about representation (file No. 1226424/07 being processed at the MTESS Labour Relations Department). Incidentally, as previously stated, the person who now presents himself as general secretary of the “trade union”, Mr Hugo Godoy, stood for election as a STIABA union steward in 2007 and was defeated. Hence he did not even meet the requirements laid down by Act No. 23551 (less than a year as a member) but the company did not challenge his action or (as they now claim) take any reprisals, even when the six-month period of immunity had expired. In other words, there was no trade union as such, there was no anti-union action and there was no reason why we should adopt such an attitude.
24. Finally, as regards the alleged collective dispute, we must answer the question: Is every labour dispute collective? If it is, the difference between a collective dispute and a “multi-individual” dispute disappears, the right to strike is transferred from the representative trade union organization to the individual worker, and Acts Nos 23551, 14250 and 14786, in both their current texts and their implementing regulations, must of course be labelled as unconstitutional. Naturally we do not share the CTA’s view in this regard and, even though we have heard it in other settings, we can state categorically that a dispute may have existed but in no way could it be classified as collective. Finally, we underline the fact that the justified dismissal of the workers – some of whom have been denounced as belonging to this “pseudo-union” while others have not (the causes and reasons for which we have explained) – was not illegal, unlike the supposed declaration of a “strike” or “industrial action” undertaken by persons having no legal authority to do so.
25. Finally, with regard to the complainant’s arguments concerning the rights of the alleged trade union association which they claim to defend (and in respect of whose legal basis we have seen no documentary evidence whatsoever), it should be noted that the labour courts have already had the opportunity to take a decision in this regard, in amparo proceedings [for protection of constitutional rights] instituted by the workers themselves and by the alleged trade union association in the process of registration, in the case “Bravo Juan Santos et al v. Supermercados Toledo SA, s. amparo”, Mar del Plata Labour Tribunal No. 3, in which it was decided to reject the action in limine and the lack of constitutional protection applicable to the association was unanimously emphasized by the judges. In the light of all the above, we consider that we have given a concise and adequate reply to the authorities requesting the facts and to the legal issues arising in this matter.
26. 219. The Government states that the company’s reply, which is reproduced above and refers to the statements made in its previous reply, is the statement made regarding the intervention of the provincial Ministry of Labour in relation to the strike. It adds that, through the territorial agency, it requested the case “Bravo Juan Santos et al v. Supermercados Toledo SA, s. amparo”, brought before Mar del Plata Labour Tribunal No. 3, to be referred to it, in which the judges unanimously voted to reject in limine the amparo appeal in view of the lack of constitutional protection applicable to the association.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 220. The Committee recalls that, as part of its examination of this case in June 2010, it asked the Government: (1) to carry out an investigation without delay into all the facts of discrimination and interference mentioned in the complaint, to determine the reasons for the dismissal of trade union officer Mr Rubén Óscar Godoy and other union members (15 altogether) employed by the Supermercados Toledo SA company after holding a strike and, if the above acts proved to be based on anti-union motives, to take steps to bring the parties together with a view to reinstating the dismissed workers (the Committee asked the Government to inform it whether those adversely affected had taken legal action in this respect) and (2) with regard to the allegation that on 18 April 2008, the day of the strike, the police used force against the strikers, leaving seven injured (one of them, Mr José Lagos, seriously), to take the necessary steps to ensure that an investigation was carried out by an authority independent from those involved, and to inform it of the outcome (the Committee asked the Government to inform it of the outcome of the complaints filed by the trade union against those acts with the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires Province).
2. 221. The Committee observes the complainant’s allegation in the present case that once the company became aware that the administrative procedure had started for official registration of the Trade Union of Poultry Slaughtering and Processing Plant and Allied Workers, it began to harass the union leaders and members and that, following a strike which had arisen as a result of various demands being ignored, the company, in an anti-union climate and interference, dismissed trade union officer Mr Rubén Óscar Godoy and another 15 union members. At the same time, the Committee observes that the complainant alleges that on 18 April 2008, the day of the strike, the police used force against the strikers, leaving seven injured (one of them, Mr José Lagos, seriously) and the union’s lawyers filed complaints relating to these events with the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires Province.
3. 222. The Committee observes that the Government has sent the reply from the company concerned relating to the allegations made in this case.
4. 223. As regards the acts of discrimination and interference mentioned in the complaint which supposedly motivated the dismissal of trade union officer (Mr Rubén Óscar Godoy) and another 15 union members following a strike, the Committee notes the company’s statement that: (1) on 28 March a collective agreement was signed with the Trade Union of Commercial Employees of the Atlantic Zone (SECZA) representative trade union, awarding improved benefits; (2) after the agreement was signed, a series of actions took place which had nothing to do with labour or trade union activity at the workplace concerned; (3) on 9 April 2008 a group of workers from the morning shift decided to stop working, “occupying” the works canteen, denying people entry, claiming to belong to the executive committee of a non-existent trade union and practically obliging their colleagues to also stop work and remain on the spot; (4) having been sent by the company, the human resources manager informed the workers that if there was any disagreement over payments or any particular problem or grievance, he proposed to deal with them one by one until they were resolved. This was rejected by the group in question, which included Mr Rubén Godoy, who had been the defeated candidate in the elections held at the workplace by one of the trade unions (foodstuffs) and was now the self-proclaimed “leader” of the non-existent union; (5) five hours after the canteen had been “occupied”, the workers were asked to resume their work on threat of dismissal, an instruction which was ignored (subsequently, with the entry of the afternoon shift, a small group remained on the spot to ensure that the workers on the new shift adopted the same attitude, forcing most of them into an attitude which they were evidently reluctant to adopt); (6) consequently, having established that there had been several serious instances of labour non-compliance, such as: refusal to perform company duties without any justification, unlawful occupation of the works canteen, incitement of colleagues to adopt the same attitude, including those on a different (afternoon) shift, and remaining at the plant “outside” working hours in order to prolong the occupation, the company considered that misconduct as defined in section 242 of the Employment Contract Act (LCT) had occurred and dismissed 11 workers on justified grounds; (7) although attempts were made initially to reach some kind of negotiated solution, this was not possible owing to a series of violent actions directed not only at the plant itself but also at various branches of the company by the dismissed workers with the participation of a number of outsiders; (8) from the moment they became aware of the situation, representative trade unions (SECZA and the Trade Union of Foodstuff Industry Workers of Buenos Aires Province (STIABA)) and the Ministry of Labour of Buenos Aires Province, a hearing was held on 14 April 2008, when – something vitally important to this presentation – the representatives of both trade unions stated that they had nothing to do with the dispute and the demands submitted (SECZA and STIABA are both vying for representation of the workers); (9) following the dismissal, various attempts were made through different interlocutors to converse with the dismissed staff, but on each occasion they all refused to participate in any talks, stating that they would only act through their lawyers. Thereupon the dismissed workers plus a number of other employees and various persons not employed by the company and having no connection with it (for example, political activists who had also taken part in other disputes in the “zone”) occupied the entrance to the industrial estate, preventing the entry or exit of people, transport and/or goods, especially those intended for the company; (10) in the present case there was no strike and/or industrial action declared in accordance with the terms of the law, and even the labour authorities (provincial and national ministries of labour) did not accept that this was a collective dispute and therefore refused the request for compulsory conciliation, accepting the company’s straightforward “refusal of procedure”; (11) the complainant organization has sought to “validate” the existence of a trade union, the existence of anti-union activity and the existence of a collective dispute. The registration procedure and the claimed affiliation to a multi-activity organization without trade union status, such as the CTA, do not change its status since a union in the process of registration is not considered a “trade union” under the terms of Act No. 23551 and therefore does not exist as such (in this regard the Committee recalls that it has been urging the Government for many years to issue a ruling on the CTA’s application for trade union status (see Case No. 2477, Reports Nos 346, 348, 349, 350, 351 and 353); (12) in the present case a dispute might have existed but this cannot be classified as a collective dispute, and it should be noted that the justified dismissal of the workers, some of whom were reported as belonging to the “pseudo-union” while others were not, was not illegal, unlike the supposed declaration of a “strike” or “industrial action” taken by persons who had no legal authority to do so; and (13) the judicial authority for labour matters has already made a decision regarding amparo proceedings instituted by the workers concerned and by the trade union association in the process of registration, in the case “Bravo Juan Santos et al v. Supermercados Toledo, s. amparo”, Mar del Plata Labour Tribunal No. 3, in which the amparo application was rejected in limine and the judges unanimously emphasized the lack of legal protection applicable to the association.
5. 224. The Committee notes this information and in particular observes the complainant’s allegation that once the company became aware that the administrative procedure had started for official registration of the Trade Union of Poultry Slaughtering and Processing Plant and Allied Workers, it began to harass the union leaders and members, and that following a strike it dismissed a trade union officer and a number of union members (a total of 15, according to the complainant); the company claims that the dismissal of 11 workers was due to serious labour misconduct at work and not due to participation in a strike. This being the case, taking into consideration the contradictory versions of the complainant and the company and with a view to reaching a decision based on all the information, the Committee regrets that the Government has not conducted the requested investigation into all the allegations of discrimination and anti-union dismissals and urges it to do so immediately and to keep it informed in this regard. Furthermore, while noting the company’s statement that the judicial authority rejected an amparo appeal filed by the representatives of the union being established, the Committee requests the Government to inform it whether the dismissed workers, including trade union officer Mr Rubén Óscar Godoy, have taken legal action and invites the CTA to forward any additional information.
6. 225. As regards the allegation that on 18 April 2008, the day of the strike, the police used force against the strikers, leaving seven injured (one of them, Mr José Lagos, seriously), the Committee notes the company’s denial that these acts were instigated by it and/or that they occurred with the complicity of the State and declares that: (1) the dismissed workers plus a number of other employees and persons not employed by the company occupied the entrance to the industrial estate and violently prevented the entry or exit of people and goods to/from the company; and (2) the intervention of law enforcement officers, by means of an explicit order from the Public Prosecutor’s Office, enabled the plant to be reopened. While noting this information, the Committee regrets that the Government has not launched the requested investigation and has not sent information on the progress made as regards processing the complaints against these acts filed by the trade union with the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires Province. The Committee therefore reiterates its recommendations and urges the Government to send the requested information.