Interim Report - Report No 363, March 2012

1. 262. The Committee last examined this case at its June 2011 meeting, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 360th Report, paras 154–223, approved by the Governing Body at its 311th Session (June 2011)].
2. 263. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 4 November 2011 and 5 March 2012.
3. 264. 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 Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), and the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 265. In its previous examination of the case at its June 2011 meeting, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 360th Report, para. 223]:
   • (a) The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that an investigation is carried out without delay into the allegations relating to the intervention and violent repression by the PFA to prevent the erection of a protest stand at the INDEC entrance on 22 August 2007 and that if it is found that the police overstepped the mark in the exercise of their functions, to take measures to remedy the situation. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments.
   • (b) With regard to the allegations of attacks against the ATE trade union office in the INDEC main building on 21 May and 15 July 2008 (according to the ATE, during the last attack damage was caused to the office), the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that an investigation is carried out into these allegations and to keep it informed of its outcome.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the final result of the court proceedings against the ATE delegate, Mr Luciano Osvaldo Belforte, for defrauding the public administration. The Committee also requests the Government to inform it whether the delegate in question can freely enter the ATE trade union office in INDEC.
   • (d) Given that, according to the information supplied by the complainant organization, the judicial decisions ordered the reinstatement in their functions of the trade union official, Ms Liliana Haydee Gasco, and the worker Vanina Micello, the Committee requests the Government, should this be the case, to ensure compliance with the relevant judicial decisions and to keep it informed in this regard.
   • (e) The Committee urges the Government to send without delay its detailed observations relating to the following allegations: (1) the transfer of workplace of ATE member, Mr Emilio Platzer; (2) the dismissal of ATE member, Ms Gabriela Soroka; (3) the removal from her post of ATE delegate, Ms Cynthia Pok; and (4) the dismissal of 13 workers from the CPI and EPH Department on 1 November 2007.
   • (f) The Committee invites the Government, with a view to achieving harmonious labour relations in the organization, to set up a forum for dialogue in which, among other things, the questions raised in this complaint can be dealt with.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 266. In its communication of 4 November 2011, the Government indicates that it has sent the report drafted by the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (INDEC) on the case.
2. 267. The INDEC indicates that its report contains updated information relating to the points on which the Committee requested information from the State of Argentina. The INDEC adds that the report focuses in particular on paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of the recommendations contained in paragraph 223 of the Committee’s 360th Report, as these are matters directly related to the Institute’s remit. Specifically:
   • – as regards paragraph (c), the INDEC indicates that the court proceedings in “Luciano Belforte et al. in re: defrauding the public administration”, instituted under file No. 128/8 in Criminal and Correctional Court No. 7, office 4, is still in progress. The court stayed the proceedings on 31 May 2011. This stay was appealed by the prosecutor and the appeal is currently pending a decision from the Criminal Cassation Division of the Supreme Court of Justice. The INDEC has recently joined the proceedings as a complainant. Mr Belforte freely enters the central headquarters of the Institute on a daily basis. Furthermore, he was in office as a trade union delegate until 27 October 2011 and, given that he enjoyed unrestricted movement within the Institute, it is assumed that he was able to perform his functions normally;
   • – as regards paragraph (d), the INDEC indicates that Ms Vanina Micello and Ms Liliana Hydee Gasco are currently working in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) Department pursuant to the court order to that effect;
   • – as regards paragraph (e)(1), the INDEC indicates that Mr Emilio Platzer performed tasks in the Institute under service provider contracts. The last of these ended in July 2007. Since then, Mr Platzer no longer works in the INDEC; he was thus not transferred, but left at the end of his contract;
   • – as regards paragraph (e)(2), the INDEC indicates that Ms Gabriela Soroka was in a contractual relationship with the Institute under a cooperation agreement concluded between the INDEC and the Government of the city of Buenos Aires. Her employment relationship came to an end in November 2007, not as a result of dismissal but because her contract had ended;
   • – as regards paragraph (e)(3), the INDEC indicates that Ms Cynthia Pok, an employee of the Institute, has not been removed from her post and is still a trade union delegate, an office which she took up in the exercise of her trade union rights;
   • – as regards paragraph (e)(4), the INDEC indicates that the information provided by the Confederation of Argentine Workers (CTA) is false or incorrect. According to the Institute’s records, the only agreement implemented by an act meeting the aforementioned description dates from 31 October 2007 and was signed by the individuals referred to in the Committee’s Report. An examination of its provisions provides only a generic description of the obligations undertaken by the parties, which makes it impossible to supply information on the situation of the workers referred to by the Committee. Moreover, the Committee does not mention the names of the workers in question, making it impossible to supply information on their current situation.
3. 268. By its March 2012 communication, the Government transmits a report of the INDEC in which it is stated in respect of paragraph (a), that it has no jurisdiction to account for the action of the federal police of Argentina (the Government indicates that it will conduct consultations to provide relevant information on this issue), and with regard to paragraph (b), that the allegations have prompted the opening of an administrative proceeding which resulted in no disciplinary liability being imposed on any agent of the State.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 269. The Committee recalls that in this case the complainant organization alleged acts of violence (the intervention and violent repression by the Argentine federal police to prevent the erection of a protest stand at the entrance to the INDEC on 22 August 2007; attacks on workers at the meeting of 15 May 2008, causing various injuries to the deputy secretary of Association of State Workers (ATE-Capital), Mr Luis Opromolla and two other workers, and striking Ms Cynthia Pok), intimidation by means of police presence and prevention of the exercise of trade union activity, attack against a trade union office and anti-union discrimination (initiation of legal proceedings for participating in the dispute between the ATE and the INDEC authorities, reprisals and modification of conditions of employment, etc.) against workers belonging to the ATE in the INDEC.

Paragraphs (a) and (b)

1. 270. Regarding the investigation into the allegations of the intervention and violent repression by the federal police of Argentina aimed at preventing the installation of a protest stand outside the INDEC entrance on 22 August 2007, the Committee notes the INDEC statement that is has no jurisdiction to account for the action of the infantry forces of the federal police of Argentina. It further notes the Government’s indication that in order to provide information on this issue it will conduct consultations with the relevant actors. The Committee expects to receive the information referred to by the Government.
2. 271. As regards the allegations of break-ins into the ATE trade union office in the INDEC main building on 21 May and 15 July 2008 (according to the ATE, during the last attack, damage was caused to the office), the Committee notes the INDEC’s indication that these statements have prompted the opening of an administrative proceeding, which resulted in no disciplinary liability being imposed on any agent of the State. The Committee notes this information.

Paragraph (c)

1. 272. As regards the court proceedings against the ATE delegate Mr Luciano Osvaldo Belforte for defrauding the public administration and free access by the delegate to the ATE trade union office in the INDEC, the Committee takes note of the information provided by the INDEC to the effect that: (1) the court proceedings are still in progress before Criminal and Correctional Court No. 7; and (2) Mr Belforte freely enters the central headquarters of the Institute on a daily basis and was in office as a trade union delegate until 27 October 2011. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the final result of the court proceedings against the ATE delegate, Mr Luciano Osvaldo Belforte.

Paragraph (d)

1. 273. As regards the judicial decisions that allegedly ordered the reinstatement of the trade union official Ms Liliana Haydee Gasco, and the worker Ms Vanina Micello, with which the Committee had requested the Government to ensure compliance should this be the case, the Committee notes with interest that the INDEC indicates that the workers in question are currently working in the CPI Department pursuant to the court order to that effect.

Paragraph (e)(1)

1. 274. As regards the alleged transfer of workplace of ATE member Mr Emilio Platzer, the Committee takes note of the INDEC’s statement to the effect that: (1) the worker in question performed tasks in the Institute under service provider contracts; (2) the last of these contracts ended in July 2007 and since then, Mr Platzer no longer works in the INDEC; and (3) he was thus not transferred, but left at the end of his contract. The Committee takes note of this information and will not pursue the examination of this allegation, unless the complainant organization transmits additional information in this regard.

Paragraph (e)(2)

1. 275. As regards the alleged dismissal of ATE member Ms Gabriela Soroka, the Committee takes note of the INDEC’s statement to the effect that: (1) the worker was in a contractual relationship with the Institute under a cooperation agreement concluded between the INDEC and the Government of the city of Buenos Aires; and (2) her employment relationship came to an end in November 2007, not as a result of dismissal but because her contract had ended. The Committee takes note of this information and will not pursue the examination of this allegation.

Paragraph (e)(3)

1. 276. As regards the alleged removal from her post of ATE delegate Ms Cynthia Pok, the Committee takes note of the INDEC’s statement to the effect that the worker in question has not been removed from her post and is still a trade union delegate, an office which she took up in the exercise of her trade union rights. In the light of this information, the Committee will not pursue the examination of this allegation.

Paragraph (e)(4)

1. 277. As regards the alleged dismissal of 13 workers from the CPI and EPH Department on 1 November 2007 for having participated in meetings and direct action organized by the trade union, the Committee takes note of the INDEC’s statement to the effect that the information provided by the complainant organization is false or incorrect and that the names of the workers in question are not mentioned, making it impossible to supply information on their current employment situation. In this regard, the Committee requests the CTA to send without delay the names of the workers who were allegedly dismissed so as to enable the Government to send concrete information on these allegations.