Definitive Report - Report No 381, March 2017

1. 113. The Committee last examined this case at its October 2013 meeting, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 370th Report, paras 114–129, approved by the Governing Body at its 319th Session (October 2013)].
2. 114. The Government sent new observations in communications dated March and September 2014 and October 2015.
3. 115. 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. 116. In its previous examination of the case in October 2013, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 370th Report, para. 129]:
   • (a) As regards the alleged dismissal of Mr Christian Altamirano and Mr Roberto Funes on account of their affiliation to SLFZ–CTA, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the outcome of the ongoing legal proceedings.
   • (b) As regards the alleged suspensions for two or three days of the workers affiliated to the SLFZ–CTA for participating in direct action measures to protest against the dismissal of the workers affiliated to the SLFZ–CTA, in order to examine these allegations in full knowledge of the facts, the Committee requests the Government to indicate without delay the outcome of the investigations carried out by the administrative authority of the province of Buenos Aires and of the decisions adopted in this regard.
   • (c) As regards the allegation that, on 8 June 2012, the union member, Mr Ricardo Rossi, was physically assaulted (suffering a triple jaw fracture and other injuries) on the company premises and that the union member, Mr Oscar Martínez, who went to his aid received death threats, the Committee deeply regrets these acts of violence and expects that the criminal proceedings referred to by the Government have resulted in timely investigations to determine responsibilities, prosecute and sanction the guilty parties and prevent the repetition of similar acts. The Committee urges the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
   • (d) As regards the complainants’ allegations that the union member, Mr Rossi, has not received payment of his wages since the day on which he was assaulted (according to the complainants, the court ordered the payment of his wages but the company has not complied with the court order), the Committee urges the Government to ensure, without delay, compliance with the court order for the back payment of the wages owed to Mr Rossi and to keep it informed of any measures adopted in this regard.
   • (e) As regards the allegations that on 9 August 2012 a dialogue process was initiated for a period of 60 days between the company and the SLFZ–CTA which, among other things, provided for the suspension of the effects of the dismissals, but that the company did not fulfil its commitments, the Committee requests the Government to inform it without delay of the outcome of the investigations carried out by the provincial administrative authority and of the decisions that have been adopted in this regard. The Committee also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to promote dialogue between the parties, with a view to achieving a harmonious industrial relations climate.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 117. In communications dated March and September 2014 and October 2015, the Government provided the following additional information.
2. 118. With regard to the allegations of dismissal of Mr Christian Altamirano and Mr Roberto Funes on account of their membership of the Light and Power Workers’ Union of Zárate–CTA (SLFZ–CTA), as well as the suspensions for two or three days of all workers belonging to the SLFZ–CTA for participating in direct action measures to protest against the dismissal of the members of their union, the Government reports that a general agreement was reached between the SLFZ–CTA and the electricity company, and that individual agreements were also reached between it and the workers who were members of the trade union, including Mr Altamirano and Mr Martínez. The Government indicates that as a result of these agreements the dispute has been settled.
3. 119. With respect to the allegations of injuries inflicted on Mr Ricardo Rossi and the non-payment of his wages since the day on which he was assaulted, the Government states that this worker had not concluded an agreement with the company but that Criminal Court No. 1 of Campana handed down a conviction against the persons accused of the assault.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 120. The Committee recalls that this case concerns allegations of anti-union dismissals, suspensions of workers on account of their membership of the Light and Power Workers’ Union of Zárate–CTA (SLFZ–CTA) and their participation in industrial action, the physical assault of a trade unionist and death threats to a union member.
2. 121. With regard to the allegations of dismissal of Mr Altamirano and Mr Funes on account of their membership of the SLFZ–CTA, and suspensions for two or three days of all workers belonging to the SLFZ–CTA for participating in direct action measures to protest against the dismissal of the members of their union, the Committee notes that, according to the Government’s report, agreements had been signed between the trade union and the company, and also between the company and the workers belonging to the union, and that as a result of these agreements the dispute had been settled.
3. 122. With regard to the allegations of an assault against Mr Rossi (and related allegations of death threats, for providing assistance, against Mr Martinez, a union member with whom the company had subsequently signed an agreement), the Committee notes that, according to the Government, Criminal Court No. 1 of Campana handed down a conviction against the accused. The Committee expects that the judgment will have reviewed the various allegations made.
4. 123. With regard to the allegations of non-payment of Mr Rossi’s wages since the day on which he was assaulted, the Committee notes that the Government merely indicates that no agreement had been concluded between the company and the trade unionist. The Committee recalls that in its previous examination of the case it had noted that, according to the complainants, the court had ordered the payment of the trade unionist’s wages but the company had not complied with the court order. The Committee expects that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the court order for the back payment of wages owed to Mr Rossi.