Informe provisional - Informe núm. 90, 1966

1. 220. This case was examined previously by the Committee at its meetings in May 1965 and November 1965, when it submitted interim reports which appear in paragraphs 278 to 304 of its 83rd Report and in paragraphs 492 to 503 of its 85th Report, approved respectively by the Governing Body at its 162nd and 163rd Sessions (May 1965 and November 1965).
2. 221. In those reports the Committee submitted its final conclusions with respect to some of the allegations made by the complainants, and the only aspect of the case which remains outstanding is that relating to proceedings against trade union officers. The present report therefore deals only with this point.
3. 222. 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. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 223. A summary of the allegations of the General Confederation of Labour (C.G.T.) with regard to proceedings against trade union officers will be found in paragraphs 290 and 291 of the Committee's 83rd Report. It is alleged in substance that on the initiative of the Government criminal proceedings were started against that organisation, with a request for a sentence of imprisonment on all its officers and the closing of its offices, because the C.G.T had approved a " Battle Plan " comprising social, economic and political objectives. Since its claims were going unheeded, the C.G.T had decided to start the occupation of factories in order to back up its demands. As a result the chairmen and general secretaries of over 300 organisations were charged with breaches of state security and incitement to commit offences. The detention was ordered of 119 union leaders.
2. 224. In its reply of 30 November 1964 the Government stated (see paragraph 292 of the 83rd Report) that the execution of the so-called Battle Plan involved the commission of offences under the Penal Code, including dispossession of property and the unlawful detention of members of the staff of the undertakings concerned. The Government argued that such action had been taken not in consequence of a labour dispute with the undertakings in question but as part of a political plan. The Government pointed out that none of the trade union leaders against whom proceedings had been initiated had been kept in custody.
3. 225. In paragraph 293 of its 83rd Report the Committee recalled that it had always applied the principle that allegations respecting the right to strike were not outside its competence in so far as they affected the exercise of trade union rights. It had also pointed out that the right of workers and their organisations to strike as a legitimate means of defending their occupational interests was generally recognised. The Committee had, however, also held that the restriction of political strikes and strikes to coerce the government or the community to recognise certain action was not an infringement of trade union rights.
4. 226. The Committee observed that in the present case the object of the strike was to exert pressure on the Government and so oblige it to proceed to certain measures of an economic, social and political character, and that, moreover, the movement was accompanied by the occupation of a number of establishments and the prevention in some cases of free movement on the part of senior employees of the undertakings concerned. The Committee concluded that the proceedings entered against the trade unionists involved did not justify the allegation that trade union rights had been infringed. Nevertheless, since the complainants had also alleged that the principal officers of over 300 unions had been charged with security offences and that these various cases were now before the courts, the Committee requested the Government to inform it of the exact character of the offences with which the said trade union officers were charged, and to keep it posted about any new development in this connection.
5. 227. When the case came before it again at its November 1965 meeting, the Committee observed that in referring to this aspect of the case in its communication of 27 August 1965 the Government had confined itself to stating that it had asked the judicial authorities for the relevant information. The Committee therefore decided to repeat its previous request and to postpone examination of this aspect of the case pending receipt of the additional information requested from the Government.
6. 228. By a communication dated 14 March 1966 the Permanent Mission of the Argentine Republic in Geneva forwarded the Government's reply to the request for further information. The Government begins by supplying certain details with regard to the proceedings against the 119 trade union leaders indicted in connection with the adoption of the Battle Plan, on which the Committee has already commented in its 83rd Report (see paragraph 226 above). The information now supplied by the Government includes the names of the officials in question and makes it clear that they were charged with incitement to commit an offence, which is an offence under section 209 of the Penal Code, in that they were responsible for the forceful measures agreed upon at the meetings of the C.G.T held on 15 and 16 January 1964. The Government also states that, although a judge had ordered the detention of the accused in December 1964, they were all subsequently released without prejudice to the pursuance of their case.
7. 229. The Government also gives information with regard to the proceedings against three other trade unionists. Mr. Felipe Ernesto Ludueña, Trade Union Secretary of the Peronist Revolutionary Movement, who had held office with the Santa Cruz branch of the Naval Dockyard and Tanker Building Workers' Union, was charged in March 1965 with infringement of section 212 of the Penal Code, which prescribes penalties for various acts of a terrorist nature. A provisional stay of proceedings was granted in April 1965. Mr. Carlos Kristoff, Deputy Secretary of the Plumbing, Sewage, Waterworks and Allied Workers' Union, was charged in September 1965 with interference with freedom to work and causing bodily harm, but was subsequently released without prejudice to the pursuance of his case. Mr. Raúl Alberto Garcia, a member of the executive of the Federation of Wage-Earning and Salaried Telephone Employees of the Argentine Republic, was charged on 1 December 1965 with intimidation of the public. He was subsequently released, and his case was finally dismissed on 23 December 1965.
8. 230. Finally, the Government declares that at the present time there is not a single person held in custody in Argentina on political or trade union grounds, and that all the police and legal action referred to was taken on account of offences against public order or common law offences.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 231. It would appear from the information supplied by the Government that the 119 trade union leaders indicted in connection with the adoption of the Battle Plan were charged purely with the offence provided for in section 209 of the Penal Code, namely incitement to commit an offence, and not with breaches of state security, as has been alleged in the complaint. The Committee notes that these persons, whose detention was ordered during the initial proceedings, have now been released without prejudice to the pursuance of their case.
2. 232. With regard to the three trade unionists mentioned in paragraph 229 above, who were arraigned individually, the Committee observes that although all three have been released, two of them, Messrs. Ludueña and Kristoff, appear to be still subject to the jurisdiction of the criminal courts for the offences with which they have been charged. It is not clear whether these offences have any connection with the acts imputed to the 119 trade unionists mentioned earlier, and the Committee would therefore be grateful if the Government would inform it as to the exact nature of the offences with which Messrs. Ludueña and Kristoff are charged and to keep it informed of any new development with respect to the legal position of these trade unionists.