Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 103, 1968

1. 187. The Committee examined this case previously at its meetings in May and November 1967, when it submitted to the Governing Body interim reports thereon which may be found, respectively, in paragraphs 231 to 265 of the Committee's 98th Report and in paragraphs 319 to 406 of its 101st Report. Both reports have been approved by the Governing Body.
2. 188. In paragraph 406 of its 101st Report the Committee made recommendations to the Governing Body in respect of a number of aspects of this case, some of which were to the effect that the Government be requested to supply additional information on specific points. As soon as these recommendations had been approved by the Governing Body they were brought to the attention of the Government by a letter dated 24 November 1967.
3. 189. By a communication dated 18 December 1967 from the Permanent Mission of the Argentine Republic in Geneva the Government has forwarded certain observations and information respecting some of the allegations which remain outstanding. This report will deal exclusively with the matters referred to by the Government in this communication.
4. 190. Argentina has ratified both 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

• Allegations relating to the Arrest of the Trade Union Official Eustaquio Tolosa
  191. 191 With regard to this aspect of the case, on the recommendation of the Committee contained in paragraph 406 (b) of its 101st Report, the Governing Body took note of the Government's statement that proceedings were continuing before a court of ordinary jurisdiction in connection with the prosecution brought against Mr. Tolosa for having contravened section I of Act No. 14034; took note that, in the meantime, Mr. Tolosa continued to be under preventive detention by virtue of a writ issued by the judge in the case and confirmed by the appeals court; and drew the Government's attention to the importance which the Governing Body has always attached to the principle of prompt and fair trial by an impartial and independent judicial authority in all cases, including those where trade unionists are charged with common-law or political offences which the Government considers to be unconnected with their trade union duties.
  192. 192 In its reply of 18 December 1967 the Government declares that speed in the administration of justice is something for which the Argentine judicial authorities are constantly striving and that this certainly applies to cases in which trade union leaders are involved. The Government repeats its promise to keep the Committee on Freedom of Association informed of any fresh developments in re Mr. Tolosa, and to supply a copy of the judgment when it is pronounced.
  193. 193 Since the events which led to Mr. Tolosa's prosecution are not unconnected with his trade union activities, and in view of the fact that he has been under preventive detention for more than a year while these proceedings have been going on the Committee, as has been its constant practice in similar circumstances, stresses once again the importance of the principle stated in paragraph 191 above and recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to inform it as soon as possible as to the likelihood of a judgment on the case being pronounced shortly concerning Mr. Tolosa or the possibility of his being released pending such judgment.
• Allegations relating to the Dock Dispute of 1966
  194. 194 In paragraph 406 (c) of its 101st Report the Committee made the following recommendations to the Governing Body:
       • (c) with regard to the 1966 dock dispute:
       • (i) to take note of the declaration by the Government that it does not intend to maintain its control of the United Argentine Dockers' Union indefinitely and that it will rather endeavour to ensure that the organisation in question is shortly able to operate normally;
       • (ii) to express the hope that the necessary measures will be adopted as soon as possible and to ask the Government to keep it informed of developments in this connection;
       • (iii) to draw the attention of the Government to the importance that it has always attached, where restrictions are placed on the right to strike in essential services, to the subjection of such restrictions to impartial and rapid conciliation and arbitration procedures, in all stages of which the parties concerned can take part;
       • (iv) to take note of the statement by the Government that the emergency measures have been lifted and that work in the port of Buenos Aires has been entirely restored to normal;
       • (v) to request the Government, nevertheless, to be good enough to reply to the allegation that most of the port workers of Buenos Aires have been deprived of employment for having acted in defence of their trade union interests.
  195. 195 In its communication of 18 December 1967, referring to the final point of the recommendations reproduced in the preceding paragraph, the Government states that when the dock labour dispute arose in 1966 the register of port workers was closed; as soon as the dispute had been settled the register was reopened, and all workers-including all those who had taken part in the movement-were free to enter their names.
  196. 196 In this respect it should be pointed out that the complainants based their allegation on the fact that the police and armed forces had intervened to prevent the strikers-who had decided to return to work-from entering the dock area, and that the Government had tried to enforce the acceptance of strike-breakers in the docks and to give them preference over other workers in re-registration. According to the complainants, the Harbour Master had proposed figures which would have meant that regular dockers were in the minority.
  197. 197 It would consequently appear that if, as the Government says, the register of port workers was closed during the dispute and that once it was settled all workers, including those who had taken part in the strike, were allowed to sign on freely, the proposal that there should be anti-union discrimination which the complainants impute to the authorities was never put into practice.
  198. 198 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide, without prejudice to the other conclusions set forth in paragraph 406 (c) of the Committee's 101st Report, approved by the Governing Body, that the allegation that most of the port workers of Buenos Aires have been deprived of their employment for having acted in defence of their trade union interests does not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to Measures to Suspend the Trade Union Status of Various Workers' Organisations
  199. 199 With regard to the various measures to suspend the trade union status of workers' organisations, the Committee, for the reasons stated in paragraphs 352 to 378 of its 101st Report, made the following recommendations to the Governing Body in paragraph 406 (d) (ii) and (iii) of the same report, approved by the Governing Body:
       • (ii) with regard to the measures to suspend trade union status, to point out again to the Government ... the importance of the provision in Article 4 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), which has been ratified by Argentina, to the effect that workers' organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority;
       • (iii) to request the Government to be good enough to explain whether a legal appeal against a resolution suspending trade union status has suspensory effect.
  200. In addition, also on the recommendation of the Committee, in clause (v) the Governing Body expressed the hope that the measures to suspend trade union status that were still in force would be rescinded in the near future, and asked the Government to be good enough to keep it informed of any developments in this connection.
  200. 200 The recommendations reproduced in the preceding paragraph were based on certain conclusions the Committee had reached when examining earlier cases relating to Argentina. The Committee had in fact stated, inter alia, that in Argentina, " from the strictly trade union point of view ... the role assigned to these organisations [without legal status] is extremely limited ", and that " the distinction made by the Act between organisations enjoying trade union status and ordinary organisations results, in particular, in the latter organisations being unable to defend occupational interests ".
  201. 201 In Case No. 308, also concerning Argentina, the Committee considered that the possibility under Argentine legislation of the adoption with immediate effect of such measures as the suspension or dissolution of a workers' organisation by administrative authority constituted a violation of the provisions of Article 4 of Convention No. 87, which Argentina bad ratified. The Committee held that " for the satisfactory application of the principle contained in Article 4 of Convention No. 87, it is not sufficient for legislation to grant the right of appeal against suspension or dissolution decisions issued by administrative authority, but such decisions should not come into effect until the statutory period has expired without an appeal being lodged, or until they have been confirmed by a court verdict ".
  202. 202 In paragraph 375 of its 101st Report the Committee stated that in a report submitted by the Government to the I.L.O in accordance with article 22 of the I.L.O. Constitution a summary was given of a court ruling that " the introduction of an appeal against the cancellation of the trade union status of a trade union has a suspensory effect " and " the union whose trade union status has been cancelled retains this status until a decision is given in the appeal introduced against the suspension ".
  203. 203 Without prejudice to its right to reiterate the importance of the principle embodied in Article 4 of Convention No. 87, the Committee considered it most desirable to know whether this interpretation was also applicable to decisions issued by administrative authority to suspend trade union status such as the two resolutions of February and March 1967 suspending the trade union status of various organisations, and it recommended the Governing Body to request the Government for information in this respect (see paragraph 199 above).
  204. 204 In its communication of 18 December 1967 the Government replies that, although there is no established case law in this respect, it is considered that an appeal suspends the effects of a decision to suspend trade union status in the same way as it would if the decision had been to cancel such status.
  205. 205 The Committee takes note of the Government's statement but considers that, in the absence of statutory provisions or established case law as a guarantee that the possibility is open of obtaining a ruling in the courts before suspension of trade union status takes effect, it is bound to repeat its earlier expression of concern at the faculty afforded under the law to administrative authority to apply sanctions to trade unions the effects of which are tantamount to the suspension of the activities of the organisation itself. In the present case it would appear from such information as is available that the resolutions to which the complaints refer took immediate effect.
  206. 206 For these reasons, and bearing in mind the fact that there appears to have been no change in the situation of the organisations whose trade union status was still suspended at the time the Committee met in November 1967, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
       • (a) to draw the Government's attention once again to the views set forth in paragraphs 200 and 201 above;
       • (b) to express once again the hope that those of the measures taken in February and March 1967 to suspend trade union status which are still in force will be rescinded in the near future, and request the Government to be good enough to keep it informed as to the action it has taken or proposes to take to this end.