Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 214, Mars 1982

1. 176. In a letter of 17 June 1981 the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) presented a complaint of violation of trade union rights in Argentina. The Government sent its observations in a communication received by the ILO on 9 November 1981.
2. 177. 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. The complainant's allegations

1. 178. In its complaint the ICFTU alleges that the Argentine authorities have interfered with trade union activities. The ICFTU explains that the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) of Argentina had called all the trade union organisations to a plenary assembly on 12 May 1981 to discuss labour problems (wages and others) and the designation by the Government of the Argentine workers' delegation to the International Labour Conference. The assembly was to have been held at the headquarters of the Sole Federation of Commercial Travellers.
2. 179. At midday on 12 May 1981 the Secretary-General of the Sole Federation of commercial Travellers, Mr. Manuel Diaz Rey, was called to the Police Department where he was informed that the meeting had been prohibited.
3. 180. Nevertheless, the complainant continues, at 5 p.m. on the same day 100 representatives of the organisations called to the meting arrived at the building where it was to have been held but were forbidden entry by the federal police. The ICFTU concludes that this prohibition constitutes a restriction of trade union activities.

B. The Government's reply

1. 181. In its reply the Government states firstly that the right of assembly, which is laid down in the Constitution, is governed by laws regulating its exercise. For example, Act No. 20120 of 25 January 1973, a copy of which is supplied by the Government, establishes the basic requirements for the exercise of the right of assembly and the powers invested in the law-enforcement authorities.
2. 182. The Government explains that after the assembly had been called by a group calling itself the "General Confederation of Labour", on the day on which it was to be held the federal police, considering that incidents might occur between different factions claiming to represent the labour movement, published a statement explaining that the prohibition of the assembly was in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 20120 respecting the right of assembly.
3. 183. On the same day the Secretary-General of the Sole Federation of Commercial Travellers, Mr. Manuel Diaz Rey, a member of the General Confederation of labour, visited the Federal Security Superintendent's office where he was notified that the assembly had been prohibited and was referred to the relevant legislation. In the afternoon other persons arriving at the meeting place were informed of the authorities' decision.
4. 184. In conclusion, the Government states that supervision by government bodies of the activities of members of the population and their compliance with the law mean that there is interference with or restriction of trade union activities by the authorities. Such supervision, on the contrary, is intended to protect the general interests of the community.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 185. This case concerns the prohibition of a meeting of representatives of a number of trade unions belonging to an organisation known as the General Confederation of Labour. According to the Government, the federal police prohibited this meeting because they feared that incidents might occur.
2. 186. The Committee has examined the provisions of Act No. 20120 respecting the right of assembly. It observes that, under section 9, authorisation must be obtained from the police authorities for holding meetings on the public thoroughfare or in places normally open to the public. Under section 13, the police may deny such authorisation when the meeting is organised for the purpose of disturbing public order or causing damage to persons or property, when the group of organisers is pursuing an illegal aim, or when the organisation in question is not an association, company, entity, political party or group legally recognised by the competent authorities.
3. 187. The Committee notes that the meeting planned for 12 May concerned trade union affairs since the agenda included a discussion of wages and other labour problems as well as the composition of the Argentine delegation of workers to the International Labour Conference. Furthermore, the meeting was to take place in closed trade union premises, and accordingly it would not seem that any disturbance on the public thoroughfare was to be feared.
4. 188. Consequently, the Committee considers it useful to remind the Government that the right of workers' organisations freely to organise meetings in trade union premises, without the need for prior authorisation or supervision by the public authorities, constitutes an essential element of freedom of association, without which it would be meaningless.