Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 353, Mars 2009

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 35. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2008 meeting [see 349th Report, paras 15–17]. On that occasion it expressed the hope that the Supreme Court of Justice of Mendoza would issue a ruling in the near future with regard to the proceedings for constitutional protection (amparo) proceedings instituted by the Association of State Workers (ATE) concerning contested Ruling No. 2735/04, in which the Under-Secretariat of Labour and Social Security of Mendoza province had declared the industrial action (assembly at the workplace) carried out by the workers of Godoy Cruz municipality on 22 June 2004 to be illegal, and also with regard to the alleged penalty of warnings issued to 45 workers who had participated in the industrial action of 22 June 2004, which had been declared illegal by the administrative authority of Mendoza province.
2. 36. In a communication dated 16 September 2008, the Government stated that the Supreme Court of Justice of Mendoza province rejected the appeal for review filed by the union in the case “Association of State Workers (ATE) v. the Municipality of Godoy Cruz regarding amparo”.
3. 37. The Committee notes this information, particularly the points in the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of Mendoza to the effect that: (1) the appeal for amparo was lodged after expiry of the applicable deadline – five months after the industrial action – and the mayor’s decision was to issue a warning without any deduction of pay, which did not entail any immediate threat for those penalized; (2) the party bringing the action appealed and went through the other normal judicial and administrative channels in order to obtain recognition and full protection of the right to freedom of association, which it considers to have been violated; and (3) as an exceptional means of protection, amparo, in common with the other normal legal remedies, is subject to rules regarding its admissibility, including time limits. The Committee invites the complainant to keep it informed, if it so wishes, of the outcome of any legal action it has taken through ordinary channels in relation to this matter.