Definitive Report - Report No 217, June 1982

1. 327. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) presented a complaint of violation of trade union rights in Argentina in a letter dated 4 March 1982. The Government sent its observations in a communication of 12 April 1982.
2. 328. 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. 329. In its complaint the ICFTU alleges that through the presence of the police the authorities tried to prevent the holding of a meeting of the general secretaries of member organisations of the General Confederation of Labour (CGT). it explains that, on 17 February 1982, policemen from Central Police Stations Nos. 20 and 28 - six in total - took up positions in front of the CGT headquarters while more than a dozen uniformed policemen patrolled the area and others out of uniform remained in cars without number plates.
2. 330. According to the ICFTU, the Government's intention was clear since, shortly after midday, the superintendent of Station No. 28 met with the CGT leaders and told them that restrictions on trade union activities were in force. Lastly, the ICFTU considers that these facts constitute interference by the authorities in trade union affairs which is contrary to Article 3 of Convention No. 87.

B. The Government's reply

1. 331. In its reply the Government states that the presence of police strength on 17 February 1982 was part of the institutional mission of the police force under the provisions of Act No. 20.120 on the right of assembly. The Government notes that the policemen were carrying out a routine task and that they used no dissuasive measures on participants in the meeting. On the contrary, it was the trade union leaders themselves who took advantage of the police presence to sow doubt in certain uninformed sectors, including the international fora.
2. 332. No restrictions or obstacles were placed before the meeting. Moreover, according to the Government, the trade union leader Saul Ubaldini stated in the daily newspaper "La Nación" on 20 February 1982 that the police had not prohibited the meeting. Therefore, if the meeting was unable to be held, it was purely due to a voluntary and spontaneous decision of the participants. The CGT meeting did in fact take place two days later and the police authorities did not adopt any measures which might have impeded it despite the standards in force which limit certain political and trade union activities.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 333. It appears from the information supplied by the complainant and the Government that police forces took up positions around the CGT headquarters when a meeting of CGT leaders was to take place. However, it does not appear that the police directly intervened to prevent the meeting taking place as it eventually was held two days later.
2. 334. The Committee notes that the meeting was organised on trade union premises and that accordingly there seemed to be no need to fear public disturbances. Moreover, the Committee considers that the simple presence of police in front of the CGT headquarters could in itself constitute an element of dissuasion for the trade union leaders who were to meet there. The Committee therefore considers it useful to draw the Government's attention to the fact that freedom of trade union assembly is fundamental to trade union rights and that the authorities ought to refrain from any intervention of such a nature as to restrict this right or hinder the legal exercise of it.