Interim Report - Report No 58, 1962

1. 432. The original complaint of the W.F.T.U consisted of two communications dated 16 January and 26 February 1959, containing allegations concerning the railwaymen's strike in November 1958 and the breaking of that strike, and the strike at the state refrigeration plant in January 1959-which became general-and the manner in which it was put down.
2. 433. When the Committee examined the case at its May 1959 Session it had before it a communication from the Government dated 8 April 1959 containing observations on the railwaymen's strike, and another communication dated 12 May 1959 which constituted a partial reply to the allegations concerning the strike at the refrigeration plant, and in which the Government announced that it would forward its observations later.
3. 434. The Committee submitted its recommendations to the Governing Body on the allegations relating to the railwaymen's strike in November 1958 and its repression. These recommendations may be found in paragraph 116 (a), (b) and (c) of the Committee's 36th Report. They were approved by the Governing Body at its 142nd Session (May-June 1959); hence no further reference will be made in this report to the allegations concerning this aspect of the case.
4. 435. The Committee adjourned its consideration of the allegations relating to the strike of workers in the refrigeration plant pending a full reply from the Government. The W.F.T.U, in its letter of 24 November 1959, furnished further material in support of these allegations and presented new allegations regarding the arrest of trade union leaders and interference by the public authorities in the management of trade unions, while at the same time the Permanent Liaison Committee of the Unified Workers' Movement of Argentina, in a letter dated 3 November 1959, lodged a further complaint on the same matters. In its communication of 22 June 1960 the Government added to the observations it had made in its letter of 12 May 1959 respecting the strike at the state refrigeration plant.
5. 436. When the case came before it at its meeting in November 1960 the Committee submitted its final recommendations to the Governing Body with regard to some of the allegations which had remained in abeyance, namely the allegations relating to the strike of workers in the state refrigeration plant and the allegations relating to the mobilisation of petroleum workers, railwaymen and transport workers made in the W.F.T.U's communication of 26 February 1959. These recommendations, which may be found in paragraph 189 (a) and (b) of the Committee's 49th Report, were approved by the Governing Body at its 147th Session (November 1960), so there is no need to revert to them in this report.
6. 437. When the case was once more before it in May 1961 the Committee submitted its final recommendations to the Governing Body in respect of certain other allegations which had remained in abeyance, namely the allegations relating to the detention of trade union leaders and those relating to interference by the public authorities in the management of trade unions. These recommendations, which may be found in paragraph 134 (a) and (b) of the Committee's 56th Report, were approved by the Governing Body at its 149th Session (June 1961), so it will not be necessary to revert to them in this report.
7. 438. In addition, in a letter dated 3 July 1959, the W.F.T.U had made allegations respecting the strike of banking and insurance employees, the ill-treatment of trade unionists in Magdalena Prison and the existence of concentration camps. The Committee did not conclude its examination of these allegations. The pages which follow will therefore be devoted entirely to these two series of allegations still outstanding.
8. 439. 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

• Allegations relating to the Strike of Banking and Insurance Employees
  440. 440 In its communication of 3 July 1959 the W.F.T.U, after accusing the Government of having mobilised workers, arrested trade unionists and interfered in trade union affairs, stated that all these measures were taken in consequence of a strike by banking and insurance employees, which, according to the complainants, came about in the following way: as a result of the rise in the cost of living the Banking Employees' Union demanded a salary increase; on 10 April 1959, after several months of fruitless negotiations, the Minister of Labour notified the leaders of the union of his intention to repeal section 31 of Decree No. 3133/58, which made provision for review of banking employees' salaries, declaring at the same time that there would be neither a salary increase nor a collective agreement. In view of this attitude the Banking Employees' Union called a 24-hour strike for 14 April 1959, to be followed by a strike of indefinite duration if the dispute was not settled. The Ministry of Labour thereupon decided to place the union under supervision; its premises were occupied by the police on 14 April and 20 members of the union were arrested. The strike was declared illegal and employees who did not report for work were threatened with dismissal. Since then, the complainants alleged, the banking employees had been on strike and had been subjected to repressive measures and victimisation. The communication from the complainants dated 3 July 1959 went on to say that on 22 May 1959 the Minister of Labour announced that all banking employees on strike were automatically dismissed, a measure which affected more than 40,000 persons. This last example, concluded the complainants, was merely a further confirmation of the various methods used by the Argentine Government to infringe trade union rights.
  441. 441 In the various replies which the Committee had before it at its 26th Session (November 1960) the Government had refrained from commenting on the allegations referred to above. In these circumstances the Committee instructed the Director-General to request the Government to be good enough to furnish its observations on the allegations relating to the strike of banking and insurance employees, and in particular to provide information as to its grounds for declaring the strike illegal. A request to this effect was sent to the Government in a letter dated 24 November 1960.
  442. 442 In its reply dated 24 February 1961 the Government once again refrained from commenting on this aspect of the case. In these circumstances, at its May 1961 Session the Committee recommended that the Governing Body itself should reiterate the request for information already sent to the Government by the Director-General on the Committee's behalf. The Government replied by a communication dated 17 October 1961.
  443. 443 In its reply the Government stated that the staffs of private banks are classified as personnel of public utility services, for whom the exercise of the right to strike is subject to certain conditions and limitations. The staffs of the official banks consist of civil servants, for whom, owing to this status, the right to strike is not recognised. It would seem that the grounds for declaring the strike illegal lie in the fact that the bank employees placed themselves in the wrong by not respecting the statutory provisions relating to strikes. The Government added in its reply that the strike, by being called in circumstances seriously endangering the economy of the country, assumed a predominantly political character.
  444. 444 As regards the first category of employees - i.e., the staffs of private banks, classified in Argentina as personnel of public utility services-it would appear from information supplied by the Government in connection with other cases concerning Argentina a that before a strike may be called the interested parties are required by law to observe a certain waiting period, during which they must submit to a conciliation procedure.
  445. 445 As the Committee has observed on a number of occasions, the mere fact that a strike is regarded as unlawful in a given country would not be sufficient to cause the Committee to refrain from examining the case further; it would also be necessary for the conditions that had to be fulfilled under the law in order to render a strike lawful to be reasonable conditions, and in any event not such as to place a substantial limitation on the means of action open to trade union organisations. In this connection the Committee has recognised in a number of cases, for example that prior notification to the administrative authority and utilisation of compulsory conciliation and arbitration in collective disputes before a strike is called, are provided for in the legislation of a considerable number of countries, and that provisions of this type cannot be regarded as an infringement of freedom of association.
  446. 446 As regards the second category of employees - i.e., those who work in the official banks and have the status of civil servants-the Government confines itself to stating that for such employees the right to strike is not recognised without giving any further explanation.
  447. 447 As the Committee has noted on a number of occasions, the right of workers and their organisations to strike as a legitimate means of defence of their professional interests is generally recognised. This general principle, as indicated by the Committee in several cases, may be subject to restrictions, both in essential occupations and in the civil service. In those cases the Committee stressed the importance of providing adequate procedures which will ensure peaceful settlement of such disputes, so that the workers who are deprived of an essential means of occupational defence such as a legal strike may have appropriate guarantees.
  448. 448 As regards the nature of these appropriate guarantees, the Committee has come to the conclusion that allegations relating to the denial of the right to strike did not call for further examination after having noted that this denial was accompanied by " certain guarantees to safeguard the interests of the workers-a corresponding denial of the right of lockout, provision of joint conciliation procedure, and where, and only where, conciliation fails, the provision of joint arbitration machinery ". As regards the nature of the system in question, the Committee has pointed out that restrictions on the right to strike " must be accompanied by adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration proceedings in which the parties concerned can take part at every stage ".
  449. 449 In this particular case the Committee recommends the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to the principles recalled in the two preceding paragraphs.
  450. 450 There remain a certain number of supplementary allegations on which the Government does not comment in its reply, namely the allegations relating to the occupation of union premises by the police, the arrest of about 20 members of the union-whose names and positions in the union are not given-and the dismissal, in consequence of the strike, of over 40,000 employees.
  451. 451 In view of the importance of the allegations referred to in the preceding paragraph and the wide scope of the measures allegedly taken, concerning which the Government has refrained from replying notwithstanding repeated requests, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to forward its observations thereon and to state what is the present situation so far as these aspects of the matter are concerned.
• Allegations relating to the Ill - Treatment of Detainees in Magdalena Prison and the Existence of Concentration Camps.
  452. 452 In its communication of 3 July 1959 the W.F.T.U alleged that workers detained in Magdalena Prison had been compelled to work for the authorities without pay, although forced labour was expressly prohibited by the prison regulations; those who refused to work were punished and were put in solitary confinement and deprived of recreation, visits and correspondence; the prison governor used detainees to lay paving for a private undertaking. The complainants also alleged that a large number of trade union leaders had been interned in concentration camps in Patagonia, such as those of Viedma and Esquel.
  453. 453 At its meeting in May 1961 the Committee took note of a government statement to the effect that the Commission of Inquiry into Illegal Orders of the Chamber of Deputies was in the process of preparing a report on the subject of the accusation concerning alleged concentration camps for workers in the southern part of the country and the allegations of maltreatment in Magdalena Prison. The Government added that the results of this inquiry would be laid before the Committee.
  454. 454 Considering that the additional information promised by the Government might be such as to assist it to determine the facts, the Committee decided to adjourn consideration of this particular aspect of the case until such information was received.
  455. 455 In its reply dated 17 October 1961 the Government states first of all that the report of the Commission mentioned in paragraph 453 above has not yet been published, but that it can already affirm that there were no concentration camps in Argentina, but only penal establishments conforming to the standards laid down in the Penal Code and operated in accordance with the guarantees established in section 18 of the National Constitution. It adds that the aforementioned Commission has inspected several establishments, including those cited by the complainants. The Commission's report reveals that the complainants' allegations are without foundation. In consequence of the report, however, certain improvements have been made in the situation of the detainees, and a law has been passed by Congress closing down a state prison in Tierra del Fuego because the climate there is excessively rigorous.
  456. 456 While thanking the Government for the information which it has been good enough to furnish on this aspect of the complaint, the Committee considers that it would be desirable for it to have before it the more complete information which the Government appears to intend to forward before submitting its recommendations to the Governing Body concerning this aspect of the case. For this reason it has adjourned its consideration of this allegation until such supplementary information is received.