Definitive Report - Report No 408, October 2024

1. 148. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Association of Staff of the National Agricultural Technology Institute (APINTA) dated 27 September 2017.
2. 149. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 28 February 2019 and 9 September 2024.
3. 150. Argentina has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 151. In its communication of 27 September 2017, APINTA states that it represents 46.46 per cent of the workers of the National Agricultural Technology Institute (INTA) and alleges that the State, through the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security (MTEySS), prevented or hindered the opening of collective negotiations on the 2017 pay increase for the workforce of INTA.
2. 152. Specifically, the complainant organization alleges that: (i) in a communication dated 16 May 2017, it requested the MTEySS to open negotiations formally and to convene the parties in order to establish the negotiating committee; (ii) in the absence of a reply and in view of the urgency of addressing the issue of workers’’ wages, owing to the notable depreciation of purchasing power as a result of inflation and the price increases decided on by the national executive branch, it reissued the request on 22 June 2017, noting that the deadline set in Decree No. 447/93 had already passed; and (iii) the request was once again ignored.
3. 153. The complainant organization states that, further to the ratification of Convention No. 151, Act No. 24.185, establishing the regulations governing collective bargaining between the national public service and its employees, was approved. Decree No. 447/93 regulates the aforementioned Act, under which Collective Labour Agreement No. 127/06, which is applicable to the workers represented by APINTA, was reached.
4. 154. The complainant organization alleges that, on 4 September 2017, the MTEySS informed it that the pay scale in question had been adjusted under Decree No. 445/17 dated 22 June 2017 (in other words, after APINTA’s first request and at the same time as its second), thereby demonstrating the abuse of power that a government is capable of committing when it ignores trade union associations by imposing derisory pay increases by decree and without calling on them to negotiate these increases, in blatant violation of the national and international regulations in force, in particular Convention No. 151.
5. 155. The complainant organization points out that these so-called increases, which were between 9 and 11 per cent while inflation and the cost of living reached 27.5 per cent, do not even begin to cover the unsatisfied basic needs of workers in the sector. The complainant organization states that, regardless of the rate of inflation, the seriousness of this issue lies in the fact that the State ignored APINTA’s demands, after its request for collective negotiations, and unilaterally and without consultation implemented an increase by decree, abusing the power vested in it and ignoring the right of trade union associations to represent their workers in pay negotiations.
6. 156. The complainant organization alleges that, far from taking measures to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for negotiation between the competent public authorities and public employees’ organizations on the terms and conditions of employment, the State prevented the opening of negotiations, thereby violating legal and constitutional provisions and ratified international Conventions and deliberately causing serious harm to APINTA, which has been prevented from taking the action that it is entitled to take by law

B. The Government’s reply

1. 157. In its communications dated 28 February 2019 and 9 September 2024, the Government denies that any conduct by the State has prevented or hindered the opening of collective negotiations for INTA workers. It points out that the sectoral collective labour agreement for INTA staff, approved by Decree No. 127/06, was concluded in the framework of the general collective labour agreement for the national public service (approved by Decree No. 66/99) and renewed in the general collective labour agreement for the national public service (approved by Decree No. 274/06).
2. 158. The Government states that: (i) although, until 2011, pay scales were applied separately in each of the sectoral negotiating committees, they were negotiated using a uniform approach in the framework of the general collective labour agreement for the national public service; (ii) as of 2012, the parties themselves agreed to consolidate the pay negotiations for the different sectors of the public service in the negotiating committee for the general collective labour agreement; and (iii) pursuant to this agreement, concluded on 23 May 2012 and approved by Decree No. 923/2012, the parties began to hold all pay negotiations in that general negotiating committee, and it was in this committee that they decided to set a pay scale that is applicable both to workers covered by the general collective labour agreement and to those covered by sectoral collective labour agreements.
3. 159. The Government states that this is the case for INTA workers, who are covered by a sectoral collective labour agreement, approved by Decree No. 127/2006, although subsequent pay negotiations have been conducted at the general level. For this reason, whenever the parties reach an agreement on pay at the general level, they sign different annexes setting out the pay that applies to each sector. In this regard, under Decree No. 445/2017, the pay increase was introduced for all permanent and non-permanent staff covered by the general collective labour agreement for the national public service approved by Decree No. 214/06 and agreed by the parties (the State employer and trade unions), in accordance with section 78 of the aforementioned collective labour agreement.
4. 160. The Government emphasizes that it was the parties to the collective labour agreement themselves who decided that the pay scale applicable to workers in the different sectors of the national public service (including INTA) would be set through collective bargaining conducted in the general negotiating committee. The Government states that this form of bargaining has as its legal basis the rules of coordination provided for in Act No. 24.185, and notably section 5 of its Regulatory Decree No. 447/93.
5. 161. The Government maintains that there has not been any conduct by the State through the MTEySS that has prevented or hindered the opening of the collective negotiations for INTA workers and that, contrary to what the complainant organization claims, it has been the parties to the collective labour agreement themselves who – through the negotiations carried out in the framework of the negotiating committee for the general collective labour agreement – have set on a regular basis the pay increases applicable to INTA workers.
6. 162. The Government also clarifies that the national executive branch has not set wages by decree. Quite the opposite, and in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of Act No. 24.185, the national executive branch has applied, through the issuance of decrees, which are the corresponding administrative acts, the wage agreements freely entered into by the parties, in the exercise of their collective autonomy. The aforementioned section 14 stipulates that: “in the framework of the national public service, which is subject to the provisions of the present Act, the agreement shall be submitted for implementation by the executive branch by means of the corresponding administrative act. The implementing administrative act shall be issued within thirty (30) working days of the signing of the agreement”. In other words, the pay increases were not established unilaterally by decree of the national executive branch as the complainant organization claims. On the contrary, the decrees approved the agreements reached by the trade unions through collective bargaining.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 163. The Committee notes that, in the present case, APINTA alleges that the State, through the MTEySS, prevented or hindered the opening of collective negotiations on the 2017 pay increase for the workforce of INTA, a state-owned and decentralized research body with financial autonomy. The Committee notes that the Government states that there has been no conduct on the part of the national Government that has prevented or hindered the opening of the negotiations for INTA workers.
2. 164. The Committee notes that, according to the complaint, the Government's reply and the documents annexed thereto, a negotiating committee for the sectoral collective labour agreement for INTA staff was established in 2005 and that INTA, together with APINTA, the National Civil Servants’ Union (UPCN) and the State Workers' Association (ATE), agreed on the first sectoral collective labour agreement for INTA staff in 2006.
3. 165. The Committee notes that the complainant organization alleges that: (i) in May and June 2017, it requested the MTEySS to open negotiations formally and to convene the parties in order to establish the negotiating committee; and (ii) in September 2017, the MTEySS informed it that the pay scale in question had been adjusted by decree in June 2017. The Committee notes that the complainant organization alleges that the State, unilaterally and without consultation, and after its request for negotiations, applied an increase by decree, deliberately causing serious harm to APINTA, which was prevented from taking the action that it was entitled to take by law.
4. 166. The Committee notes in this regard that the Government points out that: (i) the sectoral collective labour agreement for INTA staff that was reached in 2006 was signed within the framework of the general collective labour agreement for the national public service; (ii) although, until 2011, the pay scales were applied separately in each of the sectoral negotiating committees, a uniform approach was followed within the framework of the general collective labour agreement for the national public service; (iii) in 2012, it was agreed by means of an agreement of the negotiating committee for the collective labour agreement for the national public service to consolidate the pay negotiations for the different sectors of the public service in the negotiating committee for the general collective labour agreement and, from that time onwards, whenever the parties reach an agreement on pay at the general level, they sign different annexes setting out the pay that applies to each sector; (iv) the pay increases for 2017 were not set unilaterally by decree of the national executive branch; rather, the decrees approved the agreements reached by the trade union stakeholders through collective bargaining; and (v) this form of bargaining has as its legal basis the rules of coordination provided for in Act No. 24.185, and notably section 5 of its Regulatory Decree No. 447/93.
5. 167. The Committee takes note of the Government’s comments regarding the rules applicable to collective bargaining between the national public service and its employees, including INTA.
6. 168. The Committee notes that, according to the 2012 agreement of the negotiating committee for the collective labour agreement for the national public service, while the UPCN stated that it accepted the proposal made by the State employer, the ATE stated that it rejected the new methodology as “contrary to the right to collective bargaining, insofar as the workers in each sector, and their unions, are deprived of the right to negotiate their wages”. For its part, the State indicated that “the proposed methodology was not in conflict with collective bargaining” and that “the majority had declared themselves to be in favour of the approval of the State employer's proposal” which is why “the State employer has proceeded to communicate the resulting amounts and pay scales for the grades and entities covered by the general collective labour agreement”.
7. 169. The Committee has taken note of Decree No. 127/06 that approved the negotiating committee for the sectoral collective labour agreement for INTA staff set up on 31 May and 3 June 2022 and the agreement between the State and the trade unions APINTA, the UPCN and the ATE to update the pay scale for INTA workers. The Committee also notes that the pay scale for INTA staff would have been updated in 2023 and by a joint agreement of 30 August 2024.
8. 170. The Committee notes that the present complaint was submitted a few weeks after APINTA was informed by the MTEySS that the pay scale had been adjusted by decree in June 2017. The Committee also notes that the complainant organization did not send any further information following the submission of the complaint. Taking into account all the above-mentioned elements, the Committee considers that this case is closed and does not require further examination.

The Committee’s recommendation

1. 171. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.