Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 16, 1955

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 87. The following complaints were before the Committee : a communication from the World Federation of Trade Unions, dated 28 December 1954, together with a supplementary letter dated 15 February 1955 ; a communication from the Metal Trades Workers' Federation (C.G.T, France), dated 28 January 1955 ; and a communication dated 3 February 1955 from the Metal Trades Workers' Union of the Democratic Republic of Germany. These complaints were communicated to the Argentine Government. To these complaints must be added several other communications drawn up in similar terms, some, dated 19 and 26 February and 7 April 1955, emanating from the Free Trade Union Confederation of the Democratic Republic of Germany, and the rest, dated 14 March 1955, presented by the National Trade Union for the Metal Trades of Hungary. These communications, which added no new elements to the complaints previously mentioned, were accordingly not transmitted to the Argentine Government. As all these different complaints relate to identical or related questions, they may conveniently be examined together. The complainants make the following allegations.
2. 88. A Spanish worker, Bautista Nuez, was expelled by the Argentine Government because of his political and occupational activities, and placed by force on a boat sailing to a Spanish port in order to be handed over to the authorities in that country. The World Federation of Trade Unions declared subsequently, however, that the person concerned had been put ashore in Brazil.
3. 89. In the course of May and June 1954 the Argentine Government, with the aid of the police, repressed a strike of metal workers who were struggling for better living conditions, and made numerous arrests. In this way, the Argentine Government infringed the trade union rights of the workers.
   • ANALYSIS OF THE REPLY
4. 90. In its communication dated 12 April 1955, the Government presented its observations with respect to the second allegation (paragraph 89 above), with the reservation that further supplementary information would be sent later.
5. 91. Not having ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (No. 87), 1948, or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention (No. 98), 1949, the Argentine Government, referring to the opinion which it expressed in an earlier case, makes express reservations with respect to the competence of the Committee on Freedom of Association to consider questions which are not dealt with in a Convention ratified by the Argentine Republic. Desiring, however, to clarify the matter, the Government does not press this question, considering the ratification or non-ratification of a Convention as a matter of pure form.
6. 92. Before entering into the details of the matter, the Government declares that, while the State must guarantee the full exercise of trade union rights - a question which is no longer a matter for discussion in Argentina-and ensure that the decisions of a trade union organisation, adopted by a majority in accordance with its Constitution and rules, shall be respected, it must also protect the community against any act by an organisation which is contrary to public order or to law.
7. 93. The Government then explains the facts which are the subject of the complaints. During April 1954 negotiations took place at the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare between the Metal Trade Workers' Union and the Argentine Metal Industries Federation. These negotiations failed, and the employees of the undertakings in the metal industry started a go-slow strike. On 28 April 1954, the union formally decided to call a strike, which was to develop progressively. By 21 May, the strike was general throughout the metal trades industry. On 31 May, a collective agreement was signed before the labour authority and submitted for approval to an extraordinary congress of delegates from the various sections of the union. On 1 June 1954, the matter was discussed by the assembly, but a section of those present opposed the ratification of the collective agreement and the discussions had to be suspended on several occasions. On 3 June, the general secretary of the union announced to the delegates that several sections had resumed work. On 4 June, on the occasion of a further meeting of the delegates, demonstrators tried to enter the room and, in the disturbance which followed, several persons were injured. When the meeting actually became riotous, the police were called in. When calm was restored, the general secretary announced that a decision had been taken to raise the strike as from 7 June. This decision was approved by the majority of the assembly. Those who opposed, however, demonstrated in the street, convened meetings and appointed a strike committee. These demonstrations continued for several days, but the police did not actively intervene, but simply limited themselves to maintaining order. But on 7 June, the day fixed for the resumption of work, a serious incident occurred when a group of workers forcibly attempted to prevent other workers from entering a factory. Two people were killed and several injured. Similar incidents took place at other spots. After these occurrences, the police arrested 32 persons, including elements who were not employed in the trade in question. Those detained were handed over to justice on charges of homicide and committing bodily harm, in accordance with articles 79 and 89 of the Penal Code. Order was quickly restored and normal work was resumed in all the undertakings of the Argentine metal trades. The Government concludes that these facts show clearly that the workers were freely able to make use of their rights and that, while the police arrested a number of persons, who, moreover, did not belong to the industry concerned in the dispute, it was not in order to break the strike but to protect the life of citizens. Accordingly, declares the Government, it cannot admit that these measures should be the subject of an examination, as the Government alone has sovereign responsibility to apply general legislation in its territory.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

• General Observations
  94. 94 The Committee recalls that, at its meeting in November 1954, it was called upon to consider a complaint from the Trade Union International of Metal and Engineering Industries (Vienna, W.F.T.U), which, in a telegram dated 18 June 1954, alleged that 57 Argentine workers had been arrested, that some of them had been murdered and that they had also been subjected to " provocation " in the legitimate exercise of their right to strike. In view of the imprecise nature of these allegations, the Governing Body, on the recommendation of the Committee on Freedom of Association, decided that the complaint did not call for any action to be taken.
  95. 95 The Committee observes that the allegations presented in the present case are more precise than those presented in the earlier case. The complainants indicate that a number of workers in the Argentine metal trades were arrested on the occasion of a strike called during May and June 1954 and that one particular person, Mr. Bautista Nuez, was expelled from Argentine territory. In these circumstances, the Director-General communicated the complaints to the Argentine Government, which presented its observations. The Committee has taken the view that it should submit these new complaints to a preliminary examination in accordance with the provisions of the existing procedure.
  96. 96 Referring to the opinion expressed in Case No. 122, the Argentine Government, which has not ratified Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, makes reservations with respect to the competence of the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee took the view, when examining Case No. 12, that it was not called upon to examine further the question of competence, as this problem had already been the subject of full discussion at the 33rd Session of the International Labour Conference in 1950, at which session the Conference decided to approve the decisions of the Governing Body and of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations concerning the establishment of a procedure of fact-finding and conciliation in matters of freedom of association. Having confirmed this point of view on several occasions 4, the Committee considers that in the present case there is no occasion for it to depart from the precedents which it has already laid down.
  97. 97 The Committee, however, notes with satisfaction that the Argentine Government, while making its reservations, has nevertheless seen fit to present its observations in order to collaborate with the I.L.O in clarifying the facts.
• Allegation concerning the Expulsion of Mr. Bautista Nuez
  98. 98 According to the complainants, a Spanish worker, Bautista Nuez, was expelled from Argentine territory and forcibly placed by the Argentine Government on a boat bound for Spain ; however, he is stated to have been put ashore in Brazil.
  99. 99 With regard to this allegation, the Argentine Government has not yet presented any observations, but the Committee considers that, in view of the very nature of the allegation, there is no need to postpone examining it. In several earlier cases, the Committee has emphasised that it is not called upon to deal with the general question of the status of aliens unless it has direct repercussions on the exercise of trade union rights. The Committee also recalls that, in a similar case which the Director-General submitted to it for opinion before communicating the complaint to the government concerned, and which related to an Argentine law concerning the expulsion of aliens, it took the view that the question at issue was not within its competence and, without submitting the complaint to the government for its observations, it recommended the Governing Body to dismiss the case.
  100. 100 In the present case, the Committee has noted, firstly, that it does not appear from the complaint that Mr. Nuez was expelled for specifically trade union reasons and, secondly, that the person concerned was not returned to Spain but was put ashore in Brazil, as the complainant expressly recognises.
  101. 101 In these circumstances, the Committee considers that, although the Government has not yet presented any observations thereon, there is no ground for pursuing the examination of this aspect of the complaint.
• Allegation concerning the Arrest of Several Workers
  102. 102 According to the complainants, the Argentine Government forcibly intervened to put down a strike called for purely occupational reasons by workers in the metal trades in May and June 1954. In particular, the police are stated to have made many arrests.
  103. 103 According to the Government's statement, the Metal Trade Workers' Union organised a strike in May 1954 when negotiations with the employers had failed. The strike is said to have started without incidents and to have developed progressively from 17 to 31 May 1954. On the latter date, a collective agreement was signed, but the approval of the agreement gave rise to animated discussions in the union which continued for several days. On 4 June, when there was a further meeting of delegates, groups of demonstrators attempted, according to the Government, to force an entrance into the hall ; the police were called in to restore order and, when calm was restored, the majority of the assembly adopted the collective agreement and decided in favour of a resumption of work on 7 June 1954. However, the demonstrations continued, and on 7 June disturbances took place at several places involving workers who desired to resume work and demonstrators who desired to prevent them from doing so. Following these incidents, in the course of which two workers were killed and several others injured, the police arrested a total of 32 persons and brought them before the competent courts on charges of homicide and committing bodily harm.
  104. 104 It appears from the details given by the Government that the workers in the metal trades were able to make full use of the right to strike without intervention by the Government, and that the police intervened only when disturbances had been provoked on the occasion of a meeting of the union by demonstrators who had nothing to do with the meeting and later when, a resumption of work having been decided upon by the union, several persons were killed or injured when workers returning to work met other workers who were maintaining the strike. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the complainants have not offered sufficient proof in support of their allegation that the Argentine Government infringed trade union rights by prohibiting and repressing a strike.
  105. 105 The Government points out that the police arrested 32 persons in all and brought them before the competent courts charged with certain common law offences. The Government adds, however, that it is opposed to any examination of these measures, in view of the fact that it is sovereign with respect to the application of general legislation in the national territory.
  106. 106 In this connection, the Committee recalls that, in carrying out its mandate, it has always considered it its duty to reassure itself that, in cases of detention, the persons concerned actually benefit from judicial guarantees, a point of view confirmed by the Governing Body when adopting these recommendations.
  107. 107 The Committee wishes to draw the attention of the Argentine Government to the fact that governments desiring to co-operate with the Committee -a desire also expressed in its reply by the Argentine Government itself, as the Committee has noted with satisfaction-have furnished, either spontaneously or in accordance with a request from the Committee, the necessary information to enable the Committee to examine the allegations made in full knowledge of all the circumstances.
  108. 108 In the present case, however, the Government has not confined itself to a mere statement that arrests took place because of the commission of common law offences, but has specified that the 32 persons detained were charged with particular offences, namely homicide or committing bodily harm (articles 79 and 89 of the Argentine Penal Code) and that they have, in actual fact, been brought before the competent courts. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that there is no ground for it to pursue the matter further.