Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 367, Marzo 2013

1. 143. The Committee last examined this complaint at its March 2012 meeting when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 363rd Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 313th Session (March 2012), paras 248–261].
2. 144. The Government sent its observations in communications of 17 May and 22 October 2012.
3. 145. 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 146. In its previous examination of the case, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 363rd Report, para. 261]:
   • The Committee once again urges the Government to: (1) conduct the requested investigation immediately into all the allegations of anti-union dismissals (14 trade union members and one union officer according to the complainant; 11 workers according to the company) and to keep it informed in this regard; (2) inform it whether the dismissed workers, including trade union officer Mr Rubén Óscar Godoy, have taken legal action; and (3) conduct an investigation into the allegation that on 18 April 2008, the day of the strike, the police used force against the strikers, leaving seven injured (one of them, Mr José Lagos, seriously), and send information on the outcome of the investigation as well as on the outcome of the complaints against these acts filed with the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires Province.

B. The Government’s replies

1. 147. In its communications of 17 May and 22 October 2012 the Government states, in response to the Committee’s requests, that investigations into the alleged anti-union practices of the Toledo SA Supermarkets are being conducted by the judiciary, which is the body responsible for investigating the resolving disputes between private parties and which, once it has completed its enquiries, will determine whether any action needs to be taken and hand down its ruling accordingly. The Government adds that Labour Courts 1 and 3 of the Department of Justice of Mar del Plata is still investigating the following appeals for trade union protection presented against the said employer: (1) Egiste, Jonathan Eduardo v. Toledo SA Supermarkets, re. protection of trade union rights, File No. 53.555; (2) González, Gastón Alberto Maximiliano v. Toledo SA Supermarkets, re. protection of trade union rights, File No. 53.554; (3) Bravo, Juán Santos and others v. Toledo SA Supermarkets, re. protection of trade union rights, File No. 13684/2008; (4) Falón, Enrique Eusebio v. Toledo SA Supermarkets, re. wage dispute, File No. 13.610/2006; (5) Bravo, Juán Santos v. Toledo SA Supermarkets, re. dismissal, File No. 5877/2010; (6) Deri, Marcelo v. Toledo SA Supermarkets, re. dismissal, File No. 7447/2010; (7) Blanco, Pedro v. Toledo SA Supermarkets, re. wage dispute, File No. 29170 /2009; and (8) Arriola, Rúben v. Toledo SA Supermarkets, re. dismissal, File No. 18.148/2010.
2. 148. The Government also sent the Committee the report of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Mar del Plata indicating that, with respect to complaint No. 250190 “Borda, Ricardo re. infliction of grievous bodily harm” dated 18 April 2008 and lodged with Departmental Investigating Unit No. 8, it was decided on 2 September 2008 to file the case without further action.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 149. The Committee recalls that in the present case the complainant alleges acts of discrimination and, specifically, the anti-union dismissal of 14 trade unionists and a trade union officer by Toledo SA Supermarkets and the use of force against strikers, leaving seven injured. When it examined the case previously [363rd Report, para. 261], the Committee urged the Government to: (1) conduct the requested investigation immediately into all the allegations of anti-union dismissals (14 trade union members and one union officer according to the complainant, 11 workers according to the company) and to keep it informed in this regard; (2) inform it whether the dismissed workers, including trade union officer Mr Rubén Óscar Godoy, have taken legal action; and (3) conduct an investigation into the allegation that on 18 April 2008, the day of the strike, the police made use of force against the striking workers, leaving seven injured (one of them, Mr José Lagos, seriously injured), and send information on the outcome of the investigation as well as on the outcome of the complaints against these acts filed with the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires Province.
2. 150. Regarding the alleged anti-union dismissals, the Committee takes note of the Government’s statement that: (1) three of the workers lodged an appeal for court protection of trade union rights, three lodged an appeal for court protection against dismissal and two lodged an appeal for court protection in respect of a wage dispute; and (2) the judicial enquiries are still ongoing,. The Committee, which understands from the Government’s statement that only eight workers lodged complaints with the judiciary, expresses the firm hope that the judicial authority will very soon hand down its ruling and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome.
3. 151. Regarding the allegation that on 18 April 2008, the day of the strike, the police made use of force against the striking workers, leaving seven of them injured, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Department of Justice in Mar del Plata decided to file complaint No. 250190 lodged by Mr Borda in respect of the infliction of grievous bodily harm, without further action. In this regard, the Committee regrets the long delay between the termination of the investigation in 2008 and the submission of the information by the Government only in 2012. Also, given that the Government does not deny that in the framework of the strike action, the police made use of force against the striking workers, leaving some of them seriously injured, the Committee recalls that the authorities should resort to calling in the police only if there is a genuine threat to public order, and that the intervention of the police should be proportionate to the threat to public order.