ILCCR: Examination of individual case concerning Convention No. 87, Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, 1948 Argentina (ratification: 1960) Published: 2007


Description:(ILCCR Individual Observation)
Convention:C087
Country:(Argentina)
Session of the Conference:96
Document:22
Subject classification: Freedom of Association
Subject classification: Collective Bargaining and Agreements
Subject: Freedom of Association, Collective Bargaining, and Industrial Relations
Display the document in:  French   Spanish
Document No. (ilolex): 132007ARG087

A Government representative said that several issues in the report of the Committee of Experts warranted clarification: the questions related to Decree No. 272/2006 and the complaint made by the Central of Argentine Workers (CTA) concerning the granting of trade union status. She expressed concern that her country might have been included in the list due to reasons other than those which had been mentioned in the request for more information or the analysis of the case from a juridical point of view, other possible reasons having been omitted.

She referred to the provisions of section 24 of Act No. 25877 and its regulatory Decree No. 272/2006 respecting strikes in essential services and the establishment of minimum services. While the report recognized the fact that the new national legislation constituted an improvement, the Committee of Experts should have explained in detail the possible reasons for concern, given that the legislation had followed the principles established by the ILO supervisory bodies and was therefore in full conformity with Convention No. 87. Indeed, section 24 provided that only health care and hospital services, the production and distribution of drinking water, electricity and gas and air traffic control were considered essential. It also provided that, exceptionally, other services could be considered essential, as determined by an independent commission after the initiation of a conciliation procedure, as provided for in the legislation, and only in the following circumstances: (a) when, due to the duration and territorial extension of the activity's interruption, the measure might threaten the lives or safety of all or part of the population; (b) when it involved a public service of extreme importance, in accordance with the criteria of the ILO supervisory bodies. Furthermore, the legislation provided for consultation with employers' and workers' organizations, in accordance with ILO principles.

In conformity with the law, the Executive had issued the above Decree after consulting all the social partners concerned. This Decree expressly provided that the independent committee would be called the Guarantees Commission and would be composed of five members with recognized technical, professional or academic competence in matters relating to work, labour or constitutional law as well as considerable experience. Consequently there had been genuine progress compared to the former legislation.

With regard to the procedure initiated by the CTA to request trade union status, the speaker indicated that the Government had fulfilled the procedure provided for under the current legislation, which the applicant organization had expressly accepted by submitting its request for trade union status within the framework of Act No. 23551 and its regulatory Decree. The authorities had continuously followed the procedures and guaranteed respect for the rights provided by articles 14bis, 17 and 18 of the national Constitution, ILO Conventions No. 87 and No. 98 and the abovementioned legislation, with regard to all the trade union organizations eligible for the procedure. Naturally, respecting the procedures and guaranteeing the exercise of the right to be heard for all those concerned, in an administrative procedure in which first-, second- and third-level trade union organizations are involved in an adversarial process, necessarily implied a certain period of time in accordance with the importance of the procedure.

With reference to the general restrictions on freedom of association that Act No. 23551 respecting trade union organizations allegedly caused, she indicated that the Act was not contrary to the provisions of ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98. Indeed, in its formulation, not only had the provisions of both Conventions been taken into account, but also the interpretations that had been given with regard to the scope of the concept of freedom of association, both in the discussions that had taken place in the ILO, and in the evaluation that her country had received from the Professor Nicolás Válticos' mission to Buenos Aires in 1984. The purpose of his mission had been to present his observations to the Government with regard to the legislation that was being formulated at the time and would replace Act No. 22105 respecting workers' trade union associations, which had been issued by the military dictatorship in 1979. The report of Valticos' mission had recommended that the legislation contain three major aspects. The first related to the principle of representativeness, in the context of trade union plurality and the resulting diversity. The second concerned the authority of the State to intervene in matters concerning the constitution and the formation of trade union organizations, and guarantees for the representation of minorities. The third addressed the possibility to join international workers' organizations and protection against discriminatory anti-union acts.

With regard to the first aspect, the mission's report accepted two types of organization: those with trade union status and those that were simply registered. With regard to the latter, it was provided that they had to be allowed to carry out their activities which had at the very least to enable them to represent and defend the interests of their members in the event of individual grievances. The powers arising from section 23 of Act No. 23551 strictly complied with this observation. Furthermore, Executive Decree No. 757 of 2001 provided that all registered trade union organizations had the right to defend and represent the individual interests of their members before the State and employers. Along the same lines, the document also provided that the most representative trade unions enjoyed preferential rights, particularly in matters relating to collective bargaining. In this respect, the powers arising from section 31 of the Act concerned were in full conformity with the report's recommendations.

With regard to "trade union monopoly", the country's legislation was also in conformity with the report. In no way did Argentine legislation impose a trade union monopoly, since it accepted the possibility to form trade unions in an unrestricted manner and without prior authorization by the State, granting certain privileges to specific organizations based on the system of representation corresponding to national practice. In this respect, it was important to mention section 28 of this Act, which provided a system to determine which of two associations claiming to represent the same group of workers had majority support for the purposes of granting trade union status.

With regard to the second aspect, the legislation was in full conformity with international instruments, with regard to which her country had not received a single observation from the Committee of Experts. Indeed, Act No. 23551 contained a chapter devoted to trade union protection and specific provisions concerning interference by the administration. It also fully respected the right of organizations to formulate their statutes and administer their assets, in strict respect of the principles of organizations' independence.

With regard to the third aspect as well, there could be no doubt that the legislators had followed the guidelines set out in the ILO Expert's report, as was evidenced by the active international participation of Argentina's trade unions in international organizations. With regard to the CTA, she reiterated that since 2002 it had represented workers in the Conference, participated in the Commission on Employment, Productivity and Minimum Wage, and MERCOSUR, together with trade union organizations from different international forums, without any type of exclusion or discrimination. The legislation had guaranteed the creation and functioning of all the trade union organizations that the workers had considered necessary to form. In Argentina there were currently more than 2,800 first-, second- and third-level trade union organizations. This indicated that, in the 19 years in which Act No. 23551 had been in force, every month a trade union had obtained trade union status, with one trade union organization existing for every 3,500 wage workers. The significance of these numbers clearly indicated that freedom of association in Argentina was not only a right, but was being widely and fully exercised, thereby demonstrating that the Government had faithfully complied with the conclusions made by the Conference Committee in 2005.

Finally, the speaker reaffirmed the Government's commitment to continue to be open and receptive to carrying out technical cooperation activities with the ILO, aimed at promoting social dialogue and achieving consensus among all the social partners concerned.

The Worker members pointed out that, although this case had already been discussed several times, several issues raised by the Committee of Experts over many years still remained. It was therefore a matter of concern that the CTA had still not received a reply to its request, made three years ago, to obtain trade union status, a fact which impacted on its members. As the Committee of Experts had made clear, the very principle of freedom of association was at risk in Argentina and examples of breach of compliance with Convention No. 87 were numerous: dismissals of union representatives or workers affiliated to the CTA, non-recognition by the Government and employers of the CTA in the railway sector or the paper industry. However, in practice the CTA was operating and was recognized both by national and international bodies and its representatives were participating in the Conference. In the context of a country where two organizations were active both geographically and sectorially, it was unacceptable that one of them, the CTA, did not enjoy the same legal conditions. The Government had to act without delay on the request for union status made by the CTA.

The Worker members also drew attention to the situation in the education sector in Neuquén province, and especially to the decree replacing teachers on strike as well as the intervention by the police at a demonstration in support of wage claims during which a union member had been killed.

The way in which the minimum service was determined was also a concern, as the Guarantees Commission which determined these services only had a consultative role and the final decision was always in the hands of the administrative authority. As the Committee on Freedom of Association had requested in examining this situation, the Government had to supply information on the number of cases in which the administrative authority had modified the terms of the Guarantees Commission's opinion.

The Employer members wished to state in light of the selection for discussion of the case of Argentina, i.e. a country which did not appear on the preliminary list of cases, that there was a need to review the methods of work of the Committee. Specific criteria was needed which would make it possible to address additional cases not appearing on the preliminary list. However, in the light of the current methods of work, the care taken in selecting additional cases and the very limited number of cases appearing on the preliminary list, the inclusion of Argentina in the list of cases was correct. Turning to the present case, they thanked the Government for the information it provided which was both wide-ranging and extensive, going to some extent beyond the comments of the Committee of Experts. The Committee of Experts would need to give its appreciation of the new information presented by the Government before this Committee could discuss it.

This was not a case concerning fundamental matters of freedom of association but more technical in nature. Although the comments of the Committee of Experts were somewhat more extensive than those made during the last discussion of this case in 2005, the Experts had once again confined themselves to a presentation of the issues without making any analysis. In essence, the Committee of Experts requested information to get more clarity on several matters that it highlighted. The Committee of Experts had requested information on the application in practice of the provisions of Act No. 25877 concerning minimum services and the advisory role of employers' and workers' organizations in this context. In the Employer members' view, there was no requirement in Convention No. 87 to provide for this type of procedure and the Government had gone beyond the requirements of the Convention in providing a role to the social partners in determining minimum services. The Committee of Experts had requested further information in this respect.

The Committee of Experts had also raised issues relevant to the length of time it had taken to grant the CTA "trade union status". The hierarchy of different statuses that unions might have was not exclusive to Argentina. Many levels could exist based on quite complex requirements. The matter at issue seemed to be more one of inter-union competition rather than a question of the application of Convention No. 87 in law and in practice.

Not much information was provided with regard to the last three matters raised in the Committee of Experts' observation. On the 30-day suspension of 50 school directors in the province of Neuquén, the Experts noted that the matter had been examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association and appeared to have been resolved. On the assault against a member of the communications sector union and pressure on workers to leave the union, they noted that the National Appeals Chamber had upheld the lower court's decision to sanction the enterprise for discrimination against five union members. Finally, regarding the dismissal of 168 pilots in the context of a collective dispute, the Experts noted that the dismissals had been cancelled and a new collective agreement had been concluded. All this tended to indicate that the matters were resolved and that the law in Argentina worked appropriately. Thus, all that was needed of the Government was more information to clarify the situation with precision.

A Worker member of Argentina stated that it was unacceptable to have any further delays in the commitments his country had made to the ILO with regard to the Committee of Expert's observations concerning freedom of association. The current Act respecting trade unions had been adopted in 1989, been examined by the Committee of Experts on 13 occasions and twice been submitted to the Conference Committee. Despite the two direct contacts missions and more than six technical assistance missions which took place between 1998 and 2005, the Act had not been amended, nor had the Executive sent a bill to the Congress.

The speaker pointed out that the number of cases that had been submitted to the Committee on Freedom of Association from Argentina had increased considerably. A mission had been organized on 30 August 2005 for purposes of implementing the Conference Committee's recommendations. Another mission had been organized for the same purpose in February 2007, giving no results in so far as the Government was concerned. The delay of successive governments in addressing the observations showed that there was no, nor had there ever been, any political intention to amend a single section of the Act respecting trade unions.

He indicated that the Central of Argentine Workers (CTA) was recognized in national and international spheres as one of the two trade union centrals in Argentina and participated in the institutions of MERCOSUR. This, however, did not solve the problem of workers, who, in the absence of legislation guaranteeing freedom of association and democracy in trade union matters, not only could not freely organize, but were also discriminated against when they did. It was not solely an issue of the Argentine legislation being contrary to Convention No. 87, but of the practical consequences for workers who lacked protection and guarantees, which was the result of inadequate representation. According to a recent study by the Ministry of Labour, a mere 12.7 per cent of all businesses enjoyed direct trade union representation in the workplace, and only 52.2 per cent of businesses enjoyed direct trade union representation for enterprises of more than 200 workers. In August 2006, a conflict had broken out between the Alto Paraná enterprise and the chainsaw workers affiliated with the CTA. The reaction of the enterprise had consisted in notifying a series of dismissals and the suspension of the principal activists. Furthermore, a compulsory payment of dues was deducted from the workers' pay for the benefit of the trade union for rural workers, as they were considered to be rural workers. This was a direct consequence of the Act which determines affiliation to one or another trade union in accordance with the activity of the employer, workers wishing to belong to another union having no say in the matter. On 17 November 2006, Mr Guillermo Carrera, the former Secretary of the CTA who had been developing concerted trade union activities in the company, had been dismissed.

Since the CTA belonged to the category of so-called "simply registered" entities, it lacked protection as a trade union and, therefore, the enterprise was, as a principle, able to proceed with a number of dismissals, which was a direct consequence of the current trade union Act, which only protects representatives of entities with trade union status. This protection is what the Committee of Experts referred to as the "privileges" of entities with trade union status, which were denied to those considered to be "simply registered".

The 2001 crisis had been followed by sustained growth in the gross domestic product and a significant recovery in the industrial sector. Nevertheless, the distribution of wealth continued to be unequal and many workers had not benefited from the profits made as a result of the economic growth. As a result, workers needed to organize and fight for an equitable distribution of the wealth.

He expressed his concern that trade union leaders continued to receive threats, trade union premises were the object of continuous robberies and the murder of Carlos Fuentealba, a unionist of the CTA of Neuquén, during a demonstration and a teachers' strike in that province.

This case is important for two reasons: the Government's continuous procrastination with regard to amending the Act and the long period of time the case had been the subject of observations by the Committee of Experts and this Committee, with no evidence to indicate that the Government had the will to implement the commitments made to the ILO supervisory bodies. Such procrastination could only be interpreted as a refusal by the Government to amend the Act respecting trade unions. It is in this context that its refusal to grant full recognition to the CTA had to be interpreted. It had been almost three years since the request for trade union status by the CTA had been made, yet the Government continued to delay the procedure with meaningless administrative measures, thus preventing workers and the organizations affiliated with the CTA from fully enjoying their right to representation. The Committee of Experts had urged the Government to resolve the issue of the CTA's request for trade union status. There were, however, no signs that that procedure was on its way to completion and that trade union status would be granted. He requested the Workers' group to continue to support them, so as to ensure that, through the assistance of the ILO, a draft amendment of the Argentine legislation would be formulated to bring it in full conformity with Convention No. 87.

Finally, he said that in many cases form obstructed substance, just as the Argentine model for trade unions thwarted the fundamental and universal rights of many workers. It was not an issue of majorities or minorities, but of universal principles and rights which characterize humanity. It concerned the centuries-old debate about democracy, freedom and equality, with no discrimination of any kind.

The Employer member of Argentina stated that the employers in his country were aware that the re-establishment of democracy had been achieved at the cost of great sacrifice by society, which had recovered its civil liberties. Argentina had ratified Convention No. 87 and, with it, committed itself to the principle of freedom of association and the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

The speaker wished to clarify a number of points. Firstly, no climate of impunity exists in his country. Secondly, social dialogue and collective bargaining existed in Argentina in the context of the issues of employment and the minimum wage and in different forums as the ILO, the OAS and MERCOSUR, in which employers and workers participated. When needed, the employers had requested technical assistance from the ILO concerning the issue of representativeness. This could be a means to resolve the pending issues, as the Government was open to dialogue.

This Committee was not the place to debate the issue of the distribution of wealth. The trade unions were active in the private sector and there was no anti-union discrimination. If such discrimination existed, there were judicial and administrative remedies for the resolution of problems that may arise. Thirdly, both trade union centrals had legal personality. There were unions affiliated with CTA which had trade union status and their leaders enjoyed trade union immunities. Finally, the technical issues would have to be resolved in an equitable manner.

Another Worker member of Argentina expressed, on behalf of the General Confederation of Labour (CGT), his surprise at the fact that this case concerning his country was being heard in light of the progress made, as demonstrated by the actions of the entire Argentinean trade union movement. He stated that since the crisis of 2001 during which unemployment, exclusion and poverty had grown, the trade unions represented the force of opposition and provided a means of finding political solutions, through social dialogue, with a view to guaranteeing the democratic system, the recovery of employment and social cohesion, with an important role for the CGT in this context. The workers' movement in his country was one of the pillars of democracy.

The speaker considered that the concept of freedom of association was based on a permanent tension between two ideas: the freedom to establish trade unions and the effectiveness of trade union action. Both concepts should go hand in hand and pluralism was not necessarily synonymous with quality and effectiveness of trade union action. The trade union system in his country guaranteed the autonomy of the workers to establish trade unions freely, thus strengthening the effectiveness of trade union action. Trade union unity was compatible with the right to trade union pluralism and was therefore in line with freedom of association according to the letter and scope of Convention No. 87. The Argentinean industrial relations system had the largest number of affiliated workers in Latin America and their collective agreements covered the largest number of workers in all of America, both North and South. It was the trade unions, and not the confederations, that negotiated and concluded the collective agreements and undertook through their shop stewards, to verify its effective application in the workplace. Every four years, the trade unions have elections and the affiliates expressed themselves freely through direct and secret vote in order to confirm or withdraw their confidence from the trade union leadership. This was the basis of the force and legitimacy of trade unions, thus there was no need to request the granting of such legitimacy or a document evidencing registration. Trade unions had been the privileged actors in a system of industrial relations in which they had participated in 2006 a thousand successful joint negotiations.

The speaker stated that trade union activity was protected in the general laws and in particular the law which regulated trade union activity. Since 2005, the courts had received a large number of lawsuits alleging anti-union discrimination and had ordered the reinstatement and payment of wages due to the workers who suffered prejudice, in the framework of the application of standards so that no one was left without protection. In Argentina, the right to strike and its exercise was guaranteed. However, isolated and regrettable incidents could take place like the death of trade unionist Fuentealba, in the province of Neuquén. This incident had been unanimously and jointly condemned by both confederations in his country, with the calling of a nationwide strike. He stated that another fact, which proved what he had just said, was that he had undertaken the post of Secretary-General of the Trade Union Coordination of the Southern Cone and, in that capacity, could state that all the confederations grouped in that body strove to strengthen the trade union movement in a democratic and progressive political framework.

The trade union confederations active in Argentina were also represented and fully integrated in all the participatory and consultative institutions provided for in the law. For example, both confederations participated in the social and labour institutions of MERCOSUR. Furthermore, they participated in the collective bargaining processes in the public and private sectors. They also participated in international delegations. There was still, nevertheless, some steps to be taken and problems to resolve. This was the challenge. Certain questions had to be addressed on the basis of the economic, social and cultural reality against which every evaluation of the implementation of standards should be measured.

He concluded by thanking the ILO for the support and assistance provided during the last crisis, emphasizing that Argentina was one of the countries in which the Decent Work Country Programme was in force, with the participation of workers and employers. He praised the history of the trade union movement in his country and pledged to continue moving forward toward the consolidation of democracy, the just distribution of wealth and the full recognition of social justice for workers and the entire population.

The Worker member of Norway expressed satisfaction that the two main labour centres of Argentina, the CGT and CTA, were now active members of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and active participants in the ILO Conference, both organizations being representative. She noted with satisfaction the recognition of the CTA by the Government but also noted with concern that the CTA had not been granted "trade union status" and was thus prevented from exercising its right to bargain collectively, represent workers in conflicts, go on strike, collect union dues and exercise other trade union rights. Furthermore, Act No. 23551 continued to allow for the recognition of only one union per industry and geographical region and, as a result, new groups of workers were effectively excluded from the right to organize and engage in trade union activities.

A country that truly respected labour rights should be willing to recognize all groups of workers that wished to form national trade unions and trade union confederations, regardless of their political orientation. After one of the most dramatic economic crises in Latin America, the Argentinean economy had achieved a strong growth rate, low inflation and an unemployment rate that had dropped considerably. But for inequality to decline and for all Argentineans to enjoy the benefits of economic growth, there was a need to further strengthen trade union rights so that all trade unions and confederations in the country could carry out their full trade union functions. Both the CTA and the CGT were strong and representative organizations, which deserved the right to bargain collectively, collect union dues, and otherwise represent their members. And the workers of Argentina deserved to be represented by the trade union of their choice. She called upon the Government of Argentina to grant without delay trade union status to the CTA and to modify Act No. 23551 to allow trade union pluralism. It was unacceptable for a democratic country like Argentina not to be in full compliance with Convention No. 87 and full compliance would not be achieved until the CTA was granted trade union status. It was unacceptable to wait any longer.

The Worker member of Uruguay stated that he had not attended the meeting to discuss the recognition of the Central of Argentine Workers (CTA). The subject was not related to that issue, but more to equality, because multinational enterprises could not be affiliated. What was at stake was not the denial of its "trade union status" as much as the limitations set on participation on an equal footing. It was for that reason that employers had to be asked to recognize trade union activity.

The Worker member of Spain spoke on behalf of the two main trade unions of his country, Comisiones Obreras and the General Workers' Union, and considered that the Act respecting trade unions was not in conformity with Convention No. 87, which requires the Government to guarantee the right for all workers to freely establish organizations of their own choosing and ensure that the legislation does not favour one union over another.

He pointed out that the Committee on Freedom of Association had already, on several occasions in the past, criticized the fact that the organizations with trade union status enjoyed a number of exclusive privileges which were denied to other organizations and might influence a worker's decision as to which trade union to join. The denial of trade union status violated the principle of equality among trade unions and the resulting limitation of rights was contrary to the very principle of freedom of association. A trade union without the right to bargain collectively or the right to strike had no raison d'être. The difference in representativeness among trade unions was not reason enough to deny less representative trade union organizations the essential means to defend their members, which without a doubt included collective bargaining, the declaration of trade disputes, trade union protection and the collection of union dues. The Argentine legislation denied such means to organizations which did not have trade union status. He recalled that unity among trade unions had not to be imposed through legislative means and indicated that he hoped that the Government would take steps without delay to bring the trade union legislation into conformity with Convention No. 87 and grant trade union status to the Central of Argentine Workers (CTA).

The Government member of Mexico expressed the surprise of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States (GRULAC) for the list of cases to be examined at the current meeting of the Conference, as in his view, the necessary transparency had been absent in its elaboration.

He highlighted the questions on which he founded his opinion, in particular: that the preliminary list of potential cases to be considered by the Committee traditionally served as a basis for the elaboration of a reduced list during the sessions; the inclusion of countries which did not figure on the preliminary list had an adverse effect on these countries taking into account that they did not have the necessary time to prepare their comments - moreover, a country which did not figure on the preliminary list could not present abbreviated documents; the same technical criteria which served as a basis for the preparation of the preliminary list should apply to the selection of cases for examination and the inclusion of other countries; the reasons given for the inclusion were surprising, as while certain cases were considered to be cases of progress. He emphasized that the question of process was just as important as the substance and that the main question was that the rules of procedure had not been respected in the preparation of the list of cases.

The Government member of Brazil supported the statement made with respect to GRULAC by the Government member of Mexico regarding the need to assure transparency in the selection of cases. The Government's statement responded to the points raised and also underlined the close collaboration between Brazil, Argentina and other MERCOSUR member States to promote and reinforce social dialogue in the region. With the support of the ILO, the Argentine Government would continue to improve employment conditions while at the same time reinforcing national democratic institutions.

The Government representative said that any help was welcome and that the comments provided by the representatives of the employers and the workers would be taken into account. She assured the Committee that she had taken due note of all the questions and subjects raised and stated that given the technical nature of the legislation, it was not necessary to enter into the details of the debate.

The Worker members concluded by asking the Government to take action without further delay to grant the trade union status requested by the CTA; to adopt the necessary amendments to Act No. 23551; to amend Decree No. 272/06 so that, in case of disagreement between the parties of the determination of minimum service, the final decision did not go back to the administrative authority; to provide information on the number of cases in which the administrative authority had changed the terms of the Guarantees Commission's opinion; and to accept technical assistance in order to revise the legislation and ensure its practical application with respect to attributing union status to the trade unions.

The Employer members recalled, in reply to the comments made on the inclusion of Argentina in the list of cases, that the Committee had just gone through a year-long process of consultations and had reached consensus over a set of methods of work including the criteria for the selection of cases. Furthermore, a briefing had been provided to the members of the Committee to ensure full transparency in the process of selection.

Turning to the issue of Argentina, the Employer members observed that they disagreed with the comments made by the Worker members because there was no indication in the Committee of Experts' report that there was a problem with the law in Argentina. There were requests for more information but no indication that Act No. 23551 fell short of the requirements of the Convention. Although this might prove to be the case in the future on the basis of the information to be provided by the Government, there was no basis for the time being to request the Government to change its law. The Committee of Experts wished to see how the law worked in practice in order to make an assessment. The Government should therefore be asked to provide a report addressing the issues identified by the Committee of Experts.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed. The Committee noted that the issues raised by the Committee of Experts in its observation referred to the delayed response by the authorities with regard to the request for trade union status submitted by the Central of Argentine Workers (CTA), as well as various allegations of anti-union acts and the request for information on the application in practice of the legislation respecting the establishment of minimum services.

The Committee took note of the Government's detailed statements on the legislation regarding essential services and the establishment of minimum services and concerning the creation and functioning of the independent commission by virtue of Decree No. 272/2006, as well as the procedure for the request for trade union status undertaken by the Central of Argentine Workers (CTA) and the provisions of Act No. 23551 respecting trade union organizations. Furthermore, the Committee took note of the Government's statements indicating that the CTA participated in various national and international forums without discrimination. It particularly noted that the Government had indicated that it was open to dialogue and technical cooperation and that a tripartite commission was being considered to examine the issues mentioned by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee urged the Government to reply to the request for trade union status submitted by the CTA, before the next session of the Committee of Experts, taking into account all of the provisions of the Convention. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would send a full report this year on all of the issues relating to the application of the Convention, including those raised in previous years on trade union legislation, and hoped that the Committee of Experts would be in a position to evaluate all of the information relating to the allegations of anti-union acts, as well as the issues related to the Guarantees Commission advising on the establishment of minimum services.

The Committee requested the Government, with all the social partners and the assistance of the ILO, to elaborate draft legislation for the full application of the Convention, taking into account all of the comments of the Committee of Experts.
ILO Home NORMES home ILOLEX home Universal Query NATLEX

For further information, please contact the International Labour Standards Department (NORMES) by email:
Copyright © 2006 International Labour Organization (ILO)
Disclaimer
webinfo@ilo.org