Significant changes to the regulation of the right to strike in Argentina

At a glance

• Emergency Decree No. 340/2025 (DNU) classified maritime and river navigation for commercial transport as essential, requiring 75% to 50% operational capacity during strikes, thereby limiting the right to strike in these sectors.
• The General Confederation of Labor (CGT) filed a judicial injunction, arguing the decree is unconstitutional and violates both national and international labor rights, including the right to strike.
• On June 2, a labor court temporarily suspended key sections of the decree; the government appealed, and the final decision is pending.

On May 21, the Official Gazette published DNU through which the government broadened the scope of activities deemed essential and critical in the context of collective labor disputes. This included declaring maritime and / or river navigation—used for the commercial transport of passengers, goods, cargo, related services, and offshore operations—as essential, regardless of the means employed.

It is important to highlight that the DNU established that in the event of a strike or work stoppage:

• Essential services must ensure at least 75% of regular operations.
• Activities of vital importance must maintain at least 50% of operational capacity.

Therefore, this extension limited the sector's right to strike, as minimum services must be maintained during any industrial action, with the official argument being to guarantee the continuity of public services and national production.

Reactions and suspension of the DNU

On May 26, the CGT filed a judicial injunction to suspend the DNU, arguing that the measure is unconstitutional. The CGT maintains that it violates not only the National Constitution (Section 14 bis) but also international treaties, since the minimum service levels imposed effectively prevent the legitimate exercise of the right to strike.

The CGT acted on behalf of the collective of workers, therefore the legal action was brought in the name of all workers in the country.

Among the main arguments presented by the CGT to express its rejection of the DNU are:

• Direct attack to the right to strike: The DNU restrictively regulates the right to strike by arbitrarily expanding the list of activities considered 'essential services' and imposing minimum service levels (from 75% to 50%) that, in practice, prevent legitimate labor action.
• Violation of the National Constitution and international treaties: The DNU breaches Section 14 bis of the National Constitution, Conventions 87 and 98 of the International Labor Organization, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, and other constitutionally protected rules that guarantee freedom of association and the right to strike.

• Unconstitutional use of the DNU: The DNU was issued without the existence of the conditions of necessity and urgency required by Section 99, subsection 3 of the National Constitution, in a context where the National Congress was functioning normally. Reforms to the legal regime of the right to strike cannot be carried out by decree.
• Harm to collective bargaining: The right to strike is essential to balance power in collective bargaining. Its limitation weakens union capacity and reinforces unequal labor relations.

Accordingly, on June 2, the National Labor Appeals Chamber provisionally suspended Sections 2 and 3 of the DNU until a final judgment is issued on the matter.

This decision was appealed by the government and is currently pending resolution.