Provincia de Buenos Aires
Ciudad Automoma de BUENOS AIRES
Ciudad de JUNIN
Ciudad de MERLO
Ciudad de ENSENADA
Ciudad de BERISSO
Ciudad de LA PLATA

Provincia de Tierra del Fuego
RIO GRANDE Provincia de Santa Cruz
Ciudad de LAS HERAS

Provincia de Chubut

Provincia de Río Negro:
Ciudad de CATRIEL
Ciudad de RIO NEGRO

Provincia de Neuquén
Ciudad de CUTRAL - CO
Ciudad de NEUQUEN

Provincia de Mendoza
Ciudad de MENDOZA
Ciudad de GODOY CRUZ
Ciudad de LAS HERAS
Ciudad de MALARGUE

Provincia de Entre Ríos
Ciudad de Entre Río.

Provincia de Chaco
Ciudad de CHACO

Provincia de La Rioja

Provincia de Santa Fe
Ciudad de ROSARIO

Provincia de Santiago del Estero
Ciudad de Santiago del Estero.

Provincia de SALTA
Ciudad de Salta.


Since its inception, the Federation of Former Employees of YPF and associated Groups have achieved important benefits for the former employees of YPF S.A. For example:

I. Compensation to Former Oil Tanker Employees

In 1993, the Argentine Government, as a consequence of the hydrocarbon privatization process that took place in Argentina, passed Decree 546/93, that regulated section 13 of Law 24.145.

Said decree established that YPF (later REPSOL YPF) had to compensate the workers who worked for YPF on oil tankers if said vessels were sold.

To such end, the compensation to be paid was up to 10% of the sales price of the ships with a USD 10,000 ceiling per worker.

Although the company tried to conceal the sale by means of some legal subterfuges (they would state that the ships had not been sold, that the monies had not been paid, and etc.), the on-board workers - who were also part of the Federation - sought advice as to potential legal courses of action open to them.

In pursuit of that goal, the Federation made an institutional inquiry to Leto & Asociados law firm, whose opinion favored the workers' rights.

Contact was made with the firm that was representing YPF S.A. (Fiorenza & Asociados Law Firm), who consulted with YPF's Board of Directors.

The above-mentioned Board of Directors refused to comply with the provisions of Argentine laws, and failed to accept its obligations in a mediation attempt made by the Labor Court in and for the City of Buenos Aires, to reach an out-of-court settlement.

As a result, the workers of YPF individually and through the Federation brought lawsuits against YPF S.A.

Pursuant to the information filed with the Labor Court in and for the City of Buenos Aires, 682 lawsuits were filed against YPF S.A., ALL OF WHICH were decided in favor of the workers.

The above led the Labor Court of Appeals in and for the City of Buenos Aires to pass an En Banc Decision (in which the 30 Division members voted in favor of the workers) which was binding upon all lower courts.

In the lawsuits against YPF S.A., the following was proven:

  • That the defendant (YPF and later REPSOL YPF) had actually sold the oil tankers to two companies and that it had received the whole price agreed-upon.
  • That the monies paid for such sales reached one hundred million dollars.
  • That the main purchasers were the companies ANTARES NAVIERA S.A. and NAVIERA SUR PETROLERA S.A. As the latter was associated with the SUPE (a Union that represented the former employees of YPF S.A.) the purchase was seen by the workers of YPF S.A., who overwhelmingly joined the ranks of the Federation.
  • That as the lawsuits were decided against YPF and REPSOL YPF, these companies were forced to pay each of the 682 claimants the amount of USD $10,000 plus a supplementary 40 per cent by way of court costs and litigation expenses. Added to this are the amounts agreed with their own counsels (the retained independent law firms) many of whom had not been paid their fees yet and are currently bringing actions for the collection of these amounts. Such fees are indeterminable but are estimated in not lower than said 40 per cent of court costs and litigation expenses.
  • While the amount of money involved here pales in comparison to the much larger claim being made on behalf of 25,000 former employees, it demonstrates that the deceit and maneuvering used to deprive former workers of their rights can be successfully challenged and overcome in the courts.
II. The Primary Case: The Decision of the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice in re "Antonucci, Roberto y Otros c/ Estado Argentino e YPF S.A. [Antonucci, Roberto et al against the Argentine State and YPF S.A.]

With the support of the Federation, and the counsel of Leto & Asociados Law Firm, several former employees of YPF S.A. obtained a favorable decision from the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice. The main part of the decision states that the holders of the 10 per cent of the shares of the Joint Ownership Plan of YPF S.A. were the former workers of such company, who were under an employment relationship as of January 1st, 1991 (i.e., the entire 30,000 employees, rather than the 4,766 intended by defendants) and "that the claim filed by defendant (YPF and the Argentine State) lacks any merits, as it established July 7th, 1993 as the cutoff date for any employee then under an employment relationship to adhere to the Joint Ownership Plan, and the ministerial resolutions regarding the regulation of the Joint Ownership Plan of law 23.696… limiting the number of adherent workers, are unconstitutional:

"... so that the intention of decree 628/97 to ratify the provisions of the resolutions cannot have any effect whatsoever because their unenforceability because the lack of publication in the Official Gazette, coupled with the lack of reasonableness and an abuse of the ministerial powers ...", and "anything attempting to hinder the right of workers to obtain the 10 per cent of their shares breaches the purpose of the law".

III. Compensation by the Argentine State By virtue of the decision of the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice in re "Antonucci, Roberto y otros c/ Estado Nacional e YPF S.A. s/ Programa Propiedad Participada" [Antonucci, Roberto et als against the Argentine State and YPF S.A. on Joint Ownership Plan], the Argentine State issued Law 25.47102 ordering the partial compensation of the 25,000 former workers for being excluded from the Joint Ownership Plan that, among other issues, provided for the right of the former employees of YPF to own 35,300,000 Class C shares (convertible into Class D shares and representing 10% of the capital stock of YPF S.A.) and to have a representative on the Board of Directors of YPF S.A.