In Argentina, a major scandal has erupted within the metallurgical union UOM. Members of the opposition faction from the province of Campana have denounced a presumed "irregular and possibly criminal" scheme linked to a contract signed in 2023 between the union and a company associated with former councilor María Soledad Calle.
According to their claims, this agreement allowed a private firm to manage sensitive union resources, while at the same time internal reprisals were applied against opposing leaders, including the cessation of salary payments to members of the local board who politically confronted the national leadership.
The core of the conflict is an agreement attributed to the leadership of Abel Furlán in the UOM, signed in 2023, under which a private company would have been put in charge of managing a portion of the funds that come from union dues.
In the ruling party and sectors that support the labor reform, they point out that this type of complaint reinforces the central argument of "modernization": that the current system enables gray areas where, under the umbrella of mandatory contributions and un-auditable structures, abuses and business with workers' funds can occur.
From that perspective, they argue that the same leaders who are mobilizing today to stop the reform would be part of a network that benefits from the status quo.
On the union side, however, the usual response to this type of accusation is that it is an internal dispute and a political operation to discredit union representation in a context of reforms that, they warn, curtail rights.
The accusation points out that the agreement would have delegated the administration of funds from worker contributions, and at the same time, would have enabled the collection of a monthly multi-million sum for the management.
According to the account attributed to the judicial expansion, the complaint requests that a criminal prosecutor be asked to investigate possible crimes such as fraudulent administration, fraud by mismanagement, fraud, and illicit association, among other figures that may eventually arise.
The filing states that this asymmetry would be a sign that the cut is not financial but political: a form of internal discipline in the face of electoral competition within the union.
In that tension, the case adds an uncomfortable component: if the Justice system advances and orders measures of proof on contracts, payment circuits, and fund administration, the debate would cease to be only ideological and would be supported by concrete documentation.
Procedurally, the complainants state that the expansion was presented "a few hours ago" and that the central request is that the case not be limited to a labor or administrative conflict, but that a criminal investigation be opened into the destination of the money and the decision-making circuit that allowed the contract.
They also demand measures to preserve documentation, accounting records, payment orders, and all evidence that allows reconstructing whether there was patrimonial damage or irregular administration of resources contributed by members.
While awaiting the relevant jurisdiction to formally confirm the scope of the filing and the first measures, the complaint is already impacting the internal life of the metalworkers: it raises suspicions about a high-value agreement, agitates the union campaign, and once again puts under scrutiny a fundamental question that reappears every time labor legislation is discussed: who controls, how is it audited, and what safeguards do workers have over the use of the contributions that sustain the union structure.
The complainants affirm that this outsourcing not only compromises transparency in the management of resources that belong to the members, but would also create a situation of incompatibilities: they point out that Calle would have a corporate stake in the hired company and, at the same time, would maintain a labor link with the union entity itself.
This dual condition, they emphasize, could constitute a conflict of interest and feed a circuit of administrative decisions without sufficient controls.
In the text attributed to the filing, the internal opposition maintains that the union leadership justified the non-payment of salaries due to a supposed "crisis," but at the same time would have sustained very high monthly disbursements to the firm linked to Calle for the administration of the funds.
Buenos Aires - February 26, 2026 - Total News Agency - TNA - In a filing that, according to its signers, would have been incorporated a few hours ago as an expansion of a pending case, members of the opposition Orange list of the Unión Obrera Metalúrgica (UOM) of Campana denounced a presumed "irregular and possibly criminal" scheme linked to a contract signed in 2023 between the union and a company associated with the former Kirchnerist councilor María Soledad Calle.
