Interim Report - REPORT_NO157, June 1976

1. 204. The complaint submitted by the World Confederation of Labour was contained in two communications, both dated 20 October 1975, addressed to the Director-General.
2. 205. The complaint was duly transmitted to the Government which, in a communication dated 8 December 1975, sent its observations thereon.
3. 206. Mexico has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); it has not ratified the Right to organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 207. The complainants alleged that trade union rights had been violated in the Spicer Company which is situated in the city of Mexico and is a subsidiary of the Dana Corporation of Detroit. For many years, the complainants explained, the workers in this company had been controlled by a trade union organisation known as the Federation of Workers' Groups which prohibited meetings, sold permanent posts, invented deaths in order to check off supplementary contributions from the workers, and dismissed, along with the company, workers who made any kind of protest.
2. 208. The complainants add that, faced with this situation, the workers decided to organise their own union and become affiliated to a union which was independent of the enterprise, viz. the National Union of Workers in the Iron, Steel and Allied Products Industry of Mexico, which is affiliated to the Latin American Central of Workers and the World Confederation of Labour. The registration and affiliation of the new union were refused by the registration department of the Secretariat of Labour and Social Welfare of Mexico, which deals with associations.
3. 209. The Spicer Company, continue the complainants, started a campaign of pressure, using physical threats and engaging a team of psychiatrists in order to convince the workers that they should not form an independent union. The workers continued to take all the legal steps which had been stopped for a year in the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board, where proceedings had been instituted against the Federation of Workers' Groups as regards representation rights for collective bargaining.
4. 210. At the beginning of June 1975, the complainants added, the Spicer Company threatened to dismiss 300 fixed-term workers if they did not withdraw from the independent union. All the workers in the company, accordingly, decided to strike as from 30 June in order to demand respect for their right to organise and form unions. The company reacted by dismissing all the leaders of the union. In order to prevent the legal steps taken against the Federation of Workers' Groups from succeeding, the company illegally terminated its collective agreement with the Federation and entered into negotiations with another union called the National Union of Metallurgical Mineworkers of Mexico. During the strike, the complainants alleged, the company entered into a new collective agreement with this union without consulting any of the workers.
5. 211. The strike terminated when the company agreed to reinstate the leaders of the independent union. A few days after the return to work, however, the company broke its agreement and dismissed the leaders who had been reinstated, along with 150 workers and, the same day, when they were being supported by the other workers in a public demonstration, the company dismissed another 500 workers, making 650 in all. On 30 September 1975, 30 of the workers, along with 10 of their wives, commenced a hunger strike, demanding respect for the right to organise.
6. 212. The complainants further alleged that the trade union leader, Moisés Escamilla, had been arbitrarily detained.
7. 213. In its reply to these allegations the Government pointed out that the Secretariat of Labour and Social Welfare had intervened to conciliate in the dispute between the workers and the Spicer Company, in accordance with its duty to safeguard the rights of the workers, and independently of any questions which had arisen between the unions. The Government stated that, as a result of deliberation between the parties, an agreement was reached under which the company gave the 450 workers who had ceased to work on 18 August 1975 the option of being reinstated in their jobs or being appropriately indemnified. The same was agreed with respect to a further 35 of the workers. Those workers who opted for reinstatement were to receive 3,000 pesos as compensation in respect of arrears of pay. The 127 workers who were not included in this arrangement were to be fully indemnified and their arrears of pay calculated as at 18 August 1975. According to the Government, the company agreed to the creation of 100 other posts in addition to those available and those which were to be vacated by the workers indemnified under the terms of the agreement. All of these posts would be filled with temporary workers in order of their seniority with the company.
8. 214. The Government added that, on 27 October 1975, the above agreement was approved by the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Labour Law. The National Union of Workers in the Iron, Steel and Allied Products Industry withdrew its claim and the proceedings had therefore been considered as finally settled.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 215. The Committee notes from the information at its disposal that the complaint concerns the action taken by the Spicer company against the workers of that company when they attempted to withdraw from the Federation of Workers' Groups and establish a union of their own choice, whose registration and application for affiliation with a national union were refused by the labour authorities for reasons which are not stated. The threats and pressure alleged to have been exerted by the company against the workers and the eventual dismissal of some 650 are not denied by the Government which describes the manner in which the matter has been settled following conciliation by the Secretariat of Labour and Social Welfare. As regards the allegation that a union leader named Moisés Escamilla was detained, the Government has supplied no information in reply.
2. 216. The Committee has emphasised the importance it attaches to the principle contained in Article 2 of Convention No. 87, ratified by Mexico, that workers and employers should, in actual practice, be able to form and join organisations of their own choosing in full freedom. The Committee has also expressed the view that governments should take measures, whenever necessary, to ensure that workers are protected against acts, including dismissal, which are likely to provoke or have as their object anti-union discrimination against workers in respect of their employment.
3. 217. The Committee notes that the company in question proceeded to dismiss a large number of the workers following their participation in strike action which was engaged as a protest over the company's attitude to the formation of an independent union. During the strike the company concluded a new collective agreement with a separate union, without any of the workers being consulted on the matter.
4. 218. The Committee considers that the events as described by the complainants tend to show that the attitude and measures adopted by the company, including the dismissals, resulted in the commission of acts of anti-union discrimination which were motivated by the exercise of the workers' right to organise and action taken by them to defend this right.
5. 219. The Committee notes that the conciliatory intervention of the labour authorities made it possible to conclude an agreement under which most of the workers who had been dismissed were given the opportunity of being reinstated. However, more than 100 workers, although indemnified, lost their jobs.