Definitive Report - REPORT_NO165, June 1977

1. 6. The Committee last considered this case in November 1976, when it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body in paragraphs 248 to 275 of its 160th report, approved by the Governing Body at its 201st Session (November 1976).
2. 7. The Government sent further information by a communication of 25 January 1977.
3. 8. Mexico has ratified the Freedom of Association and protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but not the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 9. The complaint related firstly to the dismissal of workers in a dispute over the recognition of a trade union by the Spicer undertaking and secondly to the detention of the union leader, Moisés Escamilla.
2. 10. As regards the first aspect of the case, the undertaking had dismissed a large number of workers who had decided to withdraw from the Metallurgical Workers' Union of Mexico, the organisation recognised by the employer for purposes of collective bargaining, and join the National Union of Workers in the Iron, Steel and Allied Products Industry of Mexico. The dismissals had followed the participation of the workers in a strike in protest over the company's attitude to the formation and recognition of the new union. The Committee noted that the strike was declared not only while the legal procedure regarding the designation of the most representative union for the purpose of collective bargaining was under way, but also without respecting the rules established in the Federal Labour Code.
3. 11. The Committee also noted that, following intervention by the Secretary of Labour and Social Security, an agreement had been reached between the undertaking, a third union, the National Union of workers in Mines, Metallurgy and Allied Sectors of Mexico, and the negotiating Committee of the strikers. This had put an end to the strike. For its part, the National Union of Workers in the Iron, Steel and Allied Products Industry of Mexico had withdrawn for unknown reasons from the procedure for the designation of the representative union.
4. 12. The Committee pointed out that it was not clear how the undertaking had been able to embark on negotiations and sign an agreement with a third union while a procedure for the recognition of representative ness for the purposes of collective bargaining was under way between two other organisations. Consequently, the Committee requested additional information from the Government concerning the third union named and the recognition of this organisation by the undertaking.
5. 13. In its reply the Government explained that there had, in fact, been some confusion owing to imprecision in its statement of the facts. There had never been three unions involved in the case, but only two, since the first organisation mentioned, the Metallurgical Workers' Union of Mexico (see paragraph 10) was the same as that mentioned in the third instance, namely the National Union of Workers in Mines, Metallurgy and Allied Sectors of Mexico (see Paragraph 11). It was customary to abbreviate the name of the latter union to "the Metallurgical Workers' Union". According to the Government, what had happened was that when one of the two rival organisations involved in the procedure for the recognition of representative ness withdrew, the other retained its previous entitlement. The Committee notes that this was the organisation which signed the agreement with the undertaking which put an end to the strike.
6. 14. As regards the detention of Mr. Moisés Escamilla, who was subsequently released, the Government states that it has noted the Committee's remarks in paragraph 274 of the 160th report, to the effect that the authorities concerned should be instructed to proceed with caution in cases where action is taken against trade unionists, to eliminate the danger of over-hasty arrests which are frequently unjustified; for this reason, detainees are released after a short period.