Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - REPORT_NO349, March 2008

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 177. During its examination of the case in March 2006, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the authorities of the State of Morelos carry out any inquiry into the alleged assault of workers of the enterprise CONFITALIA SA de CV who were on picket lines, and to request the Local Conciliation and Arbitration Board of the State of Morelos to provide information on the reasons why it had not initiated the procedure for determining the circumstances of the strike [see Report 340, para. 138].
2. 178. At its meeting in June 2007, the Committee noted the Government’s statement to the effect that the Local Conciliation and Arbitration Board of the State of Morelos had declared that cases Nos 02/580/01 and 02/481/01 fell within its purview. Both cases result from the holding of a strike in response to violations of the collective labour agreement concluded between the Progressive Trade Union of Mexican In-Bond Industry Workers (SPTIMRM) and the company CONFITALIA SA de CV. The Government specifies that on 28 April 2006, the plenary session of the Local Conciliation and Arbitration Board of the State of Morelos handed down a decision to the effect that, inter alia, it had ordered CONFITALIA SA de CV to make the following payments and settlements: wages due but unpaid; holiday pay for the entire period of service; payment of 75 per cent of the real amount of workers’ wages, by means of paid holidays for the entire period of service; payment of wages due, from the date when work was suspended until 28 April 2006 when the relevant decision was handed down; payment of compensation amounting to three months’ minimum salary as laid down in article 123, section A, clause XXI, of the Constitution of the United Mexican States; payment of a long-service bonus; and payment of compensation consisting of 20 days’ wages for each year of service, in terms of the considerations and circumstances contained in the documentary evidence and the decision respectively.
3. 179. The Government added that according to the Local Conciliation and Arbitration Board of the State of Morelos, the SPTIMRM on 26 May 2006 initiated a direct amparo action (appeal for the enforcement of constitutional rights) against the ruling in question, deeming that it infringed the guarantees concerning grounds and reasons provided in articles 14 and 16 of the Mexican Constitution. On the same date, the official receiver, which represented CONFITALIA SA de CV because the company had declared bankruptcy, declined to comply with the final decision given by the Arbitration Board and initiated an amparo action in which it requested the suspension of the ruling in question. Currently, both amparo procedures are under way and have been referred to the competent collegiate circuit court, to allow this federal authority to examine and rule on the amparo cases in question. The Local Conciliation and Arbitration Board of the State of Morelos stated that it would comply with the decision of the competent collegiate circuit court and implement the final ruling.
4. 180. At its meeting in June 2007, the Committee made the following recommendation [see 346th Report, para. 125]:
   • The Committee notes this information and the decisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Board of the State of Morelos which appear to cover payment of compensation and of salaries relating to the period of the strike, and which have been appealed, and requests the Government to communicate any decision handed down by the collegiate circuit court on the amparo actions brought by both parties. Furthermore, the Committee reiterates its previous recommendation that the authorities of the State of Morelos should conduct an inquiry into the allegations of attacks against workers of the enterprise CONFITALIA SA de CV and inform the Committee of the reasons why the Conciliation and Arbitration Board of the State of Morelos has not initiated the procedure for determining the circumstances of the strike.
5. 181. In its communication of 16 October 2007, the Government declared that the Local Arbitration and Conciliation Board of the State of Morales indicated that, in accordance with sections 920, 926, 930 and 937 of the Federal Labour Act, the strike procedure is divided into specific stages or phases, defined in general terms as: (1) the preparation period; (2) the pre-strike period; (3) the strike, understood as a work stoppage; (4) a decision on non-existence or illegality of the strike (if such a decision is requested); and, (5) a ruling on liability, where the Local Conciliation and Arbitration Board decides whether the responsibility for the strike rests with the employer. Under these conditions, the Local Conciliation and Arbitration Board of the State of Morelos proceeded to make its decisions, to publish them and to initiate the implementation procedure. On their part, the parties involved, including the SPTIMRM, filed their petitions for the protection of their constitutional rights (amparo) which they thought appropriate, these being the same petitions on which rulings existed by the Second Collegiate Court of the 18th Circuit as follows:
   • No. / Labour Case / Appellant / Amparo Case No. / Ruling
6. 1 / 02/580/01 / Progressive Trade Union of Mexican In-Bond Industry Workers / AD 684/2006 26 May 2006 / 4 July 2007 Case dismissed
7. 2
8. 02/480/02
   • Progressive Trade Union of Mexican In-Bond Industry Workers
9. AD 680/2006
10. 26 May 2006
    • No amparo or protection granted
11. 3
12. 02/481/02
    • Progressive Trade Union of Mexican In-Bond Industry Workers
13. AD 682/2006
14. 26 May 2006
    • No amparo or protection granted
15. 4
16. 02/580/01
    • Confitalia and Grupo Covarra
17. AD 685/2006
18. 26 May 2006
    • Grounds for amparo and protection
19. 5
20. 02/480/02
    • Confitalia and Grupo Covarra
21. AD 682/2006
22. 26 May 2006
    • Amparo and protection granted in relation to the ruling on 20 days per year (which is overturned)
23. 6
24. 02/481/02
    • Adoc, SA de CV
25. AD 682/2006
26. 26 May 2006
    • Amparo and protection granted in relation to the ruling on 20 days per year (which is overturned)
27. 182. The Government concludes by indicating that according to the Local Conciliation and Arbitration Board of the State of Morales, the analysis carried out has satisfactorily determined the circumstances of the strike, and that these considerations became the basis of the relevant rulings.
28. 183. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to send it the texts of the relevant court rulings.