Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO368, June 2013

1. 672. The complaint was presented in a communication from the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) dated 23 August 2012. The WFTU sent additional information in a communication dated 8 October 2012.
2. 673. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 1 March 2013.
3. 674. Mexico has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has not ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 675. In its communication dated 23 August 2012, the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) alleges arbitrary and anti-union action and the unjust and illegal detention on 26 July 2012 by Zacatecas state police of Efraín Arteaga Domínguez (Secretary-General of Ex Braceros en Lucha, a WFTU affiliated organization; member of the executive coordination body of the Social Front for People’s Sovereignty (FSSP) of Zacatecas; WFTU coordinator for the state of Zacatecas), on the criminal charge by the Attorney-General of “attacking channels of communication” by taking part in a roadblock of boulevard Adolfo López Mateos organized by the Independent Trade Union of Telesecundaria Workers in the State of Zacatecas (SITTEZ) on 29 June 2012. After spending some seven-and-a-half hours in a police cell, he was conditionally released pending the handing down of a court sentence. According to the WFTU, the judge at his second criminal court hearing, acting on orders from the executive, rejected the arguments, evidence and testimony of the defence out of hand and brazenly rubberstamped the so called arguments put forward by the Prosecutor General. The crime he is accused of carries a prison sentence of three months to four years.
2. 676. The WFTU summarizes the incident as follows:
   • – Between 21 June and 2 July 2012 SITTEZ organized a campaign to demand that its principal demands be met, namely: (a) a step-by-step increase in salary and a working week of 30 to 35 hours; (b) implementation of a housing programme for union members; and (c) introduction of labour standards guaranteeing security of employment at their places of work, etc. On 29 June 2012 the workers organized the blocking of boulevard Adolfo López Mateos, the main artery of the City of Zacatecas, from midday to approximately 5.30 p.m.
   • – In response to the roadblock the state government proceeded to: (i) the illegal retention of the salaries of hundreds of teachers; (ii) the initiation of dismissal proceedings against all of them; and (iii) public threatening to bring criminal charges against the leaders of the protest movement and order their imprisonment. Eventually, the state government agreed to the deductions from the teachers’ salaries instead of dismissing them, with a warning that at the slightest sign of protest or public denunciation it would cancel the deductions from salary and resume the dismissal procedures.
   • – In these circumstances the FSSP and the WFTU issued a public statement denouncing the incident on 17 July 2012 and affirming their solidarity with the SITTEZ workers.
   • – The state government, through the State Prosecutor’s Office, charged Efraín Arteaga Domínguez with the so-called crime of “attacking channels of communication” by means of the 29 June 2012 roadblock, on the fallacious testimony of a lawyer of the state’s Ministry of Education and Culture. On 26 July 2012 Efraín Arteaga Domínguez was detained.
   • – According to the WFTU, the alleged incident constitutes a violation of Convention No. 87 and is intended to criminalize social struggle.
3. 677. The complainant organization enclosed with its communication of 8 October 2012 a number of documents concerning SITTEZ’s demands, including the list of demands that the union presented for 2012, the meetings it convened on 20, 21 and 27 June 2012 showing that teachers were absent from their place of work because they were attending union meetings, and minutes of 6 and 11 July 2012 which the WFTU believes reflect the repressive attitude adopted by the authorities of the Ministry of Education and Culture by requiring the trade unionists to write to the governor implicitly admitting that they had broken the law and promising not to do so again, failing which the Ministry would proceed with the dismissal of hundreds of teachers. According to the WFTU the minutes of 11 July 2012 concern the agreement between the Ministry’s legal department and three union representatives “agreeing” to the deductions from the salaries of 842 teachers, for a total of 2,192 days of salary. The union representatives say that they were given no option and that if they had not signed they would have been dismissed instead of having deductions from their salaries.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 678. In its communication dated 1 March 2013 the Government indicates that on 4 September 2012 the ILO transmitted a complaint that had been presented against it by the WFTU, alleging the violation of trade union rights in Mexico. It adds that in its complaint of 23 August 2012 the WFTU alleges that SITTEZ has been the victim of anti-union action and that Efraín Arteaga Domínguez, Secretary-General of the Ex Braceros en Lucha, Civilian Association, was detained for “attacking channels of communication” when he took part in the roadblock organized by SITTEZ. On 12 October 2012, the WFTU submitted a number of documents in support of its complaint to the ILO of 23 August 2012, including the union’s lists of demands, the minutes of an agreement between the union and the authorities and letters from SITTEZ convening union meetings.
2. 679. The Government notes that, by way of anti-union action against SITTEZ, the WFTU alleges illegal deductions from the salaries of hundreds of teachers, the initiation of procedures to have them all dismissed and threats of criminal charges and prison sentences for the leaders of the blocking of boulevard Adolfo López Mateos in Zacatecas. The Government considers that the WFTU’s complaint to the ILO should not be deemed receivable by the Committee on Freedom of Association, for the following reasons:
   • – According to the Special procedures for the examination in the International Labour Organization of complaints alleging violations of freedom of association, complaints must be presented in writing, duly signed and supported by evidence of specific infringements of trade union rights. This requirement has not been met, since in its communication the WFTU formulates a series of general, subjective and non-specific arguments and omits any reference to actual violations of freedom of association supposedly committed against the members of SITTEZ. Moreover, the WFTU does not present any evidence of the veracity of its claims and SITTEZ has apparently not applied to the competent administrative or jurisdictional authority individually or collectively to defend rights that have supposedly been violated. That being so, the complaint presented by the WFTU does not meet the requirements of the Committee on Freedom of Association set out in the Special procedures.
   • – Regarding the detention of Efraín Arteaga Domínguez, Secretary-General of the Ex Braceros en Lucha, Civilian Association, on the criminal charge of “attacking channels of communication” when he took part in the roadblock organized by SITTEZ, the Government considers that, under the Special procedures, the WFTU may present a complaint in so far as it has consultative status with the ILO. However, Efraín Arteaga Domínguez’s detention is not a matter for consideration by the Committee on Freedom of Association since, although Ex Braceros en Lucha, AC is affiliated to the WFTU, its juridical status is not that of a workers’ organization but of a civil association governed by Mexico’s Federal Civil Code. Consequently, Efraín Arteaga Domínguez’s detention as a representative of the association cannot be the subject of examination by the Committee, as he is not a trade union leader.
   • – Regarding the documents presented by the WFTU on 12 October 2012 in support of its complaint, the Special procedures stipulate that the Director-General, on receiving a complaint concerning specific cases of infringement of freedom of association, informs the complainant that any information he may wish to furnish in substantiation of the complaint should be communicated to him within a period of one month, as was clearly indicated by the ILO in its communication of 4 September 2012. The Government observes that this requirement has not been met by the WFTU, since the relevant information was presented after the deadline, i.e. 51 days after the trade union submitted its complaint to the ILO on 23 August 2012.
3. 680. Furthermore, although the Special procedures specify that, “in the event that supporting information is sent to the ILO after the expiry of the one month period provided for in the procedures it will be for the Committee to determine whether this information constitutes new evidence which the complainant would not have been in a position to adduce within the appointed period”, the Government notes that the information presented by the WFTU does not constitute new evidence concerning the alleged anti-union action taken against SITTEZ.
4. 681. In conclusion, the Government states that it is apparent from its analysis of the complaint that it is irreceivable by the Committee on Freedom of Association on grounds both of form and of substance inasmuch as it does not meet the requirements established by the Committee. That being so, and in accordance with the provisions of the Special procedures, the Government requests that the Committee reject the complaint presented by the WFTU.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 682. The Committee observes that in the present complaint the WFTU alleges: (1) the arbitrary and unjust detention of its coordinator for the state of Zacatecas (Efraín Arteaga Domínguez) for seven-and-a-half hours, on the criminal charge of attacking channels of communication by taking part in the peaceful blocking of a boulevard organized by SITTEZ on 29 June 2012 in support of its principal labour demands; the WFTU indicates that, following his detention, its coordinator was released on conditional bail and is currently awaiting trial; and (2) the deductions from the salaries of 842 teachers (according to the WFTU, the leaders of the demonstration were initially threatened with prison sentences and criminal charges and dismissal procedures were initiated against them, although these were subsequently dropped).
2. 683. The Committee observes that the Government argues that the documents sent by the complainant organization on 8 October 2012 are inadmissible as additional information because the complaint itself was submitted on 23 August 2012 when the Committee’s procedural rules allow a period of only one month for their submission. On this point, the Committee observes that, after receiving the complaint, the Office invited the WFTU, on 4 September 2012, to submit additional information, and it therefore concludes that, allowing for their postal delays, the additional information and documents which were sent by the WFTU on 8 October 2012 and reached the Office on 12 October 2012 were within the one-month deadline provided for in the Special procedures.
3. 684. Regarding the alleged detention of its coordinator for the state of Zacatecas (Efraín Arteaga Domínguez) for seven-and-a-half hours, for the so-called crime of attacking channels of communication by joining in the peaceful roadblock of a boulevard organized by SITTEZ on 29 June 2012 in support of its principal labour demands, and the criminal charges subsequently brought against him, the Committee notes that the Government considers that the allegation should not be examined because, although Ex Braceros en Lucha, AC (of which, according to the WFTU, Efraín Arteaga Domínguez is the Secretary-General) is affiliated to the WFTU, its juridical status is not that of a workers’ organization but of a civil association governed in Mexico by the Federal Civil Code and because he is not a trade union leader. The Committee observes that the WFTU does not claim that Efraín Arteaga Domínguez is a member of SITTEZ or a teacher and that it has not sent a copy of the criminal charges brought against him. However, the Committee observes that the WFTU does describe Efraín Arteaga Domínguez as its coordinator for the state of Zacatecas. On this point, the Committee notes that the participation of representatives of international trade union organizations in union protest movements is common practice. The Committee considers that, in order to establish whether the WFTU’s coordinator did or did not exceed his responsibilities by participating in what the criminal charges describe as illegal activities, it would be useful to have a copy of the ruling handed down. While taking note of the fact that Efraín Arteaga Domínguez has, according to the WFTU, been released on bail, the Committee therefore requests the Government to send it a copy of the ruling handed down in respect of the crime of which he is accused (attacking channels of communication).
4. 685. As to the allegation concerning the deductions from the salaries of hundreds of teachers, the Committee notes that the WFTU refers to an agreement between the Ministry of Education and Culture and three SITTEZ leaders (the WFTU points out that they signed the agreement to avoid being dismissed). The Committee notes that the Government argues that the allegation is inadmissible on grounds that it contains general, subjective and non-specific arguments and fails to provide any evidence that the incidents referred to are true (illegal retention of salaries for the blocking of a boulevard, initiation of dismissal procedures, threats of criminal charges) or that SITTEZ applied to the administrative or judicial authority in defence of rights that had supposedly been violated. The Committee observes that, in its complaint, the WFTU refers to a protest campaign from 21 June to 2 July 2012 (which included the five-and-a-half hours roadblock of a major boulevard on 29 June 2012). However, the Committee observes that the deductions from the salaries were part of an agreement signed by the authorities and by union representatives and, judging from the information provided, appears to have been linked to the hours not worked because of union protest action, and it will therefore not pursue its examination of these allegations any further, notably because the WFTU has not referred to the lodging of administrative or judicial appeals by SITTEZ.