Definitive Report - Report No 332, November 2003

1. 784. The complaint is contained in a communication by the National Trade Union of Workers of the National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics (SNTINEGI) of January 2003.
2. 785. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 29 May 2003.
3. 786. 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. The complainant’s allegations

1. 787. In its communication of January 2003, the National Trade Union of Workers of the National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics (SNTINEGI), through its Secretary-General, Ms. Areli Hernández Rodarte, states that the National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics (INEGI) is an organization of the Federal Government of Mexico and alleges that, since the election of the union leaders for the 2001-04 period, representatives of the authorities have attempted to exercise undue interference in the internal affairs of the union. Since July 2001, the authorities have obstructed union management, unnecessarily delaying certain formalities and refusing to provide the premises and equipment needed for union meetings and events, to which the union is entitled.
2. 788. The complainant also alleges that, despite the fact that, according to the General Terms of Employment of the Institute, workers have an obligation to attend the meetings convened by the union, representatives of the Institute circulated orders expressly forbidding the workers to leave their activities to attend the union meetings. In response to the interference mentioned and the violations of fundamental workers’ rights, the complainant organization presented a list of demands for salary raises and for respect for the union, but received no reply. In December 2002, the complainant filed a complaint with the Internal Supervisory Body of INEGI against representatives of the Institute for undue interference in union affairs (file No. 762/2002).
3. 789. In addition, on 4 December 2002, at an event convened by the employer authority itself, the president of the Institute presented a so-called new union committee without having gone through any statutory or jurisdictional procedure for legally dissolving the previous committee or electing a new union executive committee.
4. 790. Subsequently, on 6 December 2002, representatives of the Institute broke into the union premises under the pretext that it was located in the same building as the Institute headquarters, and removed furniture and documents belonging to the union, while forbidding union members to enter. As a result, a criminal complaint was filed with the Attorney-General’s Office of the State of Aguascalientes (file No. A-02/09912).
5. 791. Beginning on 1 December 2002, the Institute suspended the payment of union dues to the legally recognized committee, indicating that they would be handed over to Ms. Gilda Martínez Martínez, who had not been elected as a member of the union executive committee by the workers, nor been registered as such with the competent authorities, that is, the Federal Court for Conciliation and Arbitration.
6. 792. The complainant also alleges that all union leave which had been granted by the legally elected executive committee were verbally cancelled so that its members would return to their jobs, which constitutes an anti-union act aimed at limiting or nullifying the ability of the union executive committee to carry out its union activities.
7. 793. The complainant points out that, as of the time the complaint was sent, none of the legal actions mentioned had been resolved, which places the legally elected executive committee and the union members in a vulnerable position.
8. 794. Lastly, the complainant alleges that, in the Mexican legal framework, there are no sufficiently effective or dissuasive remedies or sanctions to prevent and punish undue interference by the State and/or employers in the internal union affairs.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 795. In its communication of 29 May 2003, the Government states that, on 18 February 2003, fully exercising their autonomy and freedom of association, more than two-thirds of the members of the complainant trade union requested, through its national executive committee, the intervention of the Federation of Trade Unions of State Workers, to which they are affiliated, in order to consolidate the restructuring of their union executive committee established at the Extraordinary National Conference on 2 December 2002, and nominated Ms. Gilda Martínez Martínez as the new secretary-general of the national executive committee of the complainant union.
2. 796. The Government states that none of the allegations by the complainant constitute a violation of Convention No. 87 and that the events described are solely the result of a dispute between unions.
3. 797. Regarding union meetings, the Government denies that the General Terms of Employment of INEGI establish the obligation for workers to attend meetings convened by the union. On the other hand, they do stipulate the right of workers to request permission to attend union meetings or events scheduled during working hours, subject to the consent of the person in charge of the administrative unit (section 60, paragraph XXVIII). Regarding the allegation that INEGI representatives gave orders forbidding workers to leave their work in order to attend the meetings, the Government denies that any INEGI representative prevented the workers from meeting, as this is their constitutional right, and notes that this assertion was not supported by any names or documents.
4. 798. Regarding the complaint filed with the Internal Supervisory Body of INEGI against Institute representatives for undue interference in union affairs (file No. 762/2002), the Government notes that, as of the date of its communication, the action filed by the complainant union had not been successful, from which it can be inferred, in its view, that INEGI representatives had not interfered in the internal affairs of the union.
5. 799. Regarding the allegation that, on 4 December 2002, the president of the Institute, during an event convened by the employer, introduced a so-called new union committee, the Government reiterates that it was aware of the fact that more than two-thirds of the workers of INEGI had requested the intervention of the Federation of Trade Unions of State Workers to consolidate the restructuring of the union executive committee. No INEGI official took part in the restructuring process, since it is for the unionized workers to exercise this right within the context of freedom of association. The Government explains that unions have legal means to enforce their rights: section 85 of the Federal Act respecting state workers provides that any dispute arising between the Federation and the unions or among the unions shall be settled by the Federal Court for Conciliation and Arbitration. The Government notes, however, that the complainant union, through the secretary-general who signed the complaint, did not refer the case to this court, which is the competent authority to settle the dispute between the unions of the INEGI.
6. 800. Regarding the allegation of breaking into union premises, the Government states that, since the lease under which INEGI was paying for use of the premises which the union occupied outside the INEGI headquarters had expired, and given the austerity policies being implemented, a space had been adapted in the building of the INEGI headquarters for the use of union members, which was still operational at the time of the communication. Regarding the criminal complaint filed for the alleged break-in, it was currently being handled by the competent authority.
7. 801. Regarding the suspension of the withholding of union dues, the Government indicates that, subsequent to the apparent restructuring of the National Executive Committee of the complainant union, the INEGI received a request from Ms. Gilda Martínez Martínez, who introduced herself as the new secretary-general, for the union dues to be handed over to her. They received the same request from Ms. Areli Hernández Rodarte, who also introduced herself as the secretary-general. Faced with this dilemma, the solution of which lay outside the competence of the INEGI, the Institution decided to return the dues which had been withheld to the workers in order for them to decide to whom they should be paid, and refrained from withholding dues during the month of February.
8. 802. Regarding the cancellation of union leave, the Government maintains that it has not been cancelled, either verbally or in writing, and those who had been granted leave have received their full salaries without having been at work, which shows that they will continue to benefit from their leave until a decision is taken as to which union executive committee will represent the workers.
9. 803. Regarding the allegation that, as of the time the complaint was communicated, none of the legal actions mentioned had been resolved, the Government states that both the complaint filed with the Internal Supervisory Body of the INEGI on 2 December 2002 and the criminal complaint of 6 December 2002 were undergoing a procedure in accordance with the applicable legislation, and that it took time to carry out the inquiries and give the persons presumed responsible for the acts the right to a hearing. It reiterates once again that the complainant union had not availed itself of the legal means applicable to the case, by not submitting the inter-union dispute to the Federal Court for Conciliation and Arbitration.
10. 804. Regarding the absence of effective and sufficiently dissuasive procedures and sanctions to prevent and punish the undue interference by the State and/or employers in the internal affairs of the union, the Government states that national legislation includes adequate provisions and procedures to guarantee freedom of association, including section 133, paragraph V, of the Federal Labour Act prohibiting employers from any kind of interference in the internal affairs of trade unions. The authorities are governed by the principle of legality according to which all their actions must be provided for by law. Thus, they are not allowed to interfere in the internal affairs of unions since there are no legal provisions granting them such powers in national legislation.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 805. The Committee notes that this complaint, presented by the secretary-general of the complainant organization, Ms. Areli Hernández Rodarte, contains allegations of interference in union activities by the employer, break-in into union premises, cancellation of union leave and recognition of a new executive committee which was not elected according to the rules, with the ensuing consequences on the use of the union premises and the withholding of union dues. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, on 18 February 2003, fully exercising their autonomy and freedom of association, more than two-thirds of the members of the complainant union requested, through its national executive committee, the intervention of the Federation of Trade Unions of State Workers with which they are affiliated, in order to consolidate the restructuring of the union executive committee established at the Extraordinary National Conference of 2 December 2002, and nominated Ms. Gilda Martínez Martínez as the new secretary-general of the national executive committee of the complainant union. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, no INEGI official took part in the union’s restructuring activities since this was a matter for the unionized workers in the exercise of their right to freedom of association. The Committee also notes that the Government states that the events described above are solely the result of a dispute between unions.
2. 806. The Committee concludes that the present case refers to an internal dispute of the complainant union on which it is not competent to pronounce itself. Furthermore, since the complaint was presented by a committee which apparently no longer represents the workers, the Committee does not deem it necessary to investigate the allegations further. Under these circumstances, the Committee concludes that the present case does not call for further examination.