Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 121, 1971

1. 58. The complaint is contained in a communication sent by the Latin American Federation of Christian Trade Unions (CLASC) on 11 July 1969. The complainant organisation submitted further information in another communication dated 12 August 1969. The Government sent its observations on the case in three communications, dated 25 September 1969, 15 October 1969 and 28 July 1970.
2. 59. Mexico has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but it has not ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations concerning Measures of Anti-Union Discrimination
  60. 60 It is stated in the complaint that a firm and the labour authorities of Chihuahua violated the trade union rights of members of the Staff Union of the Embotelladora del Norte. The CLASC alleges that negotiations were under way between the firm and the union concerning changes in the duties of a certain category of workers, and that instead of signing the agreement that had been reached in the matter, the firm dismissed the workers concerned, replacing them with new workers. The complainants state that the firm offered to reinstate them if they signed an application for membership of another union. Those dismissed included two trade union leaders. The union held a meeting at which it decided to declare a strike against the firm for non-compliance with the collective agreement and arbitrary dismissal of trade union leaders. The Conciliation and Arbitration Board was given notice of the strike on 17 June 1969. On the same day the Board declared that a new trade union had been legally constituted and that it was the depository of a collective agreement between this union and the firm. In the meantime the Embotelladora del Norte proceeded to dismiss all the workers who were members of the plant union, the number dismissed reaching a total of 121, leaving only 4 workers, who had signed their consent to join the new union. The Staff Union of the Embotelladora del Norte submitted to the Conciliation and Arbitration Board a request that the registration of the new union be cancelled and that the collective agreement signed between the latter and the firm be declared null and void. A few days later the Board issued a statement to the effect that the strike against the firm was " non-existent " since " those who declared the strike were no longer employed by the company when they gave strike notice because they had ceased being employed there the day before ". The CLASC states in its complaint that the new workers engaged by the firm belong to the union which had just been registered, which is a member of the Mexican Confederation of Workers.
  61. 61 In the complainants' opinion, the firm infringed legislative provisions concerning individual contracts of employment and collective labour agreements and was guilty of " unfair practice " in dismissing all the members of the plant union, including its leaders, in recognising a new union and in offering to reinstate the dismissed workers if they joined the latter. The Conciliation and Arbitration Board is alleged to have evaded the central issue, confining itself to declaring the strike non-existent, on absurd grounds, since the strike was caused precisely by the workers' dismissal. According to the complainants such an attitude on the part of the authorities encourages arbitrary behaviour by the employers.
  62. 62 Supplying further information, the CLASC states that the union concerned initiated various legal proceedings, including an application for an injunction (recurso de amparo ) against the decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Board of Chihuahua concerning the strike. The complainants attach the text of a court judgement granting the injunction, ordering the Board to cancel its ruling and to take into account the votes of the workers who had not been recognised as such by the Board in its first ruling. The other proceedings were initiated against the leaders of the Mexican Confederation of Workers (CTM) against the firm and against the labour courts, for falsification of documents concerning the strike. In addition the union took proceedings against the firm for unjustified dismissal. The complainants state that although the union had recourse to the legal proceedings provided by the law, a peaceful meeting of the workers " was broken up by the police and fifteen leaders were imprisoned ". These persons were released after 30 hours. The CLASC goes on to say that note should also be taken of the presence and action of the so-called " shock troops " of the CTM, who tried to create disturbances at meetings of the Staff Union of the Embotelladora del Norte, with the intention of creating an atmosphere of violence that would justify police intervention.
  63. 63 In its first observations, the Government drew attention to the fact that the allegations were not directed against the Government: that conciliation boards enjoy autonomy as regards the taking of decisions, in which the Executive does not intervene, and that the questions raised were sub judice. The Government stated that it would inform the ILO of developments in the case.
  64. 64 In its further observations of 15 October 1969, the Government refers to the judgement of amparo mentioned above, of which it supplies the text, which-it adds-" is evidence of the independence of the courts of our country and shows that in any event, there was no intention on the part of the Mexican authorities to infringe freedom of association ". The Government states that respect for freedom of association is also illustrated by the fact, mentioned in the complaint, that the State Attorney's Office for the State of Chihuahua opened an inquiry into the other accusations made by the Staff Union of the Embotelladora del Norte against the labour courts, the firm and the Mexican Confederation of Workers. The Government states that " the fact that the inquiry has been ordered into facts allegedly attributable to the Central Conciliation and Arbitration Board of Chihuahua is clear evidence of the intention of the Mexican Government to get to the root of this matter and determine where the responsibility lies, regardless of who may be implicated ". The Government repeats moreover that there is rivalry between two trade unions as to which should represent the workers of the firm in question.
  65. 65 On the basis of the information submitted by the complainants and by the Government, the Committee at its meeting in February 1970 noted that the trade union concerned requested and obtained an injunction against the ruling of the Conciliation and Arbitration Board. Nevertheless, it considered that certain fundamental matters still remained in abeyance which, as they appeared in the allegations, were related to the exercise of trade union rights.
  66. 66 Furthermore the alleged infringements of freedom of association referred to the firm's intervention in persuading the workers to leave their union and join a different one and in dismissing the members and leaders of the union with the purpose, according to the complaint, of henceforth dealing with a new union. The complainants further stated that the Conciliation and Arbitration Board of Chihuahua acted in a manner prejudicial to the trade union rights of the dismissed workers and of their union, being biased in favour of the firm and the new union. The Committee considered that the allegations raised questions that should be examined in the light of the principles of freedom of association applied by the Committee in similar cases and in particular in the light of the principles embodied in Article 1 of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), according to which workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, such protection applying more particularly in respect of acts calculated to cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice a worker by reason of his union membership.
  67. 67 Certain aspects of the question appeared to be sub judice as a result of appeals made by the union concerned and the inquiry being carried out by the State Attorney's Office for the State of Chihuahua. Considering that before pursuing its examination of the case it would be desirable to have specific information on the development and outcome of the legal proceedings and of the inquiry in question, the Committee requested the submission of such information as soon as possible and of any other developments in the case.
  68. 68 Furthermore the Government had made no specific references in its observations to the allegations according to which, by means of the temporary imprisonment of trade union leaders and the intervention of " shock troops " of a rival trade union organisation, meetings of the trade union concerned were obstructed.
  69. 69 In the circumstances, the Committee, before pursuing its examination of the case further, considered it necessary to request the Director-General to secure from the Government the supplementary information referred to in paragraph 67 above, together with its observations on the allegations mentioned in paragraph 68.
  70. 70 By its communication of 28 July 1970 the Government submitted its observations on several aspects of the case which were still under examination. As regards the investigation undertaken by the State Attorney's Office for the State of Chihuahua to determine the responsibility of the public servants of the Central Conciliation and Arbitration Board who intervened in the labour dispute, the Government considers that the sanctions to be imposed upon those who pronounced the resolution annulled in the injunction decision had no direct connection with freedom of association. The Government added that out of fundamental respect for its own sovereignty no pronouncements should be made on the decision to be taken in the case of its own public servants. Concerning the alleged activities of " shock troops " in the inter-union dispute which forms the subject of the complaint, the Government states that in view of the fact that such events involve a disruption of public order, it has taken and has had to take all necessary measures to put down disturbances of the social peace. As regards the allegations according to which police intervened at a meeting of workers and fifteen trade union leaders were detained for 30 hours, the Government indicates that it has no knowledge of the alleged incidents.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 71. The Committee recommends the Governing Body to take due note of the Government's explanations. However, with regard to the last of these allegations, the Committee wishes to recall a view already expressed on a number of previous occasions, according to which the detention by the authorities of trade unionists concerning whom no grounds of conviction are subsequently found is liable to involve restrictions of trade union rights and that it is important in cases of this kind that governments take the necessary measures to ensure that the authorities concerned have instructions appropriate to eliminate the danger of detention for trade union activities."
2. 72. The Government has not sent any information on the results of the lawsuit brought by the Staff Union of the Embotelladora del Norte against the undertaking and, in particular, in respect of the dismissals effected by this latter. The Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to send this information and, at all events, to send details of the present situation of the workers who were dismissed, in the meantime, adjourning its examination of this aspect of the case.