Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 307, Juin 1997

1. 405. The complaint concerning this case is contained in a communication from the National Revolutionary Trade Union of Transport and Allied Workers of the Mexican Republic (section X) (CTM) dated 7 November 1996. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 3 March 1997.
2. 406. 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. 407. In its communication of 7 November 1996 the National Revolutionary Trade Union of Transport and Allied Workers of the Mexican Republic (section X) (CTM) states that on 18 April 1995 it informed the road transport enterprises Autotransportes Tres Estrellas de Oro SA de CV and Corsarios del Bajío SA de CV of its intention to hold a strike for a review of the wage conditions in the collective labour contract, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Labour Act; following the enterprises' refusal to consider its wage demands, it declared a strike on 21 June 1995. The complainant organization adds that the strike was declared lawful by the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board (JFCA) on 10 August 1995, that the enterprises lodged separate judicial appeals which were declared inadmissible and that, since the appeals were denied, the management of the enterprises accepted the list of demands and requested the JFCA to order the strikers to resume work within 24 hours.
2. 408. The complainant organization states that the JFCA ordered the strike over in a resolution dated 13 February 1996 and stipulated that the workers should go back to work within 24 hours from the date on which the trade union was to be informed. The complainant organization adds that the Secretary General of the trade union was informed of this decision on 15 February 1996 but that he, in collusion with the management of the enterprise, failed to pass the information on to the striking workers. In these circumstances, on 18 February the strikers were barred entry to the enterprises. The complainant organization states that it approached the JFCA again to request it to fix a new date on which workers should resume work and that despite the Board establishing a new date, the enterprises lodged an appeal against this measure with the judicial authorities who accepted their arguments; consequently, the JFCA issued a new resolution upholding the initial time-limit of 24 hours provided for under its resolution of 13 February 1996.

B. The Government's reply

1. 409. In its communication of 3 March 1997, the Government states that the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board (JFCA), the competent authority for dealing with collective labour disputes, declared the strike called by the workers on 21 June 1995 legal and admissible as it complied with the substance and spirit of the requirements laid down in the Federal Labour Act. The various steps leading to this decision by the JFCA should be spelt out: on 10 August 1995 it refused a request made by the enterprises on 23 June of the same year to declare the strike inadmissible; on 30 August 1995 it turned down a request for annulment lodged by the enterprises on 18 August 1995 on the grounds that it was inadmissible; and on 31 January 1996 it refused the enterprises' request - dated 10 October 1995 - to declare the grounds for the strike unlawful. The Government adds that on 2 February 1996 the enterprises accepted without any changes whatsoever and to the letter the list of demands on which the workers had based the strike; they also drew up a list of the workers, establishing the wage level of all of them, and attached two sets of cheques sent to each and every one of the workers: the first was for the wages due between 21 June 1995 and 2 February 1996, and the second for the end-of-year bonus for 1995. The Government points out that as a result of this arrangement, the grounds for the collective dispute ceased to exist; this prompted the JFCA to issue a resolution on 13 February 1996 ordering the workers to return to work within 24 hours of the trade union which had declared the strike being informed of this decision. This notification was personally received on 15 February 1996 by the Secretary General of the trade union who was duly authorized to deal with procedural matters of this nature - and thus to receive all categories of notifications.
2. 410. The Government states that a number of workers from the enterprises, arguing that they had not been informed by the Secretary General of the trade union of the deadline for returning to work, requested the JFCA to set a new date and time. Wishing to make allowance for any misinformation or lack of communication by the Secretary General there might have been and to prevent the workers from being denied justice, the JFCA agreed to this request on 21 February 1996 and fixed a new deadline for 9 p.m. on 23 February 1996. The Government points out that the enterprises brought an action for amparo (enforcement of constitutional rights) against this decision by the JFCA, which was upheld on 14 and 19 March 1996 by the first and second district labour courts respectively. In April 1996, both the authorities of the JFCA and the officials of section X of the trade union mentioned above lodged appeals for review, contesting these decisions to grant amparo to the enterprises. The seventh labour court which dealt with these appeals for review, in keeping with its terms of reference and independence, upheld the resolutions granted amparo to the enterprises and thus: (a) annulled the resolution of the JFCA of 21 February 1996 which granted a new deadline for the return to work; and (b) upheld the resolution of the JFCA of 13 February establishing a deadline of 24 hours for workers to resume work.
3. 411. The Government points out that the applicants were unable to prove either the legal personality they claimed or their judicial interest in the corresponding proceedings, since from the very beginning of the dispute only the Secretary General of the trade union and the legal proxies appointed by him were authorized to assume this role - and these did not include any members of section X. Consequently, the court could not lawfully consider the claims of anyone who was not part of the proceedings - particularly since any information was personally notified to the person legally representing the workers. There can be no appeal whatsoever against this ruling of the seventh court; in other words, the matter was adjudged (res judicata), thus legally putting an end to the disputes.
4. 412. The Government points out that the employment relationship was terminated in the case of those workers who did not resume work within the 24 hours granted by the JFCA for this purpose and in accordance with the resolution of the seventh court; these workers had gone to the JFCA to receive the cheques covering their wages that had been unpaid because of the strike and the end-of-year bonus for 1995. Finally, the Government states that the JFCA took its decisions and issued its resolutions in favour of the workers in strict compliance with the applicable legal framework; furthermore, the proceedings of the judicial bodies of the Supreme High Court (district courts and collegial court) also complied strictly with the applicable legal framework, dealing in full exercise of their terms of reference and independence with the appeals for amparo and review lodged by the parties (including the JFCA).

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 413. The Committee notes that in this case the complainant organization alleges that workers who had taken part in a strike in the transport sector were forbidden entry to the road transport enterprises Autotransportes Tres Estrellas de Oro SA de CV and Corsarios del Bajío SA de CV. The complainant organization attributes these dismissals to the fact that the Secretary General of the trade union, in collusion with the management of the enterprises, did not communicate to the strikers the deadline ordering them to return to work within 24 hours which had been decided upon by the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board (JFCA) because the enterprises had accepted the trade union's demands.
2. 414. The Committee notes that it appears from the Government's reply that: (i) the strike declared by the National Trade Union of Transport and Allied Workers of the Mexican Republic (CTM) was declared lawful by the JFCA, despite the appeals lodged by the enterprises; (ii) the enterprises subsequently accepted the list of demands submitted by the striking workers; (iii) once the list of demands had been accepted, the JFCA ordered the workers to return to work within 24 hours on 13 February 1996; (iv) the Secretary General of the trade union was notified of this decision on 15 February 1996; (v) a number of workers belonging to the trade union stated that they had not been notified by the Secretary General and turned again to the JFCA to try and obtain a new deadline to resume work; this the enterprises refused and they accordingly lodged judicial appeals which were upheld, thus confirming the previous deadline of 24 hours within which the workers had to return to work; (vi) the labour relationship of the workers who did not return to work within the 24-hour deadline established by the JFCA was terminated and the workers concerned were paid for the days they were on strike and the end-of-year bonus for 1995.
3. 415. In this respect, the Committee notes that although the striking workers did not respect the 24-hour deadline established by the JFCA this was due, according to the complainant, to the fact that they were not aware of such a decision (according to the complainant organization the Secretary General of the trade union had failed to notify the strikers because he was in collusion with the management of the enterprises). Similarly, the Committee notes that a few days after the Secretary General of the trade union had been notified of the resolution issued by the JFCA, the strikers showed a definite interest in returning to work and actually approached the above-mentioned Board to this effect.
4. 416. In the Committee's opinion, the lack of communication between the Secretary General of the trade union and the strikers on the actual time when the latter should return to work should not give rise to such a serious decision as to terminate the labour relationship of the strikers, particularly since: (1) the complainant organization maintained that the lack of communication was due to collusion between the Secretary General and the management of the enterprise; (2) this statement by the complainant organization has not been denied by the Government; and (3) the strikers had no interest in continuing the strike given that the enterprise had already accepted the strikers' demands; it would have been pointless and counter-productive to continue the strike. In these circumstances, taking into account that in this case the authorities had expressly declared the strike to be legal, the Committee urges the Government to take all necessary steps to ensure that the workers of Autotransportes Tres Estrellas de Oro SA de CV and Corsarios del Bajío SA de CV who participated in the strike and who did not return to work in a 24-hour deadline are reinstated in their jobs. If the Government is unable to abide by this recommendation, the Committee requests it to keep it informed of the legal difficulties which prevents it from reinstating the workers in their jobs.