Interim Report - Report No 103, 1968

1. 166. This case was already examined by the Committee at its session in February 1967. On that occasion the Committee submitted to the Governing Body the conclusions contained in paragraphs 100 to 132 of its 96th Report, which was approved by the Governing Body at its 169th Session (June 1967).
2. 167. In this report the Committee presented its final conclusions on two aspects of the case with regard to the application of closed shop or union security clauses in the petroleum industry and the supposedly biased attitude of a government official.
3. 168. In two communications dated 12 and 19 January 1968 from the Permanent Delegate of Mexico to the international organisations in Geneva, the Government furnished its observations on the remaining aspects of the case and on new allegations made by the Union of Temporary Workers of Petróleos Mexicanos (S.T.T.P.M.).
4. 169. In a communication dated 10 January 1968 the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions submitted a complaint with regard to the case, the text of which was sent to the Government in a letter dated 1 February 1968.
5. 170. 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. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Imprisonment of Trade Unionists
  171. 171 The S.T.T.P.M alleged that on 2 December 1966 agents of the federal police tried to arrest Mr. Gabriel Rivera Rios, President of the union's Committee of Honour and Justice, on the basis of a charge made by the Petróleos Mexicanos undertaking with regard to his supposed political opinions.
  172. 172 At its session in February 1967 the Committee recommended that the Governing Body request the Government to submit its observations on the above-mentioned allegation.
  173. 173 In a communication dated 14 March 1967 from the General Secretary of the S.T.T.P.M it was alleged that the worker Aristeo Barrios Morales had been arrested by the " special police " of the Petróleos Mexicanos in order, according to the complainants, to exert pressure for the withdrawal of the complaint before the Committee on Freedom of Association. In another communication dated 8 August 1967 sent by Mr. Carlos Esguerra it was stated that, on the night of 6 August, six members of the Executive Committee of the S.T.T.P.M, who were on hunger strike, were taken to an unknown destination by the federal police and the police of the Petróleos Mexicanos. Copies of the two communications quoted in this paragraph were sent to the Government in letters dated 21 April and 24 August 1967 respectively.
  174. 174 In its communication of 10 January 1968 the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions advanced allegations according to which several leaders of the S.T.T.P.M, including Mr. Rubén Carlos Esguerra, were now imprisoned.
  175. 175 In its communications of 12 and 19 January 1968 the Government states that it has no knowledge of the supposed arrest by the federal police of Mr. Gabriel Rivera Rios, the President of the Committee of Honour and Justice " of the self-styled Union of Temporary Workers of Petróleos Mexicanos ". The Government does not acknowledge that this took place, but points out that even if the person in question had been arrested, it would have been by virtue of a court order, in accordance with article 16 of the Constitution, and the arrest would therefore have been valid. The Government adds that the complainants have not alleged that any such arrest took place.
  176. 176 According to the Government, it is untrue that six members of the Executive Committee of the S.T.T.P.M, who were on hunger strike, were taken by the police of the Federal District and by the police of the undertaking to an unknown destination on the night of 6 August 1967. The Government states that " seven persons took part in a hunger strike at the doors of the U.N.O offices but lack of food was endangering their health and this induced them to give up the strike and seek medical treatment ". It adds that, of these seven persons, " six were taken at their own request by staff of the Social Welfare Directorate to the general hospital in Mexico City. The remaining person preferred to go to a private clinic ".
  177. 177 It will be appreciated, states the Government, that the six persons whose names it submits were neither arrested by the police, nor taken to an unknown destination. It adds that it had news of the facts and of the state of health of the persons in question through the press; a copy of an article on the subject, which appeared in a newspaper dated 8 August 1967, was attached.
  178. 178 The Government goes on to say that Petróleos Mexicanos does not possess and never has possessed its own police force, " nor does any other body possess such a force ", since, in accordance with article 21 of the Constitution, the prosecution of offences lies exclusively within the province of the public authorities, who control the police force.
  179. 179 The Government also supplies a copy of another newspaper article, dated 11 August 1967, from which it emerges that the persons who had led the hunger strike had sent a letter to the President of the Republic. According to this article the letter held Mr. Carlos Esguerra responsible for the harm they had suffered.
  180. 180 The Committee takes note of the Government's statement according to which the trade unionists who went on hunger strike were not arrested on 6 August 1967, but were taken to a hospital whose name was given in the press. With regard to the allegation of the S.T.T.P.M relating to the attempted arrest of Mr. Gabriel Rivera Rios, the Committee considers, in view of the Government's reply, that the complainants have not submitted sufficient evidence to support their allegation. With regard to the alleged arrest of Mr. Aristeo Barrios Morales, the Government makes no specific reference to the matter, but denies that Petróleos Mexicanos has a special police force, such as-according to the complainants-is supposed to have made the arrest.
  181. 181 The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that no useful purpose would be served by pursuing its examination of the allegations of the S.T.T.P.M mentioned in paragraph 180 above.
  182. 182 Furthermore, taking into account the fact that the Government has not yet had an opportunity to submit its observations on the complaint of the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions referred to in paragraph 174 above, the Committee requests the Government to be good enough to furnish these observations as soon as possible.
• Allegation relating to Interference by the Management in the Affairs of the Complaining Trade Union
  183. 183 The S.T.T.P.M alleged that Petróleos Mexicanos had offered the members of the complaining trade union the lowest grade jobs, with the object of " solving the problem submitted to the I.L.O." This proposal was alleged to form part of the tactics employed by the management to the detriment of the members of the S.T.T.P.M.
  184. 184 In its observations the Government states that this question is not related to the exercise of freedom of association. It adds that it is perfectly normal, when a dispute exists, for one of the parties to put forward a solution. The Government has not requested special information from the undertaking on this point, since this is irrelevant to an understanding of the respect in which freedom of association is held in Mexico. Finally, the Government has not requested the undertaking to make an offer in order to reach an agreement with the workers.
  185. 185 If the Committee sought the observations of the Government on these allegations, it was because the latter appeared to refer to interference by the undertaking in the affairs of the trade union, designed to secure the withdrawal of the complaint submitted to the I.L.O. In view of the Government's reply, and since the complainants have submitted no further information on the point in question, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.