Definitive Report - Report No 386, June 2018

1. 475. The complaint is contained in a communication of 8 June 2016 from the Progressive Union of Food Industry Workers of the Republic of Mexico (SPTRARM).
2. 476. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 15 May 2017.
3. 477. Mexico has ratified 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. The complainant’s allegations

1. 478. In its communication of 8 June 2016, the SPTRARM alleges irregularities in procedures in response to a set of demands containing a call to strike, and also intimidation of union members.
2. 479. The complainant organization states that: (i) Servicios Integrados de Envasado S.A. de C.V. (Integrated Packaging Services Company – hereinafter: the company), which deals with the production and packaging of beverages, is located in the state of Puebla; (ii) the company is party to a so-called collective labour agreement with the union known as the Single Independent Union of Service Workers (SUITS); (iii) the aforementioned collective agreement is null and void and without legal effect since it was registered with the Local Conciliation and Arbitration Board (JLCA) of the state of Puebla (on account of the company’s activity, comprising both the packaging and the production of beverages), whereas under section 527 of the Federal Labour Act, which gives the federal authorities sole regulatory power with respect to producers of packaged or canned beverages, it should have been registered with the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board (JFCA); (iv) the company workers indicated that they did not know any persons supposedly representing the union which was party to the collective agreement (SUITS); (v) of the 250 workers at the company, over 200 were members of the complainant union; consequently, on 6 May 2016, in view of the fact that the collective agreement was null and void, a list of demands containing a call to strike was presented with a view to securing the signature of a collective agreement in conformity with the law; (vi) on 27 May 2016, at the statutory conciliation hearing, the company indicated that it provided packaging services and cited the existence of a collective agreement in force; (vii) as a result of the conciliation hearing, the JFCA issued a ruling to the effect that it was not proven that the packaged products were produced by the company and that its activity was therefore not one of those that came solely within the jurisdiction of the federal labour authority; (viii) the aforementioned ruling violates national law since the records of the case show that it was fully proven that the company did produce beverages for subsequent packaging; and (ix) the complainant indicates that it filed an appeal for amparo (protection of constitutional rights), which is still pending.
3. 480. Furthermore, the complainant organization alleges that the company began to use intimidatory tactics against its members, and that some of them had been obliged to resign as a result of being informed that they could be liable to criminal prosecution for supporting the strike call.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 481. In its communication of 15 September 2017, the Government sent observations in reply to the complainant’s allegations further to the information sent by the Under-Ministry of Labour, the JFCA, the Legal Affairs Department at the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, the JLCA of the state of Puebla, and the company concerned.
2. 482. With regard to the alleged irregularities in procedures in response to a set of demands containing a call to strike and the allegation that the collective labour agreement between the company and the SUITS union is null and void, the Government indicates that: (i) at the conciliation hearing of 27 May 2016, the company cited the existence of a collective agreement registered with the Puebla JLCA and affirmed by notarial act that the corporate purpose of the company is to provide packaging services for all types of products, including beverages, and also to conduct business operations in relation to articles for packaging, highlighting the fact that the packaged products do not originate from the company but are produced by various enterprises; (ii) consequently, the local nature of the company was confirmed (in this connection, a copy of the act of establishment of the company was forwarded); (iii) in view of the existence of the collective agreement, dated 27 May 2016, at the Puebla JLCA, the JFCA decided not to continue with procedures relating to the strike; (iv) the complainant filed an amparo appeal, which was dismissed on 25 July 2016 by the Eighth District Labour Court, on account of the existence of a collective agreement governing employer–worker relations; and (v) the JFCA stresses that it was fully proven that its actions were in conformity with the law, with the Federal Labour Act and with the case law emanating from the Supreme Court of Justice.
3. 483. With regard to the allegation that the workers do not know who the SUITS representatives are, the Government has supplied detailed information and documents relating to the establishment and registration of SUITS in 2012, its assemblies, and the conclusion of collective agreements with the company. The Government states that the foregoing demonstrates the recognition of SUITS by the company workers, and this is borne out particularly by documentation substantiating the initial support in 2012 from 85 workers, and by the participation of 158 workers in assemblies in 2015 and 2016 (the Government has sent attendance lists for SUITS assemblies held in March 2015 – for appointing an executive committee – and March 2016, which include a detailed record of the names of the 158 participating workers). Moreover, the Government indicates that, as regards the complainant organization’s claim to have a membership of over 200 workers, the union has failed to demonstrate or provide proof of the alleged membership.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 484. The Committee observes that the complainant is concerned with allegations of irregularities in procedures in response to a set of demands containing a call to strike, and also with the intimidation of union members. The main argument of the complainant organization is the assertion that a collective agreement previously concluded with another union at the company is null and void. The complainant argues that: (i) under the provisions of the Federal Labour Act, since the company’s activities include not only the packaging but also the production of beverages, competence for labour matters lies with the federal authority; (ii) the collective agreement concluded by the other union is null and void since it was registered with the local authority (the JLCA); (iii) since the collective agreement was null and void, the complainant was entitled to submit a set of demands for collective negotiation and issue a call to strike; and (iv) however, the authorities blocked this by not accepting that the collective agreement was null and void.
2. 485. The Committee observes that the issue raised by the complainant organization concerns the application of national law: in particular, determining which authority has competence for dealing with the activities of the company – an issue on which the Committee is not in a position to comment. In this regard, the Committee duly notes the Government’s statement that: (i) by notarial act it was demonstrated vis-à-vis the federal authority (the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board – JFCA) that the activities of the company belong to the local sphere; and (ii) the labour court examined the issue and dismissed the amparo appeal lodged by the complainant.
3. 486. The Committee also observes, with regard to the allegation that the workers do not know the representatives of the trade union which is party to the collective agreement (SUITS), that the documentation provided by the Government shows that a considerable number of workers are SUITS members. In particular, the Committee notes the attendance lists for the SUITS assemblies of March 2015 (for appointing an executive committee) and March 2016 (shortly before the complainant organization presented its set of demands), which contain a detailed record of names substantiating the participation of 158 workers (out of the 250 workers who, according to the complainant, work at the company). However, the Committee observes that, as emphasized by the Government, the complainant did not supply any documentation to support its claim that it has over 200 members.
4. 487. With regard to the allegation of anti-union discrimination, the Committee observes that this is presented in brief and general terms, without any details or evidence. The Committee will therefore no pursue its examination of this allegation.
5. 488. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee considers that this case does not call for further examination.