Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 356, March 2010

1. 960. The complaint is contained in a communication from the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) dated 28 August 2008. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 19 January 2009 and 25 February 2010.
2. 961. 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. 962. In its communication of 28 August 2008, the WFTU states that the Trade Union of Workers in the Service of the State Authorities (STSPE) brings together 4,300 public sector workers working in various departments of the executive, judicial and legislative authorities in the State of Querétaro, as well as several decentralized bodies, namely: the College of Bachelors of the State of Querétaro (COBAQ), the College of Science and Technology Studies of the State of Querétaro (CECyTEQ), the Querétaro Technology University (UTEQ), the State System for All Round Family Development (SEDIF), the Querétaro Institute for Culture and the Arts (IQCA), the Labour Training Institute of the State of Querétaro (ICATEQ), the State Road Commission (CEC) and the State Water Commission (CEA).
2. 963. The complainant states that, on 31 July and 1 August 2006, in accordance with the internal statutes of the STSPE and the formalities of Mexican labour legislation, an electoral process was held to appoint an executive committee for the period 2006-09. Five teams, registered under the names green, blue, purple, red and tricolour, participated in the election, which was scrutinized and monitored throughout by independent STSPE commissions such as the vigilance committee, the honour and justice commission, and the electoral commission, as well as by representatives of the teams, who approved the various stages of the electoral process up to the vote counting, and also signed the election report and certified that the team registered as "tricolour" had won on the basis of the following results (the appropriate documents were signed for the record):
   • Team
   • Green / Total votes: 369
   • Red / Total votes: 526
   • Purple / Total votes: 281
   • Blue / Total votes: 754
   • Tricolour / Total votes: 1 045
3. 964. Despite the fact that the election candidates accepted the victory of the tricolour team and signed the scrutiny documents, on 4 August 2006, the green, purple and blue teams, acting under government influence, filed claims with the Conciliation and Arbitration Court of the State of Querétaro, subsequently followed by the red team, to have the election annulled, citing as their principal arguments the fact that the tricolour team had used one of the colours of an opposing team in its logo, as well as the fact that some members of the committee elect had served on the outgoing committee, which is, however, permitted by the aforementioned internal statutes of the STSPE (copies of the annulment claims are attached to the complaint). Thus began Case No. 242/2006-1, comprising the various claims filed, together with other legal actions referred to below.
4. 965. On 7 August 2006, the outgoing executive committee received notification of a decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal of the State of Querétaro informing the union's serving representative body that the members of the green, red, purple and blue teams had filed claims for the election to be annulled. It should be noted that, when the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal receives a request, it takes 45 days on average between the request being officially registered and the respondents being notified. In this case, it took only three days to complete all procedures and issue a decision. In addition, the Tribunal illegally rectified shortcomings of form in the claims, which was not in accordance with procedure, as the dispute is between equals, i.e. between workers (by law, the courts can and must rectify shortcomings in claims when they are submitted by workers against enterprises, but not in this case, where, because the workers have equal standing, there should be no duty of protection towards either party). This can be verified from the annulment claims, in which the tricolour team is not mentioned as a respondent; however, the Tribunal has overstepped its authority by citing the tricolour team as a respondent rather than as an interested third party, displaying flagrant interference in the activities of the union through the biased application of judicial procedures, thereby violating the independence, freedom of association and free will of the workers.
5. 966. On 7 August 2008 (actually 2006, as corrected by the Government in its reply), the president of the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal of the State of Querétaro, Mr Jesús Lomeli Rojas, resolved to appoint the vigilance committee to run the union, in accordance with section 60 of its internal statutes, which states:
   • Section 60 - Once the mandated term of an executive committee expires, if for any reason the elections have not been verified, or the result thereof is still pending legal resolution, the vigilance committee shall assume the running of the union from that date, in the first instance calling elections within 30 days, and in the second, if necessary, seeking a decision from the relevant authority within 15 days.
6. 967. The complainants consider that this decision is illegal under Mexican law, since its interpretation fails to recognize that the appropriate internal bodies of the STSPE to examine and resolve such claims are the committee for honour and justice, the vigilance committee, the electoral committee, the executive committee itself and, principally, the union's highest authority, i.e. the general assembly. Nevertheless, the much-cited Tribunal issued a decision that states:
   • … by virtue of the fact that the electoral process undertaken to elect an executive committee for 2006-09 has been contested under the terms of section 60 of the current statutes of the Trade Union of Workers in the Service of the State Authorities, and that the corresponding legal decision is therefore subject to the present procedure, as of today the vigilance committee shall assume the running of the union until the current dispute has been settled.
7. 968. As well as interrupting the management activities of the serving executive committee, since the term of the outgoing committee was due to expire on 15 August 2006, this restricted the exercise of the right to trade union autonomy by imposing an executive body that had not been democratically elected by the workers. In addition to the fact that it contravenes the time limits set out in the statutes, given that the mandate of the vigilance committee expired on 16 August 2008, attempts have been made, based on the above agreement, to extend the term of this spurious representative body imposed by the Tribunal.
8. 969. As a result, at the time of presenting this complaint, no general assembly has been held since the Tribunal installed the union's executive body, as both the labour court and the vigilance committee, serving as the union's executive body, state that an assembly will not be called until the dispute has been resolved. This violates trade union autonomy: an executive body has been imposed by means of an administrative order issued by the authorities, altering the union's statutes by extending the executive body's term, and even deliberately delaying the process for airing grievances. In this regard, since October 2007, the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal has neither provided evidence nor fixed a date for continuing the examination of the case.
9. 970. The aforementioned decision by the Tribunal was amended and a new version was issued on 13 August 2006, clarifying that the vigilance committee would assume the role of executive body for the union once the current executive committee's mandate expired, invalidating the decision of 7 August 2006, on the basis of which all the subsequent actions had been taken. This demonstrates the illegality of the Tribunal's behaviour and its interference in trade union activities in order to promote the interests of the Mexican Government.
10. 971. On 8 August 2006, based on the results of the electoral process, the serving executive committee requested the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal for the State of Querétaro to recognize the executive committee elected by vote for the period 15 August 2006 to 15 August 2009 and register it officially for legal purposes; this request was accompanied by the necessary supporting documentation, including the notice of election, scrutiny documents and the decision of the electoral committee. In the light of this request, the Tribunal ruled that, as the electoral process had already been contested, it would deny the committee elect official registration and would enforce its decision of 7 August to appoint the vigilance committee of the STSPE as the union's executive body.
11. 972. The complainant also alleges that, on 15 August 2006, a commemorative assembly of the STSPE was held, in accordance with the provisions of the union's internal statutes, section 26 of which states:
    • Section 26 - The union shall hold an annual commemorative assembly to mark the anniversary of its constitution between 10 and 15 August, which shall be presided over by a president, two secretaries and two scrutineers, who shall be appointed by the members of the assembly and assisted by the executive committee. The purpose of this assembly shall be:
    • I. To commemorate the date officially.
    • II. To consider the general reports of the executive and vigilance committees, its other committees, and the union's representatives on the Joint Committees.
    • III. To discuss and to approve or reject the reports referred to in paragraph II, in particular any matters relating to the financing of the union.
    • IV. To consider the result of any elections to the governing bodies.
    • V. To swear in any officials who have been elected.
    • VI. Any other business stated in the relevant notice of convocation.
12. 973. At the assembly, the number of those present was sufficient for the quorum required for the assembly to be legal. The assembly ratified the win by the tricolour team and declared it the executive committee elect for 2006-09, certifying this before a public notary and producing the appropriate notarized record. The confirmation of the committee by the commemorative assembly on 15 August 2006 and the notarized record produced by the same assembly on the same date are attached as annexes.
13. 974. In line with the assembly's endorsement of the results of the election, which was won by the tricolour team, as well as the swearing-in of the executive committee elect and the decision taken by the general assembly held on 15 August, the union's representative body, in accordance with the provisions of section 95 of the Act on workers in the service of the state and local authorities of the State of Querétaro, submitted, on 17 August 2006, the request referred to by the Tribunal to recognize the STSPE's executive committee for the period 2006-09 and to grant the appropriate official registration for legal purposes. This request was accompanied by the necessary supporting documentation, which consisted of: the notice of convocation for the assembly of 15 August 2006; the report on the activities of the executive committee; the report of the vigilance committee; the report of the electoral commission on the process of electing the executive committee for 2006-09; the decision of the electoral commission; and the attendance list for the assembly held on 15 August 2006. Faced with this request, the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal on 24 August 2006 decided that, because the electoral process had already been contested, the request for registration would be added to Case No. 242/2006-1 covering the annulment claims, despite the fact that, in itself, it concerned a new act separate from the electoral process. The Tribunal glossed over the decision of the legally constituted assembly, deciding to deny official registration to the union's executive body. In other words, the authorities are refusing to recognize the wishes of the "grass-roots" workers, the electoral process, and the union's legally and formally elected leadership, thereby violating the right to freedom of association.
14. 975. On 6 September 2006, the government departments in the State of Querétaro, where the union members work, informed them, at the instigation of the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal, that trade union dues and other trade union deductions levied on an individual basis, along with economic benefits, would be deposited with the Tribunal and only transferred to whichever body acquired legal personality. As legal personality was denied to the executive committee elect by the Tribunal, the dues were accordingly not transferred to it. These economic resources were deposited with the vigilance committee, acting as the union's executive body, in November 2006.
15. 976. From 7 September 2006, the various government departments in the State of Querétaro where some of the members of the executive committee elect and of the outgoing committee work informed them, at the instigation of the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal, that the union's licences were being revoked, despite the fact that they had been issued for an indefinite period, in accordance with the provisions of section 33 of the General Labour Conditions and the Act on workers in the service of the state and local authorities.
16. 977. Against this background, the members of the executive committee elect returned to their employment to find that a tactic of harassment and intimidation had been established in every workplace, for example, preventing them from performing activities that their union members requested of them, as well as unilaterally changing their hours of work or increasing their workload, and even posting people to supervise and intimidate every member of the committee elect. This was denied by both the labour authorities and management. Proof of this can be seen in a request submitted by the General Secretary elect for reinstatement of her working hours, unilaterally altered when she returned to her duties, which has been registered by the Local Conciliation and Arbitration Board for the State of Querétaro.
17. 978. In a clear act of repression against union activism, on 9 February 2007, seven members of the executive committee elect were dismissed without just cause, among them Ms María del Carmen Gómez Ortega. The dismissals took place simultaneously and under different pretexts. The following representatives elect were dismissed:
    • Name / Union position / Department / Alleged cause of dismissal
    • María del Carmen Gómez Ortega / General Secretary / COBAQ / Abandoned post
    • Luis Guerrero Dávila / Internal Affairs Secretary / CECyTEQ / Failure to fulfil duties
    • Guillermo Alonso Gervacio / External Affairs Secretary / Executive Authority / None, but was pressurized to take early retirement
    • María Mercedes Hernández Uribe / Pensions and Housing Secretary / Executive Authority / None, but was pressurized to retire
    • Raúl Silva Meníndez / Political Action Secretary / CECyTEQ / None, but was threatened with dismissal of family members in other departments and obliged to resign
    • María Guadalupe Rodríguez Badillo / Minutes and Decisions Secretary / Executive Authority / Abandoned post
    • Luis Fernando Briseno Guasti / President of the Committee on Legislation / Executive Authority / Quarrel at work
    • A request for reinstatement was therefore submitted to the labour authorities, but the process has been drawn out by the repeated submission of improper claims, such as proceedings for annulment, lack of legal personality, accumulation, etc., with the sole objective on the part of management representatives of delaying the proceedings, in complicity with the labour authorities, by failing to comply with the provisions of Mexican labour law or to respect the principle of delivering justice promptly and expeditiously. The management's representative has stated, before the same Local Conciliation and Arbitration Board, that he was instructed by the governor, Mr Francisco Garrido Patrón, to keep the courts busy until the term of the committee elect expired, to enable the current state government's term to expire likewise without further conflict.
18. 979. The complainant further alleges that, in March 2007, the General Secretary elect, Ms María del Carmen Gómez Ortega, along with other members of the committee elect, was named as a possible culprit in the preliminary investigation No. DP/07/2007 against five members of the executive committee that served until the vote in August 2006, for alleged fraud at the union's Loans and Savings Fund, an allegation that was signed by 15 workers under pressure from their immediate bosses, according to the workers themselves.
19. 980. In response to each and every action by the Tribunal that it considers to violate freedom of association, the union has invoked various remedies, all of which, rather suspiciously, have been transmitted to the same Second District Court, which always exhausts the time allowed, ignoring the principle of applying the law quickly and expeditiously.
20. 981. In the complainant's view, the allegations it makes violate both Convention No. 87 and national legislation, including sections 92 and 99 of the Act on workers in the services of the state and local authorities and section 370 of the Federal Labour Act, as no labour authority may order the cancellation, dissolution or suspension of a trade union, which is the sole preserve of unions. Furthermore, no authority may change, modify or establish the working methods of a trade union organization, as this is detrimental to the fundamental rights of workers.

B. The Government's reply

1. 982. In its communications of 19 January 2009 and 25 February 2010, the Government, referring to the complainant's allegations concerning the victory of the tricolour team in the elections to the executive committee of the STSPE held on 31 July and 1 August 2006, states that it is not true that the candidates accepted the tricolour team's win, as each of the green, blue, purple and red teams filed a claim contesting the electoral process and requesting that the election be annulled and that a new one be ordered, as set out in Cases Nos 242, 243, 244 and 249/2006/1, which are consolidated in Case No. 242/2006/1. In accordance with section 158(III) of the Act on workers in the service of the state and local authorities, it was the responsibility of the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal for the State of Querétaro to examine the dispute, at the request of the parties. It cannot, therefore, be alleged that there has been government interference.
2. 983. The complainant's claim concerning the illegality of the Tribunal's actions is false because, in accordance with the claims procedure, all parties and co-respondents must be notified and, if they are not, the Tribunal must arrange a new date and time for a hearing. Furthermore, this Tribunal did not resolve the case in three days, as the complainant states, but applied the statutes of the STSPE in accordance with section 60, which stipulates that, in the event of elections pending legal resolution, the vigilance committee is to assume the running of the union until the decision of the relevant authority is known. Moreover, the case has not been resolved, as is mistakenly claimed; on the contrary, this action began the case, which is currently at the stage of examination of evidence.
3. 984. The complainant is incoherent in its allegations, as it incorrectly cites the decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal to appoint the vigilance committee to run the union, which was handed down on 7 August 2006, not 7 August 2008. Under section 158(III) of the Act on workers in the service of the state and local authorities, the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal is the competent body to examine and resolve the dispute, at the request of the dissenting teams that brought the case before the Tribunal, not, as the complainant wrongly states, the honour and justice, monitoring or electoral committees. This was confirmed by the Fourth District Court of the State of Querétaro in amparo Case No. 1019/2006-I, brought by Ms María del Carmen Gómez Ortega (tricolour team) and a third party in which it refused the provisional suspension of the action contested, as well as the protection and justice offered by federal amparo, thereby confirming the decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal of 7 August 2006 to appoint the vigilance committee as executive body until the Tribunal had given a final ruling.
4. 985. Furthermore, the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal did not impose leadership on the union, but stuck strictly to the union's internal statutes in deciding to take note of the fact that the vigilance committee would assume the running of the union until the annulment claim had been settled, as provided for in section 60 of the statutes.
5. 986. The Tribunal did not deliberately delay the process of airing grievances. It should be pointed out that tribunals are not obliged to rule immediately, nor in favour of one of the parties specifically, as their decisions are taken after analysing and assessing the evidence submitted by the parties to the dispute. At the appropriate point in the proceedings, therefore, if the complainant receives a ruling contrary to its interests, it can appeal the decision, exercising the remedies provided for by the country's legal system.
6. 987. With regard to the allegation that, on 15 August 2006, a commemorative assembly was held by the STSPE in accordance with section 26 of its statutes, and that, on 17 August 2006, the union's representatives submitted a request for recognition of the STSPE executive committee for 2006-09 to the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal, together with the corresponding request for official registration, the Government underlines that the convocation notice for the commemorative assembly included publicizing the results of the election but did not invite it to elect a new committee. It also omitted to state that proceedings to contest the legality of the elections had already been brought before the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal. The Tribunal received the parties to give evidence and the dissenting teams opposed the renewed request from the tricolour team, led by Ms María del Carmen Gómez Ortega, and requested that the case before the Tribunal should continue, on the grounds that the election process had been vitiated and was therefore invalid. It would therefore be improper to grant official registration to the supposed executive committee elect, as it was necessary to continue the proceedings brought before the Tribunal, during which time the vigilance committee would act as executive committee until the final ruling was given. The Government states that the decisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal have been confirmed by the Fourth District Court of Querétaro, which has ruled official registration to be inadmissible, and the Third District Court, which has confirmed both the refusal to grant provisional suspension and the denial of protection through the federal legal system.
7. 988. With regard to the allegation concerning the transfer of trade union dues to the vigilance committee, acting as the union's executive body, in November 2006, the Government states that the vigilance committee requested the Tribunal, in union registration document No. 01, to effect the real and material transfer of the union's premises, real and personal property, and economic assets. In response to this request, on 3 July 2007, the Tribunal ordered the actuary to arrange the transfer of the articles requested to the legal representative of the STSPE.
8. 989. With regard to the alleged dismissal of and "preliminary criminal investigations" against trade union members, the Government states that the complaint does not constitute an actual allegation, as it does not make the necessary connection between its arguments and the documentary evidence it refers to. In other words, even though the relevant annexes are physically provided, none of them gives the reasons why the dismissals took place, because the names of the workers who were allegedly dismissed or who have allegedly been victims of intimidation and violence are simply listed, but the complaint does not succeed in proving anything, as none of its claims are substantiated by evidence. Of course, without conceding that the dismissals alluded to in the complaint have taken place, the workers affected could exercise their rights before the appropriate administrative or legal authorities at any time. This has not happened.
9. 990. The Government also refers to the allegation that, in response to the actions by the Tribunal related to a violation of freedom of association, various remedies have been invoked, all of which, rather suspiciously, have been transmitted to the same Second District Court, which always exhausts the time allowed, ignoring the principle of applying the law quickly and expeditiously, and invariably the ruling goes in favour of the union, requiring protection to be sought under federal law by filing appeals against the rulings. In this respect, the Government states that the information given is false, as the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal has acted in accordance with the law, grounding all its decisions in the union's own statutes and in the Act on workers in the service of the state and local authorities. All the rulings given by this Tribunal have been confirmed by the judicial authorities.
10. 991. The Government concludes by stating that:
    • - None of the facts or actions mentioned in the complaint presented amount to the alleged failure by the Government of Mexico to respect the principle of freedom of association and the right to unionize enshrined in ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 135, as it has not been demonstrated that any Mexican authority has violated the labour rights of the union's members or their freedom to belong to a trade union.
    • - The Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal of the State of Querétaro cannot be accused of interference in the internal activities of the STSPE, as each of the green, blue, purple and red teams filed a claim contesting the electoral process, as set out in consolidated Case No. 242/2006/1, and, in accordance with section 158(III) of the Act on workers in the service of the state and local authorities, it was the responsibility of the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal for the State of Querétaro to examine the dispute, at the request of the parties.
    • - The alleged failure to respect the decision of the assembly is not attributable to the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal but to the green, blue, purple and red teams who requested that the electoral process be annulled and that new elections be held.
    • - The Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal has not refused recognition to any union representative group or restricted the activities thereof, because, as a result of the requests submitted by the green, blue, purple and red teams, the proceedings brought are still at the stage of examination of evidence.
    • - In this respect, the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal has acted in strict compliance with judicial and legal safeguards, following the procedure laid down in the statutes of the STSPE, particularly section 60 thereof, which stipulates that, in the event of elections pending legal resolution, the vigilance committee is to assume the running of the union until the decision of the relevant authority is known.
    • - All decisions of the Tribunal in question have been confirmed by the appropriate judicial authorities.
    • - There is no evidence to demonstrate that the Querétaro authorities have carried out any act of repression against the union's elected leaders.
    • - The Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal has not changed, modified or prescribed the working methods of the union, but has acted in strict accordance with the provisions of the STSPE's own statutes and the Act on workers in the service of the state and local authorities.
11. 992. Lastly, the Government attaches as an annex information provided by the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal for the State of Querétaro, and requests that the complaint be rejected.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 993. The Committee observes that, in the present complaint, the WFTU basically alleges interference by the authorities in elections to the executive committee of the STSPE, particularly through the decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal for the State of Querétaro to: (1) ignore the results of the vote in favour of the tricolour team and appoint the vigilance committee to run the union, in place of the executive committee elect; and (2) ignore the request of the serving executive committee (whose mandate had not expired) for the authorities to register the executive committee elect, as well as the confirmation by the commemorative assembly of the win by the tricolour team and its request to register the executive committee elect. The allegations also refer to the refusal to issue trade union licences and transfer union dues to the executive committee elect, at the decision of the Tribunal.
2. 994. The Committee takes note of the fact that the Government denies any government interference and maintains that the decisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal are consistent with legislation and have been confirmed by the appropriate higher judicial authorities, in particular the decision to appoint the vigilance committee to run the union (in place of the executive committee elect), in accordance with the union’s statutes. The Committee takes note of the fact that these legal decisions may have led to other subsequent decisions preventing the transfer of union dues to the executive committee elect and denying trade union licences. The Committee takes note of the fact that, according to the Government, the courts have resolved the issue of the union’s economic assets (including union dues) in favour of the union’s representative, i.e. the vigilance committee. The Committee observes that the complainant itself recognizes that claims have been brought by various teams that participated in the union elections, and that these claims state that the tricolour team used some of the opposing teams’ colours in its logo, as well as the fact – entirely permissible under the statutes, according to the complainant – that some members of the committee elect had served on the outgoing committee. This being the case, the Committee concludes that the complainant has not demonstrated government interference and that the Tribunal’s appointment of the vigilance committee to run the union until the Tribunal had ruled on the internal dispute concerning the union elections seems to conform to legislation and the union’s statutes.
3. 995. The Committee points out, however, that the elections were completed on 1 August 2006, that the claims were submitted a few days later, that the present complaint to the Committee on Freedom of Association was presented on 28 August 2008, that the complainant objects to the delay in proceedings, and that no order to hold an assembly has been issued (which, according to the Government, is desired by the teams contesting the electoral process). According to the complainant, by the date on which the complaint was submitted, there had been no instruction to provide evidence since October 2007, nor had any date been set to continue the hearings. The Committee observes that the Government states that the Tribunal has not deliberately delayed the process for airing grievances and that the courts “are not obliged to rule immediately, nor in favour of one of the parties specifically, as their decisions are taken after analysing and assessing the evidence submitted by the parties to the dispute”. The Committee also notes the Government’s confirmation, in its reply of January 2009, that the proceedings are still at the stage of examination of evidence and observes that more than two-and-a-half years have passed since the electoral process was contested.
4. 996. The Committee concludes that, regardless of the claims brought by the parties in 2006, the legal proceedings to contest the union elections of the STSPE have been excessively delayed and considers that this delay is detrimental not only to the trade union sector that the complainant organization represents, but also to other sectors that contested the elections. The Committee regrets this delay and wishes to draw attention to the danger presented to the exercise of trade union rights by excessive slowness in the administration of justice, underlining the principle that justice delayed is justice denied [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, para. 105]. The Committee expects that the court will issue its ruling without further delay and requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
5. 997. Furthermore, the Committee observes that, in its complaint, the complainant alleges the use of tactics of harassment and intimidation against members of the executive committee elect (claims having been brought against the committee from other quarters): unilateral changes to working hours or increases in workload, and supervision at work by third parties. The Committee observes that the complainant also alleges that a case has been brought by the General Secretary elect, Ms María del Carmen Gómez Ortega, against unilateral changes to her working hours. Moreover, the complainant alleges that, on 9 February 2007, five members of the executive committee elect (whose names are listed) were dismissed without just cause, and that two others were pressurized to take early retirement; according to the complainant, the reinstatement in their posts of the five workers dismissed has been delayed by a stream of procedural matters and remedies invoked by management representatives (according to the allegations, the management representative at the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal received instructions from the governor of Querétaro to drag out the dismissal proceedings). Lastly, according to the allegations, the authorities have named Ms María del Carmen Gómez Ortega and other union members in connection with alleged fraud at the (union’s) Loans and Savings Fund based on a statement made by 15 workers under pressure from their immediate bosses. The Committee observes, however, that, since the complaint was presented, the complainant has not mentioned the result of this action.
6. 998. The Committee takes note of the Government’s statements to the effect that the complainant does not provide evidence to support its claims of dismissals or acts of intimidation. The Committee takes note of the Government’s statements to the effect that there is no evidence of any acts of repression by the Querétaro authorities, and that the workers in question may approach the administrative or judicial authorities at any time to exercise their rights but have not done so. The Committee observes that the Government does not confirm or deny that the dismissals and acts of repression have taken place and that it states, at the same time, that the alleged victims have not approached the administrative or judicial authorities. Given the complainant’s statement affirming at least the existence of the legal proceedings concerning the dismissal of union members and a change to working hours, the Committee requests the complainant to provide the text of the legal proceedings it has initiated and any ruling handed down in that regard so that the Government can send its observations.