Seguimiento dado a las recomendaciones del Comité y del Consejo de Administración - Informe núm. 382, Junio 2017

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 112. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2015 meeting. It concerns alleged anti union dismissals of insurance sales agents who are members of the Union of General Insurance Sales Agents in the State of Jalisco (SAVSGEJ) and the cancellation of the union’s registration [see 374th Report, paras 59–63]. On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government to inform it of the outcome of the judicial proceedings concerning the alleged anti-union dismissals of Ms Rossana Aguirre Díaz, Mr Martín Ramírez Olmedo, Ms María Cristina Vergara Parra and Ms María del Socorro Guadalupe Acevez González.
2. 113. In communications dated 1 October 2015 (supported by the National Union of Workers) and 14 November 2016, the SAVSGEJ states that these proceedings remain pending, alleges that it has exhausted all existing instances and underscores the harm caused by the delay in judgment. The complainant union also sends the communications relating to this case that it has addressed to various national authorities including the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico, together with information on the submission of supporting evidence in the context of Case No. 1254/2008 involving the dismissal of Ms Acevez González (who again states that since the dismissal she has been affected by the non-renewal of the policies she was managing).
3. 114. In communications dated 3 May and 18 November 2016, and 24 February 2017, the Government states that, in compliance with the ruling of 4 June 2012 concerning Case No. 1222/2008 (dismissal of Ms Rossana Aguirre Díaz), the insurance company concerned awarded compensation amounting to 3.9 million Mexican pesos (equivalent to approximately US$210,000) to Ms Aguirre Díaz, who duly received the compensation and withdrew all claims. As a result, the case was closed as it was fully resolved.
4. 115. With respect to the other three ongoing proceedings, the Government states that they have not been concluded owing to the submission of multiple applications for amparo by the parties concerned. The Government provides the following details of the proceedings: (i) concerning Ms María Cristina Vergara Parra (Case No. 1097/2008), the procedure has pending an agreement on the execution of amparo and the issuance of a draft resolution in the form of a ruling (amparo No. 905/2015 filed with the First Collegiate Tribunal on Labour Matters of the Third Circuit); (ii) concerning Ms María del Socorro Guadalupe Acevez González (Case No. 1254/2008) the supporting evidence submitted by the plaintiff has been discarded, on the grounds that those facts have already been made known to the Local Board in 2012; and (iii) concerning Mr Martin Ramírez Olmedo (Case No. 83/2009) the complainant’s appeal for review has not been granted regarding the dismissal of his application for direct amparo No. 366/2015 (in which the First Collegiate Court on Labour Matters of the Third Circuit acquitted the defendant enterprise).
5. 116. The Government states that the complainant’s communications contribute nothing new to the case, and observes that the delay in concluding matters is not attributable to the labour authority, because all parties to the dispute have exercised their right to use every available recourse in the Mexican legal system to defend their interests. In particular, concerning Case No. 1254/2008, the Government states that the lack of a decision can be ascribed to the plaintiff, who has prevented any conclusion by lodging various appeals based on information already submitted to, and examined by the various competent bodies, which has held up proceedings.
6. 117. While noting the information provided by the Government, the Committee again notes with concern that three of the cases (those concerning Mr Martín Ramírez Olmedo, Ms María Cristina Vergara Parra, and Ms María del Socorro Guadalupe Acevez González) remain pending despite the time that has elapsed. The Committee firmly expects that these cases will be concluded without delay and requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of these proceedings as soon as they have been concluded.