Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2017, publiée 107ème session CIT (2018)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Mexique (Ratification: 1950)

Autre commentaire sur C087

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Article 2 of the Convention. Registration of trade unions. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide its comments on the allegations of continuing cases of the refusal of applications for trade union registration, and various obstacles to the establishment and recognition of independent trade unions, contained in the observations of IndustriALL Global Union (IndustriALL). The Committee also requested the Government to provide information on the application of a new labour inspection protocol on free collective bargaining in practice and on the development of other similar tools which may be adopted in relation to the issues raised. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) with regard to the allegations of IndustriALL, the Government is carrying out the relevant consultations and will communicate the outcome of those; and (ii) with regard to the operations of the labour inspection protocol on free collective bargaining, 154 inspections have been conducted, as a result of which, in 382 cases employers have been directed to take measures for the benefit of 54,741 workers. While welcoming the information provided by the Government in relation to the application of the labour inspection protocol on free collective bargaining, the Committee requests it to provide information on the type of measures ordered and taken in this regard, as well as its comments on the allegations of IndustriALL.

Articles 2 and 3. Scope of trade union representation. In its previous request, the Committee noted that, in its observations, IndustriALL once again reported that branch unions are not authorized to represent workers from different branches (restriction of the scope of trade union representation) and alleged that the labour authorities had denied permission for trade unions to amend their statutes, in terms of the criteria governing the scope of trade union representation, so that they can represent workers in other industries. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its previous reply, referring to the opinion of the Third Collegial Court of the Fourth Circuit, which considered that a joint reading of various provisions of the Federal Labour Act (LFT) leads to the conclusion that the right to negotiate a collective labour agreement must be claimed by a trade union in the same occupational branch as the respective enterprise. Noting that the Government has not provided specific comments on the allegations of a refusal to permit amendments to trade union statutes to represent workers in other industries, the Committee is bound to reiterate in this respect that the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, enshrined in Article 2 of the Convention, together with the right of workers’ organizations to draw up their constitutions and rules, recognized in Article 3 of the Convention, imply that the structure and composition of the trade unions shall be freely chosen, including with respect to their scope of representation through, for example, the amendment of their statutes. While inviting IndustriALL to provide any additional details it has relating to the allegation of the refusal to permit amendments to statutes to represent workers in other industries, the Committee once again invites the Government to refer the issue of the scope of representation to tripartite discussion, for example in the context of the consideration of further modifications to the 2012 reform of the LFT, so as to ensure that the current standards and their application effectively guarantee the right of trade unions to freely choose their scope of representation. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect.

Article 3. Accreditation of elected trade union representatives (“note-taking”). In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and IndustriALL alleging that the “note-taking” procedure (whereby elected trade union leaders are required, in order to take office, to obtain a certificate from the labour authorities attesting that the elections were held in accordance with the trade union statutes) continues to give rise to many abuses undermining the freedom of workers to elect their representatives, even though the Supreme Court of Justice has restricted the scope of this procedure through its case law. In this respect, the Government indicated in its previous report that, in the framework of the consultation process initiated to identify further legislative changes to the 2012 labour reform, the Government is still hoping that the workers’ and employers’ organizations will participate in the joint exploration of how to strengthen the legislation on freedom of association. The Government reiterates in its latest report the findings of the Supreme Court of Justice, upholding the application by analogy of the procedure for the registration of trade unions to the “note-taking” procedure for changes in trade union office holders. The Government also emphasizes that the constitutional reform on labour justice establishes, with a view to protecting the freedom of workers to choose their representatives, that the election procedures for trade union leaders shall guarantee workers personal, free and secret ballots and that the law shall ensure observance of these principles. The Committee requests the Government, as part of the legislative development process of the constitutional reform – or other relevant context – to refer this matter for tripartite discussion with a view to considering all measures necessary to ensure that the procedures effectively guarantee in practice the right to freely elect trade union leaders. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect.

Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee recalls that for many years it has been requesting the Government to take the necessary measures to amend various aspects of the legislation on the right to strike of state employees, and particularly: (i) section 99(II) of the Federal Act on State Employees (LFTSE), which establishes the requirement of two-thirds of the workers in the public body concerned to call a strike; (ii) the legislation that restricts the right to strike of certain state employees (including workers in the banking sector and those in many decentralized public bodies, such as the National Lottery and the Housing Institute) only to situations involving a general and systematic violation of their rights (section 94, Title 4, of the LFTSE, and section 5 of the Act issuing regulations under Article 123B(XIIIbis) of the Constitution); and (iii) several laws and regulations related to public services (the Railway Regulations Act, the National Vehicle Registration Act, the General Channels of Communication Act and the internal regulations of the Secretariat of Communications and Transport) which envisage the possibility of requisitioning staff in the event that the national economy is affected. The Committee notes that, with regard to these three pending issues, the Government states that there are no LFTSE reform initiatives on this issue. Recalling its responsibility to analyse the application of the Convention in practice (as well as in law) by all ratifying ILO member States, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of these legislative provisions. The Committee also requests the Government to hold consultations with the social partners relating to the revision of these provisions and to report on any developments in this respect.