Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 318, Novembre 1999

1. 298. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 3 July 1998 from the World Confederation of Labour (WCL). The Government sent its observations in a communication of 4 May 1999.
2. 299. 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. 300. In its communication of 3 July 1998, the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) states that the Single Trade Union for Employees of the State, Municipal Authorities and Decentralized Industries in Nayarit State (SUTSEM) has been making representations to the authorities in Nayarit State to express its concern at the unjustified dismissals of 23 workers of the Nayarit Cultural and Arts Institute (ICANAY) -- which has been closed down -- and other labour relations problems. The complainant adds that unionized workers now face all manner of intimidation for having demanded by lawful actions (letters sent to the authorities, a work stoppage) due compliance with labour standards agreed with the Nayarit state authorities. The intimidation takes the form of threats of arbitrary transfer, dismissal or imprisonment, as well as deductions from pay packets and benefits. Specifically, the WCL states that, following a work stoppage which took place on 23 March 1998 in protest against the dismissals of ICANAY workers, a number of members of the Executive Board of SUTSEM (the complainant has provided the names and functions of the eight union members and officials concerned) received notice of dismissal in April. The WCL claims that a decision to dismiss the workers in question is the responsibility of the courts, but that in this case it was taken by the Prosecutor General of the Republic, and that most of the dismissed workers enjoy union privileges as members of the union's Executive Board. Lastly, the WCL alleges that in late June 1998, as part of an anti-union campaign orchestrated by the Nayarit authorities, the General Secretary of SUTSEM, Mrs. Galicia Agueda, was threatened with arrest without just cause. According to the WCL, this threat was intended to obstruct the union's activities in defending workers in Nayarit and constituted another serious attack on the accepted principles of freedom of association.

B. The Government's reply

1. 301. In its communication of 4 May 1999, the Government states with regard to the alleged unjustified dismissal of 23 workers at the (now closed) Nayarit Cultural and Arts Institute (ICANAY) that on the basis of Decree No. 8033 of 11 October 1997 regarding the law which established ICANAY, it was decided to eliminate superfluous staff at the Institute and relocate staff to the Secretariat of Finance, Education and Culture. Twelve workers refused to accept the transfer and lodged an appeal with the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal for State Employees (non-concurrent cases 1/98 and 14/98). The workers eventually withdrew the appeal. Eight of them were dismissed and four were transferred to the Secretariat of Finance, Education and Health.
2. 302. As regards the alleged dismissals of SUTSEM officials and members, the Government states that the union's collective actions are considered illegal and resulted from the intransigence of its leaders. As a result of the illegal stoppage which took place on 23 March 1998, members of the SUTSEM Executive Board were justifiably dismissed, although their union rights and authority to represent workers remained unaffected. The decision to dismiss did not lie with the courts or with the National Prosecutor General but with the Prosecutor General of Nayarit State, who submitted a request to the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal for State Employees for the employment of the Executive Board members to be terminated. In accordance with this request, labour ruling 16/98 was duly given but was suspended at the union's request on 6 April 1998, without prejudice to the prerogatives of the state government. The Government also indicates that the SUTSEM Executive Board initiated protection (amparo) proceedings in the Second District Court (case 406/98). This led to a ruling of 16 June 1998 which granted protection of the federal courts to workers represented by the union against any decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal and ended the suspension of payment of wages to SUTSEM members.
3. 303. Lastly, the Government states that there were no threats of arrest against union officials, who initiated unsuccessful proceedings to block such action. According to the Government, the actions which led to the present complaint were not anti-union or discriminatory acts against SUTSEM members; the respect shown to the union's members was in keeping with established labour relations and contrasted with the intransigent attitude of union officials who disrupted the conciliation talks.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 304. The Committee notes that in the present case the complainant alleges that, following a strike held in March 1998 in protest against the dismissals of workers of the Nayarit Cultural and Arts Institute (ICANAY) and other labour relations problems, a number of members of the Executive Board of the Single Trade Union for Employees of the State, Municipal Authorities and Decentralized Industries in Nayarit (SUTSEM) were dismissed in April of the same year (the names and functions of the dismissed union officials are supplied by the complainant). The complainant also alleges that the union official, Mrs. Galicia Agueda, was threatened with arrest without just cause as part of an anti-union campaign instigated by the Nayarit state authorities.
2. 305. As regards the allegation regarding the dismissal of members of the Executive Board of SUTSEM following a strike in March 1998, the Committee takes note of the Government's statements to the effect that: (i) following an illegal stoppage on 23 March 1998, the members of the SUTSEM Executive Board were justifiably dismissed; (ii) the dismissals were carried out at the request of the Nayarit State Prosecutor General and, through a labour ruling, conveyed to the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal for State Employees; and (iii) the Executive Board of SUTSEM initiated protection (amparo) proceedings; the protection of the federal courts was granted and the suspension of the payment of wages to SUTSEM members was ended.
3. 306. Under these circumstances, noting that, according to information supplied by the Government, the courts ruled in favour of the SUTSEM officials who had been dismissed for their participation in a strike in March 1998, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the persons in question are reinstated in their posts without loss of pay and requests the Government to keep it informed of any measures taken in this regard.
4. 307. As regards the alleged threat of arrest without just cause made against the union official, Mrs. Galicia Agueda, as part of an anti-union campaign instigated by the Nayarit state authorities, the Committee notes that the Government categorically denies that there were any threats of arrest and that, although legal proceedings were initiated against such an eventuality, they were not successful. Under these circumstances, taking into account the fact that the complainant has not provided any more detailed information or evidence in support of these allegations, the Committee will not pursue its examination of this allegation.