Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 386, Juin 2018

1. 490. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 18 March 2015 from the Single Trade Union for Employees of the State, Municipal Authorities and Decentralized Industries in Nayarit State (SUTSEM), supported by a communication dated 11 October 2016 from the Trade Union Confederation of the Americas (TUCA).
2. 491. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 15 September 2017.
3. 492. Mexico has ratified the 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. 493. In its communication of 18 March 2015, SUTSEM alleges irregularities and interference on the part of the authorities (the government of Nayarit State, through the Conciliation and Arbitration Court (TCA) and the High Court of Justice (TSJ) of the State) in the electoral process and official recognition of its executive board.
2. 494. The complainant indicates that, in response to SUTSEM’s work in defence of state employees, the government of Nayarit State has been carrying out a campaign to discredit and interfere in the life of the union. In particular, and in this context, SUTSEM alleges that: (i) at the end of 2014, an electoral process began, strictly in line with SUTSEM’s statutes and in which a single candidacy was presented, headed by C. Águeda Galicia Jiménez, which was duly registered; (ii) the state government illegitimately promoted and advanced another candidacy and brought a claim before the TCA in an attempt to forestall the trade union’s electoral assembly and obtained, as an interim measure, the suspension of the electoral process; (iii) however, in opposition to these anti-union actions, on 29 November 2014, the electoral assembly was held with the participation of more than 8,700 members (91 per cent of the members) who elected the candidacy of C. Águeda Galicia Jiménez; (iv) the state government continued to interfere and refused to recognize the elected leaders; it threatened to carry out dismissals and launch criminal proceedings against the elected executive committee, announced labour improvements without the agreement of SUTSEM, and obtained interim measures to prevent the recognition of the elected executive committee; (v) in the light of this situation, SUTSEM filed a series of appeals for amparo against these actions of the state, which came up against measures to delay the proceedings and hinder the trials; (vi) in particular, on 26 December 2014, SUTSEM filed an appeal for amparo before the Second District Court for civil, administrative and labour appeals and federal trials against the decision of the TSJ to order the TCA not to recognize the members of the elected executive board (the authorities concerned provided their reports and deferred the hearing on three occasions). The complainant indicates that, while the court proceedings are ongoing, it decided to bring the case before the ILO owing to the recurrence of acts of interference through the failure to acknowledge the democratically elected leaders; and requests that the procedure be conducted to recognize the elected executive committee.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 495. In its communication of 15 September 2017, the Government provides its comments in response to the complainant’s allegations based on the information it was sent by the TCA and TSJ of Nayarit State, and by the Second District Court for civil, administrative and labour appeals and federal trials.
2. 496. The Government states that this information reveals that: (i) it was not the Nayarit State government nor its authorities (the TCA and TSJ) that acted motu proprio, but rather a group of 25 SUTSEM members who filed a request for a new call for the general electoral assembly and for an interim measure to suspend the current call, which was declared admissible by the TCA in accordance with legitimate interest criteria and not respected by SUTSEM; (ii) the TCA could not officially recognize the executive board as it had been ordered to suspend all processes under the TSJ decision in the context of proceedings for the protection of fundamental rights brought by the members who were not in agreement; (iii) this was an internal trade union dispute and the parties (both active members of SUTSEM) had the remedies afforded by national legislation available to them; (iv) it was the processing of all the hearings and remedies that caused the delay in the decision; (v) on 4 January 2016, SUTSEM, through C. Águeda Galicia Jiménez, filed an appeal for amparo before the Second District Court for civil, administrative and labour appeals and federal trials against the failure of the authorities to provide the recognition requested, which was granted; (vi) therefore, after processing the third party’s claims, on 14 October 2016, the TCA complied with the ruling and issued the corresponding recognition of the SUTSEM state executive committee.
3. 497. The Government therefore states that the Nayarit State government in no way acted inappropriately and that it is clear that the courts acted strictly in line with legal procedures and provided the protection of the courts to all parties in the proceedings brought, which resulted in the recognition requested by the complainant.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 498. The Committee observes that the complaint is concerned with allegations of irregularities and interference on the part of the authorities of Nayarit State at the end of 2014 in the electoral process and official recognition of the executive board of the complainant (SUTSEM).
2. 499. The Committee notes that meanwhile, as alleged by SUTSEM, with the purpose of interfering in internal issues and as part of an anti-union campaign, the state authorities promoted an alternative candidacy and used judicial mechanisms in an attempt to prevent the recognition of the new, legitimately elected board. The Government indicates that the dispute derived from an internal trade union dispute (as it was other members of the union who brought the legal proceedings to challenge the electoral process) and the opposing members used the judicial remedies available to them, which delayed the settlement of the dispute.
3. 500. The Committee also notes that, as a final outcome of the legal proceedings brought in October 2016, the recognition requested by the complainant was issued. In these circumstances, the Committee will not pursue its examination of the case.