Definitive Report - REPORT_NO360, June 2011

CASE_NUMBER 2766 (Mexico) - COMPLAINT_DATE: 22-FEB-10 - Closed

Allegations: Non-renewal of contracts of members of the complainant union because of their participation in a union meeting

1. 860. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Union of Workers in Higher Intermediate Education in the Federal District (SUTIEMS) dated 21 December 2009.
2. 861. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 18 October 2010.
3. 862. 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. 863. In its communication dated 21 December 2009, the SUTIEMS and a group of affiliated workers employed in the central offices of the Institute for Higher Intermediate Education of the Federal District (IEMSDF) requested the General Secretary of the complainant union with the organization’s secretary to visit the Institute’s premises in order to present the various activities of the union and to report on the situation with regard to the revision of the collective labour agreement then in force; the meeting took place on 3 November 2009 at the Institute’s premises.
2. 864. On 15 December 2009, the Institute’s Director-General for Legal Affairs, Mr Aurelio Alfredo Reyes García, issued to the members of the workers’ group, which included affiliates Pablo Galeote García and Nayeli Flores Sandoval, a verbal invitation to a meeting on labour issues; at that meeting, they were informed that, according to the instructions of the Institute’s Academic Director, Mr Alberto Ceciliano Hernández, they would be without work as of 1 January 2010 because they had attended the union meeting held on 3 November 2009.
3. 865. The complainant union states that the affiliated workers had not committed any offence, since the meeting of 3 November 2009 had been held outside working hours to ensure that it did not affect the daily work of the Institute, and there is nothing in their record that could justify termination of their employment contracts. From the time of the meeting on 3 November until 15 December 2009, in contravention of ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 135, the workers who attended the union meeting were subjected to persecution and harassment, and were told that for attending the meeting, they would be unemployed from 1 January 2010.
4. 866. The complainant organization sets out the background to these dismissals, noting that the workers at the Institute who are members of the SUTIEMS had expressed their disagreement with the Institute authorities owing to the fact that the collective agreement governing labour relations at the Institute had been concluded with a minority union and flouted the rights of a large number of the Institute’s workers. For that reason, the group of workers in question sought the assistance of the SUTIEMS and requested information on the revision of the collective agreement as it relates to the workers who had been excluded from its terms.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 867. In its communications of 18 October 2010, the Government states that the complainant union, SUTIEMS, argues in general terms that there have been violations of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and of the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), with regard to the protection and facilities that must be provided for workers’ representatives in enterprises, but gives no specific details. Nowhere in the communication is there any attempt to link the acts that are claimed to constitute infringements of freedom of association of the SUTIEMS to the provisions of the international Conventions which might be applicable, the result being a total lack of clarity regarding the nature of the allegations being made against the various authorities concerned. This notwithstanding, the Government indicates its willingness to reply to the allegations made by the complainant.
2. 868. The Government states that the evidence put forward to substantiate the complaint does not include any documentation to corroborate the statements made by the SUTIEMS; there is no corroborating evidence that Mr Pablo Galeote García and Mr Nayeli Flores Sandoval attended the union meeting of 3 November 2009, nor that they were dismissed as a result of that meeting with effect from January 2010.
3. 869. The Government notes that according to the IEMSDF, no managerial or higher official held any meeting with Mr Pablo Galeote García and Mr Nayeli Flores Sandoval, whose employment contracts were for a fixed term ending on 31 December 2009. It is therefore not true that the IEMSDF authorities terminated their contracts, and there is therefore no repressive attitude, as the SUTIEMS claims.
4. 870. As regards the allegation that the SUTIEMS members have been subjected to persecution and harassment, the Government indicates that the claims made by the SUTIEMS are not sufficient to prove that such incidents have taken place because the union fails to provide any specific information as to what that involved. The IEMSDF states in this respect that it has at all times respected the right of its workers to associate, as illustrated by the collective agreement concluded with the SUTIEMS which governs labour relations between the Institute and its employees; it is therefore not true that the IEMSDF authorities have initiated a campaign of persecution and harassment against the SUTIEMS members who attended the union meeting of 3 November, as they are aware of their right.
5. 871. Lastly, the Government states that the SUTIEMS has also failed to mention that while a collective agreement was at one point concluded with a minority union, at that time the minority union in question was the only one with legal personality and thus entitled to enter into a collective agreement; that entitlement was lost once it was claimed by the complainant union (SUTIEMS) before the local conciliation and arbitration board.
6. 872. In the light of the foregoing facts, the Government requests the Committee to set aside the present complaint.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 873. The Committee observes that in the present complaint, the complainant union alleges that two of its members were warned by the Director-General for Legal Affairs of the IEMSDF on 15 December 2009, that they would cease to have employment from 1 January 2010 onwards because they had attended a union meeting with the General Secretary of the complainant union and another official, the aim of the meeting being to ascertain the situation with regard to the revision of the collective agreement in force at that time concluded between a minority union and the Institute authorities. According to the complainant union, this was an anti-union reprisal, given that the meeting in question was held outside working hours.
2. 874. The Committee notes the Government’s statements to the effect that: (1) the complainant union argues in general terms that there have been violations of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), with regard to the protection and facilities that must be provided for workers’ representatives in enterprises, but gives no specific details, and there is no attempt to relate the acts that are claimed to constitute infringements of the freedom of association of the SUTIEMS to the provisions of the international Conventions which might be applicable; (2) it is not true that Mr Pablo Galeote García and Mr Nayeli Flores Sandoval were dismissed, because their contracts of employment with the IEMSDF expired on 31 December 2009, and there was therefore no anti-union discrimination or any violation of their labour rights; (3) it is not true that there has been persecution and harassment against the IEMSDF employees affiliated to the SUTIEMS, given that, as the documentation submitted by the union itself shows, the workers concerned were able to carry on their union activities without any restrictions beyond those provided for by law; and (4) it is the complainant union that is currently party to the collective agreement, not the previous minority union.
3. 875. The Committee observes that, while the complainant union maintains that the non-renewal of the employment contracts of the two union members in question constitutes reprisal for their meeting with two union officials, the IEMSDF (the employer of the two union members) denies that there was any anti-union discrimination and that there had been any meeting with a senior official to inform them that their contracts were not going to be renewed, and emphasizes that the employment contracts of these two workers were of fixed-term and ended on 31 December 2009 in accordance with the terms of the contacts.
4. 876. The Committee notes that the complainant has not provided the supplementary information which it has been invited to provide. In these circumstances, the Committee will not pursue its examination of the case.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 877. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.