Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 12, 1954

A. Analysis of the Complaint

1. 215. The complainant alleges that the telephone staff in Mexico went on strike in 1952 in order to obtain the renewal of their collective agreement, and that the Government, violating the rights which the workers had been guaranteed, broke the strike by calling in the military and the police.

B. Analysis of the Reply

1. 216. In its reply the Government declares that this complaint made against, a Government which has always endeavoured to defend the rights of the workers is entirely without foundation. The Government relies, in particular, on the following facts.
2. 217. The strike of the telephone union, to which the complaint refers, took place on 1 April and lasted until 11 April 1952. At no time was public order disturbed either by the workers or by the undertaking or by third parties. Consequently, the Government did not find it necessary to have recourse to the services of the police or of the armed forces.
3. 218. The Government observes, further, that article 275 of the Labour Code authorises the conciliation and arbitration boards, which are competent to settle labour disputes, to order workers who are indispensable to continue to perform duties the suspension of which would seriously compromise the resumption of work or the safety of the undertaking. Where this is necessary the conciliation and arbitration board may enlist the aid of the police in order that other workers may ensure the carrying on of such services if the strikers refuse to do so.
4. 219. In the present case, the Government emphasises, both the workers and the employers willingly submitted to the measures prescribed by the regulations. There was, therefore, no need to make use of the measures provided for in the aforesaid article of the Labour Code.
5. 220. Moreover, the telephone workers' union in the Republic of Mexico, which is not affiliated to the complaining organisation, has not made, either directly or through the intermediary of any third party, any protest against the Mexican Government. It has never complained of any infringement of trade union rights. In fact, the strike ended in an agreement between the parties without any pressure having been exercised on either of them. On the contrary, the workers' demands were met to a considerable degree.
6. 221. With regard to the dispute which gave rise to the strike the Government gives the following information.
7. 222. In accordance with article 56 of the Labour Code collective agreements must be revised every two years. Two months before the expiry of an agreement the parties are obliged to enter into negotiations with a view to such revision. In the present case the collective agreement between the telephone workers' union and the Mexican telephone undertaking came to an end on 16 March 1952. During the two months prior to that date the parties negotiated for a new contract but, no agreement having been reached, the union presented a list of demands and, at the same time, threatened that a strike would be called on 1 April 1952. According to information given by the federal conciliation and arbitration board the strike actually commenced on 1 April 1952 at noon, when negotiations between the parties were being carried on in the presence of a representative of the Secretariat of Labour and Social Welfare. These negotiations ended in an agreement which terminated the dispute. The new agreement provides for a 10 per cent wages increase and certain other advantages, as is apparent on comparing the text of the old agreement with that of the new, these texts having been annexed by the Government to its reply. The new contract was signed on 10 April 1952 before the conciliation and arbitration board. At the request of the parties the board ratified the agreement and, in this way, in accordance with the law, gave binding force to the agreement. The union withdrew its list of demands and called off the strike and work was resumed.

C. C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 223. On 1 April 1950 the Government of Mexico ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).
2. 224. It appears both from the complainant's allegations and from the explanation given by the Government that the telephone workers in Mexico went on strike on 1 April 1952. Whereas the complainant alleges that the Government broke this strike with the aid of the police and the armed forces, the Government maintains not only that the strike was not broken by force but that, on the contrary, the trade union concerned willingly terminated the strike when an agreement had been reached between the parties.
3. 225. The Government points out, in particular, that public order was not disturbed at any time throughout the period of the strike. Consequently, there was no necessity to call in the police or the armed forces.
4. 226. The Government also observes that the Code authorises the use of the police to ensure the continuation of work which is indispensable to security when strikers refuse to continue to carry out such work.
5. 227. Under article 275 of the Labour Code strikers are bound to maintain, and the employer is bound to accept, the number of employees indispensable in the opinion of the conciliation and arbitration board for the continuation of operations the suspension of which would be seriously detrimental to the resumption of work or to the safety of the workshops or establishments. The board may request the assistance of the police, if necessary, to enable other employees to perform these duties if the strikers refuse to provide for them.
6. 228. The Government emphasises that in this case no reason arose which made it necessary to call in the police, as the parties were in agreement in ensuring safety services.
7. 229. Finally, it appears from the detailed explanation of the events given by the Government that a labour dispute was the cause of the strike which is the subject of the complaint and that the strike was only one of the stages through which this dispute passed. In fact, the collective agreement binding the parties was coming to an end. Direct negotiations with a view to its renewal not having succeeded, the trade union concerned called a strike. The dispute was brought before the conciliation agency. New negotiations were opened, in the course of which the parties reached an accord with respect to the terms of a new Agreement which was more advantageous than the previous one, and the strike came to an end. These precise facts, therefore, would seem to indicate that the Mexican authorities did not intervene in order to break the strike as the complainant alleges but in order to conciliate the parties concerned in the dispute, an intervention which was crowned with success as the strike ended with a voluntary agreement being reached.
8. 230. The Committee also notes that the trade union concerned, which is not affiliated to the complaining organisation, has not lodged any complaint against the Mexican Government.
9. 231. In view of the precise and detailed explanations given by the Government and having regard to the fact that the principle of freedom of association traditionally guaranteed in Mexico has been formally recognised by the Government's ratification of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948, the Committee considers that the complaint is without foundation.