Informe provisional - Informe núm. 94, 1967

1. 35. In a communication dated 4 November 1965 the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions submitted a complaint against the Government of Mexico for alleged violations of freedom of association. The complaint was forwarded to the Government, which sent its observations to the I.L.O by a communication dated 26 May 1966 from the Permanent Delegation of Mexico in Geneva.
2. 36. 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. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 37. The complainants allege that for some time government officials, together with employers and even some trade unionists, have been making numerous attacks on freedom of association. Although Mexico has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), certain representatives of the Government persist in hindering and even preventing the free operation of the trade union movement, which is contrary to Mexican federal law. The complainants quote in this connection the provisions of part of section 233 of the relevant legislation concerning the formation of industrial trade unions. According to the law, such unions may be formed by individuals in various occupations, trades or specialities, who carry on their work in two or more industrial undertakings.
2. 38. According to the complaint, the workers of the undertakings Productos Industrializados de la Madera and Molduras de Pino, located in the city of Parral, state of Chihuahua, formed the " First of May " Industrial Trade Union of Timber and Allied Workers and applied on 6 October 1965 to the competent public authorities with a view to obtaining legal status; to that end, they produced the documentation required by law. In a first verbal reply, the authorities are alleged to have promised to grant the legal status applied for. The undertaking [sic], according to the complainants, adopted two different attitudes: publicly, it summoned its workers on that same day to advise them that the undertaking was glad to accept the proposals; while privately it sent a management group to the provincial capital to meet the undertaking's lawyer, who drew up a collective agreement between the C.T.M. Timber and Allied Workers' Union (a trade union which the workers concerned in this case had never recognised) and an industry called Inversiones Mineras del Norte, S.A., owned by the lawyer of the undertaking. In order to ensure the success of this manoeuvre, a group of workers trusted by the undertaking was enrolled in the aforesaid trade union. Once this had been done, the employers dismissed six workers whom they paid off fully in accordance with the law, but with an evident change of attitude.
3. 39. During the following few days, the complainants state, a change of front was also shown by the authorities, who were no longer prepared to recognise the newly formed trade union and gave as their reason imperfections of presentation, such as mistakes in spelling, drafting, etc. The workers reacted to this by organising a public demonstration to demand recognition of their legitimate trade union. On 14 October 1965 the authorities officially communicated their decision to refuse the application of the " First of May " union on the grounds that section 233, subsection III, of the Federal Labour Law provided that the formation of an industrial trade union was subject to the essential requirement that its members should be persons " engaged in the same occupation, trade or speciality, and in this particular case the workers do not fulfil the above requirements, since they do work which does not require specialisation in its performance ".
4. 40. The complainants go on to state that on the following day, 15 October 1965, the employers sent 70 workers away from their work. The police immediately surrounded the premises of the undertaking to prevent the workers from approaching. At the same time a trade union was organised, under the control of the undertaking, which agreed to sign an agreement behind the workers' backs. All this provoked a further protest from the workers who, on 16 October, organised a fresh demonstration, claiming recognition of their real trade union and the reinstatement of their co-workers who had been dismissed.
5. 41. In its communication dated 26 May 1966 the Government answers that the complaint in question was formulated by workers employed by two undertakings, Industrias Forestales Mexicanas and Molduras de Pino, S.A., both located in the town of Parral, and who had formed the " First of May " Industrial Trade Union of Timber and Allied Workers. The application for registration of that union having been rejected by the Conciliation and Arbitration Board of Parral, the trade union appealed against the Board's ruling to the First District Court of Chihuahua; the case came before the court as Dossier 310/965, No. 6341. The Government attaches the text of the judge's ruling handed down on 12 February 1966, which grants a writ of relief, inter alia, on the grounds that section 233, subsection III, of the Federal Labour Law provides precisely the opposite of what is affirmed in the ruling of the Conciliation and Arbitration Board of Parral. In the preambular clauses of his ruling the judge also states that, by refusing the application for registration, the aforesaid Board violated the guarantee provided for workers under articles 1, 9 and 123, subparagraph XVI, of the Mexican Constitution.
6. 42. The Government states that, since the trade union appealed for Constitutional protection of its rights, this being the means of legal redress against acts of violation which it considered had been committed against it, and since the legal reparation sought for was obtained, the complaint has become null and void.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 43. Concerning the allegations regarding the rejection of the " First of May " trade union's application for registration, the Committee observes that the complaint seems to imply that the Conciliation and Arbitration Board had been guided in issuing its ruling by an attitude of partiality towards the employers. However, the elements of information provided by the complainants in connection with this point in particular are extremely vague, so that it is difficult to investigate the grounds for such an insinuation. Consequently, the Committee takes note of the Government's observations, according to which the competent judge issued a ruling, subsequent to the presentation of the complaint to the I.L.O, protecting the said trade union against the decision of the administrative authority to reject its application for registration. However, with a view to obtaining fuller information concerning this aspect of the case, the Committee considers it necessary to request the Government to confirm whether, in compliance with the court ruling, the " First of May " trade union has been registered.
2. 44. Furthermore, the Government has not made any observations concerning other points raised in the complaint, in connection with the measures said to have been taken by the employers, after the application for registration by the "First of May" trade union, to hinder the establishment of that union. These points refer to the dismissal of six workers, the sending of another 70 workers away from the workplace and the signing of two collective agreements behind the backs of the workers concerned. The complaint does not show clearly how the first of these two agreements is related to the questions raised in the allegations, since it is supposed to have been signed between a third undertaking and another trade union. The second collective agreement, however, is alleged to have been signed by at least one of the two undertakings which employ the members of the " First of May " trade union, the other signatory being a trade union allegedly organised and controlled by the undertaking.