Seguimiento dado a las recomendaciones del Comité y del Consejo de Administración - Informe núm. 346, Junio 2007

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 126. At its June 2006 meeting, the Committee made the following recommendations regarding the issues that remained pending [see 342nd Report, para. 821]:
2. (a) The Committee requests the Government to take measures to encourage and promote between the enterprises Editorial Taller SA de CV, Editorial Voz e Imagen de Oaxaca SA de CV, the newspaper Noticias de Oaxaca and the Trade Union of Industrial, Related and Allied Workers of the State of Oaxaca (STICYSEO), the full development and use of the procedures for voluntary negotiation with the aim of regulating conditions of employment by way of collective agreements. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to inform it of any decisions adopted by the Local Conciliation and Arbitration Board of the State of Oaxaca on this matter.
3. (b) Observing that the complainant organization and the Government offer contradictory versions of the facts (specifically acts of violence against the property, imprisonment and injury) that occurred during the strike at the enterprise Editorial Taller SA de CV (Editorial Voz e Imagen de Oaxaca SA de CV and newspaper Noticias de Oaxaca), the Committee requests the Government to inform it of the results of the investigations initiated and of the judicial proceedings to which the complainant organization refers.
4. (c) Regarding the allegation that since the beginning of the strike the management of the enterprise Editorial Taller SA de CV has insulted and slandered the image of the executive committee of the STICYSEO and of its members, accusing them of being criminals before the national and international media, the Committee requests the Government to conduct an investigation into this allegation and to inform it of the result.
5. 127. In its communication of 27 November 2006, the Government states the following:
6. – Recommendation (a) of the Committee on Freedom of Association: with regard to the request made by the Committee on Freedom of Association to the effect that the conditions of employment at the enterprises concerned should be regulated by collective agreements, the Government points out that the Revolutionary Confederation of Farm Workers (CROC) stated in its communication that a collective labour agreement already exists in the case of the enterprise Editorial Taller SA de CV, since, according to the CROC’s version of events, in March 2005, the Trade Union of Industrial, Related and Allied Workers of the State of Oaxaca (STICYSEO), an affiliate of the CROC, called a strike at the said enterprise, with the precise aim of bringing about the revision of the collective labour agreement concluded with the enterprise. Subsequently, the CROC stated that the enterprise was duly convened and attended conciliatory talks, not with the STICYSEO, the trade union which had concluded the collective labour agreement, but rather with a supposed coalition of workers that was not recognized by the Local Conciliation and Arbitration Board of Oaxaca State.
7. – Recommendation (c): the Government states that, if the STICYSEO feels that its rights as an organization have been violated, then it has the option of exercising the legal means and appeals provided for under the Mexican legal system before the competent authorities. That is to say, if the trade union considers that its executive committee and its members have been slandered, then it can lodge the corresponding complaints against those individuals who make up the management of the Editorial Taller SA de CV and who might have committed what would probably constitute offences, it being up to the competent judicial authorities to decide whether an offence has been committed or not. The offence of slander is covered by sections Nos 350–355 of the Federal Criminal Code: Section No. 350 expressly states that:
8. Section No. 350. The offence of slander shall be punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment or a fine of 50 to 300 pesos, or both sanctions, at the judge’s discretion.
9. Slander consists of falsely informing one or more persons of the involvement of another physical or moral person, as defined by law, in a real or false, determined or undetermined act which could cause that person to be dishonoured, discredited, suffer prejudice or expose him/her to the scorn of another.
10. If the person subjected to slander is one of the relatives or persons referred to in sections Nos 343bis and 343ter, in the latter case whenever the person subjected to slander lives in the same house as the victim, the sentence shall be increased by a third.
11. Moreover, sections Nos 332–337 of the Criminal Code for the Free and Sovereign State of Oaxaca state the following with regard to the offence of slander:
12. Section No. 332. Slander shall be punished by six months’ to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of 500–1,000 pesos.
13. Slander consists of falsely informing one or more persons of the involvement of another physical or moral person, as defined by law, in a real or false, determined or undetermined act which could cause that person to be dishonoured, discredited, suffer prejudice or expose him/her to the scorn of another.
14. It is also stated in the said communication that the CROC states that a separate, new enterprise, known as Editorial Voz e Imagen de Oaxaca, SA de CV occupied the same premises as the enterprise Editorial Taller SA de CV and that a strike was also called with regard to the former enterprise on 4 May 2005, but that on this occasion the strike was called with a view to obtaining the conclusion of a collective labour agreement.
15. Furthermore, it is also stated that on 21 May 2005, the STICYSEO presented a call to strike at the enterprise Editorial Taller SA de CV to the Local Conciliation and Arbitration Board of Oaxaca State, for violation of the clauses of the collective labour agreement.
16. As can be seen from the above information, the prevailing working conditions in the enterprise Editorial Taller SA de CV are included in the collective labour contract that the STICYSEO had concluded with the enterprise.
17. Furthermore, the Committee on Freedom of Association should be aware that the Local Conciliation and Arbitration Board of the State of Oaxaca has been informed of the Committee’s request to be informed of any decisions adopted by the said Board on this matter.
18. – Recommendation (b): in this regard, the Government reports that work on preliminary investigation PGR/OAX/OAX/IV/118/2005 and preliminary investigation PGR/OAX/OAX/I/148/2005 has not yet been completed, and therefore it is not possible to report on their results.
19. As to the request for information concerning the current state of the judicial process referred to by the complainant organization, it should be pointed out that, according to the records of the Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic (PGR) in Oaxaca, Mr David Aguilar Robles brought five actions for amparo (protection of constitutional rights) before the Third District Court in Oaxaca State: amparo actions Nos 911/2005, 917 and related action 918/2005, 1079/2005 and 323/2006, which were all dismissed by the relevant federal judicial authority owing to the fact that the alleged violation did not exist.
20. 128. In its communication dated 10 January 2007, the Government states that, as it informed the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Local Conciliation and Arbitration Board of the State of Oaxaca has been notified of the Committee’s request to be informed of any decisions adopted by the said Board on this matter.
21. 129. In this regard, the Government, adding to its previous comments of November 2006, points out that the Local Conciliation and Arbitration Board of the State of Oaxaca stated with regard to calls for strike action Nos 70/2005 and 28/2005 made by the STICYSEO against the enterprise Editorial Taller SA de CV, that on 11 December 2006 two agreements were concluded settling both strike procedures and, as a consequence, the said Local Conciliation and Arbitration Board ordered that the abovementioned files be closed and all physical signs of strike action at the said enterprise be removed.
22. 130. Copies of the said agreements were attached. The sixth clause of the agreement relating to file No. 70/2005 and the fourth clause of the agreement relating to file No. 28/2005 state the following:
23. Enterprise and trade union state that neither reserves any right or any action against its counterpart, and, as a consequence, this agreement brings to an end any contractual or legal relationship that existed between them in the past, likewise both parties mutually and with immediate effect undertake to grant the widest pardon possible that exists in criminal law with regard to the disputes and/or allegations initiated against one another, including their partners and agents, with regard to the alleged offences committed by those convened here and who are parties to the strike procedure which we are addressing, extending the said pardon to the labour authorities who may have examined this matter, if a dispute has been initiated and/or a complaint has been lodged against them for any offence. […]
24. 131. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government. The Committee notes with interest the conclusion of the collective agreements which settled both strike procedures, as well as the fact that the parties dropped their disputes and complaints within the framework of the said collective agreements (previously the federal judicial authority had already dismissed five actions for amparo).