Seguimiento dado a las recomendaciones del Comité y del Consejo de Administración - Informe núm. 373, Octubre 2014

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

1. 49. The Committee examined the substance of this case concerning anti-trade union practices and interference by Atento Servicios SA de CV, particularly in connection with two ballots to determine the most representative union, at its June 2013 meeting [see 368th Report, paras 611–653]. On that occasion, it made the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee requests the complainant union to provide information on any appeal filed by its members against dismissals or anti-union practices and their outcomes, and against the second ballot obtained from the authority to determine the union with bargaining rights.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on the claim of the JLCADF that the SPTCTRM union member voting list contains no record of any company worker.
   • (c) The Committee wishes to emphasize the importance it attaches, if there is a new ballot, to the authorities providing the safeguards necessary to avoid all alleged irregularities, thus guaranteeing that the affected workers have a full and fair opportunity to participate in an atmosphere of calm and security.
2. 50. In its communication dated 28 October 2013, the Union of Telephone Operators of the Mexican Republic (STRM) states that it is prepared to request, once again, the bargaining rights for the collective agreement of the workers of Atento Servicios SA de CV. The STRM notes that, according to information received from the Federal District Local Conciliation and Arbitration Board (JLCADF), it has come to its attention that other trade union organizations have already submitted requests for the same bargaining rights. The STRM considers: that the presence of national and international observers is required at a new election; that the voting list must only include those workers who legally and legitimately have the right to vote, and not staff in positions of trust or from outside the company as was the case in previous elections; that there should be a commitment to non violence and intimidation on the part of the company, the authorities and the trade unions; and that, on election day, all workers who have the right to vote are guaranteed to be able to do so. The Committee notes that the complainant organization indicates that it is prepared to request, once again, the bargaining rights for the collective agreement of the workers of Atento Servicios SA de CV and requests the complainant organization to keep it informed in this respect. Once again, the Committee emphasizes the importance that it attaches, if there is a new ballot, to the authorities providing the safeguards necessary to avoid any allegation of irregularities, thus guaranteeing that the affected workers have a full and fair opportunity to participate, in an atmosphere of calm and security.
3. 51. In relation to recommendation (b), the Government states in its communication dated 23 May 2014 that it was the responsibility of the JLCADF to make sure that the ballot vote on 9 November 2011 was carried out in conformity with the applicable rules and with all the guarantees required to enable voters to cast their vote freely, directly and in secret. The Government stresses that the voting process complied with the rules set out in article 931 of the Federal Labour Act, which indicates that all workers who attend the election will be able to vote, without being required to be affiliated to one of the trade union organizations in the company. The Government highlights that the ballot vote was carried out, upon presentation of the employee–employer contribution assessment certificate to the Mexican Institute of Social Security. The Committee notes that, as indicated by the Government, the Federal Labour Act provides that it is not necessary to be affiliated with one of the trade union organizations in the company to be able to vote. The Committee would welcome information on whether the complainant trade union filed a claim following the 2011 vote alleging that the Progressive Union of Communication and Transport Workers of the Mexican Republic (SPTCTRM) (rival of the complainant organization) had not registered any company worker.