Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 408, Octubre 2024

1. 479. The complaint is contained in communications dated 20 June, 8 August and 7 December 2023, submitted by the National Union of Workers (UNT) and the Unitary Union of Notimex Workers (SutNotimex).
2. 480. The Government of Mexico sent its observations on the allegations in communications dated 11 September and 6 December 2023, and 21 February and 20 March 2024.
3. 481. Mexico has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainants’ allegations

1. 482. In their communications dated 20 June and 8 August 2023, the complainants allege that, following the arrival of a new director in May 2019, the Mexican state news agency, Notimex (hereinafter “the Agency”), dismissed more than 100 officials and members of SutNotimex (hereinafter “the union”) in an unlawful, anti-union and arbitrary manner. According to the complainants, these dismissals resulted in the dismantling of the union’s executive committee, which had to elect a new general secretary, Ms Adriana Urrea Torres, who was also dismissed days after taking office.
2. 483. The complainants indicate that 48 of the dismissed workers (among them 13 trade union officials, including Ms Urrea Torres) filed legal proceedings for unfair dismissal against the Agency. They report that: (i) reinstatement orders were issued in favour of 42 workers (among them 11 trade union officials, including Ms Urrea Torres); (ii) two appeals were dismissed; and (iii) four appeals are still pending. However, the complainants claim that, despite the reinstatement orders, the Agency has failed to reinstate any of the dismissed workers.
3. 484. The complainants maintain that the Agency failed to comply with more than 30 clauses of the collective agreement between the parties through the aforementioned dismissals, as well as other violations, including offering severance packages below those mandated by Mexican law, reducing food vouchers, cancelling financial support for medicines and studies, and seeking to unilaterally repeal the agreement. According to the complainants, between December 2019 and February 2020 the Agency flatly refused to enter into dialogue with the union to resolve the labour dispute arising from these violations, as its representatives in official forums with the labour authorities had no negotiating powers and were limited merely to listening to the union’s requests and expressing management’s refusal to all of them.
4. 485. The complainants indicate that on 21 February 2020, the union called a strike, which was legally recognized by the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board on 5 March 2020. However, they claim that the Agency failed to recognize the strike, dismissed more unionized workers, and continued its operations using strike-breaking labour (“scabs”).
5. 486. Furthermore, the complainants allege that, at the same time, the Agency launched a campaign of persecution, defamation and harassment against Ms Urrea Torres following her election as general secretary of the union. They claim that, through its directors’ dissemination of videos, images, news briefings and statements on social media, the Agency falsely labelled Ms Urrea Torres as “corrupt” and accused her of theft, organizing an illegal strike, kidnapping, extortion and money laundering. The complainants add that in August 2020, the Agency filed two administrative complaints against her with the Ministry of Public Administration (SFP) for “publicly funded leisure trips” and “misuse of public resources”, as well as a criminal complaint with the Office of the Public Prosecutor for “unlawful exercise of public service” in relation to alleged acts of corruption and improper use of information.
6. 487. The complainants report that the criminal complaint was dismissed at first instance. They indicate that the Public Prosecutor appealed this ruling, and that this appeal was also dismissed in May 2022. With regard to the administrative complaints, the complainants report that the complaint regarding “publicly funded leisure trips” was dismissed by the SFP on 27 January 2022, but that, in a ruling dated 21 April 2022, the Federal Court of Administrative Justice found Ms Urrea Torres guilty of “misuse of public resources” due to being unable to justify travel expenses of 2,416.13 pesos (US$ 140). They indicate that this ruling was appealed by the union.
7. 488. In addition, the complainants allege several acts of interference by the Agency. They state that, on 13 September 2019, a director from the Agency questioned two union members, Ms Rosaura Torres León and Ms Verónica Torres Lizama, about their involvement in the convening of an urgent union assembly. This director subsequently scheduled a mandatory meeting for all workers for the same time, in order to prevent them from attending. According to the complainants, this director also encouraged the two union members to dissuade other workers from taking part in the assembly in question.
8. 489. The complainants also state that the Agency formed a parallel union, the Independent Union of Notimex Workers (SiNotimex), and that its directors pressured workers to renounce their union membership and join SiNotimex, threatening them with dismissal if they did not comply. They maintained that Ms Diana Pérez Caballero, a union member who was eight months pregnant at the time, was harassed, evicted from the Agency’s premises and subsequently dismissed in retaliation for publicly criticizing the formation of SiNotimex, and that three other union members were also harassed and dismissed for defending her.
9. 490. The complainants indicate that, on 14 April 2023, the President of Mexico announced the closure of several public entities, including the Agency. They state that, while the Government called the union in to discuss the terms and conditions of the severance package, the decision to close the Agency was unilateral, as the President preferred to lay off the workers rather than resolve the strike, the rights’ violations and the pending reinstatements.
10. 491. In their communication dated 7 December 2023, the complainants indicate that a draft decree on the closure of the Agency was in the process of being discussed and approved by the Chamber of Deputies and the Chamber of Senators, to be followed by the workers’ severance package. They claim that the issue has not been resolved, and that the decision to end a three year and nine-month strike by a presidential decree closing the Agency will leave a significant precedent for trade union and labour movements in the country.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 492. In its communications dated 11 September and 6 December 2023, the Government emphasizes that the Mexican State never obstructed the union’s rights, given that the allegations at issue in the present case are directed against the Agency in its capacity as employer. It indicates that the Agency is a decentralized body of the public administration with operational, technical and managerial autonomy, and that it is not directly subordinate to the federal executive.
2. 493. With respect to the alleged anti-union dismissals, the Government states that they are being dealt with through various entities within the domestic legal system. It also provides updated information on the four judicial proceedings for unfair dismissal that were still pending at the time of the complaint, indicating that in one case, brought by Ms Carmen Archundia Ramirez, a reinstatement order was issued, and that the other three, brought by Ms Mayte Mora Nieto, Mr Gustavo Ramirez Ibarra and Mr Martin Takagui Carbajo, are still pending.
3. 494. Regarding the Agency’s alleged failure to comply with the collective agreement, the Government reports that, on 11 September 2023, the collective agreement concluded on 28 May 2018 between the Agency and the union was still in force and there was no record of any other. It maintains, further, that measures were taken to safeguard the rights of the union’s members, as the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board issued a declaration on the legality of the strike called by the union under article 450 of the Federal Labour Law, which provides that a strike may be for the purpose of demanding compliance with a collective agreement that has been violated.
4. 495. As for the aforementioned strike, the Government also addresses the alleged dismissals and use of strike-breakers (“scabs”) by the Agency, pointing out that the allegations on the personnel movements made during the strike should not be disregarded and will be reviewed within the domestic legal framework, in accordance with the General Law on Administrative Responsibilities.
5. 496. With respect to the alleged persecution of Ms Urrea Torres, the Government submits that the allegations concerning the personal accounts of the Agency’s directors on social media networks fall outside the State’s jurisdiction. It indicates that the country’s constitutional guarantees grant citizens the full exercise of freedom of expression, and therefore what they may or may not post on social media cannot be censored. The Government further submits that, while Ms Urrea Torres’ alleged acts of administrative misconduct occurred during the period of the strike called by the union, they were unrelated to the labour dispute between the union and the Agency. It states that, in its opinion, the Agency’s internal control body had carried out the appropriate procedure in terms of relevant legal provisions, and that the various avenues provided for in the Mexican regulatory framework for resolving disputes were available to Ms Urrea Torres.
6. 497. Regarding the alleged creation of a parallel trade union by the Agency, the Government indicates that no restrictions of any kind are imposed under Mexican legislation on workers’ right to freedom of association. Neither, it argues, does it govern the exclusivity of a trade union, nor force workers to join a particular union. The Government further reports that, although SiNotimex has been legally recognized, it has not concluded any collective agreement with the Agency.
7. 498. With regard to the alleged unilateral decision to close the Agency, the Government submits that, in 2020, the President of Mexico requested the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (STPS) to intervene to mediate in the dispute between the Agency and the union. However, due to changes in the right to information and to the Agency no longer functioning properly, on 14 April 2023 it was determined that the Agency was no longer achieving the aims and objectives for which it had been created, and it was therefore considered necessary to close it. According to the Government, this decision had nothing to do with the ongoing strike.
8. 499. The Government indicates that the STPS then took a number of steps that led to increased dialogue with the union, the main aim being to pay the workers what was owed to them before the closure of the Agency. In particular, it reports that a number of meetings and working groups were organized with the involvement of the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board, which was responsible for providing the calculations of the severance payments of the union members, and that on 3 October 2023 a coordination agreement was signed between the Ministry of the Interior, the STPS and the union on the closure of the Agency.
9. 500. In its communication dated 21 February 2024, the Government reports that, on 29 November 2023, a draft decree on the closure of the Agency was tabled for discussion before the Chamber of Deputies and the Chamber of Senators, and subsequently approved. It indicates that, on 21 December 2023, the decree closing the decentralized, non-sectoral body of the federal public administration called Notimex, the Mexican state news agency, and repealing the law creating the Mexican state news agency, was published in the Federation’s Official Journal.
10. 501. The Government notes that article 4 of the decree states that the Ministry of the Interior should establish the basis for the winding up of the Agency and that the terms and conditions for the laying off of the Agency’s workers should be in strict respect of their rights. It adds that the basis for the severance package published under this article provides that workers separated from their employment up to one year before 21 February 2020 will be considered for payment purposes, provided that there is a final award in their favour that has not been implemented.
11. 502. The Government reports that, in December 2023 and January 2024, the 86 union members, including Ms Mora Nieto, Mr Ramirez Ibarra and Mr Takagui Carbajo, as well as the 63 additional workers of the Agency, were laid off, and that all were compensated in accordance with the Federal Labour Law, the decree, the collective agreement and their individual contracts.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 503. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the complainants allege that: (i) a state agency in the communications sector dismissed more than 100 trade union members and officials, violated various clauses of the collective agreement it had concluded with the union, refused to recognize a legal strike, committed several acts of anti-union interference, and carried out a campaign of persecution against a trade union official; and (ii) the Government took a unilateral decision to close the Agency instead of resolving the dispute between the Agency and the union. The Committee further notes that the Government: (i) indicates that the allegations have been, or will be, dealt with through the judicial system and provides updated information on the ongoing proceedings; and (ii) states that consultations were held with the union with a view to determining the compensation due to the workers prior to the issuance of the decree closing the Agency.
2. 504. With regard to the alleged anti-union dismissals, the Committee notes the complainants’ allegations that: (i) following the arrival of a new director in May 2019, the Agency arbitrarily dismissed more than 100 trade union officials and members; (ii) these dismissals dismantled the union’s executive committee, and the union therefore elected a new general secretary, Ms Adriana Urrea Torres, who was also dismissed days after taking office; (iii) 48 of the dismissed workers (including 13 union officials) filed legal proceedings for unfair dismissal against the Agency; and reinstatement orders were issued in favour of 42 members (including 11 union officials), two appeals were dismissed, and the other four are still pending; and (iv) despite the aforementioned orders, the Agency has failed to reinstate any of the workers.
3. 505. The Committee notes that the Government, for its part, indicates that: (i) one more reinstatement order has been issued since the filing of the complaint; (ii) on 21 December 2023, a decree was issued closing the Agency; (iii) the basis for the severance package published under the decree provides that workers separated from their employment up to one year before 21 February 2020 will be considered for payment purposes, provided that no final award in their favour has been implemented; and (iv) in December 2023 and January 2024, the 86 members of the union, including the three whose judicial appeals were still pending, as well as the Agency’s other 63 workers, were laid off and awarded compensation for the loss of their jobs, in accordance with the Federal Labour Law, the decree, the collective agreement and their individual employment contracts.
4. 506. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the complainants and the Government. While the Committee notes that the 43 union members who had been issued reinstatement orders and the three members whose judicial appeals were still pending were awarded compensation at the time of the Agency’s closure, it also notes that the Government does not deny that the Agency had previously refused to comply with such orders, and that no sanctions appear to have been imposed in connection with the dismissals. The Committee recalls that respect for the principles of freedom of association requires that workers should not be dismissed for engaging in legitimate trade union activities [see Compilation of Decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 1164].
5. 507. With regard to the allegations of violation of the collective agreement and non-recognition of the subsequent strike, the Committee notes that, according to the complainants: (i) the Agency failed to comply with more than 30 clauses of the collective agreement signed by the parties by dismissing the aforementioned workers and committing other violations such as offering too low severance packages, reducing food vouchers, cancelling financial support for medicines and studies, and seeking to unilaterally repeal the agreement in question; (ii) between December 2019 and February 2020, the Agency refused to enter into dialogue with the union to resolve the labour dispute arising from these violations; (iii) on 21 February 2020, the union called a strike, which was legally recognized by the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board on 5 March 2020; and (iv) the Agency failed to recognize the strike and continued to dismiss workers and run its operations using strike-breaking labour (“scabs”).
6. 508. The Committee further notes that the Government maintains that: (i) the issuance of a declaration on the legality of the strike by the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board is a measure taken to safeguard the rights of the union under article 450 of the Federal Labour Law, which provides that a strike may be for the purpose of demanding compliance with a collective agreement that has been violated; and (ii) the allegations of staff redeployments during the strike should not be disregarded and will be reviewed within the domestic legal framework.
7. 509. Concerning the alleged failure to comply with the collective agreement, the Committee recalls that mutual respect for the commitment undertaken in collective agreements is an important element of the right to bargain collectively and should be upheld in order to establish labour relations on stable and firm ground [see Compilation, para. 1336]. The Committee notes the allegations regarding dismissals in 2019 and improper termination in connection with the strike. The Committee expects that the compensation issues were fairly addressed in the agreement relating to the closure of the Agency. The Committee requests the Government and the complainants to provide information in this regard.
8. 510. Noting that the Government does not deny the allegations concerning the strike, the Committee recalls that when trade unionists or union leaders are dismissed for having exercised the right to strike, the Committee can only conclude that they have been punished for their trade union activities and have been discriminated against [see Compilation, para. 958]. Furthermore, if a strike is legal, recourse to the use of labour drawn from outside the undertaking to replace the strikers for an indeterminate period entails a risk of derogation from the right to strike, which may affect the free exercise of trade union rights [see Compilation, para. 919]. Taking due note of the Government’s willingness to carry out a review of the personnel movements that occurred during the strike, the Committee requests the Government to conduct such a review and keep it informed in this regard.
9. 511. With regard to the alleged campaign of persecution against Ms Urrea Torres following her election as general secretary of the union, the Committee notes that the complainants state that: (i) through its directors’ dissemination of videos, images, news briefings and statements on social media, the Agency falsely labelled Ms Urrea Torres as “corrupt”, and accused her of theft, starting an illegal strike, kidnapping, extortion and money laundering; (ii) the Agency filed two administrative complaints with the SFP against her for “publicly funded leisure trips” and “misuse of public resources”, as well as a criminal complaint with the Office of the Public Prosecutor for “unlawful exercise of public service”; (iii) while the first administrative complaint was dismissed on 27 January 2022, Ms Urrea Torres was found guilty in the second administrative case in a ruling by the Federal Court of Administrative Justice on 21 April 2022, which was appealed by the union; and (iv) the criminal complaint was dismissed at first instance, a ruling upheld at second instance in May 2022.
10. 512. The Committee notes that the Government, for its part, states that: (i) the allegations concerning the personal accounts of the Agency’s directors on social media networks fall outside the State’s jurisdiction, given that Mexico’s constitutional guarantees provide for the full exercise of freedom of expression; (ii) while Ms Urrea Torres’ alleged acts of administrative misconduct occurred during the strike period, they were unrelated to the labour dispute between the Agency and the union; and (iii) Ms Urrea Torres has a number of legal avenues available to her at the national level to resolve disputes.
11. 513. In this respect, the Committee notes, based on publicly available information, that in a ruling dated 9 January 2024, the Federal Court of Administrative Justice overturned the ruling handed down on 21 April 2022 against Ms Urrea Torres. Furthermore, noting that the Government does not contest that a criminal complaint filed against Ms Urrea Torres was dismissed at first and second instance by the courts, and that several unsubstantiated criminal charges were brought against her by the Agency and its directors, the Committee recalls that allegations of criminal conduct should not be used to harass trade unionists by reason of their union membership or activities [see Compilation, para. 80]. The Committee trusts that the Government will adopt measures to ensure that the rights of workers’ organizations can be exercised in a climate that is free from harassment against their officials.
12. 514. With regard to the alleged acts of anti-union interference, the Committee notes that the complainants state that: (i) in September 2019, a director from the Agency questioned two union members about their involvement in the convening of an urgent union assembly, and he subsequently scheduled a mandatory meeting for all Agency workers for the same time, inviting those members in order to dissuade other workers from attending the assembly; (ii) the Agency formed a parallel union, SiNotimex, and its directors used threats of dismissal to pressure workers to renounce their union membership and join the parallel union; and (iii) a union member was harassed, evicted from the Agency’s premises and subsequently dismissed for publicly criticizing the formation of SiNotimex, as were three other members who defended her.
13. 515. The Committee also notes that the Government reports in this respect that: (i) the Mexican legislation does not impose any restrictions on workers’ right to freedom of association, nor does it oblige workers to join any trade union; and (ii) although SiNotimex has been legally recognized, it has not signed any collective agreement with the Agency.
14. 516. The Committee notes that the Government does not directly address the specific allegations of anti-union interference made by the complainants. Regarding the formation of SiNotimex and the alleged pressure from the Agency’s directors, the Committee recalls the importance it attaches to protection being ensured against acts of interference by employers designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of an employer [see Compilation, para. 1215]. It further recalls that direct threat and intimidation of members of a workers’ organization and forcing them into committing themselves to sever their ties with the organization under the threat of termination constitutes a denial of these workers’ freedom of association rights [see Compilation, para. 1100]. With respect to the alleged attempts to prevent the union assembly and reprisals against the workers who had criticized the formation of SiNotimex, the Committee recalls that freedom of assembly and freedom of opinion and expression are a sine qua non for the exercise of freedom of association [see Compilation, para. 205]. The Committee requests the Government to conduct an independent investigation into the allegations of anti-union interference by the Agency and, if substantiated, to take the necessary measures to ensure that such situations do not recur in other public bodies.
15. 517. With regard to the alleged unilateral decision to close the Agency, the Committee notes that, according to the complainants: (i) on 14 April 2023, the President of Mexico announced the closure; (ii) although the Government called the union in to discuss the terms and conditions of the severance package, the decision to close was unilateral; and (iii) the fact that a three-year and nine-month strike was ended by a presidential decree winding up the Agency will leave a significant precedent for trade union movements in the country.
16. 518. The Committee notes that the Government, for its part, states that: (i) due to changes in the right to information and to the Agency no longer functioning properly, on 14 April 2023 it was determined that the Agency was no longer achieving the objectives for which it had been created, and it was therefore considered necessary to close it; (ii) the STPS held several meetings and round-table sessions with the union, the main aim of which was to calculate the compensation due to its members; (iii) on 3 October 2023, the Ministry of the Interior, the STPS and the union signed a coordination agreement on the closure of the Agency; (iv) on 29 November 2023, a draft decree on the closure of the Agency was tabled for discussion before the Chamber of Deputies and the Chamber of Senators, and subsequently approved and published; and (v) in December 2023 and January 2024, the 86 members of the union and the other 63 Agency workers were laid off.
17. 519. The Committee notes that the complainants allege that, while consultations were held to determine the Agency’s severance package, the union, which represented the majority of the Agency’s workers, was not consulted about the decision to close the Agency. While the Committee recalls that it has no mandate to consider the decision to close the Agency, it requests the Government to redouble its efforts to promote social dialogue in all its agencies.