U.S. National Administrative Office
Bureau of International Labor Affairs
U.S. Department of Labor
January 27, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY
- INTRODUCTION
- SUMMARY OF SUBMISSION
- Case Summary
- Issues
- Relief Requested
- NAO REVIEW
- Initiation of the Review
- Objective of the Review
- Information from the
Submitters
- Information from the Mexican
NAO
- Information from Legal
Experts
- Public Hearing
- Additional Information
- NAALC OBLIGATIONS AND MEXICAN LABOR LAW
- NAALC Obligations
- Relevant Mexican Law
- Government Action and the Allegations in
Submission No. 9601 on Freedom of Association
- Composition of the Federal Conciliation
and Arbitration Tribunal (FCAT)
- RELEVANT MEXICAN LABOR LAW AND ILO
CONVENTION 87
- Report of the ILO Committee on
Freedom of Association on SUTSP
- ILO Reports on Union Registration
Requirements
- ILO Reports on Trade Union
Monopolies
- DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
MEXICO
- FINDINGS
- Enforcement of Labor Laws
- Actions by the Federal Conciliation and
Arbitration Tribunal (FCAT)
- RECOMMENDATIONS
GLOSSARY OF SPANISH ACRONYMS
ANAD |
National Association of Democratic Lawyers
(Asociación Nacional de Abogados Democráticos) |
FCAT |
Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal (Tribunal
Federal de Conciliación y Arbitraje) |
FSTSE |
Federation of Unions of Workers in the Service of the State
(Federación de Sindicatos de Trabajadores al Servicio del
Estado) |
LFTSE |
Federal Law of Workers in the Service of the State (Ley
Federal de Trabajadores al Servicio del Estado) |
PRI |
Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido
Revolucionario Institucional) |
SEMARNAP |
Ministry of the Environment, Natural Resources, and
Fishing (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y
Pesca) |
SNTSMARNAP |
National Union of the Ministry of the Environment, Natural
Resources and Fishing (Sindicato Nacional de la Secretaría de Medio
Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca) |
SUTSP |
Single Trade Union of Workers of the Ministry of Fishing
(Sindicato Unico de Trabajadores de la Secretaría de
Pesca) |
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. National Administrative Office (NAO) was established under the
North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC). The NAALC, the labor
supplemental agreement to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),
provides for the review of submissions concerning labor law matters arising in
Canada or Mexico by the U.S. NAO. Article 16 (3) of the NAALC specifically
provides that:
[e]ach NAO shall provide for the submission and receipt, and
periodically publish a list, of public communications on labor law matters
arising in the territory of another Party. Each NAO shall review such matters,
as appropriate, in accordance with its domestic procedures.
"Labor law" is defined in Article 49 of the NAALC, as follows:
laws and regulations, or provisions thereof, that are directly
related to: (a) freedom of association and protection of the right to organize;
(b) the right to bargain collectively; (c) the right to strike; (d) prohibition
of forced labor; (e) labor protections for children and young persons; (f)
minimum employment standards, such as minimum wages and overtime pay, covering
wage earners, including those not covered by collective agreements; (g)
elimination of employment discrimination on the basis of grounds such as race,
religion, age, sex, or other grounds as determined by each Party's domestic
laws; (h) equal pay for men and women; (i) prevention of occupational injuries
and illnesses; (j) compensation in cases of occupational injuries and
illnesses; (k) protection of migrant workers.
Procedural guidelines governing the receipt, acceptance for review, and
conduct of review of submissions filed with the U.S. NAO were issued pursuant
to Article 16 (3) of the NAALC. The U.S. NAO's procedural guidelines were
published and became effective on April 7, 1994, in a Revised Notice of
Establishment of the U.S. National Administrative Office and Procedural
Guidelines.(1) Pursuant to these guidelines,
once a determination is made to accept a submission for review, the NAO shall
conduct such further examination of the submission as may be appropriate to
assist the NAO to better understand and publicly report on the issues raised
therein. The Secretary of the NAO shall issue a public report that includes a
summary of the review proceedings and findings and recommendations. The review
must be completed and the public report issued within 120 days of acceptance of
a submission for review, unless circumstances require an extension of time of
up to 60 additional days.
SUMMARY OF SUBMISSION
U.S. NAO Submission No. 9601 was filed on June 13, 1996, by Human
Rights Watch/Americas (HRW), the International Labor Rights Fund (ILRF), and
the National Association of Democratic Lawyers (Asociación Nacional
de Abogados Democráticos, hereinafter ANAD). The submission arose
from a dispute over the representation of employees of the federal government
at the Ministry of the Environment, Natural Resources, and Fishing
(Secretaría de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca,
hereinafter SEMARNAP or the Ministry) between the Single Trade Union of Workers
of the Fishing Ministry (Sindicato Unico de Trabajadores de la
Secretaría de Pesca, hereinafter SUTSP) and the National Union of
Workers of the Ministry of the Environment, Natural Resources and Fishing
(Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Secretaría de Medio
Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca, hereinafter SNTSMARNAP). The
submission raises issues of freedom of association, procedural guarantees of
the NAALC that require the Parties to maintain impartial labor tribunals, and
compliance by Mexico with international conventions to which it is a signatory.
- Case Summary
According to the
submitters, on December 28, 1994, the Fishing Ministry (Secretaría
de Pesca) was consolidated with parts of the Ministry of Agriculture and
Water Resources (Secretaría de Agricultura y Recursos
Hidráulicos) and the Ministry of Development (Secretaría
del Desarollo). This consolidation took place following the enactment of
an amendment to Mexico's Organic Law of Federal Public Administration that
reorganized the structure of the country's federal ministries.(2) The consolidated Ministry was designated the
Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources, and Fishing (SEMARNAP). The new
Ministry received approximately 2,300 workers from the Fishing Ministry, who
were represented by SUTSP, approximately 20,000 workers from the Ministry of
Agriculture, and approximately 3,000 workers from the Ministry of Development.
On January 12, 1995, SUTSP petitioned the Federal Conciliation and
Arbitration Tribunal (Tribunal Federal de Conciliación y Arbitraje,
hereinafter FCAT) for a name change to reflect the name of the newly
consolidated Ministry. The FCAT denied the request on the basis that the
Fishing Ministry had ceased to exist as an entity; the FCAT ruled that
applicable law negated the existence of the union. The applicable law is the
Federal Law of Workers in the Service of the State (Ley Federal de
Trabajadores al Servicio del Estado, hereinafter LFTSE) . SUTSP appealed
this decision, but the appeal was denied by a federal court and the name change
did not take place. Nevertheless, SUTSP remained registered and continued to
operate as a union.(3)
On January 27, 1995, the Federation of Unions of Workers in the
Service of the State (Federación de Sindicatos de Trabajadores al
Servicio del Estado, hereinafter FSTSE),(4)
the only legally recognized union federation in the federal sector, called for
a constituent assembly of the union members of the three ministries in order to
organize a new union (SNTSMARNAP) and to elect officers. Before the election,
SNTSMARNAP and SUTSP held talks to seek a resolution to the problem of
apportioning leadership positions in the consolidated organization and setting
up the structure and objectives of the new union. According to the submitters,
the two sides were unable to come to an agreement.
The FSTSE assembly and election were conducted on March 2 and 3,
1995, and the new union was registered with the FCAT on March 20, 1995. In
granting the registration, the FCAT noted that no other union existed in the
workplace as the tribunal had already determined that SUTSP had ceased to exist
along with its employer. SEMARNAP then notified the FCAT that two unions were,
in fact, registered to represent employees at the Ministry, in violation of the
law. SNTSMARNAP then filed a brief with the FCAT on June 22, 1995, seeking the
de-registration of SUTSP and the FCAT subsequently canceled the registration of
SUTSP on June 27, 1995. SUTSP appealed this decision and on January 12, 1996,
the Seventh Collegiate Labor Court of the First District ruled that the FCAT
erred in canceling the registration of SUTSP without affording it a hearing. On
January 22, 1996, in accordance with the court's order, the FCAT restored the
registration of SUTSP. The submitters assert that following the restoration of
the registration, the FCAT delayed informing SEMARNAP of its decision,
effectively precluding the union from engaging in union representation
functions with the Ministry.
Based on its restored registration, SUTSP petitioned the FCAT to
recognize the union's executive committee, which had been elected on June 30,
1995. The FCAT granted a restricted recognition, however, which limited the
executive committee to representing SUTSP before the FCAT and the courts in its
dispute with SNTSMARNAP, but not for the purpose of union representation.(5) The SUTSP appealed this decision and on April
30, 1996, the Second District Labor Court found in favor of SUTSP and ruled
that the FCAT had unlawfully restricted its registration. An appeal by
SNTSMARNAP against this decision was denied by the Second Collegiate Labor
Tribunal.
In a separate, but related, suit on April 18, 1995, SUTSP appealed
the decision of the FCAT that recognized SNTSMARNAP. The first appeal was
denied, but on March 29, 1996, the Second Collegiate Labor Tribunal found the
FCAT to be at fault for recognizing SNTSMARNAP without affording SUTSP a
hearing and ordered the FCAT to cancel the registration it had issued to
SNTSMARNAP. On May 15, 1996, the FCAT duly canceled SNTSMARNAP's registration.
The submitters maintain that even though the registration was canceled, the
Ministry continued to work with SNTSMARNAP as if it were the registered union.
On September 24, 1996, the FCAT called for elections within
SEMARNAP between the two contending unions. The election was held on October 4,
1996, and SNTSMARNAP won.(6) On November 15,
1996, the FCAT registered SNTSMARNAP, recognized its by-laws and executive
committee, canceled the registration of SUTSP, and notified the appropriate
federal courts of this action. In doing so, the FCAT rejected the submitters'
arguments that the conduct of the election was unfair to SUTSP in that
preferential treatment regarding access to government facilities, paid time off
for union business, and control of union finances was granted to SNTSMARNAP by
the Ministry prior to and during the election campaign .
SUTSP did not appeal this ruling. At the time of the writing of
this report, SNTSMARNAP is the registered and recognized union at the Ministry.
- Issues
The submitters allege (1)
infringement of freedom of association and the right to organize in violation
of the obligation of Mexico to enforce its labor laws, including its
obligations related to international conventions, under Article 3 (1) of the
NAALC and (2) failure to ensure impartial labor tribunals in violation of
Article 5 (4) of the NAALC.
In support of the first allegation, the Submitters assert that the
FCAT violated federal labor laws in arbitrarily de-registering SUTSP and in its
refusal to reinstate full recognition of SUTSP and Mexico's failure to revise
its law of federal employees (LFTSE) limiting the number of unions in the
federal sector to reflect its obligations under several international treaties
to which it is a signatory. These include Convention 87 of the International
Labor Organization (ILO), the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The submitters argue that Mexico's
Constitution gives the status of supreme law of the land to international
treaties, making them part of domestic law and, therefore, Mexico should revise
its domestic law to put it in compliance with the requirements of those
treaties.
In support of the second allegation, the Submitters assert that the
FCAT system suffers from inherent bias and conflict of interest due to the
structure of the tribunal's membership. They argue that the composition of the
FCAT, with labor representation exclusively from FSTSE, makes it incapable of
rendering an impartial decision in a case in which FSTSE has an interest.
- Relief Requested
The
submitters requested the NAO to:
-
hold public hearings on the matter;
-
take steps to ensure that members of the SUTSP are able to
ensure all rights to which they are entitled under Mexican law;
-
engage the Government of Mexico in a process of public
evaluation of the problems documented in the petition;
-
engage the Government of Mexico in a process designed to effect
the elimination of the portions of the LFTSE that violate the right to freedom
of association; and
-
initiate steps to compel Mexico to meet its obligations under
the NAALC by eliminating the conflict of interest inherent in the FCAT system.
NAO REVIEW
The NAO procedural guidelines specify that following a determination by
the NAO Secretary to accept a submission for review, the Secretary shall
publish promptly in the Federal Register a notice of determination, a statement
specifying why the review is warranted, and the terms of the review. Moreover,
the NAO shall then conduct such further examination of the submission as may be
appropriate to assist the NAO to better understand and publicly report on the
issues raised.
- Initiation of the Review
Submission No. 9601 was filed on June 13, 1996. It was accepted for review on
July 29, 1996, within sixty days of its receipt, as required by the NAO's
procedural guidelines. The NAO published its notice that Submission No. 9601
had been accepted for review on August 2, 1996.(7)
Review of this submission was deemed appropriate because it
satisfied the criteria for acceptance as stated in Section G.2 in the NAO
procedural guidelines: (1) it raised issues related to labor law matters in
Mexico and (2) a review would further the objectives of the NAALC as set out in
Article 1. Article 1 provides that the objectives of the NAALC include
improving working conditions and living standards in each Party's territory;
promoting, to the maximum extent possible, the labor principles set out in
Annex 1; promoting compliance with, and effective enforcement by each Party of,
its labor law; and fostering transparency in the administration of labor law.
The NAO further stated that acceptance of the submission for review
was not intended to indicate any determination as to the validity or accuracy
of the allegations contained in the submission.
- Objective of the Review
Consistent with Section H.1 of the NAO guidelines, the stated objective of the
review was to gather information to assist the NAO to better understand and
publicly report on the Government of Mexico's promotion of compliance with, and
effective enforcement of, its labor law through appropriate government action,
as set out in Article 3 of the NAALC. In particular, the NAO notice of
acceptance stated that the review would focus "on the issues concerning
the right to organize and freedom of association raised in the submission,
including the Government of Mexico's compliance with the obligations agreed to
under Articles 3 and 5 of the NAALC."
In conducting its review, the NAO received information from a
variety of sources, including the submitters, the National Administrative
Office of Mexico, representatives of the unions involved in the case, and other
individuals who elected to present testimony at a public hearing conducted on
December 3, 1996. In addition, the NAO reviewed legal research material and
information from experts on Mexican labor law.
The focus of the review was on the Government of Mexico's
enforcement of its domestic labor law pursuant to Article 3 (1) of the NAALC
with respect to freedom of association and on the compliance by Mexico's labor
tribunals with the procedural guarantees specified in Article 5 (4) of the
NAALC.(8)
- Information from the
Submitters
Representatives of the submitters met with the NAO on
July 3, 1996, to provide further factual information. In a fax dated August 22,
1996, the submitters provided the NAO a copy of a letter they sent to the
Secretary of Natural Resources, Environment and Fishing expressing concern
about continuing restrictions placed by the Ministry on the union activities of
SUTSP. In a letter dated October 2, 1996 and a fax dated October 3, 1996, the
submitters provided the NAO copies of a letter they sent to the Secretary of
Government(9) expressing concern about the
conduct of the union election scheduled to be held at SEMARNAP on October 4,
1996. Additionally, on November 22, 1996, the submitters filed a request to
testify, providing the names of the witnesses planning to present information
at the hearing. On December 2, 1996, the submitters filed a brief together with
twenty-four signed affidavits. Copies of documents provided to the NAO are on
file with the NAO.
- Information from the
Mexican NAO
In response to the filing of the submission, the Mexican
NAO submitted a statement dated July 11, 1996, in which it stated that the
submission was not appropriate for review by the U.S. NAO because Mexico had
adequately enforced its laws in this case and that the scope of the NAALC was
limited to monitoring the effective compliance with, and effective enforcement
of, each Party's labor law. The statement included information on the
proceedings conducted in the case.
In gathering information for this review, the U.S. NAO consulted
with its Mexican counterpart pursuant to Article 21 of the NAALC. The Secretary
of the U.S. NAO forwarded a list of questions to the Mexican NAO pertaining to
Mexican federal labor law and its enforcement in the federal government sector.
The Mexican NAO provided answers to these questions in a document dated October
8, 1996.
On November 21, 1996, the Mexican NAO submitted a statement to be
entered into the record of the Public Hearing conducted on December 3, 1996.
The statement contained detailed information on the administrative and legal
proceedings conducted in the case.
- Information from Legal
Experts
The NAO also relied upon attorneys with expertise in the
field of Mexican labor law in the federal sector to research the legal
questions presented for review in Submission No. 9601 and prepare a report of
findings to assist the NAO in its review of the pertinent issues. The three
general areas of inquiry were:
1. composition of the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal
(FCAT);
2. current laws and practices in Mexico on labor-management
relations in the federal sector; and
3. the Mexican system of law.
The experts completed their report and submitted it to the NAO on
December 18, 1996.(10)
- Public Hearing
Section H.1(3)
of the NAO guidelines states: "[t]he Secretary shall hold promptly a
hearing on the submission, unless the Secretary determines that a hearing would
not be a suitable method for carrying out the Office's responsibilities under
Paragraph 1." Consistent with this guideline, a public hearing was held in
Washington, D.C. on December 3, 1996. Notice of this hearing was published in
the Federal Register on October 30, 1996.(11)
Six individuals appeared as witnesses on behalf of the submitters.
Mr. Joel Solomon represented Human Rights Watch and provided a recapitulation
of the position of the submitters and supplemental information. Mr. Terry
Collingsworth represented the International Labor Rights Fund. He reiterated
the submitters' request for relief and specified measures that they would like
the NAO to undertake. Mr. Eugenio Narcia Teobar, counsel for SUTSP and a member
of ANAD, spoke on behalf of both organizations. He provided additional
information on the legal efforts of SUTSP to maintain its registration. Mr.
Roberto Tooms, General Secretary of SUTSP, spoke on behalf of that union and
addressed the problems his union confronted in its legal efforts and the
election campaign. Mr. Jonathan Rosenblum, of the law firm Gassler, Hughs &
Socol, and a former legal officer of the ILO, spoke on ILO jurisprudence on
this and similar cases. Mark M. Hager, Professor of Law, Washington College of
Law, The American University, argued that the scope of the NAALC did not
preclude the NAO from underscoring fundamental deficiencies in Mexico's labor
laws on freedom of association. He also spoke of the implications that two
Mexican Supreme Court decisions could have on the Mexican laws involved in this
case.
Mr. Alfonso Almendariz Durán spoke on behalf of SNTSMARNAP
and argued that his union had won a fair election.
Dr. Luis Miguel Díaz, General Coordinator of International
Affairs, Secretariat of Labor and Social Welfare, Mexico, spoke on behalf of
the Government of Mexico and reiterated the position of the Mexican Government
that it had enforced compliance with its laws and was therefore in conformance
with the NAALC.
Mr. Stephen Herzenberg, of the Keystone Research Center, spoke on
his own behalf and urged the NAO to take a more aggressive stance in
supervising the NAALC.
- Additional Information
The Industrial Relations Committee of the U.S. Council for International
Business (the Council) submitted statements on September 18 and December 9,
1996. In its statements, the Council argued that the submission was not
appropriate for review as it involved issues beyond the jurisdiction of the
NAO. Specifically, the Council wrote that the NAALC's scope is limited to
promoting labor principles subject to each Party's labor law and, therefore,
the only issue the NAO could consider was whether there had been adequate
enforcement of Mexico's labor law. Further, the Council argued that the
petitioners' request to change Mexican law with respect to exclusive bargaining
representation of workers would be contrary to long-standing law and practice
in the United States. The Council also asserted that reports and conclusions of
the Committee on Freedom of Association of the ILO were not an appropriate
measure by which to review this submission.
NAALC OBLIGATIONS AND MEXICAN LABOR
LAW
- NAALC Obligations
Part Two
of the NAALC sets out the obligations that the Parties to the Agreement
undertake. Three NAALC articles are pertinent to this submission. These are the
obligations relating to levels of protection (Article 2), government
enforcement action (Article 3), and procedural guarantees (Article 5). Articles
2 and 3 are relevant to the Government of Mexico's enforcement of its labor
laws protecting freedom of association. Article 5 is relevant to the issue of
compliance by Mexico with the NAALC procedural guarantees as regards the
composition of the FCAT.
- Relevant Mexican Law
Under
Mexico's legal system, every law must trace its origin to a constitutional
mandate, which gives validity to secondary, tertiary and other laws and
rules.(12) The laws relevant to the review of
this submission include the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States
(hereinafter the Mexican Constitution or the Constitution), Federal Law (the
LFTSE), and international treaties.
The Mexican Constitution specifically protects the right of freedom
of association. Article 19 states that "[t]he right to association or to
hold meetings for any legal purpose cannot be curbed."(13)
Also relevant is Article 123 of the Constitution, which is
considered the cornerstone of labor rights and is divided into Subparagraph A
that governs the private sector and Subparagraph B that governs the federal
sector. State and local workers are covered by state legislation that often
mirrors the laws in the federal sector. Reiterating the right of freedom of
association, Subsection (X) of Article 123 (B) reads, in relevant part:
"[w]orkers shall have the right to associate together for the protection
of their common interests."
The LFTSE is the federal regulatory law implementing Article 123
(B). Article 68 of the LFTSE places a limit of one union per workplace in the
federal sector. It states: "[e]ach agency shall have only one union. In
the event that there are various groups of workers who desire to form a union,
the Federal Labor Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal will grant recognition
to the majority union."
Other Articles of the LFTSE also regulate union representation in
the federal government. Article 71 states that twenty or more workers may form
a union provided that another union within the same agency does not have a
greater number of workers. Article 72 grants the FCAT the authority to
determine if a union has the majority of workers in the agency and if another
union is in existence. Article 73 provides for the dissolution of a union if
another union gains a majority. The LFTSE does not specifically address how and
by what means a registered union can be dis-established other than by the
election of a new union.
Article 78 of the LFTSE addresses the affiliation of federal
workers' unions to a federation. It provides that "[u]nions can join the
Federation of Unions of Federal Employees, the only federation recognized by
the state."
The legal status of international treaties duly ratified by Mexico
is also raised by this submission. Article 133 of the Constitution states that
treaties ratified in accordance with the Constitution shall become the supreme
law of the land.(14) Mexico has ratified a
number of international treaties that protect the principle of freedom of
association. The most significant of these is Convention 87 of the ILO, which
protects the right of workers and employers to form organizations of their own
choosing without restriction.
Mexico is also a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights. Both treaties
provide assurances that freedom of association for a variety of purposes will
be protected. Both treaties contain language specific to labor unions. Article
22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides:
[e]veryone shall have the right to freedom of
association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for
the protection of his interests. Nothing in this article shall authorize States
Parties to the International Labour Organization Convention of 1948 concerning
Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize to take
legislative measures which would prejudice, or to apply the law in such a
manner as to prejudice the guarantees provided for in that Convention.
Article 16 of the American Convention on Human Rights provides that
"[e]veryone has the right to associate freely for ideological, religious,
political, labor, social, cultural, sports, or other purposes."
Mexico has also ratified the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, but did so with a reservation on Article 8 (1)
which relates to unions. In its reservation, Mexico indicated that the covenant
would be applied in accordance with its Constitution and related laws.
The administrative authority for enforcing labor law and
adjudicating labor disputes and conflicts in the federal government is the
FCAT. The FCAT is a body of ten members that works as a committee of the whole
to adjudicate collective conflicts such as strikes, problems between unions,
registration of agreements, and the recognition and dissolution of unions. It
meets in panels of three members each to hear individual complaints and
grievances. The Chairperson, a government appointee, presides over the FCAT
when it works as a committee of the whole, but does not sit on any individual
panel. Each panel is composed of three magistrates (magistrados), one
designated by the federal government, one by FSTSE, and a third designated by
the first two who shall act as Chairperson. The FCAT functioned as a committee
of the whole in most of the proceedings of this case.
The Federal District Court on Labor Matters (Juzgado de
Distrito en Materia de Trabajo) is the court of first appeal for decisions
made by the FCAT. This court is a panel of the Federal District Court. The
Collegiate Labor Tribunal (Tribunal Colegiado en Materia de Trabajo)
is the court of second appeal for decisions made by the FCAT. This tribunal is
a panel of the Collegiate Circuit Tribunal, which approximately corresponds to
a U.S. Federal Circuit Court.
The amparo lawsuit is the mechanism by which the
constitutionality of certain acts of government can be challenged. It is by
this means that decisions of the FCAT can be appealed to the courts. It is the
principal procedural vehicle used to protect individuals from infringement of
their rights under the Constitution.(15) Under
Mexican jurisprudence, decisions on amparos apply only to the parties
to the suit.(16)
- Government Action and the Allegations
in Submission No. 9601 on Freedom of Association
This section of the
report will review the enforcement of the relevant Mexican laws by the
appropriate government institutions. The relevant laws are LFTSE Article 68,
which permits one union per workplace, and LFTSE Articles 72 and 73 empowering
the FCAT to determine the majority union in a workplace and to certify that
union. The government institutions directly involved here are the FCAT, the
Courts, and SEMARNAP. For the most part, the facts are not in dispute in this
case.
SUTSP filed four petitions with the FCAT. In the first petition,
SUTSP attempted to change its name. The petition was filed on January 12, 1995.
The FCAT turned down this request on the grounds that the case involved the
establishment of a new Ministry and not simply a name change. The FCAT went on
to find that SUTSP ceased to exist when the Fishing Ministry was consolidated
with the other ministries. An amparo appeal by SUTSP was denied by the
Federal Courts.
The second case reviewed by the FCAT arose as a result of its
certification of SNTSMARNAP on March 20, 1995. SUTSP appealed this decision to
the Federal Courts on due process and freedom of association grounds. This
appeal was upheld by the Second Collegiate Labor Tribunal, which ordered the
FCAT to cancel the registration of SNTSMARNAP. The FCAT complied with this
order.
The third FCAT case arose when SEMARNAP informed the FCAT of the
existence of two unions at the Ministry in violation of LFTSE Article 68 and
SNTSMARNAP petitioned for the dissolution of SUTSP. The FCAT canceled the
certification of SUTSP on the grounds that the Fishing Ministry had ceased to
exist and that a majority union (SNTSMARNAP) existed at the consolidated
Ministry. SUTSP appealed this decision and its amparo was upheld by
the Seventh Collegiate Labor Tribunal. The Tribunal ordered the FCAT to restore
the registration of SUTSP and allow it to argue its case. The FCAT restored the
registration of SUTSP on January 22, 1996.
The fourth case arose when SUTSP petitioned the FCAT to recognize
the union's executive committee on January 25, 1996. The submitters maintain
that the FCAT granted limited recognition for the purpose of representing the
union in its dispute with SNTSMARNAP. SUTSP appealed this decision and obtained
a favorable decision by the Second District Labor Court, which found that the
FCAT had unduly restricted its recognition of the SUTSP executive committee. An
appeal against this decision filed by SNTSMARNAP was turned down by the Second
Collegiate Labor Tribunal.
In summary, of the four petitions filed by SUTSP, the FCAT issued
four rulings that were unfavorable to that union. Three of these rulings,
however, were overturned by the Federal Courts upon the filing of
amparo appeals and another ruling favorable to SUTSP occurred when the
Court rejected the appeal by SNTSMARNAP against the lower court decision
restoring full recognition to the SUTSP executive committee.
The final involvement of the FCAT in this submission occurred in
its supervision of the election to determine the majority union. This is in
accordance with Articles 68, 72, and 73 of the LFTSE. A secret ballot election
was held on October 4, 1996. SNTSMARNAP won the election. There is some dispute
over the election campaign. SUTSP maintained before the FCAT that the election
was unfair in that preferential access to government facilities, paid time off
for union business, and control of union finances was granted to SNTSMARNAP.
The FCAT acknowledged that the SUTSP complaint had some validity, but that the
irregularities would have affected only about 1% of the ballots, which would
not have substantially altered the outcome of the election. Therefore, the FCAT
rejected the SUTSP complaint and approved the registration of SNTSMARNAP as the
majority union.
The role of the Ministry (SEMARNAP) in this case consisted of
notifying the FCAT of the existence of two registered unions at the
consolidated Ministry. It is also asserted by SUTSP that the Ministry
implicitly recognized SNTSMARNAP, as demonstrated by its alleged willingness to
deal with that union and its alleged partisan support of that union in the
election campaign. The allegations of partisanship in the election campaign
were disputed by SNTSMARNAP.
- Composition of the Federal
Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal (FCAT)
The submitters assert
that Mexico is in violation of its obligations under NAALC Article 5 (4) to
ensure that its labor tribunals are impartial and independent and do not have
any substantial interest in the outcome of the matter being adjudicated. The
submitters argue that the FCAT, composed of three panels, each with a
government member, a FSTSE member, and a third member chosen by the first two,
is inherently biased and had a substantial institutional interest in the
outcome of the proceedings in question, involving, as it did, the FSTSE and its
affiliates. The submitters further maintain that the by-laws of SNTSMARNAP
contain language calling for its members to support the political work of
FSTSE, which supports the Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido
Revolucionario Institucional, hereinafter PRI).(17) The Submitters argue that, under these
circumstances, none of the FCAT members can be considered independent of the
PRI. However, in the instant submission, both of the contending unions were
affiliated to FSTSE. Nevertheless, the submitters argue that SNTSMARNAP had the
institutional support of the federation and the Ministry and that SUTSP had
never been properly supported by the federation.
Articles 118 through 123 of the LFTSE specify the requirements to
be a member of the FCAT. Article 118 provides that the labor representative on
each panel of the FCAT shall be designated by FSTSE. The Article also states
that the federal government shall designate a representative to each panel and
that the two shall elect the third member. Article 120 provides for the free
removal of the government and labor representatives by the organizations that
designate them. The other articles designate the responsibilities of the
Presidents of the Tribunal and the panels and specify age, professional, and
employment requirements to qualify as a member of the FCAT.
The law provides a procedure for recusal in case of conflict of
interest.(18) This procedure applies in cases
of personal, family or financial interest in the outcome of a case, or if an
institutional interest is involved. In the case of an institutional interest,
the FCAT member is expected to abstain from any act or omission that would be a
failure to comply with any legal provision relating to public service.(19) There is no provision for recusal based on
conflict of interest deriving from union membership or affiliation. Interested
parties can avail themselves of procedures within each government agency to
object to conflicts of interest.(20) It is not
clear how often this procedure is exercised or how a conflict between that law
and the LFTSE would be resolved. SUTSP filed a complaint under these
procedures, but the administrative oversight bodies ruled that the matter was
properly before the FCAT.
-
RELEVANT MEXICAN LABOR LAW AND
ILO CONVENTION 87
The submitters cite a number of international agreements to which
Mexico is a signatory and allege that they are binding on Mexico and that
Mexico is not in compliance. These agreements include: (1) Convention 87 of the
International Labor Organization (ILO); (2) the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights; (3) the American Convention on Human Rights; and (4) the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The submitters
further argue that, under the Mexican Constitution, international treaties are
the supreme law of the land and are therefore considered part of Mexico's labor
law.
There are conflicting opinions among legal scholars on the position of
international treaties and federal laws within the hierarchy of Mexican law.
One school of thought is that international treaties are superior to federal
law, provided that the treaty was ratified in accordance with Mexico's
constitutional requirements. This is the prevailing view.(21) Another view place federal law above
treaties. A third view is that international treaties and federal law appear to
enjoy equal status within the Mexican legal hierarchy.(22)
Convention 87 of the ILO has figured prominently in the submission,
briefs, and oral statements presented at the public hearing. This convention
has been the subject of a number of interpretive reports and decisions,
relevant to the instant submission, by ILO bodies over a period of years. Three
key issues which are related to this submission have been addressed by the ILO
in terms of their comparability with internationally recognized labor
principles on freedom of association. These are (1) the requirement that
federal union's obtain prior registration from the FCAT before engaging in any
activities; (2) the limitation of one union per workplace in the federal
government; and (3) the exclusive legal recognition granted FSTSE as the only
union federation permitted to exist in the federal sector. These issues have
been the subject of reports by the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association and
the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.
A number of these are cited below.
- Report of the ILO Committee on
Freedom of Association on SUTSP
Case No. 1844 was filed against the
Government of Mexico by SUTSP on May 31, and July 17, 1995 before the Committee
on Freedom of Association (CFA) of the ILO and involves precisely the issues
raised in Submission 9601. In its report the CFA addressed the three key issues
related to this submission. Following are a number of the conclusions from the
report on the case.(23)
On the issue of registration of a union by the authorities, the CFA
sought to differentiate between registration and exclusive bargaining rights,
by stating that "recognizing the possibility of trade union pluralism does
not preclude granting certain rights and advantages to the most representative
organizations. However, 'the determination of the most representative
organization must be based on objective, pre-established and precise criteria
so as to avoid any possibility of bias or abuse . . . (and) the distinction
should generally be limited to the recognition of certain preferential rights -
for example for such purposes as collective bargaining, consultations by the
authorities or the designation of delegates to international organizations'
[see General Survey, Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining,
1994, para. 97]."(24)
The CFA found the provision of the LFTSE allowing only one union
per workplace to be a problem. It noted "that the major problem lies in
the fact that there cannot be more than one trade union within one department,
as laid down in Sections 68, 71, 72, and 73 of the Federal Act pertaining to
Public Service Workers. These provisions have given rise to observations by the
Committee of Experts for a number of years."(25) On the dissolution of SUTSP and the
limitation of one union per workplace in the federal sector, the CFA
"draws the Government's attention to the fact that Article 2 of Convention
87, ratified by Mexico, stipulates that workers and employers are entitled to
establish, and subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to join
organizations of their own choosing. Furthermore, Paragraph 2 of Article 3
stipulates that public authorities should refrain from any interference which
would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof."(26)
The CFA also noted that the establishment of the FSTSE as the only
recognized union federation in the federal sector "makes it impossible for
public service workers, to set up trade union organizations of their choice
outside the established trade union structure."(27) The Committee called upon the Government of
Mexico to take the necessary measures to ensure that public service workers
"may freely establish independent trade unions of their own choosing and
belong to these organizations, irrespective of whether they are grass roots
organizations or federations, outside any existing trade union structure"
and to "eliminate as quickly as possible, all the legal and practical
obstacles so that the complainant organization my acquire legal personality and
carry out the trade union activities provided in Convention No. 87. The
Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect."(28) The Mexican Government informed the CFA of
subsequent developments in the case, including the restoration of the
registration of SUTSP and the partial recognition granted to the executive
committee of SUTSP.
- ILO Reports on Union
Registration Requirements
Article 2 of ILO Convention 87 guarantees
the right of workers and employers to establish organizations without previous
authorization from the public authorities. Article 3 protects the right of
workers and employers to draw up their own rules and elect their own
representatives free from intervention of public authorities. Article 4
protects workers' and employers' organizations from dissolution by the
administrative authorities. Article 7 of Convention 87 provides that
"[t]he acquisition of legal personality by workers' and employers'
organizations, federations, and confederations shall not be made subject to
conditions of such character as to restrict the application of the provisions
of Articles 2, 3 and 4 thereof."
The ILO has addressed the issue of union registration and
recognition in a number of reports. In considering the protections of
Convention 87, the CFA, in its 1994 General Survey, recognized that
private employers and government agencies will generally prefer to deal with
only one trade union organization per workplace and recognized that the
proliferation of trade unions may weaken the trade union movement and
ultimately prejudice the interests of workers. Therefore, the CFA found that
legislation that establishes the concept of the most representative trade union
and granting to that union certain rights and advantages is not, in itself,
"contrary to the principle of freedom of association provided that certain
conditions are met."(29) The CFA went on
to state that "the workers' freedom of choice would be jeopardized if the
distinction between most representative and minority unions results, in law or
in practice, in the prohibition of other trade unions which workers would like
to join, or in the granting of privileges such as to influence unduly the
choice of organization by workers. Therefore, the distinction should not have
the effect of depriving those trade unions that are not recognized as being
amongst the most representative of the essential means for defending the
occupational interests of their members (for instance, making representations
on their behalf, including representing them in case of individual grievances),
for organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their
programmes, as provided for in Convention No. 87."(30)
The CFA further elaborated on multiple unions in the workplace and
stated that industrial relations systems where only one bargaining agent may be
certified to represent the workers of any given bargaining unit, which gives it
the exclusive right to negotiate the collective agreement and to monitor its
implementation, "does not raise difficulties under the Convention,
provided that legislation or practice impose on the exclusive bargaining agent
an obligation to represent fairly and equally all workers in the bargaining
unit, whether or not they are members of the trade union."(31)
- ILO Reports on Trade Union
Monopolies
Government efforts to impose unitary labor organizations
(often referred to as trade union monopolies), usually in association with the
political party in power, have been addressed by the ILO on numerous occasions.
The ILO recognizes that, while it is usually to the advantage of workers to
avoid a proliferation of competing organizations, it is important to
distinguish between voluntary groupings of workers or unions as distinct from
unity imposed by law or government pressure.(32) The ILO has consistently found efforts by
governments to place limits on freedom of association by establishing and/or
supporting trade union monopolies, at the first level or the secondary and
tertiary levels, to be incompatible with Convention 87.
The ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations (hereinafter the Committee) has reported on federal sector
workers in Mexico in 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1993 and 1995. The
Committee pointed out, in all of these reports, that LFTSE Articles 68, 71, 72
73 and 84[78], among others, are not in conformity with Convention 87.(33) In its Report to the 71st Session of the
International Labor Conference in 1985, the Committee noted that the Government
of Mexico had failed to respond to its request in 1983 that it bring its law on
federal employees into conformity with Convention 87. The Committee went on to
"express once more the hope that the Government will re-examine its
legislation in the light of the principles of freedom of association and that
it will communicate information on any measures taken or under consideration to
bring the Federal Act on State Employees into conformity with the
Convention."(34) This request was repeated
in the subsequent reports.(35)
In its Report to the 73rd Session of the International Labour
Conference in 1987, the Committee pointed out that the recognition of FSTSE as
the only central organization recognized by the government to represent federal
employees is "incompatible with the right of workers' organizations to
establish federations and confederations (Article 5 of the Convention) . . . .
"(36)
The 1991 Report of the Committee stated, in relevant part
concerning the LFTSE, "that although for the workers it is in general
advantageous to avoid a multiplicity of conflicting organizations, the
imposition by law of a system of trade union unity at the level of federations
is incompatible with the right of workers' organizations to establish
federations and confederations (Article 5). However, the Committee points out
that it is not necessarily incompatible with the Convention for the legislation
to establish a distinction between the most representative organization and
other organizations, provided that this distinction is confined to the
recognition of certain rights for the most representative organization
(particularly as regards representation for collective bargaining purposes or
consultation by governments)."(37)
In its General Survey, presented at the 81st Session of
the International Labour Conference in 1994, the Committee on Freedom of
Association made a number of observations that relate to the issues raised in
Submission No. 9601. The report addressed problems of both a single union
monopoly created by law and the practice of permitting only one union per
workplace. The report states, with regard to the single union per workplace
rule, that "[t]hese organizations in turn may or must join a single
national confederation or central organization which is sometimes specifically
designated in the law."(38) The Committee
concluded on the issue of trade union monopoly and trade union diversity that
"trade union unity directly or indirectly imposed by law runs counter to
the standards expressly laid in the Convention." (39) Articles 68, 71, 72, and 73 of Mexico's LFTSE
are explicitly cited as illustrative of this kind of law in the public sector.
-
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF MEXICO
The submitters reference a decision by the Supreme Court of Mexico that
found a state law, similar to the LFTSE, unconstitutional in its limitation of
one union per workplace in the state government of Jalisco. The NAO has
reviewed this decision and another related decision in the state of Oaxaca and
reported on their content and implications in a previous review.(40)
On May 21, 1996, the Supreme Court of Mexico, in two unanimous
decisions, found provisions of two state statutes that prohibited employees
from forming more than one union per workplace to be unconstitutional. Both
decisions arose from and apply to state laws, as opposed to the federal law at
issue in the instant submission. Nevertheless, both state laws are considered
to have been modeled on the federal law. One of the cases involved employees of
the University of Guadalajara in the state of Jalisco and the other involved
public employees in the state of Oaxaca. In both cases, requests for
registration of their union by workers were denied because of the prior
existence of an established union in the workplace.
The Supreme Court found that the law of Jalisco was unconstitutional in
that, by limiting the number of unions that may be formed in a government
workplace in the state, the state interfered with the petitioners' right of
freedom of association. The court stated that the spirit of Article 123 of the
Constitution was to uphold freedom of association in the universal sense and
that state laws issued by state legislatures must conform to this principle.
The Court cited Mexico's ratification of ILO Convention 87 in support of its
decision.
In the case of the state of Oaxaca, the Supreme Court found that the
state law did not explicitly prohibit the formation of more than one union in
each state government workplace and, therefore, the state authority was
incorrect in denying the registration requested by the petitioner. The Court
went on to state, however, that its reasoning with regard to the limitation on
the number of unions in the workplace in the Jalisco case would also apply in
this case.
These decisions do not constitute stare decisis. Under Mexican
jurisprudence, stare decisis is created when the Supreme Court,
sitting en banc, issues five consecutive decisions on the same point,
or by one decision resolving conflicting opinions of the Collegiate Circuit
Tribunals.(41)
FINDINGS
The NAO review of this submission focused specifically on (1) the
enforcement by Mexico of its labor laws in accordance with Article 3(1) of the
NAALC, and (2) the compliance by Mexico with the procedural guarantees of the
NAALC in accordance with Article 5(4). In so doing, the NAO attempted to
ascertain the role of international treaties, specifically ILO Convention 87 on
freedom of association, in Mexican legal doctrine, as well as the implications
of the related Supreme Court decisions. Based on its review of the information
available in this submission, the NAO makes the following findings.
- Enforcement of Labor
Laws
The facts are not in dispute. The FCAT reviewed four petitions
filed by SUTSP. Although the FCAT ruled against SUTSP, all four cases were
accepted for review by the appellate courts. Three of these appeals were
decided in favor of SUTSP. While delays in receiving these favorable outcomes
may have caused some harm to SUTSP, delays are inherent in any administrative
process that attempts to afford the parties a degree of due process. As a
result of appellate review, SUTSP obtained its registration, obtained unlimited
recognition of its executive committee, and succeeded in having SNTSMARNAP
de-registered through the courts. Moreover, a secret ballot election decided
the union representative. Although SUTSP alleges that the election was not a
fair one, the FCAT found that, while some irregularities may have occurred,
they were insufficient, even if proven, to materially alter the outcome of the
election. The election was won by the union that enjoyed a significant
numerical advantage in the consolidated Ministry.
The submitters cited the decision of the Mexican Supreme Court in
the case involving workers at the University of Guadalajara in support of their
argument that the provisions of the LFTSE that restrict unions to one per
workplace in the federal government may be unconstitutional. The NAO reviewed
the two Supreme Court cases that were issued simultaneously regarding union
restrictions at state institutions. The state laws in question, while distinct
from the LFTSE, are nevertheless modeled on federal law.(42)
Clearly, the fundamental freedom of association issues raised in
the submission and specific provisions of the LFTSE have been the subject of
ongoing review and interpretation by the ILO. Moreover, recent Supreme Court
decisions, together with various legal opinions on the standing of ILO
Convention 87 under the Mexican Constitution, raise questions not subject to a
clear interpretation by the NAO. Consequently, further consultations could
contribute to a better understanding of the legal doctrines at issue.
- Actions by the Federal Conciliation and
Arbitration Tribunal (FCAT)
The composition of the FCAT is
explicitly spelled out in the law and is not disputed in the submission. The
labor representation on the FCAT is reserved exclusively for FSTSE and this
composition creates the appearance of lack of impartiality if a FSTSE union
were to engage in a dispute with a non-FSTSE union.
Disputes between FSTSE and non-FSTSE affiliates rarely occur, but
this does not diminish the importance of the FCAT's ability to render an
impartial decision. However, in the instant submission, both of the contending
unions were affiliated to FSTSE. Moreover, there is a procedure in place to
address allegations of conflict of interest, and this procedure was used.
Finally, SUTSP gained relief from the appellate courts in three of its four
appeals. Given these circumstances, it does not appear that the final outcome
of the union representation case was affected by the composition of the FCAT.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Further consultation on the matters raised in this submission would
enable a full examination of the relevant legal doctrines in Mexico, including
the effects on Mexican labor law of constitutional provisions assuring freedom
of association. This is of particular importance in view of the NAALC's
recognition of the fundamental principle of freedom of association and the
right to organize. It is also relevant in view of the conflicting views
concerning the legal status of international treaties under Mexican law and has
been underscored by the recent Mexican Supreme Court decisions finding state
laws patterned after the LFTSE to be unconstitutional, with reference to ILO
Convention 87.
Pursuant to Article 22 of the NAALC "[a]ny Party may request
consultations with another Party at the ministerial level regarding any matter
within the scope of this Agreement." The NAO therefore recommends that the
Secretary of Labor request Ministerial Consultations with the Secretary of
Labor and Social Welfare of Mexico for the purpose of examining the
relationship between and the effect of international treaties, such as ILO
Convention 87, and constitutional provisions on freedom of association on the
national labor laws of Mexico.
Respectfully Submitted:
Irasema Garza
Secretary
U.S. National Administrative Office
January 27, 1997
Footnotes
1. 59 Fed. Reg. 16660-16662 (1994).
2. Ley Orgánica de Administración
Pública Federal, Diario Oficial de la Federación, December
28, 1994.
3. In Mexico, registration by the administrative
authorities grants unions in the public and private sectors the means by which
they conduct their affairs. Without registration, a union cannot hold or
dispose of property, represent itself or its members, or otherwise conduct
business. This is distinct from, and considerably more restrictive than the
U.S. practice of exclusive bargaining representation, which grants bargaining
rights to a single, majority, union. Without registration a union in Mexico
cannot contest an election.
4. This is the only federation permitted by the LFTSE to
affiliate unions of federal workers (LFTSE Article 78). While not all federal
unions are required to affiliate to it, there is no other legally recognized
federation to which federal unions may affiliate.
5. Article 72 of the LFTSE requires a union requesting
registration to submit (1) the minutes of the constituent assembly, (2) the
by-laws of the union, (3) the minutes of the meeting in which the union
officers were designated, and (4) a list of the names of the members with their
civil status, occupation, salary, and an itemized employment history. The
Article does not specify that the union officers must be approved by the FCAT,
though this appears to be the practice if the officers are to be entitled to
legally represent their members.
6. The results, according to the FCAT and SUTSP, were as
follows: eligible to vote-27,969; total ballots cast-22,033; votes in favor of
SNTSMARNAP-18,486; votes in favor of SUTSP-3,340; invalid ballots -207.
7. 61 Fed. Reg. 40453 (1996).
8. Article 3 (1) of the NAALC provides that "[e]ach
Party shall promote compliance with and effectively enforce its labor law
through appropriate government action, subject to Article 42, such as:
(a) appointing and training inspectors;
(b) monitoring compliance and investigating suspected violations, including
through on site inspections;
(c) seeking assurances of voluntary compliance;
(d) required record keeping and reporting;
(e) encouraging the establishment of worker-management committees to
address labor regulation of the workplace;
(f) providing or encouraging mediation, conciliation and arbitration
services; or
(g) initiating, in a timely manner, proceedings to seek appropriate
sanctions or remedies for violations of its labor law."
Article 5 (4) of the NAALC provides that "[e]ach Party shall ensure
that tribunals that conduct or review such [labor] proceedings are impartial
and independent and do not have any substantial interest in the outcome of the
matter."
9. The Secretary of Government exercises oversight over
the internal workings of the federal government.
10. Paul A. Curtis and Alfredo Gutierrez Kirchner,
"Questions on Mexican Federal Labor Law and Enforcement in the Federal
Government Sector" (December, 1996).
11. 61 Fed. Reg. 56064-56065 (1996).
12. Curtis and Kirchner, p. 7.
13. Political Constitution of the United Mexican
States, Article 19.
14. Article 133 provides that "[t]he Constitution,
the laws of the Congress of the Union which emanate therefrom, and all treaties
made, or which shall be made in accordance therewith by the President of the
Republic, with the approval of the Senate, shall be the Supreme Law throughout
the Union. The judges of every State shall be bound to the said Constitution,
the laws and treaties, notwithstanding any contradictory provisions that may
appear in the Constitution or laws of the States."
15. Unions and other organizations that acquire legal
personality in Mexico are entitled to many of the same rights and protections
as individuals.
16. Curtis and Kirchner, pp. 12-14. See also
Anna Torriente, National Law Center for Inter-American Free Trade, Tucson,
Arizona, "Study of Mexican Supreme Court Decisions Concerning the Rights
of State Employees to Organize in the States of Jalisco and Oaxaca"
(November, 1996).
17. The PRI is the largest political party in Mexico
and has been dominant in Mexican politics for the last sixty years. Presently,
the Presidency, both houses of Congress, and the majority of state governments,
are controlled by the PRI.
18. Federal Law of Responsibilities of Public
Servants, Article 47 (XIII) and (XXII).
19. Curtis and Kirchner, p. 3.
20. Ibid.
21. Torriente, pp. 21-24.
22. Curtis and Kirchner, pp. 8-9.
23. International Labour Office, Governing Body,
300th Report of the Committee of Freedom of Association, Case No. 1844
(Mexico), 1995, Paragraphs 215-244.
24. Ibid., Paragraph 241.
25. Ibid., Paragraph 238.
26. Ibid., Paragraph 239.
27. Ibid., Paragraph 242 .
28. Ibid., Paragraph 244.
29. International Labour Conference, 81st Session,
Report III (Part 4B), Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining
(Geneva, International Labour Office, 1994), pp. 44-45.
30. Ibid., p. 45.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid., pp. 42-43.
33. The Submission refers to LFTSE Article 78 as
restricting affiliation of federal unions to FSTSE. The ILO reports refer to an
earlier version the LFTSE in which Article 84 permits affiliation only to
FSTSE.
34. International Labour Office, Report of the
Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations
(Geneva, International Labour Office, 1985) p. 167.
35. Report of the Committee of Experts on the
Application of Conventions and Recommendations (1987), p. 222; (1989), p.
194; (1991), p. 192; (1993), p. 213; (1995), p. 180.
36. International Labour Office, Report of the
Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations
(Geneva, International Labour Office, 1987), p. 206.
37. International Labour Office, Report of the
Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations
(Geneva, International Labour Office, 1991) pp. 191-192.
38. Report III(Part 4B), Freedom of Association and
Collective Bargaining, pp. 42-43.
39. Ibid., pp. 42-43.
40. See Torriente, "Study of Mexican
Supreme Court Decisions." See also U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau
of International Labor Affairs, U.S. National Administrative Office, North
American Agreement on Labor Cooperation, Submission No. 940003 Follow-up
Report.
41. Torriente, pp. 11-14; Curtis, pp. 12-14.
42. Torriente, p. 49.
|
|
| |
|