Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 313, Marzo 1999

Caso núm. 1927 (México) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 30-MAY-97 - Cerrado

Allegations: Acts of anti-union discrimination within the framework of collective bargaining with a minority trade union

1. 118. The Committee examined this case at its meeting in November 1997 and presented an interim report (see the 308th Report of the Committee, paras. 541-555, approved by the Governing Body at its 270th Session (November 1997)).
2. 119. The Government sent new observations in communications dated 10 March and 10 November 1998.
3. 120. Mexico has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has not ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 121. At its meeting in November 1997, the Committee formulated the following conclusions and recommendations on the allegations that remained pending (see the 308th Report, paras. 550-554):
2. The Committee notes that in this case the complainant (Trade Union of Workers of the Roche Syntex Group (STGRS)) alleges that the Grupo Roche Syntex de México S.A. de C.V. enterprise negotiated a collective agreement covering all the workers with a minority trade union ("Justo Sierra" Progressive Trade Union of Service Workers of the Mexican Republic (SPJSTS)), as well as 19 cases of anti-union dismissal of trade union officials and members and threats of dismissal against workers of the enterprise to force them to leave the complainant organization.
3. As regards the allegation concerning the conclusion of a collective agreement covering all the workers with a minority trade union (the SPJSTS) to the detriment of the complainant, the Committee notes that the Government states that on 27 May the minority trade union (SPJSTS) and the Grupo Roche Syntex de México enterprise terminated the collective agreement which they had concluded, recognizing that the majority trade union representation corresponded to another trade union organization; and that subsequently the majority trade union (Trade Union of Workers of the Grupo Roche Syntex, the complainant in this case) signed a wage review agreement with the enterprise on 6 June 1997 (after the presentation of the complaint to the Committee). In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of this agreement. The Committee also requests the Government to provide specific information with respect to the relations between the two existing unions in the enterprise and any disputes that may exist.
4. As regards the allegation concerning the anti-union dismissal of 19 trade union members (including four members of the complainant's executive committee), the Committee notes that the Government states that the trade union organization requested the intervention of the Secretariat of Labour and Social Insurance and that "the negotiations did not produce any positive result because of the distant relationship which had existed for a number of months between the trade union and the enterprise, and which deteriorated during the course of the annual wage review". In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information and observations concerning the facts that led to the dismissals and the allegations of their anti-union nature.
5. As regards the allegation concerning the threats of dismissal by the management of the Grupo Roche Syntex de México S.A. de C.V. enterprise to make the workers leave the complainant and join the "Justo Sierra" Progressive Trade Union of Service Workers of the Mexican Republic (SPJSTS), the Committee regrets that the Government has not furnished observations on this matter. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to forward its observations on this matter as soon as possible.
6. Finally, regarding the dismissal of Mr. Eladio Peréz Rubí, General Secretary of the complainant organization which occurred, according to the allegations, as a result of the submission of the present complaint, the Committee notes the Government's indication that it was not aware that this worker had been dismissed and that he was not the General Secretary of the complainant organization at the time that he was allegedly dismissed. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to carry out an investigation into the facts which led to the dismissal of Mr. Eladio Peréz Rubí from the Roche Syntex enterprise and to keep it informed in this respect. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether the worker in question has filed an appeal before the court.
7. B. The Government's observations
8. 122. In its communication of 10 March 1998, the Government provides a copy of the wage review agreement which is part of the collective labour agreement concluded on 6 June 1997 between the Grupo Roche Syntex de México S.A. de C.V. enterprise and the Trade Union of Workers of the Roche Syntex Group and ratified by the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board. The provisions of the agreement in question are as follows:
9. First. The parties recognize mutually and reciprocally their respective legal status granted under the present agreement in respect of all the legal effects of said agreement and any others that may apply.
10. Second. The enterprise hereby increases the daily wage rates for unionized workers who provide services at the pharmaceutical plant situated on the Mexico City-Toluca Highway, No. 2822, suburb Lomas de Bezares, division Miguel Hidalgo, Federal District, and that the agreement shall cover members of the Trade Union of Workers of the Roche Syntex Group (24 per cent of the total workforce) retroactively from the first day of June 1997.
11. Third. The enterprise undertakes to comply with and respect the terms of this collective agreement in its entirety and in all its detailed provisions, without prejudice to any possible revisions of said collective agreement.
12. Fourth. The trade union acknowledges that the company by virtue of its various activities and plants is entitled to enter into various collective labour agreements in areas, plants and localities distinct from those covered by the present collective agreement, and that it is specifically the pharmaceuticals plant situated on the Mexico City-Toluca Highway, No. 2822, suburb Lomas de Bezares, division Miguel Hidalgo, Federal District, employing 157 workers, to which this agreement refers.
13. Fifth. By virtue of the preceding provisions, the trade union withdraws its claims and its declaration of strike action addressed to the company on 28 April 1997.
14. Sixth. The parties undertake to ratify the present agreement before the federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board (dossier No. III-2298/97) and to apply for official approval of the agreement as not containing any provisions contrary to morals, law and good conduct, the agreement being subject to examination by the Board in all its parts as a binding award equivalent to a matter adjudged.
15. The parties, having read the present agreement and being aware of its contents and legal scope, have declared their full and unreserved approval of the same and sign it as the expression of their respective wishes.
16. 123. In its communication of 10 November 1998, the Government states that any potential disputes between the Trade Union of Workers of the Roche Syntex Group and the "Justo Sierra" Progressive Trade Union never materialized, since the latter on 27 May 1997 terminated the collective agreement which it had concluded with the company (the collective agreement reproduced in the preceding paragraph and signed by the Trade Union of Workers of the Roche Syntex Group dates from 6 June 1997).
17. 124. As regards the reasons for the dismissals of 19 officials of the Trade Union of Workers of the Roche Syntex Group and their allegedly anti-union nature, the Government states that to its knowledge, the company decided to eliminate the storage, stocks, packing, loading and delivery departments. The workers and the union opposed this move, while the company proposed to suppress posts in accordance with the law. The Labour and Social Security Secretariat promoted and participated in conciliation meetings aimed at bringing the parties together, without any positive results. These facts suggest that failure to reach an agreement on the suppression of posts was the reason for the dismissal of the workers, who retained the right as individuals to put forward claims before the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board on grounds of unjustified dismissal by the company. The reasons for the dismissals were therefore not anti-union in nature but based on a failure by the parties to reach an agreement. Furthermore, not all the workers involved were trade union officials, and those who were retained their trade union posts until 3 June 1997, when new elections were held for the union's executive. The trade union posts were preserved, since section 376, paragraph 2 of the Federal Labour Act provides that "Members of the union executive who are dismissed by the employer or who resign for reasons attributable to the employer shall continue to exercise their functions ...".
18. 125. With regard to the allegations of threats of dismissal by the company to force workers to leave the complainant organization and join the "Justo Sierra" Progressive Trade Union, the Government states that there has unquestionably been a misinterpretation of the information supplied in its previous reply, since the potential dispute with the "Justo Sierra" Progressive Trade Union never materialized as a result of the decision by that union and the company to end collective labour relations, as has already been indicated. It follows that the alleged threats of dismissal by the company to force workers of the Trade Union of Workers of the Roche Syntex Group to join the "Justo Sierra" Progressive Trade Union did not take place.
19. 126. As regards the reasons for the dismissal of Mr. Eladio Peréz Rubí, the Government states that he was not in fact dismissed but resigned from his position in the company on 27 June 1997. According to Mr. Rubí's own letter (a copy of which is supplied by the Government), he resigned of his own accord and in his own interests. As a result of his resignation and in accordance with the Federal Labour Act, he received a settlement from the company with which he was entirely satisfied and waived any further claims.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 127. In the present case, the complainant organization (the Trade Union of Workers of the Roche Syntex Group) had alleged that the Grupo Roche Syntex de México S.A. de C.V. enterprise negotiated a collective agreement for all the workers with a minority trade union, namely, the "Justo Sierra" Progressive Trade Union of Service Workers of the Mexican Republic (SPJSTS), that 19 anti-union dismissals of trade union officials and members took place as well as the dismissal of the trade union official Mr. Eladio Peréz Rubí, and that there were threats to dismiss workers at the company to force them to leave the complainant organization.
2. 128. The Committee observes that the collective labour agreement concluded between the Grupo Roche Syntex de México S.A. de C.V. and the "Justo Sierra" Progressive Trade Union (which according to the complainant organization was a minority union) was concluded on 4 March 1997 (see the 308th Report, para. 543). The Committee takes note of the Government's statement that this collective agreement was terminated on 27 May 1997 and that the complainant organization (the Trade Union of Workers of the Roche Syntex Group) and the company signed a wage review agreement on 6 June 1997 which was ratified before the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board; under the terms of that agreement, provision is made for an increase in wages and the trade union (the complainant organization in the present case) withdraws its claims and its declaration of strike action. The Committee also notes that according to the Government, no dispute between the complainant union and the "Justo Sierra" Progressive Trade Union ever materialized, since the latter and the company together decided to end their collective relations, so that, according to the Government, it follows that there were no threats of dismissal by the company to force any workers to join the "Justo Sierra" Progressive Trade Union. This being the case, since the parties involved have resolved the complaints initially made concerning the conclusion of a collective agreement with a minority trade union, the Committee will not proceed with the examination of these allegations.
3. 129. As regards the alleged anti-union dismissal of 19 persons who were officials or members of the complainant organization (the Trade Union of Workers of the Roche Syntex Group), the Committee notes the Government's statement that: (1) the reasons which gave rise to the dismissals were not anti-union in character but were connected with the company's decision to eliminate the storage, stocks, packing, loading and delivery departments; (2) the dismissals could in any case be referred to the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board; (3) not all the persons dismissed were trade union officials, and those who were, kept their trade union posts until new elections were held for the union executive on 3 June 1997. Under these circumstances, the Committee will not proceed with the examination of these allegations.
4. 130. As regards the alleged dismissal of union official Mr. Eladio Peréz Rubí, the Committee notes the Government's statement that he was not dismissed but resigned from his position in the company on 27 June 1997 and waived any further claims. The Committee has taken note of Mr. Rubí's letter (a copy of which was supplied by the Government) confirming these statements.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 131. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.