Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 360, Junio 2011

Caso núm. 2802 (México) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 16-DIC-09 - Cerrado

Allegations: Non-renewal of the contracts of members of the complainant organization for attending a union meeting

1. 899. The complaint was presented in communications dated 16 and 18 December 2009 from the National Trade Union of Workers in Higher Education and Decentralized Public Institutions (UNTEMS). The organization sent additional information in a communication dated 22 February 2010.
2. 900. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 18 October 2010.
3. 901. 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. The complainant’s allegations

1. 902. In its communications dated 16 and 18 December 2009, UNTEMS alleges that on 15 December 2009, the Director for Legal Affairs of the Graduate College of the State of Chiapas, Jorge E. Ross Coello, formally summoned members of the complainant organization, Juan Luis Romero Gálvez and Alonso Castro Azamar, to a meeting on labour issues to discuss two constitutional principles, one concerning the non-retroactivity of sanctions against individuals and the other the guarantee of legality. However, at the meeting Jorge E. Ross Coello informed them that he had been personally instructed by the Director-General of the College, Rodrigo Antonio Váldez Avendaño, to ask them both to hand in their resignation for 31 December 2009. This the workers refused to do, as there was no legal or administrative grounds for them to do so, and certainly no reason connected with their work that justified their resigning.
2. 903. UNTEMS states that this repressive attitude towards its members came on the heels of a meeting at which one of its representatives had informed the Director for Legal Affairs of the union’s existence and of the intention of employees of the College to join it.
3. 904. UNTEMS goes on to explain that in recent months employees of the College had manifested their dissatisfaction with the union of which they were members at the time because of the apathy with which it had handled the institution of a single salary for employees of the College throughout the country and the matter of their declining salaries. A group of employees had therefore decided to resign from their existing union and join UNTEMS (the complainant organization), which has almost 30 members in the 21 States of Mexico.
4. 905. UNTEMS claims that from that moment on the workers had been facing a repressive attitude on the part of the Director for Legal Affairs, who on 15 December 2009 brought pressure to bear on them to resign as from 31 December for having made public their decision to leave their existing trade union, the Single Union of Employees of the Graduate College of the State of Chiapas (SUICOBACH), which no longer represented them, and to join UNTEMS.
5. 906. UNTEMS also denounces circular CBC.DJ.2009.0027 (copy of which it attached) issued by the Director for Legal Affairs of the College on 16 December 2009 in which he refused to recognize any trade union other than SUICOBACH, which is the titleholder of the collective labour agreement.
6. 907. In its communicated dated 22 February 2010, UNTEMS states that Rafael Alonso Vázquez and Juan Luis Romero Gálvez have since been dismissed from the College.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 908. In its communication dated 18 October 2010, the Government states that, although UNTEMS makes general allegations concerning violations of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), it does not specify which violations it is referring to and nowhere in its complaint does it establish any link between the Government’s alleged violations of the organization’s freedom of association and the provisions of international labour standards that they might concern. UNTEMPS’ recriminations against various Mexican authorities are thus totally vague. Nevertheless, the Government wishes to reply to the allegations presented.
2. 909. With regard to the allegation that the Director for Legal Affairs of the Graduate College of Chiapas summoned Juan Luis Romero Gálvez, Alonso Castro Azamar and Rafael Alonso Vázquez to a meeting to dismiss them, the Government states that UNTEMS cites as proof a copy of communications from the Director for Legal Affairs dated 15 December 2009, summoning Juan Luis Romero Gálvez and Alonso Castro Azamar to a meeting the same day and a copy of a communication dated 14 January 2010, informing the area coordinators of the College of the termination of its employment relationship with Rafael Alonso Vázquez and Juan Luis Romero Gálvez. The Government states that neither of these documents indicates that the Director for Legal Affairs requested their resignation, however.
3. 910. With regard to Juan Luis Romero Gálvez and Rafael Alonso Vázquez, the Government states that their employment contracts with the Graduate College ran from 16 July to 31 December 2009. As to Alonso Castro Azamar, it denies that he was dismissed in December 2009 since he continued in his employment until 1 July 2010, when he was seconded to the Subdirectorate of Higher Education responsible for academic matters and where he retained his “B” technician grade; as from 5 July 2010, he ceased going to work of his own volition. It is therefore false to claim that Juan Luis Romero Gálvez, Rafael Alonso Vázquez and Alonso Castro Azamar were asked to resign.
4. 911. With regard to the allegation that the Graduate College adopted a repressive attitude towards workers for having made public their decision to resign from the trade union (by way of proof the complainant organization refers to a copy of circular CBC.DJ.2009.0027 of 16 December 2009), the Government points out that UNTEMS fails to mention that by circular CBC.DJ.2009.0029 of 18 December 2009 (a copy of which it attached) the Director for Legal Affairs of the College annulled circular CBC.DJ.2009.0027.
5. 912. The Government states that the Graduate College of the State of Chiapas denies that there is any repression within its walls or a preference for one trade union over another, or that any of its workers are being harassed, since no attempt has ever been made to restrict their freedom to join the trade union of their choosing. The College complies fully with Article 358 of the Federal Labour Act, to the effect that no one can be obliged to join or not to join a trade union.
6. 913. The fact that several employees of the College should have voiced their dissatisfaction with SUICOBACH and should therefore have joined UNTEMS shows clearly that there is a conflict between the two unions for the title to the collective agreement (currently held by SUICOBACH for the period 2010–12). In its Digest of decisions and principles, the Committee on Freedom of Association has stated that “A matter involving no dispute between the Government and the trade unions, but which involves a conflict within the trade union movement itself, is the sole responsibility of the parties themselves.” Despite this, the Graduate College has on several occasions met the members of both trade unions to discuss matters.
7. 914. It can thus be concluded that there has been no repression or harassment of UNTEMS members, that its claims that the Government is not complying with ILO Conventions and violating freedom of association are false and unsubstantiated, since in fact the supposed dispute referred to by UNTEMS is a conflict between trade unions on which it is not for the Committee to rule. In the light of the foregoing, the Government requests that the case be considered closed.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 915. The Committee observes that in this case the complainant organization alleges that the Director for Legal Affairs of the Graduate College of the State of Chiapas asked Mr Juan Luis Romero Gálvez and Mr Alonso Castro Azamar to hand over their resignation and that this followed a meeting between UNTEMS’ Secretary-General and the Director for Legal Affairs, at which the latter was informed of the existence of the trade union and of the intention of employees of the College to join it and to resign from their existing union (SUICOBACH) because of the apathy with which it had tackled the issue of the workers’ declining salaries. The complainant organization states that on 14 January 2010, UNTEMS members Juan Luis Romero Gálvez and Rafael Alonso Vázquez (an employee who was not mentioned in the initial complaint) were dismissed from the Graduate College.
2. 916. The Committee notes the Government’s explanation that: (1) the complainant organization has not presented any document proving that the Director for Legal Affairs of the College asked for the resignation of Mr Rafael Alonso Vázquez and Mr Juan Luis Romero Gálvez; (2) the employment contracts of these two employees ran from 16 July to 31 December 2009, and it is therefore untrue that they were asked to resign; (3) it is not true that Mr Alonso Castro Azamar was dismissed in December 2009, since he continued working until 1 July 2010 when he stopped going to work of his own volition; and (4) the College denies that there is any repression within its walls or a preference for one trade union over another, or that any of its workers are being harassed since no attempt has ever been made to restrict their freedom to join the trade union of their own choosing.
3. 917. In the light of the explanations provided by the Government, the Committee does not intend to pursue its examination of the allegations any further, especially since the complainant organization has not informed it of any judicial appeal that it might have lodged with the authorities and has not made use of its right to submit additional information.
4. 918. The Committee notes further the allegation that the Director for Legal Affairs of the Graduate College issued a circular on 16 December 2009 (which the complainant organization attached) which read as follows:
   • The single trade union that is officially and legally recognized by the Federation and by the local State Conciliation and Arbitration Board is SUICOBACH, whose Secretary-General is Víctor Manuel Pinot Juárez. The area directors of educational establishments and all the teaching and administrative personnel under their responsibility are accordingly requested to comply with this provision and to ensure that no group or committee other than those of SUICOBACH be given access to any such establishment.
5. 919. The Committee underlines that the circular was not in conformity with the freedom of association principle. The Committee notes, however, the Government’s statement that the above circular was annulled by order of the Director for Legal Affairs two days later, on 18 December 2009, and that, according to the Graduate College, it has on several occasions met the members of the complainant organization and of SUICOBACH to discuss matters. The Committee also notes that, according to the Government, there is a dispute between the two trade unions as to which should be the titleholder (currently SUICOBACH) of the collective agreement, which is due to lapse in 2012.

The Committee's recommendations

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