Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 101, 1968

Cas no 460 (Mexique) - Date de la plainte: 04-NOV. -65 - Clos

1. 59. This case has already been examined by the Committee at its meeting in November 1966, when it submitted to the Governing Body an interim report contained in paragraphs 35 to 45 of its 94th Report.
2. 60. 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. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 61. The complainants allege that the workers of the undertakings Industrias Forestales Mexicanas and Molduras de Pino S.A., both located in the town of Parral, who had formed the " First of May " Industrial Trade Union of Timber and Allied Workers, had their application for registration rejected by the Conciliation and Arbitration Board of Parral, although this application was supported by the documentation required by law, on the pretext that the members of the new trade union were not engaged in the same occupation, trade or speciality. The complainants maintain that this decision infringed the provisions of section 233 of the Federal Labour Law which, according to them, permits the establishment of industrial trade unions by individuals in various occupations, trades or specialities, who carry on their work in two or more industrial undertakings.
2. 62. In its observations the Government stated that the trade union had appealed to the First District Court of Chihuahua against the ruling given by the Conciliation and Arbitration Board of Parral. The Government enclosed the text of the judge's ruling handed down on 12 February 1966, which granted the appeal on the ground particularly that section 233, subsection III, of the Federal Labour Law provided precisely the opposite of what was affirmed in the ruling of the Conciliation and Arbitration Board of Parral. In the preambular clauses of his ruling the judge also stated that, by refusing the application for registration, the aforesaid Board had totally ignored, to the detriment of the workers, the guarantees contained in articles 1, 9 and 123, subsection XVI, of the Mexican Constitution.
3. 63. Following its examination of the case at its meeting in November 1966, the Committee noted the Government's observations according to which the competent judge issued, after the presentation of the complaint to the I.L.O, a ruling requested by the union which cancelled the decision of the administrative authority rejecting the union's application for registration. With a view to obtaining fuller information concerning this aspect of the case, the Committee considered it necessary to request the Government to be good enough to confirm whether, in compliance with the court ruling, the " First of May " trade union had been registered, and the Committee made a recommendation to the Governing Body to this effect.
4. 64. This recommendation having been approved by the Governing Body, the Government was accordingly requested, by a letter dated 13 March 1967, to supply the information in question. The Government replied by a communication dated 19 May 1967.
5. 65. In this communication the Government states that the ruling pronounced on appeal by the First District Judge of Chihuahua has been fully executed and that consequently the Conciliation and Arbitration Board of Parral has registered the " First of May " Industrial Trade Union of Timber and Allied Workers. The Government attached to its communication a certified copy of the trade union's certificate of registration.
6. 66. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
7. 67. The complainants also alleged that a collective agreement was drawn up between the C.T.M. Timber and Allied Workers' Union and an undertaking called Inversiones Mineras del Norte S.A.; they allege, furthermore, that another agreement was signed without the workers' knowledge.
8. 68. When it examined the case at its meeting in November 1966, the Committee found that the complaint did not show clearly how the first of these two agreements was related to the questions raised in the allegations, since it was supposed to have been signed between a third undertaking and another trade union. The Committee noted, however, that the second agreement was alleged to have been signed by at least one of the two undertakings employing the members of the " First of May " trade union, the other signatory, according to the complainants, being a trade union allegedly organised and controlled by the undertaking.
9. 69. Noting that the Government had not submitted any observations on these aspects of the case, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to request the Government, to be good enough to furnish its observations thereon.
10. 70. In its communication of 19 May 1967 the Government states that most of the workers in the undertakings in question had already joined a trade union which was a member of the Confederation of Mexican Workers (C.T.M.). It adds that the latter had already " signed a collective agreement with the undertaking before the formation of the First of May trade union."
11. 71. In view of the explanations furnished by the Government and because of the somewhat vague nature of the allegations, the Committee considers that the complainants have not proved that there was any infringement of freedom of association involved in these facts and it therefore recommends the Governing Body to consider that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
12. 72. The complainants further allege that six workers were dismissed by their employers. As the Government did not refer to this aspect of the case in its original observations, the Committee, at its meeting in November 1966, recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to furnish a reply on the allegation in question.,
13. 73. In its communication of 19 May 1967 the Government states emphatically that in general it cannot be held responsible for employers' attitudes towards their workers. It adds that, in any case, Mexican legislation offers a very wide range of legal measures enabling anyone who considers that his rights in respect of an employment relationship are being infringed to appeal to the courts in order to obtain justice.
14. 74. The Government goes on to state that 24 workers (and not six as the complainants had said) who were members of the " First of May " trade union were dismissed on 15 October 1965; the Government gives the names of the persons concerned. It continues by pointing out that these workers appealed against the dismissal, that the appeal was heard on 19 March 1966 by the Conciliation and Arbitration Board of Parral and that the ruling given by this court absolved the undertaking of all responsibility.
15. 75. The Government ends by stating that neither the workers nor the trade union lodged an appeal against this judgment. " It must therefore be concluded ", the Government states, " that from the legal point of view this ruling is accepted."

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 76. The Committee wishes to point out, as it has when examining previous cases', that in view of the nature of its responsibilities, it cannot consider it is bound by any rule that national procedures of redress must be exhausted, such as applies, for instance, to international claims tribunals. It must however have regard, in examining the merits of a case, to the fact that a national remedy before an independent tribunal, the procedure of which offers appropriate guarantees, has not been pursued.
2. 77. In the present case it appears that neither the persons concerned nor the trade union took advantage of the opportunities of appeal open to them and that they have not therefore tried - as they could have done - to secure redress of the wrongs which they claim to have suffered.
3. 78. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to consider that this aspect of the matter does not call for further examination.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 79. In view of the foregoing, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide, for the reasons given in paragraphs 65 and 66, 71, 77 and 78 above, that the case as a whole does not call for further examination.