Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 346, Juin 2007

Cas no 2503 (Mexique) - Date de la plainte: 24-FÉVR.-06 - Clos

Allegations: Registration (acknowledgement of validity) by the competent administrative authority of the extension of the executive committee of the Labour Congress, in violation of the trade union statutes

1192. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Revolutionary Confederation of Workers and Peasants (CROC) dated 24 February 2006. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 22 January 2007.

1. 1193. Mexico has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but it has not ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 1194. In its communication dated 24 February 2006, the CROC states that Isaías González Cuevas is president elect of the Labour Congress and Napoleón Gómez Urrutia and Ignacio Cuauhtemoc Paleta, are secretaries-general, respectively, of the CROC and of the Union of Mineworkers of the Republic of Mexico, as well as of the Mexican Regional Confederation of Labour (CROM). The CROC adds that 40 years ago the workers constituted a group called the “Labour Congress”, which is governed by its own statutes. Under the terms of the statutes, the president of the Labour Congress convened an election assembly for 15 February 2006 at its headquarters in Mexico City, which was attended by 15 of the 25 organizations that are officially recognized as members of the Labour Congress. At that assembly, a list was presented which included Isaías González Cuevas, Napoleón Gómez Urrutia and Ignacio Cuauhtemoc Paleta, the first as president and the other two as vice-presidents. Following an election involving 15 votes, this executive committee was elected to represent the Labour Congress for one year. The CROC goes on to say, however, that a group led by the outgoing president (Víctor Flores) met in another building outside the premises of the Labour Congress, and without adhering to the relevant requirements relating to convening meetings, extended the period of office of the outgoing president of the Labour Congress, which constituted a violation of the statutes of the Labour Congress as: (1) the assembly was convened for an election; (2) the statutes make no provision for extensions; (3) according to the statutes, the outgoing president could not opt to be re-elected on the grounds that that possibility had already been exhausted; and (4) the time and place of the convening of the assembly was specifically the headquarters of the Labour Congress. According to the CROC, those who met elsewhere sent a notarial certificate to the Ministry of Labour, in which the period of office of the outgoing president (Víctor Flores) was extended, without having the authority to do so, and the Ministry of Labour registered the notarial document which the illegally elected committee sent to it, and validated the extension of the executive committee, with surprising rapidity, without checking whether the statutory requirements had been met; that Ministry did not receive the documentation presented by the signatories of the present complaint.
2. 1195. In the view of the CROC, with its actions the Ministry of Labour violated freedom of association, the Constitution of the ILO and Conventions Nos 87 and 98.
3. B. The Government’s reply
4. 1196. In its communication dated 22 January 2007, the Government states that the argument of the CROC, whereby the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare (STPS) violated the statutes of the Labour Congress by registering and thus acknowledging the extension of the mandate of Víctor Flores as president of that trade union organization, thereby attributing to him powers he should not have had is wrong and, consequently, there is no non-compliance with the principle of freedom of association.
5. 1197. The events reported by the CROC derive from an intra-union dispute, consisting of differences that arose between two factions of organizations belonging to the Labour Congress during the process of electing their president, and as such this matter falls outside the framework of examination of the Committee on Freedom of Association, as the following principles of the Committee itself confirm:
6. n 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 [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fourth edition, 1996, para. 962].
7. n Conflicts within a trade union lie outside the competence of the Committee and should be resolved by the parties themselves or by recourse to the judicial authority or an independent arbitrator [see Digest, op. cit., para. 972].
8. n In cases of internal conflict, the Committee has pointed out that judicial intervention would permit a clarification of the situation from the legal point of view for the purpose of settling questions concerning the management and representation of the trade union federation concerned. Another possible means of settlement would be to appoint an independent arbitrator to be agreed on by the parties concerned, to seek a joint solution to existing problems and, if necessary, to hold new elections. In either case, the Government should recognize the leaders designated as the legitimate representatives of the organization [see Digest, op. cit., para. 973].
9. 1198. For these reasons, the Committee on Freedom of Association should not examine the present communication and the Government of Mexico cannot accept the complaint submitted. However, in order to contribute in good faith to the work of the Committee on Freedom of Association, and taking into consideration the fact that its mandate is limited to examining communications on the alleged violation of the principle of freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, the Government will permit itself to comment on the statements made by the CROC in its communication.
10. 1199. The Government indicates that on no occasion did it intervene in the life or internal organization of the Labour Congress. Whatever the case may be, and with respect to the facts with which the STPS is charged, it should be pointed out that the STPS, under the powers vested in it, only proceeded to register the extension of the executive committee of the trade union organization in question, but did not intervene in any way in the elections that culminated in that extension.
11. 1200. It should be noted that the facts indicated by the CROC do not constitute alleged non-compliance by the Government of the principle of freedom of association and of the right to organize contained in ILO Convention No. 87.
12. 1201. The CROC does not indicate in its communication that it was prevented from freely exercising its right to set itself up, with its own legal personality and assets, to defend the interests of its members, in the manner and terms considered appropriate. Neither has it been prevented from exercising its right to draft its statutes and regulations, freely elect its representatives, organize its administration and activities, and draw up its programme of action.
13. 1202. The aspects detailed by the CROC do not relate to the right to collective bargaining set forth in the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). Mexico has not ratified this instrument. The CROC states that the STPS registered the notarial document submitted to it by a faction of the Labour Congress resulting from the elections in which it was agreed to extend the presidency of Víctor Flores. No provision is made for such an extension in the statutes of the Labour Congress. In so doing, the Ministry, adds the CROC, gave immediate acknowledgement to the extension of the presidency of Mr Flores without checking whether he met the statutory requirements, not having received the documentation from the parallel election conducted by another faction of the Labour Congress – to which the CROC belongs – in which the list comprised of Isaías González Cuevas, Napoleón Gómez Urrutia and Ignacio Cuauhtemoc Paleta was elected, which was in keeping with the law and the statutes of the Labour Congress.
14. 1203. The Government states that respecting the wishes of the trade union groupings of the Labour Congress, set forth in its statutes, dated 17 February 2006, the General Directorate for the Registration of Associations registered the extension of the abovementioned executive committee until 18 December 2006. This was done on the basis of articles 371, part VIII, final paragraph; 377, part II, of the Federal Labour Act; 19, part III of the internal rules of the STPS, and 9, part II; 18, 21, 23 and 30, part XI of the statutes of the Labour Congress, and of the quorum to hold meetings having been reached in view of the fact that 26 of the 35 groupings listed on the last electoral roll in the possession of the General Directorate were represented.
15. 1204. On 10 March 2006, Isaías González Cuevas, Secretary-General of the CROC, deposited with the General Directorate for the Registration of Associations of the STPS a document with annexes, in which he requested that the executive committee and standing committees of the Labour Congress be registered.
16. 1205. In that document it was stated that, on 15 February 2006, the plenary of the National Council held an extraordinary session with the purpose of extending the mandate of the executive committee and the standing committees for the financial year from 18 February 2006 to 18 February 2007, with, according to their own declaration, Isaías González Cuevas being elected president of the Labour Congress and Napoleón Gómez Urrutia and Ignacio Cuauhtemoc Paleta, vice-presidents.
17. 1206. On 28 April 2006, the General Directorate for the Registration of Associations sent the following communication to Isaías González Cuevas:
18. On 17 February 2006, the General Directorate for the Registration of Associations registered the extension of the abovementioned executive committee until 18 December 2006. This was done on the basis of articles 371, part VIII, final paragraph; 377, part II, of the Federal Labour Act; 19, part III of the internal rules of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, and 9, part II; 18, 21, 23 and 30, part XI of the statutes, and of the quorum to hold meetings having been reached in view of the fact that 26 of the 35 groupings recognized by this authority were represented.
19. 1207. As observed from the above, the General Directorate for the Registration of Associations, in the exercise of its powers, limited itself solely to sending the acknowledgement of having registered the extension of the executive committee of the Labour Congress, which would remain in force until 18 December 2006, as requested by the representatives of said trade union organization, on the basis of the approval of 26 of the 35 groupings that make it up.
20. 1208. As regards the statement by the CROC that there is no provision for the extension in the statutes of the Labour Congress, it should be pointed out that this is inconsistent, as article 27 of the statutes expressly provides:
21. Article 27: The president and the vice-presidents of the executive committee will remain in office for one year as from their election, with the possibility of being re-elected for one further year.
22. 1209. It can be seen from the above that the statutes of the Labour Congress provide for the possibility that the president of the executive committee may extend his duties for a further year, so it can therefore be inferred that the extension of the abovementioned committee would not constitute an internal violation of the statutory regime.
23. 1210. It is known that the registration in question that occurred on 17 February 2006, in respect of the extension of the executive committee of the Labour Congress, was contested by Isaías González Cuevas and others, in amparo (protection of constitutional rights) action No. 424/2006 before the competent district labour court of the Federal District.
24. 1211. In addition, the Government indicates that on 22 November 2006, in accordance with articles 21, 22, 23, part IV, 24, 25, 27 and other relevant and applicable articles of the statutes of the trade union organization, the Labour Congress held an extraordinary plenary assembly of the National Council during which, by means of internal elections, it elected the president and vice-presidents of the executive committee as well as the president and vice-presidents of the standing committees that form the executive committee of the Labour Congress for the period from 24 November 2006 to 24 November 2007.
25. 1212. On 23 November 2006, upon the express request of the abovementioned trade union organization, by way of a document dated 22 November last, the General Directorate for the Registration of Associations dispatched the acknowledgment of registration of the new executive committee of the Labour Congress, which elected as president, Enrique Aguilar Borrego, on the basis of articles 377, part II of the Federal Labour Act; 19, part III of the internal rules of the STPS; and 24, 25, 27, 33, 35 and 36 of the statutes of the Labour Congress itself. As a result of this, the registration by the executive committee of the Labour Congress that occurred on 17 February 2006, which gave rise to the submission of the present complaint by the CROC, ceased to have effect.
26. 1213. Lastly, the Government formulates the following conclusions:
27. – The communication by the CROC relates to a dispute of an internal nature in the life of the trade unionists, in which the Government of Mexico cannot act in an official manner as it is not permitted to intervene in the organization of trade unions. From the facts related by the CROC it can be seen that the dispute mentioned is of an inter-union nature, and as such it should be resolved in the first instance by the trade unions and their members themselves in accordance with internal regulations, that is to say, applying the statutes that govern the Labour Congress. Proof of this is that on 22 November 2006, the Labour Congress convened an extraordinary plenary assembly of the National Council to elect a new executive committee.
28. – The CROC had access to the legal means to contest the extension of the registration of the executive committee of the Labour Congress dated 17 February 2006. It lodged amparo action No. 424/2006 before the competent district labour court of the Federal District, which it is considered will be dismissed, as the legal situation has changed as the act appealed against has been vacated.
29. – The CROC neither properly substantiates nor explains the legally valid reasons or causes to consider the existence of possible violations of trade union rights; the fact that the internal election procedure of the executive committee was not in their favour is not a reason to attribute possible involvement to the Government or the violation of trade union rights.
30. – The present communication must be rejected by the Committee on Freedom of Association on the grounds that the cause that gave rise to it has ceased, which was the registration by the General Directorate for the Registration of Associations dated 17 February 2006.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1214. The Committee observes that in this case the complainant organization alleges the illegal “registration” (acknowledgement of validity) by the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare (STPS) of the extension of the executive committee of the Labour Congress presided over by Víctor Flores to the detriment of the executive committee presided over by Isaías González Cuevas, sole person elected, according to the complainant organization, in accordance with the statutes.
2. 1215. The Committee notes that the Government supports the legality of the extension of the executive committee of Víctor Flores, the quorum to hold meetings, for example, having been reached (presence and approval of 26 of the 35 organizations of the Labour Council). The Government stresses that the possibility of extension can be inferred from the statutes (which allow for re-election), and that the present case constitutes an internal dispute within the Labour Congress.
3. 1216. The Government emphasizes, lastly, that Isaías González Cuevas and others lodged an amparo action before the judicial authority against the extension in question.
4. 1217. The Committee notes the other statements by the Government on the subsequent evolution of the situation that show: (1) that the inter-union dispute set forth in the complaint has been resolved by the trade union organization itself as the executive committee presided over by Víctor Flores stopped operating after nine months when the extraordinary assembly of the Labour Congress dated 22 November 2006 appointed a new executive committee; and (2) that as a result, presumably the judicial authority, when it hands down its decision on the amparo action lodged by Isaías González Cuevas, will dismiss it as the act appealed against (registration of the extension of the executive committee of Víctor Flores) has been vacated.. In view of these circumstances, the Committee considers that this case does not call for further examination.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 1218. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.