Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2024, publiée 113ème session CIT (2025)

Convention (n° 98) sur le droit d'organisation et de négociation collective, 1949 - Mexique (Ratification: 2018)

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Workers of Mexico (CTM), the Authentic Confederation of Workers of the Republic of Mexico (CAT), the Autonomous Confederation of Workers and Employees of Mexico (CATEM) and the International Confederation of Workers (CIT), sent with the Government’s report, which refer to issues raised in this comment.

The Committee also notes the observations of the National Workers’ Alliance (UNT) of 13 September 2024, which refer to matters examined in the present comment and allege various violations of the Convention in practice in different sectors (acts of interference and anti-union discrimination, including dismissals, suspensions, threats, and non-observance of a collective agreement). The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its last comment, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the impact in practice of the protection provided for in the Federal Labour Act (LFT) against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, including detailed statistics on the number of cases examined, both in the newly established bodies and in the federal and local conciliation and arbitration boards which were still operating. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided the requested information but indicates that a proposal for reform of the LFT was presented in order to ban: (i) employers from carrying out any act making a person’s employment conditional on joining, or not joining, a trade union; and (ii) trade unions from obstructing the participation of workers in democratic trade union procedures by imposing conditions on, or creating undue obstacles to, the exercise of the right to vote. The Government indicates that this proposal, which would also give powers to impose penalties in this respect to the Federal Labour Conciliation and Registration Centre (CFCRL), was approved by the Chamber of Deputies in February 2024 and referred to the Senate for review, amendment and approval. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the impact in practice of the protection provided for in the LFT against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. While reminding the Government that it can avail itself of ILO technical assistance in this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed statistics on the number of cases examined, including specific information on cases of discrimination against trade union representatives and leaders, the resolution of disputes relating to acts of interference, the duration of proceedings, and the type of penalties and compensation measures imposed. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments relating to the above-mentioned proposal for the reform of the LFT.

Article 4. Criteria for representativeness. The Committee previously noted the requirement laid down by section 390bis of the LFT that for trade unions to acquire a certificate of representativeness and be entitled to engage in collective bargaining, they must have the support of at least 30 per cent of the workers covered by the collective agreement. The Committee also asked the Government to provide information on the implementation in practice of the rules on representativeness established in the LFT when this level of support is not reached, including situations where different trade unions are competing for the negotiation of a collective agreement in an enterprise. The Committee notes that the Government merely indicates that when that level of support is not reached, the applicant party’s rights are safeguarded so that it can resubmit its application once it has met the relevant requirements. The Committee also notes that, in their observations: (i) the CTM confirms that obtaining the certificate of representativeness is vitally important for being able to sign a collective agreement; and (ii) the CIT affirms that, according to CFCRL data, 41 per cent of trade unions are refused certificates of representativeness for failing to achieve the threshold of 30 per cent of workers in the enterprise. In this regard, the Committee considers that, in a system for designating a sole bargaining agent, if no union represents the required percentage of workers to be declared sole bargaining agent, the rights to engage in collective bargaining should be granted to the unions in the unit, jointly or separately, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the rules established in the LFT, including section 388, in situations where the 30 per cent threshold specified in section 390bis is not achieved, indicating in particular whether unions can negotiate on behalf of their own members in such situations.

Promotion of collective bargaining at all levels. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that most provisions of the LFT refer to collective bargaining at the enterprise level, and asked the Government to provide information on how collective bargaining is regulated and promoted at all levels, and on the impact of the labour reform on the exercise of collective bargaining, with comparative data on the number of collective agreements adopted by level and sector. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) through the mechanisms of democratic participation and transparency adopted with the reform, genuine collective bargaining has been enhanced as the best tool for reaching balanced agreements between workers and employers; (ii) on the basis of the new labour model, institutions such as the CFCRL have been established to ensure observance and effective enjoyment of the right to collective bargaining; (iii) a website on the labour reform, online courses and awareness-raising workshops has been created to promote the exercise of labour rights, including collective bargaining; (iv) in line with section 386 of the LFT, which allows the conclusion of agreements between several trade unions or several employers (enterprises) or several employers' unions, a review of the binding collective agreements in various branches of industry was carried out; and (v) five binding collective agreements are in force in the textiles industry, in particular the silk, synthetic fibres and wool branches, and in the sugar, radio and television, and rubber sectors. The Committee also notes the detailed statistics provided by the Government on the proportion of enterprises registered with the Mexican Social Security Institute and having at least one collective agreement; the statistics show a particularly low percentage in micro and small enterprises, as well as in the construction industry and in social and communal services. While duly noting the information provided by the Government, the Committee requests the Government to continue taking steps to encourage and promote the full development and use of collective bargaining at all levels, with a special focus on the above-mentioned sectors and taking due account of the specific needs of micro and small enterprises. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information and up-to-date statistics in this regard, disaggregated by level and including the number of workers covered.

Machinery and procedures for facilitating collective bargaining. The Committee observes that section 900 of the LFT defines collective disputes of an economic nature (whose procedures are set out in sections 901 to 919) as “those whose purpose is to modify or establish new conditions of work, or to suspend or terminate a collective labour relationship”, but that section 903 of this law provides that, regarding the workers, such disputes may only be initiated by workers’ unions that have the right to negotiate collective labour agreements, or by the majority of the workers of an enterprise or establishment. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 903 of the LFT, indicating in particular whether unions which do not represent the majority of workers in enterprises or establishments where a first collective agreement has not yet been concluded but which reach the 30 per cent representativeness threshold laid down in section 390bis of the LFT, can bring a collective dispute of an economic nature before the courts.

Workers covered by collective bargaining. In its previous observation, the Committee asked the Government to provide its comments on the measures or machinery that exist to promote collective bargaining for: (i) special categories of workers (workers in positions of trust, farm workers, transport workers, actors and musicians, professional sportspersons, traders and similar, homeworkers and domestic workers) referred to in Title VI of the LFT; and (ii) various forms of recruitment (for example, fee-based, interns, associates, tip-based, self-generated, merit-based, digital platform workers) which, it is claimed by IndustriALL in its 2021 observations, are sometimes used to avoid complying with labour obligations and obstruct freedom of association and collective bargaining. The Committee notes that the Government merely indicates that: (i) within the period in question, no application for a certificate of representativeness or the registration of a collective agreement has been refused on account of the type of work performed by workers; and (ii) provided a collective labour relationship exists, certificates of representativeness are issued or initial collective agreements are registered. In this regard, the Committee considers that, with the exception of organizations representing categories of workers which may be excluded from the scope of the Convention, such as the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State, recognition of the right to collective bargaining is general in scope and all other organizations of workers in the public and private sectors must benefit from it (see General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 209). The Committee requests the Government to indicate what measures or machinery exist to promote collective bargaining with respect to the above-mentioned categories of workers and forms of recruitment, and to provide statistical information on the number of collective agreements which have been concluded with trade unions that represent them.

Protection contracts. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to include in the broad tripartite consultations regarding implementation of the labour reform the handling of the problem of protection contracts from the perspective of the promotion of collective bargaining, and to continue providing information on the number of collective agreements legally validated and the workers covered. With regard to this issue, which is examined in greater detail in its comments relating to the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the National Committee on Consultation and Productivity (CNCP), an advisory body composed of representatives of the employers, workers and academic circles for the purpose of improving procedures for conciliation, registration, trade union representation and collective bargaining, as well as promoting social dialogue; (ii) during the four-year period allocated for the legal validation of collective agreements, which expired on 1 May 2023, just over 30,500 collective agreements received legal validation, 663 collective agreements were rejected, and 108,000 collective agreements were null and void since they had not been the subject of consultation; and (iii) the validated agreements cover a total of 4,431,160 workers. The Committee also notes that CATEM in its observations indicates that the reform has ensured transparency and fairness in the collective bargaining processes, resulting in a significant increase in workers’ trust in the Mexican labour system. While welcoming this trend, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the contributions of the CNCP regarding the issue of protection contracts.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee previously noted that section 87 of the Federal Act on State Employees (LFTSE) provides that the general conditions of work of the workers covered by the Act are fixed by the respective head of the competent agency, taking account of the opinion of the corresponding trade union where so requested, and that these conditions are reviewed every three years. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the available machinery for the promotion of collective bargaining for persons employed in the public sector but not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) according to the jurisprudence of the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice, on the basis of the regulatory freedom of choice conferred on the founding body, decentralized federal bodies may be governed by article 123A of the Constitution (applicable to workers in general) or article 123B of the Constitution (applicable to workers in the service of the State); and (ii) new collective agreements have been registered, or contractual and wage reviews of public institutions whose regulatory basis corresponds to article 123A have been conducted. The Committee also notes that the UNT claims in its observations that section 87 of the LFTSE expressly and systematically restricts the right to collective bargaining and makes wage reviews non-existent in practice. While noting that workers in certain decentralized federal bodies can enjoy the right to collective bargaining, the Committee once again recalls that persons employed in the public sector but not engaged in the administration of the State (employees in public enterprises, municipal employees and those in decentralized entities, public sector teachers, and transport personnel, etc.) are covered by the Convention and should therefore be able to negotiate collectively their conditions of employment, including their wage conditions, and that mere consultation of the unions concerned is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Convention in this respect (see General Survey of 2012, paragraphs 172 and 219). The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the categories of public workers covered by article 123B of the Constitution and considered to be in the service of the State.