Cananea, Mexico
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
... .. SUBMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE (NAO) REGARDING PERSISTENT PATTERN OF FAILURE TO ENFORCE AND DISCRIMINATION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF MEXICAN LABOR LAW: THE CASE OF MAXI-SWITCH, Inc. m CANANEA, MEXICO Submitted by Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (CW A) Sindicato de Telefonistas de la Republica Mexicana, FESEBS (STRM) Federaci6n de Sindicatos de Empresas de Bienes y Servicios (FESEBS) October 11, 1996 ... T ABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Petitioners ................................................................................................ II Compliance with NAO Guidelines .......................................................... III Organizations involved in the Maxi-Switch case..................................... 3 IV Facts of the Maxi-Switch case.................................................................. 4 V Persistent pattern of fail ure to enforce Mexico's labor laws. .................... 7 1) Lack of impartiality in the recognition of unions and certification of bargaining rights.................................................. 8 2) Failure to guarantee procedures that are fair, equitable and transparent.............................................................. 11 3) Failure to enforce Mexico's laws protecting workers from illegal dismissals or other acts of retaliation................................ 12 VI Actions requested of the u.S. NAO ........................................................ 13 Signatures................................................................................................. 15 Annex I Legal provisions relevant to Maxi-Switch case Political Constitution of Mexico.............................................................. 16 Federal Labor Law of Mexico.................................................................... 17 International Treaties................................................................................ 20 Use of the "AMPARO" Law - Mexico .................................................... 23 North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation ................................ 24 Attachments Petition of November 24, 1995 concerning registration of Maxi-Switch union and supporting documentation..................... 27 Convocation to General Assembly of Maxi-Switch workers................... 31 Record of the Maxi-Switch workers' General Assembly......................... 33 Maxi-Switch workers' signatures and petition......................................... 39 Bylaws of the Maxi-Switch Union........................................................... 47 *Decision of January 23, 1996 by the Conciliation and Arbitration Board of Sonora, denying the registration.................................... 66 Copies of individual complaints for restoration initiated against Maxi-Switch by workers: Sergio Davila-Elias; Alicia Perez-Garcia; and Martin Chavez-Aguayo......................................................... 68 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Letter of February 12, 1996, to Hon. Manlio Fabio Beltrones, Governor of the State of Sonora............................................... .... 76 Petition of February 14, 1996 to the 3rd District Judge in Hermosillo, Sonora. ...................................... ..... ...................... 80 Decision of March 26, 1996 by the 3rd District Judge of the State of Sonora...................................................................... 93 .. SUBMISSION TO THE U.S. NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE (NAO) REGARDING PERSISTENT PATTERN OF FAILURE TO ENFORCE AND DISCRIMINATION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF MEXICAN LABOR LAW: THE CASE OF MAXI-SWITCH, CANANEA Submitted by the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (CWA), the Sindicato de Telefonistas de la Republica Mexicana (STRM, or Union of Telephone Workers of Mexico), and the Federaci6n de Sindicatos de Bienes y Servicios (FESEBS, or Federation of Unions in Goods and Services Companies of Mexico. October 10, 1996 I. The Petitioners 1. COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO (CW A), Morton Bahr, President, headquartered at 501 Third Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001-2797, telephone: (202) 434-1110, fax: (202) 434-1139. The CWA signed an alliance with the Mexican and Canadian telephone workers' unions on February 15, 1992, to jointly support each other on issues of common concern. The CWA is an affiliate of the American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), and of the Postal, Telegraph and Telephone International (PTTI). 2. FEDERACION DE SINDICATOS DE EMPRESAS DE BIENES Y SERVICIOS (FESEBS), Benito Bahena Lome, Secretary General of the National Executive Committee, headquartered at number 16 Calle Rfo Neva, Colonia Cuauhtemoc, Mexico, Federal District, telephone: (52) (5) 705-3964 and fax: 705-5176 3. SINDICATO DE TELEFONISTAS DE LA REPUBLICA MEXICANA-STRM (Union of Telephone Workers' of Mexico), Francisco Hernandez-Juarez, Secretary General of the National Executive Committee, headquartered at number 16 Calle Rio Neva, Colonia Cuauhtemoc, Mexico, Federal District, telephone: (52) (5) 705-4653, 702-2100, fax: 703-2583. The STRM is an affiliate of the FESEBS, and of the Postal, Telegraph and Telephone International (PTTI). II. Compliance with guidelines for minimum standards required by the NAO (a) The matters described in this complaint demonstrate action inconsistent with Mexico's obligations under Part II of the agreement in four ways: First, the Mexican government has failed to "ensure that tribunals that conduct or review [labor] proceedings are impartial and independent and do not have any substantial interest in the outcome of the matter" [Article 5.4]; second, it has failed to "ensure that its administrative, quasi judicial, judicial and labor tribunal proceedings for the enforcement of its labor law are fair, equitable and transparent" [Article 5.1]; third, it has failed to "effectively enforce its labor law" regarding protection of workers against illegal dismissals and other forms of retaliation against legitimate union organizing activities "through appropriate 2 government action such as initiating, in a timely manner, proceedings to seek appropriate sanctions or remedies for violations of its labor law" [Article 3.1 (g)] , and fourth, it has failed to "effectively enforce its laws" related to minimum employment standards, and overtime pay, "through 1110nitoring compliance and investigating suspected violations, including through on-site inspections ... and through encouraging the establishment of worker-management committees to address labor regulation of the workplace" Article 3.1 (b) and (e). (b) Such actions have significantly harmed the workers involved, both individually and collectively, by denying them their rights under the law to freedom of association, impartial treatment by the labor authorities, fair enforcement of labor standards regarding working conditions, protection from retaliation against legitimate union organizing activities, and in some cases their physical well-being. (c) The actions described in this complaint, along with accompanying commentaries, demonstrate a persistent pattern of non-enforcement of labor law by Mexican labor authorities. Specifically, the laws not being enforced include: Article 123 of the Mexican Constitution and International Labor Organization Conventions 87 and 98, which Mexico has ratified and thus incorporated into its national bws, guaranteeing freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining; Articles of the Mexican Federal Labor Law (FLL) outlining the requirements for accepting or rejecting applications for legal recognition of trade unions; Articles of the FLL outlining the procedures to be followed in cases where more than one trade union exists in a factory; [These relevant provisions ofthe Constitution, laws and international conventions are included in Annex l.} (d) Relief has been properly sought under Mexican domestic law; specifically through four complaints requesting reinstatement for illegally fired workers and one appeal to the 3rd District Court requesting an injunction against a decision to deny union registration. However, the outcome of these legal actions have not resulted in adequate remedies that require proper enforcement of the law as required under the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation O\JAALC). (e) The matters described in the complaint are not currently pending before any international body. 3 III. Organizations and agencies involved in this case l. MAXI SWITCH, S.A. DE C.V. (hereinafter called Maxi-Switch), a maquila factory headquartered in the industrial part of the city of Cananea, State of Sonora, Mexico. Maxi-Switch produces and markets high-technology keyboards for computers and game sets. Maxi-switch is a subsidiary of the Silitek corporation headquartered Taipei, Taiwan, and has its main office at 2901 E. Elvira Rd., Tucson, Arizona, 85706 Tel. (602) 294-5450, Fax (602) 294-6890. Maxi-Switch owns other factories in Caborca, Sonora, in Penang, Malaysia, in Keeluin, Taiwan and Shen Zhen, Shanghai, China. It has its Distribution Center in Cork, Ireland and other establishments as follows: --Maxi-Switch Elektronik, Talweg 31 D-91257-Pegnitz, Germany, TeL 49-(0) 9241- 91151, Fax 49 (0) 9241-91152 --Computer Brokers of Canada, 57 Adesso Dr;l/e, Concord, ON L4K 3C7 (416) 660- ]616 --AddTech, 14 East World Fair Drive, Sommerset, N.J. (908) 805-0900 --Asia Source, Inc., 147 Ethel Rd. West, Piscataway, N.J. (214) 241-2744 , --Asia Source Inc., 1371 Glenville Drive, Richardson,