|
Updated September, 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Overview
Submissions
United States
U.S. NAO Submission Nos. 940001 and 940002 (HONEYWELL & GENERAL ELECTRIC)
U.S. NAO Submission No. 940003 (SONY)
U.S. NAO Submission No. 940004 (GENERAL ELECTRIC)
U.S. NAO Submission No. 9601 (SUTSP)
U.S. NAO Submission No. 9602 (MAXI-SWITCH)
U.S. NAO Submission No. 9701 (GENDER DISCRIMINATION)
U.S. NAO Submission No. 9702 (HAN YOUNG)
U.S. NAO Submission No. 9703 (ITAPSA)
U.S. NAO Submission No. 9801 (FLIGHT ATTENDANTS)
U.S. NAO Submission No. 9802 (TOMATO/CHILD LABOR)
U.S. NAO Submission No. 9803 (MCDONALD'S)
U.S. NAO Submission No. 9804 (RURAL MAIL COURIERS)
U.S. NAO Submission No. 9901 (TAESA)
U.S. NAO Submission No. 2000-01 (AUTO TRIM/CUSTOM TRIM)
U.S. NAO Submission No. 2001-01 (DURO BAG)
U.S. NAO Submission No. 2003-01 (PUEBLA)
U.S. NAO Submission No. 2004-01 (YUCATAN)
U.S. NAO Submission No. 2005-01 (LABOR LAW REFORM)
U.S. NAO Submission No. 2005-02 (MEXICAN PILOTS - ASPA)
U.S. NAO Submission No. 2005-03 (HIDALGO)
U.S. NAO Submission No. 2006-01 (Coahuila)
Mexico
Mexico NAO Submission No. 9501 (SPRINT)
Mexico NAO Submission No. 9801 (SOLEC)
Mexico NAO Submission No. 9802 (APPLE GROWERS)
Mexico NAO Submission No. 9803 (DECOSTER EGG)
Mexico NAO Submission No. 9804 (YALE/INS)
Mexico NAO Submission No. 2001-01 (NEW YORK STATE)
Mexico NAO Submission No. 2003-1 (NORTH CAROLINA)
Mexico NAO Submission 2005-1 (H-2B VISA WORKERS)
Canada
Canadian NAO Submission No. CAN 98-1 (ITAPSA)
Canadian NAO Submission No. CAN 98-2 (YALE/INS)
Canadian NAO Submission No. CAN 99-1 (LPA)
Canadian NAO Submission No. 2003-1 (PUEBLA)
Canadian NAO Submission No. 2005-1 (MEXICAN PILOTS - ASPA)
OVERVIEW
- Thirty-four submissions have been filed under the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC). Twenty-one were filed with the U.S. NAO of which nineteen involved allegations against Mexico and two against Canada. Eight were filed with the Mexican NAO and involved allegations against the United States. Five submissions have been filed in Canada, three raising allegations against Mexico and two raising allegations against the United States.
- Sixteen of the twenty-one submissions filed with the U.S. NAO involved issues of freedom of association and eight of them also involved issues of the right to bargain collectively. Two submissions (9802) (2005-03) concerned the use of child labor, one (9701) raised issues of pregnancy-based gender discrimination; three (9801, 2005-01, 2005-03) concerned the right to strike; five (9403, 9901, 2003-01, 2004-01, 2005-03) concerned minimum employment standards; and seven (9702, 9703, 9901, 2000-01, 2003-01, 2004-01, 2005-03) raised issues of occupational safety and health.
- Of the submissions filed to date with the U.S. NAO, four (940004, 9602, 9803, and 2004-01) were withdrawn by the submitters before hearings were held or the review process completed. Hearings were held on ten (940001, 940002, 940003, 9601, 9701, 9702, 9703, 9901, 2000-01, 2003-01). Eight of the U.S. submissions (940003, 9601, 9701, 9702, 9703, 9901, 2000-01, 2003-01) have gone to ministerial-level consultations. The U.S. NAO declined to accept submissions 9801, 9802, 9804, 2001-01, 2005-01, and 2005-02 for review.
- Mexican NAO submissions 9501, 9801, 9802, 9803, 9804 resulted in ministerial consultations. Canadian NAO submission CAN 98-1 resulted in ministerial consultations. Canada declined to accept submissions CAN 98-2, CAN 99-1, and CAN 05-01 for review.
SUBMISSIONS
UNITED STATES
U.S. NAO Submissions No. 940001 and 940002 (HONEYWELL & GENERAL ELECTRIC) were
submitted on February 14, 1994, by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) and the
United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America (UE) respectively. The submissions
concerned the operations of subsidiaries of the Honeywell Corporation and the General Electric
Corporation in Mexico. Both submissions alleged that workers had been deprived of their freedom
of association insofar as they had not been permitted to organize into the unions of their
choice. Both cases were accepted for review by the NAO on April 15, 1994.
Information was collected and a joint hearing was conducted by the NAO on the two submissions
was conducted on September 12, 1994. In its Public Report issued on October 12, 1994, the NAO
concluded that the information was insufficient to establish that the Government of Mexico
failed to enforce its labor laws. Accordingly, the NAO did not recommend ministerial
consultations. Nevertheless, acknowledging the strong concerns raised in the allegations with
regard to the freedom of association and the right to organize of workers, the NAO recommended
that the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, develop joint cooperative programs to address these issues.
U. S. NAO Submission 940003 (SONY) was
filed on August 16, 1994, by four workers’ rights and human rights organizations, headed by the
International Labor Rights Education and Research Fund (ILRERF). The submission concerned the
operations of a subsidiary of the Sony Corporation in Mexico and involved allegations concerning
freedom of association and the right to organize. Following the information gathering process
and the conduct of a public hearing on February 13, 1995, the NAO issued a report on April 11,
1995, recommending ministerial consultations on the issue of union registration in Mexico. The
ministers reached an agreement on implementation of ministerial consultations which included a
series of programs designed to publicly address these concerns in all three countries and these
were completed during 1995 and 1996.
The submitters in the case subsequently requested that the Ministerial Consultations be
reopened, arguing that the problems raised in the original submission continued. The Secretary
of Labor directed the NAO to conduct a follow-up review of the issues raised in the submission,
and a related Mexican Supreme Court Decision, and submit a report to him. The NAO conducted the
follow-up review as directed and a report was issued on December 4, 1996.
U.S. NAO Submission 940004 (GENERAL ELECTRIC) was filed by the
United Electrical, Radio, and machine Workers (UE) against a subsidiary of the General Electric
Corporation in Mexico. The UE withdrew the submission on January 25, 1995, prior to the
completion of the review process.
U.S. NAO Submission 9601
(SUTSP) was filed with the U.S. NAO on June 13, 1996. It was submitted by three labor
rights/human rights groups: the International Labor Rights Fund (ILRF), Human Rights
Watch/Americas (HRW), and the Mexican National Association of Democratic Lawyers (ANAD). The
submission raised issues of freedom of association for federal workers and questioned the
impartiality of the labor tribunals reviewing these issues.
U.S. NAO Submission 9601 was accepted for review on July 29. A hearing was conducted on
December 3, 1996, at the Department of Labor in Washington, D.C. A report, recommending
ministerial consultations on the status of international treaties and constitutional provisions
protecting freedom of association, was issued on January 27, 1997. Pursuant to the
consultations, the Departments of Labor of Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. agreed to exchange
sufficient publicly available information to permit a full examination of the issues raised in
the submission. This included a seminar, open to the public, which was held in Baltimore,
Maryland, on December 4, 1997.
On December 3, 1997, the submitters filed a request for reconsideration on the ground that
some of the issues raised in the original submission were not adequately addressed by the NAO
in its report. The NAO declined this request on the ground that the issues raised had been
adequately reviewed.
U.S. NAO Submission 9602 (MAXI-SWITCH) was filed with the U.S. NAO
by the Communications Workers of America (CWA), the Union of Telephone Workers of Mexico (STRM),
and the Federation of Goods and Services Companies (FESEBS) of Mexico on October 11, 1996. This
submission raised issues of freedom of association for workers attempting to organize a union at
a facility owned by Maxi-Switch, S.A. de C.V., in Cananea, Sonora, Mexico. The company produces
and markets high-tech keyboards for computers and computer games and is owned by Silitek
Corporation of Taiwan.
The NAO accepted this submission for review on December 10, 1996. A hearing was scheduled to
be held in Tucson, Arizona, on April 18, 1997. On April 16 the submitters informed the NAO
that the issues raised in the submission had come to a favorable resolution and that they were
withdrawing the submission.
U.S. NAO Submission No. 9701 (GENDER DISCRIMINATION) was
filed on May 16, 1997, by Human Rights Watch, the International Labor Rights Fund (ILRF), and
the National Association of Democratic Lawyers (ANAD) of Mexico. The submission raised issues
of gender-based discrimination in Mexico’s export processing (maquiladora) industry. The
submission contained allegations that the companies, many of which are subsidiaries of U.S.
companies, regularly require female job applicants to verify their pregnancy status as a
condition of employment and deny employment to pregnant women. Additionally, the submission
included allegations that some maquiladora employers mistreat and/or discharge pregnant
employees in order to avoid payment of maternity benefits. The U.S. NAO accepted the submission
for review on July 14, 1997 and a public hearing was conducted in Brownsville, Texas, on
November 19, 1997.
The NAO issued its Public Report of Review on the submission on January 12, 1998,
recommending ministerial level consultations for the purpose of ascertaining the extent of the
protections against pregnancy-based gender discrimination afforded by Mexico’s laws and their
effective enforcement by the appropriate authorities.
A Ministerial Consultations Implementation Agreement was signed on October 21, 1998, and the
three parties agreed to meet and confer on the issues raised in submission 9701 as well as
coordinate a conference. As part of the agreement, Mexico and the United States also agreed to
conduct outreach sessions to educate workers close to the U.S.-Mexico border.
Pursuant to the Ministerial Consultations Implementation Agreement, on March 1-2, 1999, the
Protecting the Labor Rights of Working Women conference was held in Mérida, Yucatán,
Mexico. This conference served as a forum to discuss the laws and programs that protect the
employment rights of women in Mexico, Canada, and the United States. Representatives from the
Mexican Department of Labor stated that federal labor law in Mexico prohibits employers from
denying workers employment for reasons of age or sex. Mexican officials announced that
employment discrimination, both pre- and post-hire, on the basis of gender and pregnancy is
illegal under Mexican law.
As follow-up to this conference, on August 17-18, 1999, the United States and Mexico held
individual outreach sessions in McAllen, Texas and Reynosa, Tamaulipas to educate women workers
about their rights in the workplace. These events along the U.S. - Mexico border provided women
workers and employers the opportunity to learn about workers’ legal protections and employer
obligations in the workplace. Mexico held a second outreach session in Puebla, Mexico on
May 30, 2000.
As part of the 9701 Ministerial Agreement, the Secretariat is compiling a comprehensive
public report for the Ministers that reflects the issues raised at the outreach sessions and
the conference held in Mérida.
U.S. NAO Submission No. 9702 (HAN YOUNG) was
filed on October 30, 1997 by the Support Committee for Maquiladora Workers (SCMW), the
International Labor Rights Fund (ILRF), the National Association of Democratic Lawyers (ANAD)
of Mexico, and the Union of Metal, Steel, Iron, and Allied Workers (Sindicato de Trabajadores
de la Industria Metálica, Acero, Hierro, Conexos y Similares - STIHMACS) of Mexico. An
amendment detailing safety and health issues was submitted on February 9, 1998. The amendment
was filed by the Maquiladora Health and Safety Support Network, Worksafe! Southern California,
the United Steelworkers of America (USWA), the United Auto Workers (UAW), and the Canadian Auto
Workers (CAW).
Submission 9702 raised primarily freedom of association issues involving workers at the Han
Young export processing (maquiladora) plant in Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico. The submitters
alleged that workers at the plant who attempted to organize a union were intimidated and
threatened by the company and some of the workers were fired. Han Young has since transferred
its operations to another location.
The NAO accepted the submission for review on November 17, 1997. A public hearing was held
in San Diego, California, on February 18, 1998. The U.S. NAO issued a public report on
April 28, 1998 recommending ministerial level consultations to discuss strategies being
considered by the Government of Mexico to ensure that workers' freedom of association and right
to bargain collectively are protected.
Submission 9702 also raised issues of the health and safety of the workers employed at the
Han Young plant. These issues were addressed in
a separate report issued
on August 6, 1998. In this report, the NAO recommended ministerial level consultations on the
safety and health issues raised.
The U.S. Secretary of Labor and the Mexican Secretary of Labor and Social Welfare signed a
ministerial agreement for U.S. NAO Submission Nos. 9702 and 9703 on May 18, 2000. Under this
agreement, the Government of Mexico held a public seminar on June 23, 2000, in Tijuana on the
principles of freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively.
As part of the ministerial agreement, the Mexican Department of Labor and Social Welfare
will continue promoting the registry of collective bargaining contracts in conformity with
established labor legislation. Mexico also has agreed to conduct a trilateral seminar to
discuss law and practice governing Mexican labor boards, including the rules and procedures to
assure their impartiality. In addition, U.S. and Mexican experts will participate in a
government-to-government meeting concerning the occupational safety and health issues raised in
the two submissions.
U.S. NAO Submission No. 9703
(ITAPSA) was filed on December 15, 1997, by the Echlin Workers Alliance, a group of
unions from the United States and Canada, which includes the Teamsters; the United Auto
workers; the Canadian Auto Workers; UNITE; the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of
America; the Paperworkers; and the Steelworkers. Twenty-four additional organizations, including
non-governmental organizations, human rights groups and labor unions from the three NAFTA
countries, are cited as concerned organizations in the submission. Subsequently, the AFL-CIO,
the CLC (of Canada), and the UNT (of Mexico) joined the submission.
The submission alleged violation of freedom of association at the Itapsa export processing
plant in Ciudad de los Reyes, in the State of Mexico. The submitters alleged that when workers
at the facility attempted to organize an independent union, they faced intimidation and
harassment from the company and the existing union, the Confederation of Mexican Workers (CTM),
including threats of physical violence and job loss. The submitters alleged that Mexican
government authorities are aware of the situation and have taken no remedial action.
In terms of occupational safety and health, the submission alleged that workers were exposed
to asbestos and other toxic substances without adequate personal protective equipment (PPE).
The NAO accepted this submission for review on January 30, 1998. A public hearing was held
in Washington, D.C. on March 23, 1998. The NAO issued its public report on this submission on
July 31, 1998, recommending ministerial level consultations on the freedom of association and
the safety and health issues raised.
On May 18, 2000, the U.S. Secretary of Labor and the Mexican Secretary of Labor and Social
Welfare signed a ministerial agreement for U.S. NAO Submission Nos. 9702 and 9703. As part of
the agreement, Mexico will make efforts to promote that workers be provided information
pertaining to collective bargaining agreements existing in their place of employment and to
promote the use of eligible voter lists and secret ballot elections in disputes over the right
to hold the collective bargaining contract.
Under the ministerial agreement, the Government of Mexico held a public seminar on June 23,
2000, in Tijuana on the principles of freedom of association and the right to bargain
collectively. Mexico also has agreed to conduct a trilateral seminar to discuss law and
practice governing Mexican labor boards, including the rules and procedures to assure their
impartiality. In addition, U.S. and Mexican experts will participate in a
government-to-government meeting concerning the occupational safety and health issues raised in
the two submissions.
U.S. NAO Submission No. 9801 (FLIGHT ATTENDANTS) was filed on
August 17, 1998, by the Association of Flight Attendants, AFL-CIO. The submission raised issues
of freedom of association related to a strike by flight attendants employed by Aerovías de
México, S.A. de C.V. (Aeroméxico) on May 31-June 1, 1998. The submitter argued that the
Government of Mexico took over operations of that company when the union began a legal strike,
therefore compelling the workers to return to work or face possible replacement.
In accordance with its procedural guidelines, the NAO declined to accept the submission for
review on October 19, 1998, however it agreed to undertake a research project to evaluate how
the three NAALC countries reconcile the issue of the right to strike with national interests of
safety, security, and general welfare.
U.S. NAO Submission No. 9802 (TOMATO/CHILD LABOR) was filed by
the Florida Tomato Exchange on September 28, 1998, and raised the issue of the use of child
labor in the production of fruit and vegetables in Mexico. In accordance with its procedural
guidelines, the NAO held this submission in abeyance for a year for the submitters to provide
further information. No additional information was provided and the case was closed as of
October 4, 1999.
U.S. NAO Submission No. 9803 (MCDONALD'S) was filed on
October 19, 1998 by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Teamsters Canada, the Quebec
Federation of Labor, Teamsters Local 973 (Montreal), and the International Labor Rights Fund.
Submission 9803 raised issues of anti-union motivated plant closing; delays in the union
certification procedure; and problems related to the certification process in cases involving
multiple employers or multiple business locations based on the franchise system of corporate
ownership. The issues arose from efforts to organize employees of a McDonald’s restaurant in the
city of St.-Hubert, Quebec, Canada.
The NAO accepted the submission for review on December 18, 1998. Pursuant to the request of
the submitters, the NAO ended its review on April 21, 1999 after consultations with the Canadian
NAO and the government of Quebec. The submitting labor organizations reached an agreement with
the government of Quebec to have the issues of sudden and anti-union motivated plant closings
raised in the submission studied by a provincial council.
U.S. NAO Submission 9804 (RURAL MAIL COURIERS) was filed on
December 2, 1998 with the U.S. NAO by the Organization of Rural Route Mail Couriers, Canadian
Union of Postal Workers, National Association of Letter Carriers, and several other labor
organizations in the United States, Mexico, and Canada.
The submission raised concerns about the Canada Post Corporation Act, which includes a
provision that denies rural route mail couriers the right to bargain collectively. The
submitters alleged that rural route mail couriers do not have adequate protection for
occupational injuries and illnesses and protection against employment discrimination.
In accordance with procedural guidelines, on February 1, 1999 the NAO declined to accept the
submission for review.
U.S. NAO Submission 9901
(TAESA) was filed on November 10, 1999 by the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) and the Association of Flight Attendants of Mexico (ASSA).
The submission raises concerns about freedom of association, minimum employment standards,
and occupational safety and health at the privately owned Mexican airline company, Executive
Air Transport, Inc. (TAESA). Specifically, the submitters allege that the union election
process at TAESA inhibited flight attendants’ right to organize and bargain collectively and in
the end, led to the dismissal of those workers who voted for ASSA. The submitters also allege
that the Mexican government failed to enforce compliance of minimum labor standards, including
payment of overtime and mandatory contributions for social security, pensions, and housing. In
terms of occupational safety and health, the submitters allege that TAESA provided inadequate
safety training, unsafe flight conditions, and forced flight attendants to work more than the
maximum number of permitted hours in flight.
On January 7, 2000, the NAO accepted the submission for review. A
public hearing was held in
Washington, D.C. on March 23, 2000. The NAO issued its public report on this submission on
July 7, 2000, recommending ministerial consultations. The U.S. Secretary of Labor formally
requested ministerial consultations on July 17, 2000. The Mexican Secretary of Labor formally
accepted the request for ministerial consultations on July 24, 2001.
Consistent with the Ministerial Consultations Joint Declaration signed June 11, 2002 by
Secretaries Chao and Abascal, the U.S. and Mexico will undertake a series of efforts to address
the issues raised in U.S. Submission 9901. This will include a public seminar to be held in
Mexico regarding the different types of unions in each country (e.g. craft or guild unions,
company-wide unions, sector or industry unions) and their relevant rights related to freedom of
association and collective bargaining, in a public seminar.
U.S. NAO Submission 2000-01 (AUTO TRIM/CUSTOM TRIM) was filed on July 3, 2000, by the
Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras, current and former workers, and 22 other unions and
non-governmental organizations. The submission raises concerns about occupational safety and
health and compensation in cases of occupational injuries and illnesses at Auto Trim of Mexico
in Matamoros, Tamaulipas, and at Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana at Valle Hermoso, Tamaulipas. The
U.S. NAO accepted the submission for review on September 1, 2000. A public hearing was
conducted in San Antonio, TX on December 12, 2000 and a site visit was conducted January 22-24,
2001 during which a team composed of NAO staff and industrial hygienists visited the Breed
facilities and met with workers.
The NAO issued its Public Report of Review on April 6, 2001, recommending ministerial-level
consultations. The U.S. Secretary of Labor formally requested ministerial consultations on June
25, 2001. The Mexican Secretary of Labor formally accepted the request for ministerial
consultations on July 24, 2001.
Consistent with the Ministerial Consultations Joint Declaration signed June 11, 2002 by
Secretaries Chao and Abascal, the U.S. and Mexico will address the issues raised in Submission
2000-01, through the establishment of a bilateral working group of government experts on
occupational safety and health issues, who are to be tasked with discussion and review of
issues raised in the public communications, the formulation of technical recommendations for
consideration by governments, the development and evaluation of technical cooperation projects
on occupational safety and health for improving occupational safety and health in the workplace,
and the identification of other occupational safety and health issues appropriate for bilateral
collaboration. Cooperative activities may emphasize, among other things, best practices in the
prevention of occupational injuries and illnesses specifically related to handling hazardous
substances, labor-management cooperation mechanisms and ergonomics. To date, the working group
has focused on Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems and Voluntary Protection
Programs (VPP), Handling of Hazardous Substances, Inspector and Technical Assistance Staff
Training, and the development of the Tri-national Web Page.
U.S. NAO Submission 2001-01 (DURO BAG)
was filed on June 29, 2001 by the AFL-CIO and PACE. The submission raises concerns
about a union representation election at a Duro Bag Manufacturing Corporation facility in Rio
Bravo, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Duro Bag is a producer of premium shopping bags for retail sales and
is based in Ludlow, Kentucky. The submission alleges that Mexico violated the right of workers
to a free, fair election of their bargaining representative by rejecting a request for a secret
ballot election at a neutral location and under conditions free of management coercion. After
consideration of the submission, the U.S. NAO determined that a review would not further the
objectives of the NAALC and, on February 22, 2002, declined to accept it for review.
U.S. NAO Submission 2003-01 (PUEBLA) was filed on September 30,
2003 by the United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) and the Centro de Apoyo al Trabajador
concerning conditions at a garment factory in the State of Puebla, México. Amendments filed
on November 10, 2003 (Amendment to U.S. Submission No. 2003-01) and on February 13, 2004 raised similar enforcement issues concerning
another garment factory also located in the State of Puebla. The submission and the amendment
allege violations under the NAALC concerning freedom of association and the right to organize,
collective bargaining, occupational safety and health, minimum employment standards (minimum
wage and overtime pay) and access to fair and transparent labor tribunal proceedings. The
National Administrative Office accepted the submission for review on February 5, 2004 and held
a hearing on April 1,
2004. On August 3, 2004 the U.S. NAO issued a public Report of Review
[Text]
[PDF]
recommending ministerial-level consultations. The U.S. Secretary of Labor formally requested
ministerial consultations on October 29, 2004. On November 8, 2004, the Mexican Secretary of Labor
agreed to hold ministerial consultations. Subsequently, all three countries Parties to the NAALC agreed to hold trilateral ministerial consultations. Currently, the three countries are defining the scope of the trilateral consultations, which will be undertaken throughout 2006.
U.S. NAO Submission 2004-01 (YUCATAN) was filed on July 12, 2004
by UNITE-HERE and Centro de Apoyo a los Trabajadores de Yucatán. The submission alleged
workers' rights violations concerning minimum employment standards and safety and health
standards. The submission concerns two companies, operating one plant each, in the apparel
industry in the city of Merida, Yucatán. The submission was withdrawn by the submitters on
August 26, 2004 without prejudice in order to gather and provide further information.
U.S. NAO Submission 2005-01 (LABOR LAW REFORM) was filed on February
17, 2005, by the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) and 22 labor unions from Mexico, Canada and
the United States. The submission deals with a labor law reform proposal presented to the Mexican
Chamber of Deputies on December 12, 2002. The submission alleges that the labor law reform
proposal would substantially weaken existing labor protections, thereby codifying systemic violations
of the right of free association, the right to organize a bargain collectively, the right to strike,
and core labor rights protected by the Mexican Constitution, International Labor Organization
(ILO) Conventions ratified by Mexico, and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation
(NAALC). After consideration of the submission, the U.S. OTAI determined that a review would not further the objectives of the NAALC and, on February 21, 2006, declined to accept it for review.
U.S. NAO Submission No. 2005-02 (MEXICAN PILOTS - ASPA) was filed on May 27, 2005, by the Airline Pilot's Association of Mexico. The submission deals with allegations of sustained and recurring actions of non-enforcement of labor law by the Mexican government over a five-year period. The submission alleges that the government of Mexico has failed to enforce its laws with regard to freedom of association and protection of the right to organize, and the right to bargain collectively. The submitter alleges that the government of Mexico is in violation of the Mexican Constitution, International Labor Organization Conventions ratified by Mexico, and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation.
Based on a thorough examination of the issues in this case, the U.S. NAO determined that the information provided by the submitters did not substantiate the allegations concerning the failure by the Mexican government to enforce its laws regarding the establishment of a craft union, especially in light of the Mexican Supreme Court's decision on November 25, 2005, which let stand a lower-court's ruling that ASPA was not entitled to establish a pilots-only union. As to the improper dismissal of workers, the submitters had substantially resolved their outstanding claims. Therefore, in accordance with its Procedural Guidelines, on July 7, 2006 the U.S. NAO's determined that a review of the submission would not further the objectives of the NAALC, and accordingly, declined the submission.
U.S. NAO Submission No. 2005-03 (HIDALGO) was filed on October 14 by The Progressive Union of Workers of the Textile Industry, the Manufacturing, Cutting and Confection of Fabric and Garments in General and Related and Similar Industries in the Mexican Republic, a member of the "Vanguardia Obrera" Workers Federation of the Revolutionary Confederation of Workers and Peasants (FTVO-CROC), with the support of the U.S. Labor Education in the Americas Project, and the Washington Office on Latin America under the NAALC concerning the enforcement of labor laws by the Government of Mexico. The submission focuses on events at a textile plant operated by Rubie's de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V., in the municipality of Tepeji del Rio, State of Hidalgo, Mexico.
The submitters allege that the Government of Mexico has failed to fulfill its obligations under the NAALC to effectively enforce its labor law under Article 3 in connection with freedom of association and protection of the right to organize, the right to bargain collectively, the right to strike, prohibition of forced labor, labor protections for children and young persons, minimum employment standards, elimination of employment discrimination, prevention of occupational injuries and illnesses, and compensation in cases of occupational injuries and illnesses, and under Article 5 with respect to fair, equitable and transparent labor tribunal proceedings.
The submission focuses on the submitter's attempts to organize a union at a plant operated by Rubie's de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V., in the municipality of Tepeji del Rio, State of Hidalgo, alleging that Mexico's Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Board No. 6 and Local Conciliation and Arbitration Board No. 51 failed to provide workers with fair, equitable and transparent proceedings to enforce their right to form a union to represent the workers in collective bargaining. Allegations also include failure on the part of state and federal authorities to provide effective onsite inspections and remedies for labor law violations concerning forced labor, minimum wage, overtime pay, prevention of discrimination, occupational safety and health, and child labor. Finally, the submitters assert that the actions and/or inaction by the Government of Mexico represent a pattern of non-enforcement of its labor laws. The submission was accepted for review on January 6, 2006. The Office of Trade and Labor Affairs issued a Public Report of Review (HTML) on August 31, 2007.
U.S. NAO Submission No. 2006-01 (Coahuila) was filed on November 9, 2006 by the United Steelworkers (USW). The USW alleged that the Government of Mexico (GOM) failed to fulfill its obligations under the NAALC with respect to mineworkers and their union at the Pasta de Conchos mine in the Mexican State of Coahuila. The submitters’ alleged that workers were denied freedom of association rights and proper access to appropriate labor tribunals, focusing on the Government of Mexico’s actions with regard to the National Union of Miners and Metalworkers and its leadership. With regards to occupational safety and health, the USW claimed that the STPS has “repeatedly failed to fulfill its obligation to enforce labor regulations requiring employers to provide workers with satisfactory working conditions that are free of health and safety hazards.” In particular, the USW cited inadequate inspection and enforcement actions at the Pasta de Conchos mine, where an explosion killed 65 miners on February 19, 2006. After consideration of the submission, the Office of Trade and Labor Affairs determined that a review would not further the objectives of the NAALC and, on August 31, 2007, declined to accept it for review.
MEXICO
Mexico NAO Submission 9501 (SPRINT) was
filed with the Mexican NAO on February 9,1995, by the Mexican Telephone Workers Union and
concerned the closure of a subsidiary of the Sprint Corporation in San Francisco shortly before
a union representation election was scheduled to take place. About 240 workers lost their
jobs. The Communications Workers of America (CWA) filed an unfair labor practice case with the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The Mexican NAO reviewed the submission and issued a
public report on May 31, 1995, requesting ministerial consultations on the effects of such a
plant closure on union organizing efforts.
As part of the Ministerial Consultations Agreement between the U.S. Secretary of Labor and
the Mexican Secretary of Labor and Social Welfare, the U.S. Department of Labor held a public
forum in San Francisco, California to allow interested persons an opportunity to convey their
concerns about the effects of sudden plant closings. The Labor Secretaries further instructed
the trinational Labor Secretariat to conduct a study on the effects of sudden plant closing on
the principle of freedom of association and the right of workers to organize in the three
countries. The study was completed and released on June 9, 1997.
On December 27, 1996, the NLRB ordered Sprint to reinstate the dismissed workers and awarded
them back pay. The Sprint Corp. appealed this decision to the Federal Courts. On November 25,
1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the NLRB and ruled that
Sprint closed the facility for legitimate financial reasons.
Mexico NAO Submission No. 9801 (SOLEC) was
filed with the Mexican NAO on April 13, 1998 by Local 1-675 of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic
Workers International Union (OCAW); the “October 6" Industrial and Commercial Workers Union
(“October 6"); the Labor Community Defense Union (UDLC); and the Support Committee for
Maquiladora Workers (SCMW).
Mexican submission 9801 raises issues of freedom of association, minimum employment
standards, employment discrimination, and safety and health at Solec, Inc., located in Carson,
California. Solec manufactures solar panels.
The Mexican NAO accepted this submission for review on July 10, 1998. On August 31, 1999,
the Mexican NAO issued a public report requesting ministerial consultations to gain further
information concerning the issues raised in this submission.
On May 18, 2000, the U.S. Secretary of Labor and the Mexican Secretary of Labor and Social
Welfare signed a ministerial agreement for Mexican NAO Submission Nos. 9801, 9802, and 9803. As
part of the agreement, the U.S. Department of Labor will host a government-to-government
meeting to discuss the application of U.S. law focusing on the issues raised in the three
submissions. Topics of discussion will include union organizing and bargaining rights, the
elimination of employment discrimination, minimum conditions of employment, and occupational
safety and health.
Mexico NAO
Submission No. 9802 (APPLE GROWERS) was filed with the Mexican NAO on May 27, 1998. The
submission concerns migrant workers in the State of Washington employed in the apple industry
and raises issues of freedom of association, safety and health, employment discrimination,
minimum employment standards, protection of migrant workers, and compensation in cases of
occupational injuries and illnesses.
The submission was filed by the National Union of Workers (UNT), the Authentic Workers’ Front
(FAT), the Metal, Steel, Iron and Allied Industrial Workers Union (STIMAHCS), and the Democratic
Farm Workers Front (FDC). The Mexican NAO accepted this submission for review on July 10, 1998
and met with submitters and workers on December 2, 1998. The Mexican NAO reviewed the submission and issued a public report on August 31, 1999,
recommending ministerial consultations to gain further information on the following rights of
agricultural sector workers: freedom of association and the right to organize, minimum
conditions of work, work discrimination, prevention of occupational injuries and illnesses, and
protection of migrant workers.
On May 18, 2000, the U.S. Secretary of Labor and the Mexican Secretary of Labor and Social
Welfare signed a ministerial agreement for Mexican NAO Submissions Nos. 9801, 9802, and
9803. Under this agreement, a public outreach session was held in Yakima, Washington, on
August 8, 2001. This event provided women migrant farm workers and their employers the
opportunity to learn about the workers’ legal protections and employer obligations concerning
minimum conditions of employment, occupational safety and health, and the elimination of
gender and ethnic discrimination.
Additionally, the U.S. Department of Labor and the Mexican Department of Labor and Social
Welfare held a government-to-government meeting to discuss the application of U.S. law on the
following topics: union organizing and bargaining rights; elimination of employment
discrimination; minimum conditions of employment, including inspection programs and systems
for determining violations of employment conditions for migrant workers; occupational safety
and health, including inspection of migrant worker camps; and protection of migrant workers'
rights. The United States also conducted a public forum in Maine with migrant workers,
community groups, and government officials regarding migrant agricultural issues. All activities
agreed to under the consultations have been completed.
Mexico NAO
Submission No. 9803 (DECOSTER EGG) was filed on August 4, 1998, by the Mexican
Confederation of Labor (CTM). The submission raises issues of freedom of association,
protection for migrant workers, employment discrimination, safety and health, and worker’s
compensation.
The submission was accepted for review by the Mexican NAO on August 5, 1998. On
December 3, 1999 the Mexican NAO issued its public report of review and recommended ministerial
consultations to gain further information on the steps the U.S. Government is taking to ensure
that migrant agricultural workers enjoy the same legal protections as its nationals and that
they enjoy the respect of their rights in matters of minimum employment standards, elimination
of employment discrimination, and prevention and compensation for job-related accidents and
illnesses.
A ministerial agreement for Mexican NAO Submission Nos. 9801, 9802, and 9803 was signed by
the U.S. Labor Secretary and the Mexican Secretary of Labor and Social Welfare on May 18,
2000. Under the agreement, the U.S. Department of Labor agreed to host a public forum on
June 5, 2002 in Augusta, Maine, which was co-sponsored by the State on Maine Department of
Labor. Government officials, employer representatives, educators, legal counselors, advocates
and other service providers in Maine discussed working conditions and treatment of migrant and
agricultural workers in the state of Maine. Consistent with the ministerial agreement, U.S. and
Mexican labor officials explored ways of promoting and protecting the rights of migrant and
agricultural workers in the United States.
Mexico NAO Submission No. 9804 (YALE/INS) was filed with the
Mexican NAO on September 22, 1998 and accepted for review on November 23, 1998. The submission
was filed by a group of immigration rights and union organizations headed by the Yale Law School
Workers’ Rights Project. The submission argues that the U.S. fails to enforce its existing
minimum wage and overtime protections in workplaces employing foreign nationals due to the
Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of Labor and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, which delineated enforcement responsibilities and provided for sharing
of information.
The U.S. Department of Labor and the Immigration and Naturalization Service issued a revised
Memorandum of Understanding on November 23, 1998 to more clearly delineate the enforcement roles
and responsibilities of the departments. The Mexican NAO issued its Public Report of Review
and formally requested ministerial consultations on October 30, 2000. The U.S. Secretary of
Labor formally accepted the request for ministerial consultations on January 30, 2002.
Consistent with the Ministerial Consultations Joint Declaration signed June 11, 2002 by
Secretaries Chao and Abascal, the U.S. and Mexico agreed to undertake a series of efforts to
address the issues raised in Mexico NAO Submission 9804, which include:
- Development of informational materials by DOL addressing workplace rights of migrant
workers in the United States. Materials such as brochures, pamphlets, and videos are to be
produced in Spanish and are to be disseminated in areas of highest concentration of migrant
workers in the United States.
- Promotion of ongoing collaboration between the governments for the replication throughout
the United States of model efforts to promote the protection of labor rights of migrant
workers.
Mexico NAO Submission No. 2001-01 (NEW YORK STATE) was
filed with the Mexican NAO on October 24, 2001 and accepted for review on November 15, 2001.
The submission was filed by the Chinese Staff and Workers’ Association (CSWA), National
Mobilization Against SweatShops (NMASS), Workers’ Awaaz, Asociación Tepeyac, and several named
individuals. The submission raises concerns regarding the prevention of and compensation for
occupational injuries and illnesses in the state of New York, and labor protections for migrant
workers. The submitters allege that the state workers’ compensation system subjects workers to
unwarranted delays and in cases where compensation is awarded, it is often inadequate.
The Mexican NAO issued a Public Report of Review
on the submission on November 8, 2002,
requesting further consultations with the U.S. NAO under Article 21 of the NAALC on progress
being made with regards to issues raised in the submission. On November 19, 2004, the Mexican
NAO issued a Second Report of Review and recommended ministerial consultations. On December
7, 20004, the Mexican Secretary of Labor formally requested ministerial consultations. On the basis of initiatives undertaken by New York State authorities and related to the issues raised in the submission, DOL has recommended that consultations on remaining issues or concerns be undertaken at the Council Designee or NAO level.
Mexico NAO Submission 2003-1 (NORTH CAROLINA) was filed by the
Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc., and Mexico’s Independent Agricultural Workers Central
(CIOAC) with the Mexican Government on February 11, 2003, and accepted for review on September 5, 2003.
The submission raises issues concerning rights of migrant workers under the H-2A program in
North Carolina including freedom of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively,
the right to strike, the right to minimum employment standards, freedom from employment
discrimination on the basis of age, sex, and other improper factors, freedom from occupational
injuries and illnesses, compensation in case of occupational injuries and illnesses, and the
protection of migrant workers required by law. The Mexican NAO has yet to issue a report of review on the submission.
In July 2004, the DOL and Mexico's Foreign Relations Secretariat (SRE) signed a Joint Declaration and two Letters of Agreement aimed at protecting and promoting the rights of Mexican migrant workers in the United States. DOL's collaborative efforts with Mexico's consulates in the U.S. focus on specific initiatives to improve compliance with and awareness of workplace laws and regulations protecting Mexican workers in North Carolina and other areas in the United States. DOL and the resident Mexican consulate in Raleigh, North Carolina are corroborating to ensure that specific issues associated with Mexican workers in North Carolina are addressed fully and satisfactorily.
Mexico NAO Submission 2005-1 (H-2B VISA WORKERS) [Petition] [Memorandum In Support of Petition] was filed on
April 13, 2005, with the Mexican Government by the Northwest Workers' Justice Project, the
Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, and Andrade Law Office. The
submission raises issues concerning rights of migrant workers under the H-2B Visa program in
Idaho including prohibition of forced labor, minimum employment standards, elimination of
employment discrimination, equal pay for women and men, prevention of occupational injuries
and adequate compensation in such cases, and protection of migrant workers.
CANADA
Canadian NAO Submission No. CAN 98-1 (ITAPSA) was filed with the
Canadian NAO on April 6, 1998. The submission raises concerns about the enforcement of labor
legislation covering occupational safety and health and freedom of association of workers at
the Itapsa export processing plant in Ciudad de los Reyes, in the State of Mexico. The
submission was filed by the Canadian Office of the United Steelworkers of America, in concert
with eleven other unions and 31 concerned organizations from the three NAFTA countries. The
issues raised in the submission are substantially the same raised in U.S. NAO Submission 9703.
The Canadian NAO accepted this submission for review on June 4, 1998, and held two public
meetings to obtain information on September 14, 1998 and November 5. 1998. On December 11,
1998 the Canadian NAO issued the first part of their report addressing specifically the freedom
of association issues raised in the submission. The second report addressing occupational
safety and health issues was released on March 12, 1999. Canada formally requested ministerial
consultations with Mexico on both issues on March 31, 1999. Ministerial consultations are
pending.
Canadian NAO Submission No. CAN 98-2 (YALE/INS) was filed with
the Canadian NAO on September 28, 1998 and replicates Mexican NAO Submission 9804. In light of
the new U.S. Department of Labor and Naturalization Service Memorandum of Understanding issued
on November 25, 1998, the Canadian NAO considered a review inappropriate and closed its file on
April 27, 1999.
Canadian NAO Submission No. CAN 99-1 (LPA) was filed with the
Canadian NAO on April 14, 1999 by the Labor Policy Association and EFCO Corporation. The
submission concerns the United States and its enforcement of section 8(a)(2) of the National
Labor Relations Act. On June 15, 1999 the Canadian NAO declined to accept the submission for
review. The submitters filed an appeal on June 15, 1999.
Canadian NAO Submission 2003-1 (PUEBLA) was filed on October
3, 2003 by the United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) and the Centro de Apoyo al
Trabajador. The submission was also filed with the U.S. NAO and includes the same allegations
of worker rights violations at two different garment factories located in Puebla, Mexico
(for additional details, see U.S. NAO Submission 2003–01 summary). The Government of Canada
accepted the submission for review on March 12, 2004. On May 11, 2005, the Canadian NAO issued
a report recommending ministerial consultations and suggested that the three countries Parties to the NAALC undertake trilateral consultations in this case. The U.S., Mexico, and Canada are currently defining the scope of the consultations and continuing their dialogue to address and resolve the issues raised.
Canadian NAO Submission 2005-1 (MEXICAN PILOTS - ASPA) was filed on May
31, 2005. The submitters are 35 pilots who are supported by the Mexican Airlines Pilots Union (ASPA). The submission alleges failure on the part of the Government of Mexico to enforce its labor laws on freedom of association and the rights to organize and bargain collectively. It further alleges the failure to provide access to fair, equitable, and transparent labor tribunal proceedings. Canada formally rejected the submission for review on January 23, 2005.
| |
|
