Public communications submitted to the Canadian National
Canadian NAO 98-1
On June 4, 1998, the Canadian NAO accepted for review a public communication alleging a failure by Mexican authorities to ensure freedom of association and the right to organize, and to effectively enforce laws protecting worker safety and health. The communication also alleged partiality on the part of the Mexican authorities during legal proceedings, and that the absence of certain procedural measures such as secret-ballot voting during union representation challenges constituted a failure to provide for the high labor standards called for in Article 2 of the NAALC. The allegations relate to working conditions and a union representation challenge at the ITAPSA plant in Los Reyes La Paz, State of Mexico, Mexico, which is owned by Echlin Inc., a subsidiary of Dana Corp., and to legal proceedings in connection with that challenge. The communication was submitted on April 6, 1998, by the United Steelworkers of America (Canadian National Office), the Canadian Labour Congress, the AFL-CIO of the U.S., the Frente Auténtico del Trabajo of Mexico, and a number of other trade unions and NGOs.
On September 14, 1998, and again on November 5, 1998, the Canadian NAO held public meetings to receive information from the submitters as well as other interested parties. On December 15, 1998, the Canadian NAO released a report dealing with the freedom of association and right to organize issues raised by the communication. The Canadian NAO recommended that the Canadian Minister of Labour seek consultations with the Mexican Secretary of Labor and Social Welfare once the NAO had released the second part of its report, dealing with occupational health and safety issues. The second part of the report was issued on March 12, 1999.
Canada requested ministerial consultations on March 31, 1999, and on October 4, 1999, Mexico agreed to hold such consultations with Canada . Secretary Abascal and Minister Bradshaw met on four occasions in 2001 and 2002 to exchange views on the matters raised by the communication. The ministerial consultations were formally concluded in January of 2003. In this context, Canada participates in the Working Group of Government Experts on Occupational Safety and Health established by Mexico and the U.S.
For a related communication, see U.S. NAO 9703.
News release: Canada and Mexico conclude ministerial consultations on public communication CAN 98-1
Related documents (PDF): NAO Public Report of Review (PartI) (Part II)
On September 29, 1998, the Canadian NAO received a public communication alleging that a Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) deterred immigrant workers from reporting violations of U.S. minimum employment standards laws. The Memorandum required DOL inspectors investigating wages and hours complaints to inspect employer records concerning the immigration status of employees and to communicate any information regarding unauthorized workers to the INS. The communication further alleged that, in the absence of worker complaints, U.S. DOL officials lacked the information necessary to enforce federal wage and hours laws, and that other means of enforcement were much less effective. The communication was submitted by the Yale Law School Workers' Rights Project, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project, and a number of other civil rights organizations and trade unions.
On November 25, 1998, the U.S. NAO sent a copy to the Canadian NAO of a new Memorandum of Understanding between the DOL and the INS, dated November 23, 1998, modifying and superseding the earlier one. On November 27, the Canadian NAO sent a letter to the U.S. NAO saying that it was extending consideration of the communication by 30 days in order to consider the implications of the new Memorandum of Understanding. On April 27, 1999, the Canadian NAO informed the submitters that it had closed its file in view of the new Memorandum of Understanding.
For a related communication, see Mexican NAO 9804.
On April 14, 1999, the Canadian NAO received a public communication alleging that the U.S. National Labor Relations Board had interpreted and applied laws prohibiting employer domination of, or interference with, trade unions in such a way as to prevent effective "employee involvement" programs. The communication stated that this constituted a failure to provide for high labor standards, and to apply effectively and enforce laws relating to freedom of association and the right to organize unions. The submission also alleged unwarranted delays in National Labor Relations Board proceedings to resolve disputes over the legality of employee involvement plans. The U.S.-based Labor Policy Association (LPA. Inc.), and the EFCO Corporation, a U.S.-based manufacturer, filed the communication.
On June 15, 1999, the NAO wrote to the submitters and informed them that it had decided not to accept the communication for review. The NAO's letter stated that information provided by the U.S. NAO, the AFL-CIO and in the communication did not indicate a failure to comply with the obligations of the NAALC, including enforcement of labor law. On June 15, 1999, the submitters wrote to the Canadian NAO to ask that it reconsider its decision. The Canadian NAO declined to reopen the matter.
On October 3, 2003, the Canadian NAO received a public communication claiming that the Mexican government had failed to uphold its obligations under both national and international labor laws. The petitioners allege that in the case of workers at Matamoros Garment S.A de C.V. in Izúcar de Matamoros , Puebla , Mexico , who were trying to organize an independent union, the Mexican government failed to meet its obligations to protect the rights of workers relating to freedom of association, and to the right to organize and bargain collectively. In addition, it was claimed that the government also failed to effectively enforce minimum employment standards and occupational health and safety laws. It was further alleged that the Mexican government failed to ensure impartial and independent labor tribunals. Citing other public communications under the NAALC, the petitioners argued that this case is part of a wider pattern of persistent failure on the part of the Mexican government to enforce its labor and employment laws. The communication was submitted by the United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) and the Centro de Apoyo al Trabajador.
On March 12, 2004, the Canadian NAO accepted the submission for review. As set out in its guidelines, the NAO will conduct the review and issue a public report within 120 days, 180 days if circumstances require an extension of time.
For a related communication, see U.S. NAO 2003-1
For more information, log on to the Canadian NAO website at
http://labour-travail.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/doc/ialc-cidt/eng/e/listsubm-e.html