Public communications submitted to the United States National
US 2006-01 and US 2005-03
These are the lastest on the US public comminications, The Hidalgo Report,2005-03, and Coahuila Decision, 2006-01. Please note that both files are in PDf format.
U.S. NAO 940001 and U.S. NAO 940002
U.S. NAO 940001 was filed by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO. It concerned allegations relating to the freedom of association and the right to organize of workers at the Honeywell Manufacturas de Chihuahua, S.A., in the City of Chihuahua, State of Chihuahua, Mexico.
U.S. NAO 940002 was filed by the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America. It, too, concerned allegations relating to freedom of association and the right to organize, specifically at a General Electric subsidiary, Compañía Armadora, S.A., in Ciudad Juarez, State of Chihuahua, Mexico.
On April 15, 1994, the U.S. NAO gave notice that both submissions were accepted for review. It held public hearings in Washington, D.C., on both submissions on September 12, 1994, and released a Public Report of Review on October 12, 1994. The Report did not recommend ministerial consultations but instead called for a series of cooperative activities by the Parties' NAOs relating to freedom of association and the right to organize.
As a result, the NAOs jointly held trinational workshops on the topic by experts from the three countries in Washington, D.C. in March and September 1995. The transcripts and papers are available from the U.S. NAO. Also, the three NAOs joined with representatives of government, business and organized labor in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, in March 1996, at a trinational conference on Industrial Relations in the 21st Century.
Related documents (PDF): NAO Public Report of Review
On October 13, 1994, the U.S. NAO accepted for review a public submission raising issues including freedom of association and the right to organize. It was alleged that workers at a Mexican subsidiary plant of the Sony Corporation located in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico, were intimidated, pressured, and eventually dismissed by the company when they attempted to organize a union; that the plant management colluded with the established union and local authorities to elect a union leadership that was compliant to the demands of management; that police used violence to break up a peaceful demonstration by workers; and that Mexican authorities improperly denied registration when the workers attempted to organize an independent union. Allegations pertaining to minimum employment standards were not accepted for review since appropriate relief had not been sought under the laws of Mexico. The submission was filed by the International Labor Rights Fund, the Asociación Nacional de Abogados Democráticos (National Association of Democratic Lawyers), the Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras and the American Friends Service Committee.
The U.S. NAO gathered information from a variety of sources, including a public hearing held in San Antonio, Texas, on February 13, 1995, and a report of review was issued on April 11, 1995. In its Public Report of Review, the U.S. NAO recommended that the U.S. Secretary of Labor request Ministerial Consultations with his Mexican counterpart on the matter of union registration, and also recommended additional joint cooperative activities on matters of internal union elections and democracy. Further, the U.S. NAO committed to undertake a study of Mexican Conciliation and Arbitration Board (CAB) cases involving allegations of unjustified dismissals, and requested information from the Mexican NAO on the allegations of the use of excessive force by the police in breaking up the workers' demonstration.
The Ministerial Consultations resulted in an agreement to conduct a series of three public seminars on union registration and certification, an internal study on union registration by the Mexican authorities, and a series of meetings between Mexican authorities and the parties concerned. Canada endorsed the action plan agreed at the Ministerial Consultations, and participated in all resulting joint initiatives.
In compliance with the second part of the agreement, the Mexican Secretariat of Labor and Social Welfare designated a team of independent experts to conduct a study of labor law and practice related to the registration of unions.
Finally, in accordance with the third part of the agreement, officials of the Mexican Secretariat of Labor and Social Welfare met in Mexico City with management representatives of the company on June 26, 1995, and with the local labor authorities and a number of the workers directly involved in the case, in Nuevo Laredo, on August 21-24, 1995.
In addition, the U.S. NAO contracted a team of experts to conduct a study on selected Mexican CAB cases involving allegations of unjustified dismissals. This study was made available to the public early in 1996.
The first of the three public seminars agreed to in the Ministerial Consultations agreement was held in Mexico City in September 1995. Panels of government officials from the three countries discussed union registration and certification issues in Mexico, the U.S. and Canada. There was significant participation by the public, the interested parties and the workers involved in the submission, as well as considerable press coverage.
The second seminar was held in San Antonio, Texas in November 1995. Panels of prominent independent experts from the three countries in the field of industrial relations were selected to discuss union certification and registration issues, as well as internal democracy and some of the other industrial relations issues raised in the submission. Again, there was public participation and considerable press coverage.
The third and final seminar agreed to in the Ministerial Consultations, took place in Monterrey, Mexico, in February 1996. In February 1996, the Mexican NAO published documents related to the seminars, the special study by independent experts, and the meetings called for in the agreement on Ministerial Consultations.
In June 1996, the U.S. NAO released a report summarizing and analyzing the results of the seminars and other aspects of the program resulting from Ministerial Consultations on Submission No. 94003. The U.S. Secretary of Labor directed the U.S. NAO to monitor developments in Mexico regarding union registration, and to report on the implications of decisions by the Supreme Court of Mexico on constitutional issues involving union registration in the public sector.
In December 1996, the U.S. NAO delivered the follow-up report requested by the U.S. Secretary of Labor. It reported on the current status of Sony workers, initiatives in Mexico to change the federal labor law, and decisions of the Mexican Supreme Court. It concluded that "potentially significant developments continue to take place in Mexico on a wide range of labor matters, including labor legislation, labor-management relations, labor-government relations, and within labor organizations themselves." The three NAO reports are available from all three NAOs.
Related documents (PDF): NAO Public Report of Review; Follow-Up Report; Agreements on Implementation
The United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers filed a submission against a Mexican subsidiary of the General Electric Corporation on September 11, 1994. The submission related primarily to the right of freedom of association and the right to organize, the U.S. NAO accepted the submission for review on November 4, 1994. The submission was withdrawn on January 19, 1995.
A submission involving union registration and representation rights in a merged ministry of the federal government of Mexico was received by the U.S. NAO on June 13, 1996, and accepted for review on July 29, 1996. The merger consolidated three government ministries - fishing, social development, as well as agriculture and water resources - into a single ministry. The union representing former fisheries ministry employees, the Sindicato Unico de Trabajadores de la Secretaría de Pesca (Single Trade Union of Workers of the Fishing Secretariat), lost its right to represent employees within the merged ministry. The submission raised issues concerning the federal labor law provisions requiring unions of government employees to be members of a specified central labor organization, and the participation in labor tribunals of union representatives who might have a conflict of interest in ruling on disputes with another union. It was filed by Human Rights Watch/America, the International Labor Rights Fund and the Asociación Nacional de Abogados Democráticos (National Association of Democratic Lawyers).
As part of its review, the U.S. NAO held a public hearing on December 3, 1996, with statements by representatives of the submitting organizations, by union representatives and counsel from the contending union organizations, by interested public citizens, and by a representative of Mexico's Secretariat of Labor and Social Welfare.
As part of its review, the U.S. NAO also commissioned special studies on labor law enforcement in the Mexican federal government sector. Extensive information was also supplied by the Mexican NAO. (A transcript of the public hearing and copies of special reports and information from the Mexican NAO are available from each NAO.)
The U.S. NAO released its Public Report of Review on January 27, 1997. The Report called for ministerial consultations, and noted that the freedom of association issues raised in the submissions had been the subject of ongoing review and interpretation by the International Labor Organization and that conflicting views existed concerning the status of international treaties under Mexican law.
In accordance with the agreement reached on September 3, 1997, between the U.S. Secretary of Labor and the Mexican Secretary of Labor and Social Welfare, the NAOs of Mexico, Canada and the United States held a seminar on December 4, 1997, at the University of Maryland School of Law in Baltimore, entitled Seminar on International Treaties and Constitutional Systems of the United States, Mexico and Canada.
Academic and governmental experts from all three countries attended the event to discuss international treaties, constitutional provisions, and each country's labor laws. Their considerations included: whether and how treaties are considered self-executing or require legislation; the difference between treaties and executive agreements; the legal hierarchy of domestic laws and how international treaties and conventions fit within that hierarchy; what is required to make a treaty enforceable domestically and the actual experience with the domestic application of treaties; and the relationship of treaties to state and provincial laws. A transcript of the proceedings is available to the public from the U.S. NAO.
On December 3, 1997, the submitters filed a request that the U.S. NAO reconsider its Report on the submission. Grounds for the request included allegations that the Report did not fully address the submitters' concerns about enforcement of Mexican law, and new information on the application of court rulings subsequent to the initial submission. On April 20, 1998, the U.S. NAO denied the request for review, stating that Mexican appellate court decisions and secret ballot elections, among other things, had addressed matters that had been raised as concerns in the submission.
Related documents (PDF): NAO Public Report of Review; Agreement
On October 11, 1996, the U.S. NAO received a submission from the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, involving alleged violations of workers' freedom of association in an attempt to form a union at the Maxi-Switch facility in Cananea, Sonora, Mexico. Maxi-Switch, a computer keyboard manufacturer, is a subsidiary of the Silitek Corporation of Taipei, Taiwan. The submission raised issues related to NAALC Part Two Obligations, including levels of protection, government enforcement action and procedural guarantees.
On December 10, 1996, the U.S. NAO announced that it had accepted the submission for review. The NAO scheduled public hearings for April 18, 1997. On April 16, 1998, the union in question was registered, workers who had allegedly been dismissed from employment for their union activities and had their reinstatement cases denied were granted new hearings, and the public communication was withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the communication, the Public Report of Review was not completed.
On July 14, 1997, the U.S. NAO accepted for review a public communication raising the issue of alleged employment discrimination based on pregnancy in certain maquiladoras in Mexico. The public communication, which was filed on May 16, 1997, alleged that many employers require women to undergo pre-employment pregnancy screening as a condition of employment and that pregnant women are dismissed from or are pressured into resigning from their jobs. The public communication was filed by the International Labor Rights Fund, Human Rights Watch, and the National Association of Democratic Lawyers of Mexico (Asociación Nacional de Abogados Democráticos).
As part of its review process, the U.S. NAO held a public hearing on November 19, 1997, in Brownsville, Texas. On January 12, 1998, the U.S. NAO released a Public Report of Review on the communication, recommending that the U.S. Secretary of Labor seek consultations with Mexico's Secretary of Labor and Social Welfare.
As a result of those consultations, on October 21, 1998, the three ministers signed an Agreement on Implementation to undertake an action plan in response to the communication, to be completed by July 1999. First, the parties agreed to hold meetings of officials of the three governments to: (1) discuss pregnancy discrimination in the workplace, legal avenues available to Mexican women workers to seek redress against pregnancy discrimination, and the enforcement of laws in all three countries dealing with gender discrimination; and (2) exchange opinions on the Report of Review. This meeting took place on November 30, 1998, in Mexico City.
Second, the Parties agreed that the U.S. and Mexico would hold seminars within their own territory to disseminate information on the rights and protections available to female workers. The seminars were to be directed to workers, employers, government representatives, and women's organizations. Third, it was agreed that the three NAOs would organize a conference, open to the public, on mechanisms in each country to protect the rights of women workers, and on programs to ensure the observance of laws against employment discrimination. The Secretariat of the Commission for Labor Cooperation was instructed to publish a report on these seminars and the conference.
The conference on the Rights of Women in North America was held in Mérida, Yucatán, on March 1-2, 1999. On August 17, 1999, the U.S. NAO held an outreach session on the rights of women workers under employment laws and protection from pregnancy discrimination in McAllen, Texas. On August 18, 1999, the Mexican NAO held an outreach session on laws protecting women workers from discrimination in general and pregnancy discrimination in particular in Reynosa, Tamaulipas. Another outreach session was held in Puebla, Puebla on May 30, 2000. Finally, on July 1, 2000, the U.S. NAO held an outreach session in Yakima, Washington. In September 2001, the Secretariat was advised that the public activities had been completed and that it could prepare its report. That report is being finalized.
Related documents (PDF): NAO Public Report of Review; Implementation Agreement
On November 17, 1997, the U.S. NAO accepted for review a public communication raising issues of freedom of association, occupational safety and health, and minimum employment standards including wages. The public communication alleged that workers at the Han Young plant in Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, which produces trailer platforms exclusively for Hyundai Precision of America, a subsidiary of the Hyundai Corp. of Korea, had been dismissed and intimidated because of their support of an independent union. It also alleged that the local Conciliation and Arbitration Board (Junta de Conciliación y Arbitraje - JCA) had not enforced the appropriate provisions of Mexican labor law related to the process by which one union can challenge another for the right to represent workers in a workplace.
The public communication was filed on October 30, 1997 by the Support Committee for Maquiladora Workers, the National Association of Democratic Lawyers, the International Labor Rights Fund, and the Union of Metal, Steel, Iron, and Allied Workers (Sindicato de Trabajadores de la Industria Metálica, Acero, Hierro, Conexos y Similares.
On February 9, 1998, the submitters filed an addendum to their communication providing further information and allegations concerning occupational health and safety issues at the Han Young plant.
Public hearings were held in San Diego, California, on February 18, 1998. On April 28, the U.S. NAO released a Public Report of Review concerning the allegations about freedom of association and the right to organize. The report advised the U.S. Secretary of Labor to seek consultations with the Mexican Secretary of Labor and Social Welfare concerning these issues. On April 28, 1998, the U.S. Secretary of Labor requested consultations with the Mexican Secretary of Labor and Social Welfare.
On August 12, 1998, the U.S. NAO issued a Public Report of Review on the occupational health and safety allegations raised in the communication. The report advised the Secretary of Labor to seek ministerial consultations with her Mexican counterpart concerning these issues as well, which she did on August 13, 1998. On October 5, 1998 the Mexican Secretary of Labor and Social Welfare accepted the ministerial consultations.
A Joint Declaration on U.S. NAO 9702 and 9703 was signed by the U.S. Secretary of Labor and the Mexican Secretary of Labor and Social Welfare on May 18, 2000. The Joint Declaration called for the Mexican government to organize a seminar to promote the principles of freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively. The Seminar was held on June 23, 2000 in Tijuana, Baja California.
The Joint Declaration also included a commitment by the Mexican government to promote the registry of collective agreements, to take steps to ensure that workers receive information regarding collective agreements, and to promote the use of eligible voter lists and secret ballots in disputes over the right to hold the collective bargaining agreement. The U.S. Department of Labor and the Mexican Secretary of Labor and Social Welfare also pledged to work together to address labor rights, freedom of association and safety and health at work.
Finally, the Joint Declaration contained an undertaking to organize a trilateral public seminar in Mexico on labor boards.
Related documents (PDF): NAO Public Report of Review (Part I) ) (Part II); Joint Declaration
On December 15, 1997, the U.S. NAO received a public communication alleging violation of Mexican laws regarding freedom of association, the right to organize, the right to bargain collectively, and the prevention of occupational injuries and illnesses at the Echlin-owned ITAPSA export processing plant near Mexico City. The public communication was filed by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; the AFL-CIO; the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America; the Canadian Auto Workers; the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees; the United Paperworkers International Union; the United Steelworkers of America; and the Steelworkers' Canadian National Office.
On January 30, 1998, the U.S. NAO accepted the communication for review. On March 23, 1998, the U.S. NAO held a public hearing in Washington, DC. On July 31, 1998, the U.S. NAO issued its Public Report of Review recommending that U.S. Labor Secretary Alexis M. Herman seek consultations with her Mexican counterpart, which she did on August 7, 1998.
A Joint Declaration on U.S. NAO 9702 and 9703 was signed by the U.S. Secretary of Labor and the Mexican Secretary of Labor and Social Welfare on May 18, 2000. The Joint Declaration called for the Mexican government to organize a seminar to promote the principles of freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively. The Seminar was held on June 23, 2000 in Tijuana, Baja California.
The Joint Declaration also included a commitment by the Mexican government to promote the registry of collective agreements, to take steps to ensure that workers receive information regarding collective agreements, and to promote the use of eligible voter lists and secret ballots in disputes over the right to hold the collective bargaining agreement. The U.S. Department of Labor and the Mexican Secretary of Labor and Social Welfare also pledged to work together to address labor rights, the freedom of association and safety and health at work.
Finally, the Joint Declaration contained an undertaking to organize a trilateral public seminar in Mexico on labor boards.
For a related communication, see Canadian NAO 98-1.
Related documents (PDF): NAO Public Report of Review; Joint Declaration
On August 17, 1998, the U.S. NAO received a public communication alleging a failure by the Mexican government to enforce laws concerning the right to strike. The communication related to an Executive Order by the President of Mexico that, according to the submitters, had the effect of ending a strike by the Association of Flight Attendants of Mexico against AeroMéxico. The Association of Flight Attendants, AFL-CIO, submitted this communication.
On October 19, 1998, the U.S. NAO delivered a letter to the petitioning union stating that the communication had not been accepted for review on the grounds that such a review would not further the objectives of the NAALC. The letter noted that the Executive Order in question cited legal provisions relating it to the economic security of the Mexican state, and that subsequent to the issuance of the Order the flight attendants had returned to work and negotiated an agreement with AeroMéxico settling the strike in question.
The submitters asked the U.S. NAO to reconsider its decision in a letter dated November 9, 1998. On December 21, 1998, the U.S. NAO informed the submitters that it would not reconsider its decision, but agreed to conduct a research project evaluating how the three NAALC countries reconcile the issue of the right to strike in light of national interests of safety, security and general welfare.
On September 28, 1998, the U.S. NAO received a public communication alleging illegal child labor practices on vegetable farms in Mexico. The submitter requested that the communication be held in abeyance pending additional information from the U.S. NAO on how to proceed. The communication was submitted by the Florida Tomato Exchange, a nonprofit agricultural cooperative association.
The U.S. NAO requested further information from the submitter. Because no further information was submitted, the U.S. NAO closed its file on this communication on October 4, 1999.
On December 18, 1998, the U.S. NAO accepted for review a public communication alleging a failure by authorities in the province of Quebec, Canada, to provide an effective remedy for plant closings with anti-union motivations, and unwarranted delays in union certification procedures. The communication also alleged that, by limiting union certifications to single-employer bargaining units, Quebec labor law made it unduly difficult for workers in nonstandard employment (part-time, casual, contractual work) to organize unions. The allegations related to attempts to organize the employees at a McDonald's restaurant in St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada. The communication was submitted on October 21, 1998, by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Teamsters Canada, the Quebec Federation of Labor, Teamsters Local 973 (Montreal) and the International Labor Rights Fund.
On January 15, 1999, the U.S. NAO requested information from the Canadian NAO regarding plant closures with anti-union motivations in the province of Quebec. The Canadian NAO's response of January 29, 1999, extended an invitation from the Quebec labor department to officials of the U.S. NAO to meet regarding the issue. After a meeting between the U.S. NAO, Quebec labor officials and union representatives, it was agreed that a Quebec government council would commence a study of sudden anti-union plant closures. On April 21, 1999, the U.S. NAO issued a press release announcing that the labor groups submitting the communication had asked that the review end, and that the file be closed.
On December 2, 1998, the U.S. NAO received a public communication raising the issue of whether legislation denying rural route mail carriers employed by the Canada Post Corporation the rights to unionize and bargain collectively and the protection of occupational health and safety laws was contrary to the NAALC. The communication also alleged that Canadian law failed to provide rural route mail carriers with access to compensation for industrial accidents and occupational diseases. In addition, it alleged that this treatment of rural route mail carriers violated the NAALC obligation to promote the elimination of employment discrimination. The communication was submitted by the Organization of Rural Route Mail Carriers and other labor organizations in the United States, Mexico and Canada.
The U.S. NAO requested information pertaining to the communication from the Canadian NAO on December 18, 1998. The Canadian NAO responded on January 15, 1999. The U.S. NAO declined to accept the public communication for review in a decision issued on February 1, 1999, on the basis that the rural route mail couriers are mail contractors, not employees entitled to collective bargaining rights under Canadian law. The submitters wrote twice to the U.S. NAO requesting that it reconsider its decision, on March 8, 1999 and March 17, 1999.
On November 10,1999, the U.S. NAO received a public communication alleging failure by Mexican authorities to effectively enforce rights of freedom of association, the right to organize, the right to bargain collectively, minimum employment standards (hours of work, overtime premium pay, and payroll deductions for social programs) and prevention of occupational injuries and illnesses (safety training, maximum hours of work, and conditions on board aircraft). Finally, the communication alleged partiality on the part of a Mexican labor tribunal and failure on its part to ensure that labor law proceedings did not entail unwarranted delays. The communication related to events that allegedly had taken place before, during and following an attempt by the Asociación Sindical de Sobrecargos de Aviación (Association of Flight Attendants of Mexico - ASSA) to obtain the right to represent the flight attendants at a privately owned Mexico-based airline, TAESA (Executive Air Transport Inc.), in collective contract negotiations. The Association of Flight Attendants, AFL-CIO, and ASSA submitted this communication.
On January 7, 2000, the U.S. NAO accepted the communication for review. On March 23, 2000, the U.S. NAO held a public hearing in Washington , D.C. On July 7, 2000, the U.S. NAO issued its Public Report of Review recommending that U.S. Labor Secretary Alexis M.Herman seek consultations with her Mexican counterpart. A formal request to this effect was made on July 17, 2000. The Secretary of Labor of Mexico agreed to the request on July 24, 2001.
As a result of these consultations, the Secretaries of Labor of the two countries signed a joint declaration on June 11, 2002, in which they agreed to create a bilateral working group made up of government experts on workplace health and safety. They also agreed to an exchange of information about the different types of unions in the two countries and about rights related to freedom of association and collective bargaining in the two countries. These issues were discussed in a public seminar held in Mexico in March 2003.
Related documents (PDF): NAO Public Report of Review; Joint Declaration
U.S. NAO 2000-01
On July 3, 2000, the U.S. NAO received a public communication alleging persistent failure by Mexican labor, social security and health authorities to effectively enforce and comply with laws governing occupational safety and health and compensation for work-related injuries. The communication relates to alleged ongoing unsafe and hazardous working conditions in Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana, two automotive safety systems factories located in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. This communication was submitted by current and former employees of Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana, the Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras, the St. Mary's University School of Law Center for Legal and Social Justice, and 22 other nongovernmental organizations.
The U.S. NAO accepted the communication for review on September 1, 2000. A public hearing was held in San Antonio, Texas, on December 12, 2000. On April 6, 2001, the U.S. NAO issued its Public Report of Review recommending that U.S. Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao seek consultations with her Mexican counterpart.
In its public report of review issued on April 6, 2001, the U.S. NAO noted the allegations made by the submitters of the public communication that Mexican authorities had failed to effectively enforce laws on the prevention of occupational injuries and illnesses, and on compensation in cases of occupational injuries or illnesses. The report recommended that the U.S. Secretary of Labor request ministerial consultations with her Mexican counterpart. A formal request to this effect was made on June 25, 2001. The Secretary of Labor of Mexico agreed to the request on July 24, 2001.
As a result of these consultations, the Secretaries of Labor of the two countries signed a joint declaration on June 11, 2002, in which they agreed to create a bilateral working group made up of government experts on workplace health and safety. The working group was given the task of examining the workplace health and safety issues raised in public communications US NAO 2000-01 and 9901, to formulate technical recommendations for the consideration of the governments, to develop technical cooperation projects and to identify other issues appropriate for bilateral cooperation. The first meeting of the bilateral working group was held in Mexico City on July 8-9, 2002.
Related documents (PDF): NAO Public Report of Review; Joint Declaration
U.S. NAO 2001-01
On June 29, 2001, the U.S. NAO received a public communication alleging that the Mexican government had failed to fulfill its commitment in a May 18, 2000, Ministerial Agreement to make efforts to promote the use of eligible voter lists, secret ballots and neutral voting places in union elections. The public communication also alleged that the Mexican government had not complied with several of its NAALC obligations in relation to a March 2, 2001, bargaining representative election at the Duro Bag Manufacturing Corp. in Río Bravo, Tamaulipas. The NAALC obligations discussed were enforcing laws respecting the freedom of association, the right to organize and the right to bargain collectively (Article 3, Labor Principles 1 and 2), ensuring appropriate access to administrative and other kinds of labor tribunals (Article 4) and ensuring that labor tribunals operate in a fair, equitable fashion with appropriate remedies (Article 5). This communication was submitted by the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) and the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical & Energy Workers International Union (PACE International Union).
The U.S. NAO declined to accept the public communication for review on February 22, 2002, stating that a review would not further the objectives of the NAALC and that there is no provision in Mexican labor law governing the use of secret ballots in trade union representation elections.
U.S. NAO 2003-1
On September 30, 2003, the U.S. 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 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 February 5, 2004, the U.S. 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 Canadian NAO 2003-1
For more information, log on to the U.S. NAO website at http://www.dol.gov/ILAB/media/reports/nao/submissions.htm