Grupo Modelo V Frente Autentico del Trabajo and Union Nacional de Trabajadores

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 30/06/2008
Date Closed 13/01/2010
Case Duration 80 weeks and 2 days
Host Country Mexico  (OECD member)
Sector Food, Agriculture and Tobacco 
Issue(s) Right to trade union representation; dismissal of trade union workers; employment protection contracts, whereby the company paid off the union leaders who in turn protected the company against union activity
Provisions Cited IV.1-a  IV.8   
Case Description In June 2008, two Mexican trade unions and a trade union research organisation Trade Union of Workers of Industrial Vidriera del Potosi (Sindicato Único de Trabajadores de la Empresa Industria Vidriera del Potosí S.A. de C.V.(SUTEIVP), Union Nacional de Trabajadores (UNT), Frente Auténtico del Trabajo (FAT) and Labour Research and the Trade Union Consulting Centre (CILAS) organisation raised a case with the Mexican NCP concerning Industria Vidriera del Potosi, a subsidiary of the Mexican-US beer company Grupo Modelo. The case was supported by the International Campaign against Employer Protection Contracts.

On 26 January 2008, the company dismissed 826 workers in violation of the collective bargaining agreement. It then dismissed a further 100 workers including 13 members of the Trade Union's Executive Committee. The unions reported that these dismissals were carried out without any prior information or consultation. The company later negotiated the entry of a new trade union.

Industria Vidriera del Potosí S.A. produces glass bottles.

Developments In May 2009, in its Annual Report to the OECD, the NCP reported that it was still at the stage of initial assessment and that it had requested further information from all the involved parties, as well as the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare. It reported that to date it had only received information from the Ministry of Labor. In 2009, the NCP requested information including the status of related legal proceedings.

In its 2010 Annual Report to the OECD, the Mexican NCP reported that it had "met with representatives of both parties on several occasions in order to get a better understanding of the situation" and that it had circulated a questionnaire. It also met with the Ministry of Labour in Mexico, which it stated had also met with both parties.

Outcome In January 2010, the Mexican NCP rejected the case on the basis of insufficient evidence.

This NCP has assessed the facts and findings of the instance and it has concluded that:

According to the information submitted by the parties and by the Labor authorities in México, it is to note that the main facts of the case have been studied and solved totally by the correspondent jurisdictional authorities. Thus, this NCP is not able to asses or comment on those matters beyond its competence or the national laws and regulations.

This NCP considers that there are no elements to support the Specific Instance since the evidence and documentations submitted by the parties and authorities involved have not demonstrated violations of the Guidelines.

EXCERPTS FROM THE FINAL STATEMENT (Courtesy Translation)
In its closing statement the Mexican NCP described the steps taken as follows:

January 2008: the Mexican office of the OECD received a complaint submitted by the SUTEIVP relating to probable violations of the OECD guidelines by the IVP an alleged subsidiary of GRUPO MODELO, S.A.B. de C.V., SUTEIVP affirmed the existence of violations to the specific chapter of the Guidelines on 'Employment and Industrial Relations', referring in particular that on 26 January 2008, IVP made the dismissal of More than 260 workers by closing one of the furnaces of the company.

November 2008: the NCP, which was then under the responsibility of the General Directorate of External Commerce of the Ministry of Economy was acknowledged of the case. The NCP requested information to the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare related to the specific instance since there were some ongoing trials before Mexican tribunals.

1 April 2009: the NCP was assigned to the Directorate General of Foreign Investment. In order to obtain all the necessary information from the parties involved, the NCP met in several occasions with IVP, the SUTEIVP and the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare.
July 13 2009, a questionnaire denominated “questionnaire for the initial evaluation” was sent to the IVP and SUTEIVP. This questionnaire asked both parties to provide further data and information. In a document dated August 7th 2009, IVP answered the questionnaire and presented several annexes to complement the information submitted. In the other hand SUTEIVP submitted a file dated 14 August 2009 (which was outdated, since our office had set a date limit) with many annexes that include a CD with video files and pictures but the document did not contain answers to the questionnaire.

Consultation with the ILO: The NCP contacted also the Mexican office of the International Labor Organization (ILO) since SUTEIVP said that there was a complaint pending before this Organization pertaining to the same event. The SUTEIVP argued that the matter was still pending without giving more information but IVP said the matter had been dismissed by ILO. The NCP consultation with the ILO office in México confirmed that SUTEIVP complaint had been dismissed.

Organisations

Lead NCP Mexico NCP : Single Government Department 

Companies

Multinational Company Grupo Modelo (Home country: Mexico, US)
Subsidiary Industria Vidriera del Potosi (Home country: Mexico)

Complainants

Lead Complainant Labour Research and the Trade Union Consulting Centre : Trade Union Other 
Lead Complainant SUTEIVP Trade Union of Workers of Industrial Vidriera del Potosi : Company Union 
Lead Complainant UNT - Unión Nacional de los Trabajadores : National Centre 
Lead Complainant FAT - Frente Auténtico del Trabajo : National Union 

Related Documents

Mexico NCP  [Publication date: 8/12/2009] 'Industria Vidriera del Potosí, S.A. de C.V'
   http://dgie.economia.gob.mx/dgaai/Documentos/ING_decisionfinalIVP.pdf [Date URL accessed: 24/8/2011]

TUAC Analysis

Did the NCP publish its initial assessment? status-icon
Did the case involve parallel proceedings? status-icon
Was the existence of parallel proceedings an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case? status-icon
Was the businsess relationship other than that of a subsidiary? status-icon
Was the nature of the business relationship an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case? status-icon
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its acceptance of this case? status-icon
Did the NCP offer mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Did the company accept the offer of mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Did the complainant(s) accept the offer of mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Was mediation or conciliation held? status-icon
Was mediation or conciliation conducted by a professional mediator? status-icon
Did the parties reach agreement? status-icon
If yes, did the NCP publish this agreement following the consent of the parties? status-icon
If mediation was refused or failed did the NCP make an assessment of whether the company had breached the Guidelines? status-icon
Did the NCP conduct in-host country fact finding? status-icon
Did the NCP make recommendations to the company on the future implementation of the Guidelines? status-icon
Did the NCP publish its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP provide for follow-up of the agreement/recommendations? status-icon
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP inform public pension funds about its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP apply any consequences in this case? status-icon
Did the NCP follow the indicative timescales set out in the procedural guidance? status-icon
Was there a positive outcome for the workers involved in this case? status-icon
Did the filing of the case under the Guidelines have a positive impact for the workers involved? status-icon
Did the lead NCP play a positive role? status-icon
If different, did the home NCP play a positive role? status-icon

Implications

Timescales - the NCP took more than 48 months to reject the case