The Judiciary published a new criterion to shield the right to strike of the workers, resolving that when the labor suspension is declared legal by the corresponding authority, while it lasts, no union may claim ownership of the collective contract, since this implies questioning the majority representation of the union that called the strike.
The Fifth Collegiate Collegiate Court in Labor Matters of the First Circuit issued a isolated labor thesis after reviewing a case in which a union called a strike for non-compliance with the agreed labor conditions; however, after the movement was declared legal by the authority, along with the suspension of work, another union demanded the change of ownership of the contract and the conclusion of the strike.
In this sense, the judges ruled that as long as the labor conflict persists, another trade union organization cannot request the conclusion of the strike, alleging that it is the new holder of the collective contract.
“The strength of the strike lies in the cohesion of the workers, in such a way that questioning the majority representation of the union that it summoned weakens the movement and prevents it from fulfilling the purpose for which it was created. In that case, it is convenient to protect the right to strike against freedom of association, so that workers can obtain labor benefits or protect those already acquired”, argued the court.
The latest report from the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (Inegi) indicates that in 2020 there were 15 strikes, only in the local jurisdiction. Meanwhile, data from the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare (STPS) show that 2 strikes were reported last year, excluding conflicts in 21 states that implemented the new model of labor justice. Both were motivated by violations of the collective agreement.
Although the resolution of the collegiate court is an isolated labor thesis and is not a criterion that is applied in a general way throughout the country, specialists agree that it lays the foundations for the courts to know how to act in situations like this, since on the Federal Labor Law (LFT) there is a gap in the matter.
The new criterion, published in the Judicial Weekly of the Federation, also establishes that it is unconstitutional when the authority determines the lifting of the strike arguing that another union or group of workers are assigned as holders of the contract.
The right to strike it is recognized by the Political Constitution itself and regulated by the LFT. “Strikes will be lawful when their purpose is to achieve a balance between the various factors of production, harmonizing the rights of labor with those of capital”, it is established in the Magna Carta.
Protection of the right to strike
“The thesis is really interesting, because what it seeks is that there be no affectation for the workers during the strike”, explains Manuel Fuentes Muñiz, labor lawyer and professor at the Autonomous Metropolitan University (UAM). In this sense, the specialist explains that the change of ownership of the collective contract during the suspension of work it could imply not only the lifting of the movement, it can also affect the working conditions.
From the point of view of the specialist, the criterion issued by the court directly protects the workers because it shields the right to strike by avoiding alterations in the union representation of the labor force during the suspension of work.
“The change from one holder to another can change the meaning of how agreements or others can be reached. Finally, this occurs in a process of transformation of the labour reform of 2019 and it is an important thesis because a situation of this nature is not foreseen in the Federal Labor Law, the ownership can be raised at any time, it does not set a limitation. In effect, this means a precedent that during the strike it is not carried out”, underlines Manuel Fuentes.
For Alfonso Bouzas, coordinator of the Labor Reform Citizen Observatory, the fact that a union must certify that it has at least 30% of the workers’ participation in order to have the ownership of the collective contract it is an essential preliminary step to guarantee the representation of the labor force in a strike.
“This leads us to not make the procedure anarchic strike call. There is no possibility that at that moment you demand ownership, because in the exercise of ownership the union is demanding contractual review, it is an implicit impossibility”, points out the specialist.
In this vein, Alfonso Bouzas considers that the new labor thesis prevents another union from requesting the conclusion of the strike. “The one who summons is the owner. The other union that comes and says ‘me too’, it’s just not their time”.
Although this practice was not very common, explains Manuel Fuentes, in some cases it is a employer interference that, in alliance with other union organizations, seek to destabilize the movements of workers that demand greater rights.
What you should know about strikes
The Federal Labor Law describes the strike as “the temporary suspension of work carried out by a coalition of workers”. This movement can cover a company or several establishments and must be limited only to the act claimed.
The reasons why a union or group of workers they can call a strike:
- Achieving a balance between the various factors of production, harmonizing the rights of labor with those of capital.
- Obtain from the employer the signing of the collective bargaining agreement and demand its review at the end of its validity period.
- Obtain from the employer the execution of the contract-law and demand its revision.
- Require compliance with the collective bargaining agreement or the contract-law in companies.
- Require compliance with the legal provisions on profit sharing (PTU).
- Require review of contractual wages.
- Support another strike that has any of the above reasons as its objective.
In some cases, workers must continue to provide services during the strike, this occurs when it comes to the operation of ships, aircraft, trains, buses and other transport vehicles that are en route, also in the hospitals, sanatoriums, clinics and other similar establishments.
These movements can be considered illegal when the majority of the strikers execute acts of violence and in case of war, exclusively when the workers work for government agencies.