The National Union of Independence of Workers and Employees of the Companies of Electrical and Metallic Parts, their Manufacture, Repair, and Assembly of the Automotive Industry of the Mexican Republic opened the way to challenge the resolutions issued by the Federal Center for Labor Conciliation and Registration (CFCRL) regarding the vote of the workers on the collective bargaining agreement, by means of indirect protection.
In this way, the union led by Roberto Mendoza, who after a vote on the negotiation carried out on a collective contract and which was rejected by the majority of the workers, presented it to the Federal Center as approved and the labor authority then issued a resolution that declares the contractual review consultation invalid and orders its replacement in accordance with the Articles 390 Ter of the Federal Labor Law.
The foregoing prompted the Union to appeal to the Judiciary to file an indirect amparo against the resolution issued by the labor authority.
Its about File 712/2021 which is in the Seventh District Court on Labor Matters in the Federal District in the First Circuit, Federal and whose process started on June 1, 2021 and has 10 Notifications, among them, the one that has just been published to inform that it is by way of Indirect Amparo the legal instrument in which a challenge can be presented.
Likewise, it is the responsibility of the Federal Center to present evidence to determine whether it was right to request the union organization to reopen the process, otherwise it could be subject to a fine.
Precedent in interpretation
Consulted in this regard, Adrián Castillo, partner of the firm D & MAbogados, explained that this case is important since criteria and interpretations are defined on what is the process to present challenges.
“In principle, the Thesis defines that the Indirect Amparo Trial is the way to challenge such acts of the Federal Center for Labor Conciliation and Registration.”
He commented that the Center did not meet the sufficient requirements and declared the nullity, for which he asked the Union to repeat the consultation and, of course, the deposit of the contractual review agreement was no longer made.
“The dissatisfied Union promoted indirect protection arguing that the consultation was valid and asked a Federal Judge to review the matter and give it the Amparo and protection of the Federal Justice for the CFCRL to declare the consultation of the CCT review agreement valid; but the Judge decided that the claim via indirect amparo was not admissible and dismissed the claim saying that this determination does not affect the substantive rights of the Union nor is it impossible to repair ”.
Faced with the judgment of the Judge, the Union appealed to it by means of an appeal for review and the Collegiate Court, who decided that Indirect Amparo is the procedural way to combat those resolutions of the CFCRL.
Against this ruling, the Union or the CFCRL itself may challenge by means of an appeal for review and if so, it will be the Collegiate Court who decides on the merits of the matter and whether or not to protect the Union.
For now, the District Judge is obliged to analyze the legality and constitutionality of the resolution of the Center.