Public communications submitted to the Mexican National
Administrative Office (NAO)

Mexican NAO 9501

On February 9, 1995, the Mexican NAO received a submission involving the sudden closing of a Spanish-language telemarketing facility of the Sprint Corporation in San Francisco, California, alleged to have been motivated by anti-union bias. The Mexican NAO reviewed the submission and on May 31, 1995, released a report recommending Ministerial Consultations. The submission was filed by the Sindicato de Telefonistas de la República Mexicana (Telephone Workers Union of the Republic of Mexico).

On June 2, 1995, the Mexican Secretary of Labor and Social Welfare requested Ministerial Consultations with the U.S. Secretary of Labor regarding the effects of the sudden closure of a workplace on the freedom of association and the right of workers to organize. The U.S. Secretary of Labor accepted the request for Ministerial Consultations. On December 15, 1995, the U.S. and Mexican governments reached an agreement spelling out a three-step plan to address the submission. The agreement stated that:

1. The U.S. Secretary of Labor would keep the Mexican Secretary of Labor informed of any further legal developments outside the Department of Labor in the case;

2. The Secretariat of the Commission for Labor Cooperation would study the effects of sudden plant closings on the principle of freedom of association and the right of workers to organize in all three countries;

3. The U.S. Department of Labor would hold a public forum in San Francisco to allow interested parties an opportunity to convey to the public their concerns on the effects of the sudden closing of a plant on the principle of freedom of association and the right of workers to organize.

On February 27, 1996, the public forum called for by the ministers was held in
San Francisco, California, with presentations by workers affected by the plant closing, by union representatives from Mexico, the U.S. and Europe, by a law professor speaking on behalf of the company, by academic analysts, and by labor and business representatives in the Canadian and Mexican delegations.

On October 1996, the Secretariat submitted a draft report to the Commission's Council. A revised draft, responding to comments from the Council, was submitted in December 1996. On June 9, 1997, the Secretariat released in English, French and Spanish the study, Plant Closings and Labor Rights: The Effects of Sudden Plant Closings on Freedom of Association and the Right to Organize in Canada, Mexico and the United States.

In December 1996, the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that the plant closing was motivated by anti-union animus, and ordered the employer to rehire affected workers into openings in other divisions of the company and to provide back pay for lost wages [LCF, Inc., d/b/a/ La Conexion Familiar and Sprint Corporation, 322 NLRB No. 137 (1996)]. The company filed an appeal against this decision in a federal court. On November 25, 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, ruled that the enforcement order of the NLRB was based on findings that were "not supported by substantial evidence." The company's petition was granted and the NLRB's enforcement order was denied.

Related documents (PDF): NAO Public Report of Review (Spanish); Agreements on Implementation

Mexican NAO 9801

On April 13, 1998, the Mexican NAO received a public communication alleging that delays in the U.S. National Labor Relations Board's labor law enforcement procedures had resulted in a failure to protect workers' rights to organize unions and bargain collectively. The communication also alleged failure by the relevant authorities to protect workers from persistent violations of occupational health and safety laws, and persistent violations of California laws relating to overtime pay. The communication related to events that allegedly took place before and during an attempt to organize the workers at Solec International Inc., a manufacturer of solar panels located in Carson, California, a subsidiary of Sanyo and Sumitomo Bank. The communication was submitted by the Oil,
Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Local 1-675; the Sindicato de Trabajadores de Industria y Comercio "6 de octubre"; the Unión de Defensa Laboral Comunitaria; and the Comité de Apoyo para los Trabajadores de las Maquiladoras.

The Mexican NAO issued its review of the communication on August 30, 1999. The review recommended Ministerial Consultations between the United States and Mexico on the issues of freedom of association, the right to bargain collectively, occupational safety and health, minimum labor standards, and racial discrimination in employment. The Mexican Secretary of Labor requested Ministerial Consultations with the U.S. Secretary of Labor on December 2, 1999. The U.S. Secretary of Labor agreed to Consultations on December 28, 1999.

As a result of ministerial consultations, the U.S. Secretary of Labor and the Mexican Secretary of Labor signed a Joint Declaration regarding public communications Mexican NAO 9801, 9802 and 9803 on May 18, 2000. Canada's Minister of Labour signed the Joint Declaration on July 6, 2000.

As part of the plan of action contained in the Joint Declaration, the U.S. NAO hosted the Mexican NAO in a government-to-government meeting held in Washington, D.C. on May 23 and 24, 2001, with a follow-up session in Mexico City the week after. The U.S. NAO organized public forums in Yakima, Washington, on August 8, 2001, and in Augusta, Maine on June 5, 2002. The plan of action also called for a trinational guide on migrant workers, which the Secretariat will publish in the near future.

Related documents (PDF): NAO Public Report of Review (Spanish); Joint Declaration

Mexican NAO 9802

On November 23, 1998, the Mexican NAO accepted for review a public communication alleging systemic problems with U.S. labor law and its enforcement affecting workers in the Washington State apple picking and packing industries, including allegations of: failure of labor laws to cover agricultural workers; failure of labor laws to provide effective remedies against violations of the right to organize unions; unwarranted delays in the enforcement of rights to organize a union; decline in the real value of the minimum wage; failure to effectively enforce occupational health and safety laws and minimum wage laws; failure to adopt occupational health and safety standards relating to hazards prevalent in agricultural work; and failure to provide equal protection to migrant workers. The communication was submitted on May 27, 1998, by the Unión Nacional de Trabajadores (UNT), Frente Auténtico del Trabajo (FAT), Frente Democrático Campesino (FDC), and the Sindicato de Trabajadores de la Industria Metálica, Acero, Hierro, Conexos y Similares (STIMACHS), assisted by the International Labor Rights Fund. On November 30, 1998, the U.S. NAO provided the Mexican NAO with detailed responses to a series of questions concerning U.S. labor and employment law and its administration. On December 2, 1998, the Mexican NAO met with the submitters in Mexico City.

On August 30, 1999, the Mexican NAO issued a report recommending Ministerial Consultations between the U.S. and Mexican Secretaries of Labor regarding the rights of workers in the agricultural sector, including freedom of association, the right to bargain collectively, minimum labor standards, effective compliance with occupational safety and health norms, and whether workers are entitled to the same protections as domestic workers. Mexico requested Ministerial Consultations with the United States on August 20, 1999. The U.S. Secretary of Labor agreed to consultations on September 30, 1999.

As a result of ministerial consultations, the U.S. and Mexican Secretaries of Labor signed a Joint Declaration regarding public communications Mexican NAO 9801, 9802 and 9803 on May 18, 2000. Canada's Minister of Labour signed the Joint Declaration on July 6, 2000.

As part of the plan of action contained in the Joint Declaration, the U.S. NAO hosted the Mexican NAO in a government-to-government meeting held in Washington, D.C. on May 23 and 24, 2001, with a follow-up session in Mexico City the week after. The U.S. NAO organized public forums in Yakima, Washington, on August 8, 2001, and in Augusta, Maine on June 5, 2002. The plan of action also called for a trinational guide on migrant workers, which the Secretariat will publish in the near future.

Related documents (PDF): NAO Public Report of Review (Spanish); Joint Declaration

Mexican NAO 9803

On August 10, 1998, the Mexican NAO accepted for review a public communication alleging failure of the U.S. government to ensure equal protection of migrant workers and failure to protect Mexican workers against violations of: (1) health and safety laws relating to living quarters, (2) laws protecting against breaches of employment contract terms, (3) laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of national origin, and (4) rights to compensation for occupational injury and illness. The communication also alleged a failure to disseminate information about laws so that the Mexican workers could be informed of their legal rights. The allegations related to the alleged treatment of Mexican workers at the DeCoster Egg Farm in Maine, USA, in response to which a group of workers, joined by the Mexican government as co-plaintiff, had launched a legal action. The communication was submitted on August 4, 1998, by the Confederación de Trabajadores de México (CTM).

The Mexican NAO notified the U.S. NAO on August 10, 1998, that it had accepted the communication for review. It requested information about the rights of agricultural workers in the United States and in the state of Maine in particular, on August 11, 1998. The U.S. NAO responded to questions posed by the Mexican NAO on December 22, 1998. On December 2, 1999, the Mexican NAO issued a report recommending Ministerial Consultations between the United States and Mexico for the purpose of clarifying what means the United States has at its disposal to guarantee that Mexican migrant agricultural workers receive the same protections as nationals with respect to minimum labor standards, elimination of employment discrimination, and occupational safety and health. On November 23, 1999, the Mexican Labor Secretary requested Ministerial Consultations with the U.S. Secretary of Labor.

As a result of ministerial consultations, the U.S. Secretary of Labor and the Mexican Secretary of Labor signed a Joint Declaration regarding public communications Mexican NAO 9801, 9802 and 9803 on May 18, 2000. Canada's Minister of Labour signed the Joint Declaration on July 6, 2000.

As part of the plan of action contained in the Joint Declaration, the U.S. NAO hosted the Mexican NAO in a government-to-government meeting held in Washington, D.C. on May 23 and 24, 2001, with a follow-up session in Mexico City the week after. The U.S. NAO organized a public forums in Yakima, Washington, on August 8, 2001, and in Augusta, Maine on June 5, 2002. The plan of action also called for a trinational guide on migrant workers, which the Secretariat will publish in the near future.

Related documents (PDF): NAO Public Report of Review (Spanish); Joint Declaration

Mexican NAO 9804

On September 22, 1998, the Mexican 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 communicate any information regarding unauthorized workers to the INS. The communication further alleged that, in the absence of worker complaints, the 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.

Subsequently the Mexican NAO received from the U.S. NAO a new Memorandum of Understanding between the DOL and the INS, dated November 23, 1998, modifying and superseding the earlier one.

In its report of review issued on November 9, 2000, the Mexican NAO noted that the submitters were of the opinion that the new Memorandum of Understanding had not been substantially modified in the aspects which make workers afraid to file complaints with the DOL. The report recommended that the Secretary of Labor of Mexico seek ministerial consultations with his counterpart in the United States. The U.S. NAO agreed to ministerial consultations on January 30, 2002.

In the June 11, 2002 Joint Declaration that resulted from the ministerial consultations, the Secretary of Labor of the United States committed to educating migrant workers about their labor rights. The DOL will develop educational materials in Spanish that will be distributed in areas where there is a high concentration of migrant workers. Additionally, both Secretaries of Labor committed themselves to collaborate on joint efforts to apply more widely in the United States successful migrant worker protection models that have already been implemented in some regions of that country.

For a related communication, see Canadian NAO 98-2.

Related documents (PDF): NAO Public Report of Review (Spanish); Joint Declaration

Mexican NAO 2001-1

On October 24, 2001 the Mexican NAO received a public communication alleging that the United States had failed to fulfill its commitment to effectively enforce workers' compensation and occupational safety and health laws in the state of New York. The Mexican NAO accepted the public communication on November 15, 2001. In December of that year the Mexican NAO requested cooperative consultations with the US NAO.

The communication was submitted by individual workers and several worker rights groups: Chinese Staff and Workers' Association (CSWA), National Mobilization Against Sweatshops (NMASS), Workers' Awaaz and Asociación Tepeyac.

In addition to alleging that the United States had not complied with its NAALC Article 3 obligation to promote Labor Principles 9 (prevention of occupational injuries and illnesses) and 10 (compensation in cases of occupational injuries and illnesses), the submission alleged that the United States and the State of New York had not complied with the NAALC Article 5(1)(d) obligation to ensure that administrative proceedings in labor and employment matters "are not unnecessarily complicated and do not entail unreasonable charges or time limits or unwarranted delays." The public communication alleged that hearings before New York workers' compensation administration law judges do not follow formal rules of procedure or evidence, resulting in arbitrary decisions that cause the workers' compensation claims process to last between 4 and 10 - and sometimes 20 - years. Submitters also alleged that the New York Workers' Compensation Board rules and procedure do not provide for translators for workers who do not speak English. The submitters argue that New York Workers' Compensation rules and procedure allow employers and private workers' compensation insurance carriers to misuse the process to avoid timely payment of benefits in cases of workplace injury and that this operates as a disincentive to maintaining a safe and healthy workplace.

In its report of review issued on November 8, 2002, the Mexican NAO declined to comment on the alleged violations of compensation rights in the individual cases of occupational injuries or illnesses described by the petitioners, since pending decisions cannot be reviewed under the NAALC. The Mexican NAO also declined to comment on the communication's allegation that reforms to the compensation system were harmful to workers, on the grounds that this allegation did not relate to the implementation and enforcement of labor laws. With regard to the other issues, the report of review urged the U.S. Department of Labor to take appropriate action to allay the concerns of the petitioners and the public, and to determine whether action will be taken to make the relevant procedures more efficient and to ensure that local employees and authorities know and enforce the relevant labor laws. The Mexican NAO also stressed the need for broader publication of the labor rights of migrant workers living in the United States and the resources available to these workers by means of the mechanisms of cooperation between STPS and DOL set out in the ministerial Joint Declaration of April 2002.

Finally, in December 2003 the Mexican NAO requested consultations with the U.S. NAO on the implementation of these recommendations in order to determine whether ministerial consultations should be requested.

Related documents (PDF): NAO Public Report of Review (Spanish)

Mexican NAO 2003-1

On February 11, 2003, two farmworkers' advocate groups submitted a public communication to the Mexican NAO alleging unfair treatment of migrant workers in North Carolina. Filed by the Washington, D.C.-based Farmworker Justice Fund and the Mexico-based farmworker advocacy group Central Independiente de Obreros Agrícolas y Campesinos, the public communication contends that the U.S. H-2A non-immigrant visa program is discriminatory, and that the United States government does not effectively enforce applicable labor laws. The public communication further alleges that North Carolina employers exploit workers by not paying overtime, blacklisting, and denying migrants access to workers' compensation benefits. The public communication states that the workers' situation does not comply with the NAALC, which requires Canada, the United States and Mexico to cover migrant workers under its labor laws to the same extent as other workers, and to enforce their own labor laws. On September 5, 2003, the Mexican NAO accepted the public communication for review, and on September 15 requested cooperative consultations with the US NAO.