FORMATION OF A SECOND MINERS UNION UNDERSCORES

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 MEXICO 005161 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPT FOR DRL/AWR AND ILCST, WHA/MEX, WHA/EPSC AND USDOL FOR ILAB E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ELAB ECON PGOV PHUM PINR MX SUBJECT: FORMATION OF A SECOND MINERS UNION UNDERSCORES MANY OF THE PROBLEMS OF ORGANIZED LABOR IN MEXICO REF: (A) MEXICO 1925 (B) 06 MEXICO 6655 AND PREVIOUS (NOTAL) ¶1. SUMMARY: The ongoing saga of Mexico's national miners union (SNTMMSRM) took a significant but little noticed step in late 2006 when a dissident group of approximately 100 people within that labor organization formed a break-away union. Because of the lead up to and the protracted challenge surrounding Mexico's 2006 presidential elections, the formation of this second miners union was largely overlooked until a few weeks ago. In early September this new organization, the National Mine Exploration and Exploitation Workers Union of the Mexican Republic (SNEEBMRM),won control of several mining collective bargaining contracts in northern Mexico. The SNEEBMRM victory over what had been the country's sole mining union was ratified via a hotly contested and closely monitored election in which mine workers held a voted to determine which union would be their recognized labor representatives. The electoral contest between the new miners union was only narrowly prevented from becoming violent when local police arrested a group of approximately 25 people armed with homemade bombs and various other weapons en route to a confrontation with their competitors. The circumstances under which the election was held, its results (which are being legally contested),credible allegations that the GOM is not a neutral arbiter in this intra-union dispute, and the barely averted outbreak of violence were all systematic of the many problems currently facing organized labor in Mexico. END SUMMARY BACKGROUND -------------- ¶2. In May of this year Mexican authorities temporarily reinstated Napoleon Gomez Urrutia as the leader of the National Miners Union, SNTMMSRM when increasing evidence indicated that charges against him for embezzling union pension funds were based on falsified documents. This reinstatement was followed by a national SNTMMSRM convention on April 17, 2007, in which the deposed Gomez was then definitively reaffirmed as the leader of the Miners union. GOM authorities left open questions related to the ultimate validity of the embezzlement charges against Gomez for allegedly mishandling 55 million dollars in union pension �0A;funds; the exact whereabouts of the funds (last seen in the Canadian owned Scotia Bank),Gomez ongoing self-imposed exile in CANADA to avoid other pending charges against him, or who to hold accountable for the apparently fraudulent documents that formed the basis for Gomez 2006 removal from office by the administration of then Mexican President Vicente Fox. ¶3. Gomez mid-2006 removal as the leader of the miners union generated a considerable amount of interest and controversy in labor circles both within Mexico and internationally. Most of those within the rank and file of the Miners union, although certainly not all, continued to support Gomez even after he was deposed. Moreover, many of Mexico's more established unions came out in support of Gomez. On the other hand, the Congress of Labor (CT),Mexico's largest umbrella federation of labor unions, is divided over Gomez restoration to his leadership position despite the fact that the SNTMMSRN is a member of this coalition. Internationally, the United Steelworkers unions (USW) in both the US and Canada strongly support Gomez. The USW even filed a (now resolved) public submission on SNTMMSRN's behalf under the terms of the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC),a labor side agreement to NAFTA. In addition, Gomez also received considerable support from the International Metalworkers Federation. THE BIRTH OF A NEW MINERS UNION -------------- ¶4. Gomez mid-2006 removal from leadership of the SNTMMSRN on apparently fraudulent charges prompted widespread strikes, random work stoppages, out-breaks of violence between Mexican MEXICO 00005161 002 OF 004 authorities and striking miners and even two deaths. Overall, most of the rank and file of the National Miners Union supported Gomez Urrutia throughout his deposition and the related legal problems. During the period of Gomez's apparently improper removal the National Miners Union was led by a long term rival, Elias Morales Hernandez. At the time most local labor observers focused their attention on the rivalry between Gomez and Morales. Little public notice was taken of a group of approximately 100 mine workers in northern Mexico who in late 2006 decided that they would rather not have either Gomez or Morales as their union leaders. ¶5. This group of some 100 workers (Mexican Federal Labor Law permits the formation of a union with as few as 20 workers) decided to form a miners union of their own that was in no way connected to either Napoleon Gomez Urrutia or Elias Morales Hernandez. The new organization formed by those 100 mine workers became the National Mine Exploration and Exploitation Workers Union of the Mexican Republic (SNEEBMRM). Prior to the formation of the SNEEBMRM, the National Miners Union led by Gomez was the only such labor entity in Mexico. From the time of its formation in late 2006 until very recently the SNEEBMRM kept a low profile as it organized among miners in northern Mexico. The results of this quiet organizing effort became shockingly evident to the union lead by Gomez when it found itself challenged to an intra/inter union election in late August. To the surprise of the National Miners Union led by Gomez the new SNEEBMRM union won elections in eight different Secciones (Locals) in northern Mexico. At issue was control of the collective bargaining contracts for slightly over 4000 miner workers. AUTHORITIES PREVENT OUTBREAK OF VIOLENCE -------------- ¶6. Not surprisingly, the election to determine which union would represent the miners in northern Mexico was hotly contested. This contest only narrowly avoided turning into a dramatically violent conflict when police authorities in the state of Coahuila were alerted to a planned attack by one group of miners against another. It is not clear whether the attackers were associated with the National Miners Union or with the new SNEEBMRM union; media coverage of the events surround the planned attack provide conflicting information. ¶7. Initial reports stated that the potential attackers were identified as members Seccion 14 of the National Miners Union headed by Gomez. For all practical purposes identifying the potential attackers as part of Seccion 14 was a meaningless exercise since the foiled attack took place before the election establishing the new SNEEBMRM union as the designated representative of the mine workers in Coahuila. Prior to that election, all mining employees in Coahuila were members of and officially represented by the National Miners Union. Moreover, the group in question was detained by the Coahuila police while reportedly in route to a union office building already controlled by the National Union. No public explanation has been put forth as to why these men would want to attack the office building of the union they supported. The only publicly available indisputable fact about the foiled attack is that the Coahuila police detained 25 men. During the investigation surrounding the detention the police discovered 11 Molotov cocktails along with a wide assortment of clubs and homemade weapons. TYPICAL UNION ELECTION WITH ALL THE TYPICAL PROBLEMS -------------- -------------- ¶8. The vote to determine which union would represent the miners in northern Mexico was held on September 6 and took place at various mining operations in the states of Chihuahua, Coahuila, Sonora and San Luis Potosi. The results of the vote, as reported in a variety of Mexican media outlets, was overwhelming (upwards of 96 percent) against the National Miners Union headed by Gomez and in favor of the new SNEEBMRM union. The actual voting procedures were typical MEXICO 00005161 003 OF 004 for a union election in Mexico in that they in no way approximately anything remotely close to a secret ballot. ¶9. Miners who wanted to vote were required to first identify themselves before senior officials of the two competing unions and of the GOM's Labor Secretariat (STPS). Once this was done miner then had to be certified as a current worker by a representative of the mining company. Only after passing through this three step identification would the miner be allowed to cast a verbal vote to determine which union the worked wanted to serve as his/her representative. This lengthy process of public self-identification in which everyone knows instantly for whom a worker voted has been criticized as being open to easy intimidation and manipulation but it is the standard by all union elections in Mexico are conducted. LOSING UNION CRIES FOUL -------------- ¶10. As soon as the stark results of the election were known the National MinersQ, Union immediately protested its loss and filed an appeal to have the election overturned. At this point there appears to be little chance that the appeal will succeed since the procedures under which the SNEEBMRM won the election are exactly the same as the ones in place when Napoleon Gomez was reaffirmed as the Secretary General of the National Miners Union this past April. That said, Gomez and his supporters can honestly say that it required roughly a year, numerous strikes and demonstrations, two deaths and international pressure before the National Miners Union was allowed to reaffirm him as its leader. Reportedly, only eight days passed between the time the SNEEBMRM requested an election to challenge the National Miners Union and the date on which the election actually took place. ¶11. The National Miners Union has also argued that the STPS, the Federal Labor Board (roughly equivalent to the US National Labor Relations Board),and the Grupo Mexico mining company colluded to deny the workers a fair vote. The National Miners Union outlined a list of reasons that the election was illegitimate: - Of the 1,200 miners who might have voted, 900 unionized miners in Sonora were prevented from participating in the recuento,8 a process similar in some ways to a decertification and representation election in the United States. - At San Luis Potosi 15 miners were fired to prevent them from participating in the election and to intimidate other workers. - At Nueva Rostia, Coahuila, workers from the second shift were locked in the mine to keep them from voting. - At Nacozari, Sonora, the election took place after laying off 900 workers. - Grupo Mexico had brought charges against National Miners Union representatives for extortion in order to intimidate them. - At some locations police or soldiers were used to intimidate workers. - In all locations outside toughs were brought in to intimidate workers and the local population. - In some instances the company bribed workers with between USD 150 and USD 350 for each for their votes. ¶12. Following the union representation election, the National Miners Union (SNTMMRM) won a court decision reinstating 1,700 miners from in Sonora. The union says that the return to work of these miners invalidates the earlier election conducted in their absence. At present there is no indication that the GOM intends to move forcefully to investigate the above allegations. Its position is that the appropriate labor authorities should be given the time needed review the allegations and process the pending appeal in accordance with established legal procedures. COMMENT -------------- MEXICO 00005161 004 OF 004 ¶13. The formation and apparently successful election of the new SNEEBMRM union as the representative of the workers in various mining operations is typical of many of the problems facing organized labor in Mexico. Looked at from one perspective, the establishment of the new miners union can be seen as an example in Mexico of the right of free (labor) association. When looked at differently the speed with which the union was registered and then allowed to then allowed to hold a decertification and representation election was in no way typical of the norm in Mexico; except when the challenging union has the tacit support of the GOM and or some influential interest group. ¶14. The procedures under which the SNEEBMRM/National Miners Union election were conducted were exactly the same as those employed nationwide for this type of balloting; in other words nothing different occurred during this election than normally happens in any union election in Mexico. Unfortunately, these standard election procedures easily lend themselves to worker intimidation and manipulation. All of these elements are further complicated by the fact that the National Miners Union is one of the more combative (and some say corrupt) labor organizations in Mexico and its leader, Napoleon Gomez Urrutia, has yet to get a compelling accounting of what happened to the USD 55 million in union pension funds he is accused of embezzling. Allegations of corruption, union busting, embezzlement, government failure to act as a neutral arbiter, threats of violence and flawed union election procedures were all part of the formation of the new National Mine Exploration and Exploitation Workers Union of the Mexican Republic (SNEEBMRM). Unfortunately, all of these elements were also typical of what many average Mexican see as the established norm in the countryQ,s organized labor movement. ¶15. This cable was cleared by AmConsul Monterrey. Visit Mexico City's Classified Web Site at http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/mexicocity and the North American Partnership Blog at http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/nap / GARZA