Miners go on strike at the Arcelor Mittal company; it is inadmissible, experts say

Note published on June 15 in El Economista, Empresas [Companies] Section by María del Pilar Martínez.
Read original source

At 12:00 hours of this Wednesday, June 15, workers gathered in a Meeting, after 40 days of negotiations, agreed to put up the red and black flags, as they argued that 3,500 workers were affected by the refusal to cover the entire payment.

The National Union of Mine, Metal, Steel and Allied Workers of the Mexican Republic, led by senator Napoleón Gómez Urrutia went on strike at the Arcelor Mittal company, located in the state of Michoacán, under the argument that the 10% corresponding to the workers’ participation in the profits obtained by the mining company in 2021 was not paid.

At 12:00 hours of this Wednesday, June 15, workers gathered in a Meeting, after 40 days of negotiations, agreed to put up the red and black flags, as they argued that 3,500 workers were affected by the refusal to cover the entire payment.

In this regard, the company regretted the decision that they made “because, in addition to escalating the conflict, it will have an impact and serious consequences in the short, medium and long term on the labor an economic stability of the Lázaro Cárdenas region, on the state of Michoacán, on the national production chain and in the country’s economy due to the importance of steel as an essential raw material for countless industries.”

It explained that the company provided the equivalent of three months’ salary for the concept of profit sharing, as established by the reform, “that payment was made in full and in a timely manner as well as in strict compliance with the legal limit established by the Federal Labor Law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the workers have demanded amounts above the legal limit, arguing that said limit is unconstitutional, an issue that cannot be resolved by the company.”

In this sense, Óscar de la Vega, a labor specialist at D&M Abogados maintained that the strike is inadmissible, “from the legal and technical point of view it at must be declared to be unlawful, as it lacks legal purpose. The fact that the company has paid the limit of three months for the concept of PTU [Employee Profit Sharing], referred to in Article 127 Section VIII, nullifies any legal violation on PTU matters and, therefore, the event that is the object of the strike does not fall within the scope of the law.”

He added that until the competent Court pronounces itself on the unconstitutionality of the legal limit of three months, this provision remains in force “whether the unions like it or not” and, therefore, they must submit to this legal limit.

Additionally, he pointed out that it is now up to the labor authorities to pronounce themselves strictly in accordance with the law.