The recent suspension of work of the Judicial Power of Mexico has generated an intense debate about its nature and legality. As opposed to other labor movements, this suspension of work cannot be strictly catalogued as a strike. This is because, even though the workers of the Judicial Power have protected legal rights, the circumstances and requirements specific to a strike have not been met in this case.
In an interview with Líder Empresarial, Óscar de la Vega, Managing Partner of De la Vega & Martínez Rojas, S.C., and Oziel Guerrero of Vega Guerrero y Asociados, both experts in labor law, talk further about the legal nature of this unprecedented event.
“We cannot actually classify it as a strike, in the strict sense of the word, because all of the procedures that I mentioned have not been followed”, De la Vega says.
“The workers of the Judicial Power definitively have the right to strike. A strike, however, is a mechanism that workers exercise against their employers. In this case we cannot classify it as a strike because it does not meet the legal requirements for a strike”, Guerrero states.
The labor rights of the Judicial Power
In the context of the Judicial Power, the regular employees, who traditionally are unionized, have the right to go on strike. This, when their labor rights are violated in a general and systematic manner, as established in the Constitution in Part B, Section Ten.
Oziel Guerrero explains that there are key differences between what is considered as suspension of work and a strike of the Judicial Power. The workers, whether regular or non-union, have not followed the typical legal procedures that characterize a strike, such as the delivery of the petitions document or seeking conciliation with their employers. Whereas this suspension appears to be more in response to political questions, Oziel states, than to specific labor conflicts.
Oscar de la Vega emphasizes that this suspension of work can be better defined as a “peaceful resistance movement”. Additionally, it can be considered or protected as a human right. Nevertheless, non-union workers, which include judges and justices, do not have this right to strike acknowledged under the Organic Law of the Judicial Power of the Federation. Thus, even though this movement shares some elements with a strike, its nature is more complex and does not fit into the traditional definitions.
Labor arguments in the suspension of work by the Judicial Power
Among the labor arguments behind the actions of the workers of the Judicial Power, there are legitimate concerns about how the proposed reforms could affect their labor rights, although they have not yet been translated into formal legal actions.
While it is true that some workers fear the loss of positions or that their right to the seniority system scale be affected, these concerns are, for now, an anticipation to what could happen if the reforms are approved. Until a law is formally promulgated, any labor reaction faces the challenge of justifying itself within a legal framework that does not exist yet.
“One cannot impugn or start a legal fight against something that does not exist yet. And this is very clear to us, as the ones that work in areas related with justice. It is as if we went and filed an amparo proceeding against a reform bill: […] The Judicial Power should be the first to know that you cannot try to impugn or start a legal fight against something that does not exist yet”, Oziel says.
On the other hand, the workers that are not judges argue that the reform compromises their right to the seniority system scale, that is, their right to rise as a result of seniority and merits. These two aspects are genuine concerns that, while they are currently not consolidated in an approved law, could have a significant impact in the future.
Legal processes affected by the suspension of work
The suspension of work by the Judicial Power has had an impact on various legal processes, particularly in the areas of labor, civil, commerce and family processes.
“Urgent cases are still being handled, particularly collective bargaining processes, and particularly those on matters relating to strikes, in relation to which every day and every hour are working days and hours”, De la Vega points out.
Nevertheless, individual litigations, with dates for hearings that were already set, have been suspended. Additionally, individual cases programmed for hearings have been left in suspense, which generates significant delays and affects all of the parties involved in them, both workers and employers. This situation would create a domino effect, in which accrued salaries and the lack of a timely resolution increase tension.
“Both the worker and the employer are affected by the delay in these procedures […] The ones that work in areas related with justice, the users of justice who are affected by the absence of resolutions, the lack of activity. This will simply become a backlog at the time in which the Judicial Power resumes its activities”, Oziel
Is the suspension of work of the Judicial Power legal?
In regard to the legal and political nature of the work suspension, it is crucial to understand that the Judicial Power is acting in a gray zone in legality. Óscar de la Vega says that it is a “peaceful resistance” movement. In spite of not meeting all legal requirements for a workers’ strike, in this suspension of work, the workers of the Judicial Power have found a means to express their discontent.
On the other hand, Oziel Guerrero mentions that the underlying political nature of this movement cannot be ignored.
“The judges and justices who have organized this work suspension, themselves, have been very careful in stating that it is not a strike or, at least in their communications and in their position statements they have explained that it is a suspension of work as it cannot be legally catalogued as a strike. This is a suspension of work in response to other issues, in my opinion, it is due to political matters”, he states.
The suspension of work reflects a broader conflict of powers between the Judicial Power and the Executive Power. The foregoing, in a scenario in which the judicial workers use their position to apply pressure against reforms that they perceive as a threat to their independence and stability.
The opinion of the experts
Lastly, both lawyers expressed their opinion to Líder Empresarial.
Oziel Guerrero discusses the perception of the reform in the Judicial Power, advocating adaptability and suggesting that the negative effects of the proposed changes must not be exaggerated.
“My personal opinion is that we are demonizing the reform. In the end, this must move forward, with whoever is there. It is said that the most capable people are now in the Judicial Power, and that other people who are less capable will arrive, but I doubt it. Neither the current people in position are the best, nor the coming ones are the worst. I do not believe that this is an apocalypse. We must adapt to change. In the United States, people vote for their judges, which has a social sense. We cannot ignore that we live a different reality from the one of 20 years ago”, Oziel Guerrero claims.
Óscar de la Vega analyzes the need for reforming the Judicial Power, highlighting the importance of specialization and transparency, and warning against an excessive simplification of the judicial processes.
“I believe that the Judicial Power does need a reform, as many processes are not very clear, particularly in collegiate courts. A greater openness is required in order to be able to argue properly is required. Even though there are aspects that must be reformed in favor of democracy and transparency, it is also important to acknowledge that the Council of the Judicature and the Judicial Training School have done an excellent job in the training of judges. Performing the duties of a judge requires a high degree of specialization, and deciding through a simple vote, without the necessary requirements, depreciates the independence and the knowledge of the Judicial Power”, Oscar de la Vega reflects.
Continue reading…
The work stoppage of the Judicial Power of Mexico poses important questions on labor rights and the independence of the Powers. Although it cannot be catalogued as a strike in traditional terms, it represents a significant movement of resistance in face of possible changes, These changes could affect the labor and professional rights of the judicial employees. This event highlights the importance of having clarity in regard to the proposed reforms. Also of an open dialogue to ensure the respect of the rights of everyone involved.
The current situation demands a careful evaluation of the legal implications. Likewise, a profound consideration of how these movements affect society as a whole. As a country, Mexico faces the challenge of reaching a balance between the need for a reform and the protection of the fundamental rights of its judicial workers and efficiency in the administration of justice.
