Monte de Piedad Workers Reject Arbitration, Seek Direct Talks

Nacional Monte de Piedad's union has rejected a management's arbitration proposal to end a nearly six-month strike, demanding direct negotiations with the company leadership and citing the administration's attempt to introduce 19 contract clauses unrelated to the original dispute. The conflict exposes governance and transparency risks within Mexico's private assistance sector, as the Mexico City Congress has called for a formal review of the board’s finances amid allegations that only 2.3% of the institution's MX$12 billion (US$600 million) in annual earnings is directed toward charitable activity. The dispute has implications for labor relations, regulatory oversight of nonprofit institutions, and consumer access to pawnshop and savings services across Mexico.

The union at Nacional Monte de Piedad is rejecting the institution's proposal to resolve a nearly six-month strike through arbitration, demanding instead direct negotiations with the organization's board of trustees in a public forum. The labor dispute at one of Mexico's oldest private assistance institutions shows no signs of resolution.

Arturo Zayún, Secretary General, Nacional Monte de Piedad Union, said the conflict cannot be resolved through intermediaries and called on labor authorities to compel the Patronato, the institution's governing board, to come to the negotiating table. "We are convinced that we cannot put in the hands of third parties whether the administration complies with the Collective Bargaining Agreement," Zayún said. "The arbitration they are requesting is a deception because they want to introduce clauses that are not the reason the strike began. Whatever comes out of that would be a gain for them at the expense of rights already acquired."

Nacional Monte de Piedad's administration announced it would seek arbitration through the Ministry of Labor, proposing to bring 19 new clauses under review. The union argues those clauses have no relation to the violations that triggered the strike and characterizes the move as a procedural maneuver to extract concessions on rights already established.

Zayún said management has also sent representatives without decision-making authority to negotiation sessions, including outside lawyers and non-union employees , a pattern he said has unnecessarily prolonged the conflict while senior executives maintain their economic privileges.

The institution, in a public statement, countered that it is the union leadership that has unjustifiably delayed compliance with commitments agreed upon in 2024. It called on the union "respectfully but firmly" to honor agreements that were voted on and ratified by the workforce in a framework of plurality, legality and collective development.

Origins of the Strike

The strike, which began Oct. 1, centers on the administration's failure to comply with previously agreed and labor-authority-sanctioned clauses of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The union identifies two core issues: the administration's refusal to honor seniority rights and vacancy procedures through the established posting and promotion system, and the non-payment of accrued benefits including Christmas bonuses, savings funds and withheld biweekly wages.

Zayún noted that in March 2024, the union accepted significant concessions to help stabilize the institution, including a reduction of more than 50% in payroll costs, an extension of the workweek by five hours and reductions in health and retirement benefits. According to Zayún, the administration began failing to meet its obligations under that agreement within two months of signing it.

Zayún also said working conditions prior to the strike were deteriorating, with workers arriving at 8 a.m. and leaving at 5 or 5:30 p.m. without being permitted to take meal breaks, a violation he said compounded the broader pattern of contract non-compliance.

Legal Disputes

The legal status of the strike itself remains contested. A court granted the institution an injunction, but the union said that ruling does not immediately lift the strike, as additional legal remedies remain available. Conflicting judicial decisions have left the matter pending before a Collegiate Tribunal.

"Right now we are tied one to one. One judge says yes, another judge says yes, and another judge says no. So who resolves it? The Collegiate Tribunal, which is the next step," Zayún said, noting the current ruling is not definitive.

He added that management has used the injunction as a communications tool to undermine worker morale and mislead the public. "They are trying to use this to discourage workers and turn the clients against us... but it is not true, because the review appeal is still pending," Zayún said.

Financial Transparency Under Scrutiny

The union is also raising concerns about the financial conduct of the board during the strike. According to figures presented before the Tax Administration Service, members have seen their annual compensation increase from MX$1 million to MX$6 million in a single year, even as workers bear the economic costs of the work stoppage.

The Mexico City Congress approved a resolution by unanimous vote calling on the Private Assistance Board to conduct a comprehensive review of the board’s administration and financial performance. At the center of the legislative concern is the allocation of the institution's revenues. According to union figures, of annual earnings totaling MX$12 billion, only 2.3% is directed toward public charitable activity.

Following the resignation of two board members amid public scrutiny, new members with backgrounds in the banking sector and Grupo Salinas have joined the board. The union has raised concerns that the changes signal an effort to shift the institution away from its private assistance mandate toward a for-profit financial model.

The union is demanding that any negotiation take place in a public setting, with media present, to allow society to witness the institution's actual proposals. "There is tremendous opacity within the institution," Zayún said. He also criticized the institution for continuing to charge interest to clients on pledged items during the period Monte de Piedad branches have remained closed, calling it an injustice to customers seeking to recover their goods.