| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: | NOTE 9 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:
Environmental matters:
The Company has instituted extensive environmental conservation programs at its mining facilities in Peru and Mexico. The Company’s environmental programs include, among others, water recovery systems to conserve water and minimize the impact on nearby streams, reforestation programs to stabilize the surface of the tailings dams and the implementation of scrubbing technology in the mines to reduce dust emissions.
Environmental capital investments in the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows (in millions):
2016
2015
Peruvian operations
$
$
Mexican operations
$
$
Peruvian operations : The Company’s operations are subject to applicable Peruvian environmental laws and regulations. The Peruvian government, through the Ministry of Environment (“MINAM”) conducts annual audits of the Company’s Peruvian mining and metallurgical operations. Through these environmental audits, matters related to environmental obligation, compliance with legal requirements, atmospheric emissions, effluent monitoring and waste management are reviewed. The Company believes that it is in material compliance with applicable Peruvian environmental laws and regulations. Peruvian law requires that companies in the mining industry provide assurances for future mine closure and remediation. In accordance with the requirements of this law, the Company’s closure plans were approved by MINEM. See Note 6 “Asset retirement obligation,” for further discussion of this matter. In accordance with the requirements of the law, in 2015 the Company submitted the closure plans for the Tia Maria project and for the Toquepala expansion. The process of review and approval of closure plans usually takes several months. In March 2016, MINEM approved the Mining Closure Plan for the Toquepala expansion project. The closure plan for the Tia Maria project is pending approval.
In 2008, the Peruvian government enacted environmental regulations establishing more stringent air quality standards (“AQS”) for daily sulfur dioxide (“SO2”) in the air for the Peruvian territory. These regulations, as amended in 2013, recognize distinct zones/areas, as atmospheric basins. MINAM has established three atmospheric basins that require further attention to comply with the air quality standards. The Ilo basin is one of these three areas and the Company’s smelter and refinery are part of the area. A supreme decree issued on April 8, 2014, indicates that mining companies should review their compliance with these regulations and develop a modification plan to reach compliance. The Company continues to work with an environmental technical study group, established by a MINAM resolution to identify activities, goals, deadlines, timetables and to develop an action plan in order to achieve compliance with AQS.
While the Company believes that a potential loss contingency may exist, it cannot currently estimate the amount of such contingency. The Company and other industries affected by this supreme decree believe that the lack of further regulations and direction from the government has delayed the full review and analysis of the necessary actions to establish compliance. Pending further government action, the Company will continue to work with its study group to analyze this issue. Furthermore, the Company does not believe it can estimate a reasonable range of possible costs until additional guidance is received from the government. Therefore, currently the Company is not able to disclose a range of costs that is meaningful.
In 2013, the Peruvian government enacted new soil environmental quality standards (“SQS”) applicable to any existing facility or project that generates or could generate risk of soil contamination in its area of operation or influence. In March 2014, MINAM issued a supreme decree which establishes additional provisions for the gradual implementation of SQS. Under this rule the Company had twelve months to identify contaminated sites in and around its facilities and present a report of identified contaminated sites. This report was submitted to MINEM in April 2015. After a review, MINEM should evaluate and issue a report to the Company which will allow it to continue to the next phase. Currently, the Company is awaiting an official response from MINEM. Once MINEM notifies the Company, it must prepare a characterization study to determine the depth, extent and physio-chemical composition of the contaminated areas and to define an appropriate remediation plan and the time-frame in which it will take place. In addition, the Company must submit for approval a Soil Decontamination Plan (SDP) within 24 months after being notified by the authority. This SDP shall include remediation actions, a schedule and compliance deadlines. Also, under this rule, if deemed necessary, the Company may request a one year extension for the decontamination plan, given sound justification.
Soil confirmation tests must be carried out after completion of decontamination actions (within the approved schedule) and results must be presented to authorities within 30 days after receiving such results. Non-compliance with this obligation or with decontamination goals will carry penalties, although no specific sanctions have been established yet. During compliance with this schedule, companies cannot be penalized for non-compliance with the SQS.
While the Company believes that there is a reasonable possibility that a potential loss contingency may exist, it cannot currently estimate the amount of the contingency. The Company believes that a reasonable determination of the loss will be possible once the characterization study and the SDP are substantially completed. Then the Company will be in a position to estimate the remediation cost. Further, the Company does not believe that it can estimate a reasonable range of possible costs until the noted studies have substantially progressed and therefore is not be able to disclose a range of costs that is meaningful.
Mexican operations : The Company’s operations are subject to applicable Mexican federal, state and municipal environmental laws, to Mexican official standards, and to regulations for the protection of the environment, including regulations relating to water supply, water quality, air quality, noise levels and hazardous and solid waste.
The principal legislation applicable to the Company’s Mexican operations is the Federal General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (the “General Law”), which is enforced by the Federal Bureau of Environmental Protection (“PROFEPA”). PROFEPA monitors compliance with environmental legislation and enforces Mexican environmental laws, regulations and official standards. It may also initiate administrative proceedings against companies that violate environmental laws, which in the most extreme cases may result in the temporary or permanent closing of non-complying facilities, the revocation of operating licenses and/or other sanctions or fines. Also, according to the federal criminal code, PROFEPA must inform corresponding authorities regarding environmental non-compliance.
In 2011, the General Law was amended, giving an individual or entity the ability to contest administrative acts, including environmental authorizations, permits or concessions granted, without the need to demonstrate the actual existence of harm to the environment because it will be sufficient to argue that the harm may be caused. In addition, in 2011, amendments to the Civil Federal Procedures Code (“CFPC”) were enacted. These amendments establish three categories of collective actions by means of which 30 or more people claiming injury derived from environmental, consumer protection, financial services and economic competition issues will be considered to be sufficient in order to have a legitimate interest to seek through a civil procedure restitution or economic compensation or suspension of the activities from which the alleged injury derived. The amendments to the CFPC may result in more litigation, with plaintiffs seeking remedies, including suspension of the activities alleged to cause harm.
In 2013, the Environmental Liability Federal Law was enacted. The law establishes general guidelines for actions to be considered to likely cause environmental harm. If a possible determination regarding harm occurs, environmental clean-up and remedial actions sufficient to restore environment to a pre-existed condition should be taken. Under this law, if restoration is not possible, compensation measures should be provided. Criminal penalties and monetary fines can also be determined under the law ruling.
On August 6, 2014, an accidental spill of approximately 40,000 cubic meters of copper sulfate solution occurred at a leaching pond that was under construction ten kilometers away from the mine of Buenavista del Cobre, S.A. de C.V. (“BVC”) a subsidiary of the Company. The accident was caused by a rock collapse that affected the system’s pumping station and by a construction defect in the seal of a pipe in the leaching system containment dam, a part of the new SX-EW III plant. This solution reached the Bacanuchi River and the Sonora River. Immediate actions were taken in order to contain the spill, and to comply with all the legal requirements. On August 29, 2014, the Company hired contractors including environmental specialists and more than 1,200 of their own workers to clean the river.
In addition, the Company developed a service program for the residents of the Sonora River Region, including (i) water distribution provisions, and infrastructure development within the affected region, (ii) the expansion of the current Community Development program to communities further downstream that were affected and previously not within the scope of the Company´s program, (iii) attention to local farmers and producers in coordination with the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries, and Alimentations in order to revamp and promote the activities of local farmers and producers, (iv) the implementation of sustainable productive projects at each affected site, as well as (v) the establishment of service desks to attend specific cases.
The National Water Commission, the Federal Commission for the Protection of Sanitary Risk and PROFEPA initiated administrative proceedings regarding the spill to determine possible environmental and health damages. On August 19, 2014, PROFEPA, as part of the administrative proceeding initiated after the spill, announced the filing of a criminal complaint against BVC in order to determine those responsible for the environmental damages. The Company is vigorously defending itself against this complaint. As of March 31, 2016, the case remains in the procedural stages and is pending resolution.
On September 15, 2014, BVC executed an administrative agreement with PROFEPA, providing for the submission of a remediation action plan to the Mexican Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales “SEMARNAT”). The general remediation program submitted to SEMARNAT was approved on January 6, 2015. This program will be developed in five different zones all of which have obtained approval from SEMARNAT. The Company is complying with the remedial program, as appropriate.
The Company also created a trust with Nacional Financiera S.N.C., a Mexican development bank, acting as a Trustee to serve as a vehicle to support environmental remedial actions in connection with the spill, to comply with the remedial action plan and to compensate those persons adversely affected by the spill. The Company committed up to two billion Mexican pesos (approximately $150 million) of which approximately one billion Mexican pesos have already been contributed. A technical committee for the trust was created with representatives from the federal government, the Company and specialists assisted by a team of environmental experts to ensure the proper use of the funds. Along with the administrative agreement executed with PROFEPA, the trust serves as an alternative mechanism for dispute resolution to mitigate public and private litigation risks.
Regarding the administrative proceeding, conducted by PROFEPA, on March 2, 2015 a final ruling imposed a fine of $1.7 million.
During the last half of 2014 and the first half of 2015, six collective action lawsuits were filed in federal courts in Mexico City and Sonora against two subsidiaries of the Company seeking economic compensations, clean up and remedial activities in order to restore the existing environmental conditions before the alleged harm. Three of the collective action lawsuits have been dismissed by the court. The plaintiffs in these six lawsuits are: Acciones Colectivas de Sinaloa, A.C. which established two collective actions; Filiberto Navarro Soto et al (dismissed on July 14, 2015); Defensa Colectiva A.C. (dismissed on August 7, 2015); Ismael Navarro Babuca et al (dismissed on August 17, 2015); and Ana Luisa Salazar Medina et al. Similarly, during 2015, eight civil action lawsuits were filed against BVC in the state courts of Sonora seeking damages for alleged injuries and for moral damages as a consequence of the spill. The plaintiffs in the state court lawsuits are: Jose Vicente Arriola Nunez et al; Santana Ruiz Molina et al; Andres Nogales Romero et al; Teodoro Javier Robles et al; Gildardo Vasquez Carvajal et al; Rafael Noriega Souffle et al; Grupo Banamichi Unido de Sonora El Dorado, S.C. de R.L. de C.V; and Marcelino Mercado Cruz. In the first quarter of 2016, one additional civil action lawsuit, claiming the same damages, was filed by Juan Melquicedec Lebaron.
During 2015, four constitutional lawsuits (juicios de amparo) were filed before Federal Courts against various authorities and against a subsidiary of the Company, arguing; (i) the alleged lack of a waste management program approved by SEMARNAT; (ii) the alleged lack of a remediation plan approved by SEMARNAT with regard to the August 2014 spill; (iii) the alleged lack of community approval regarding the environmental impact authorizations granted by SEMARNAT to the subsidiary of the Company; and (iv) the alleged inactivity of the authorities with regard of the spill in August 2014. The plaintiffs who filed those lawsuits are: Francisca Garcia Enriquez, et al which established two lawsuits, Francisco Ramon Miranda, et al and Jesus David Lopez Peralta et al. In the first quarter of 2016, one additional constitutional lawsuit, claiming the same damages, was filed by Oscar Encinas Gamez et al. For a description of the collective actions in Mexico, the Company refers to the 2011 amendments to the CFPC described above. It is currently not possible to determine the extent of the damages sought in these state and federal lawsuits but the Company considers that these lawsuits are without merit. Accordingly, the Company and its subsidiaries are vigorously defending against these actions. Nevertheless, the Company reasonably considers that none of the legal proceedings resulting from the spill, individually or in the aggregate, would have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations.
As of March 31, 2016, BVC estimated total damages at $136.4 million, of which $41.1 million was paid with the Company’s funds, and approximately one billion Mexican pesos (approximately $74.9 million) was deposited in the trust. These funds have been available and have been used to compensate claims as they have arisen. This deposit was classified as restricted cash and was recorded as an operating expense in the Company’s results.
The Company believes that all of its facilities in Peru and Mexico are in material compliance with applicable environmental, mining and other laws and regulations.
The Company also believes that continued compliance with environmental laws of Mexico and Peru will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, properties, result of operations, financial condition or prospects and will not result in material capital investments.
Litigation matters :
Garcia Ataucuri and Others against SCC’s Peruvian Branch:
In April 1996, the Branch was served with a complaint filed in Peru by Mr. Garcia Ataucuri and approximately 900 former employees seeking the delivery of a substantial number of “labor shares” (acciones laborales) plus dividends on such shares, to be issued to each former employee in proportion to their time of employment with SCC’s Peruvian Branch, pursuant to a former Peruvian mandated profit sharing law.
The labor share litigation is based on claims of former employees for ownership of labor shares that the plaintiffs state that the Branch did not issue during the 1970s until 1979 under such former Peruvian mandated profit sharing law. In 1971, the Peruvian government enacted legislation providing that mining workers would have a 10% participation in the pre-tax profits of their employing enterprises. This participation was distributed 40% in cash and 60% in an equity interest of the enterprise. In 1978, the equity portion, which was originally delivered to a mining industry workers’ organization, was set at 5.5% of pre-tax profits and was delivered, mainly in the form of “labor shares” to individual workers. The cash portion was set at 4.0% of pre-tax earnings and was delivered to individual employees also in proportion to their time of employment with the Branch. In 1992, the workers’ participation was set at 8%, with 100% payable in cash and the equity participation was eliminated from the law.
In relation to the issuance of “labor shares” by the Branch in Peru, the Branch is a defendant in the following lawsuits:
1) Mr. Garcia Ataucuri seeks delivery, to himself and each of the approximately 900 former employees of the Peruvian Branch, of the 3,876,380,679.65 old soles or 38,763,806.80 “labor shares” (acciones laborales), as required by Decree Law 22333 (a former profit sharing law), to be issued proportionally to each former employee in accordance with the time of employment of such employee with SCC’s Branch in Peru, plus dividends on such shares. The 38,763,806.80 labor shares sought in the complaint, with a face value of 100.00 old soles each, represent 100% of the labor shares issued by the Branch during the 1970s until 1979 for all of its employees during that period. The plaintiffs do not represent 100% of the Branch’s eligible employees during that period.
It should be noted that the lawsuit refers to a prior Peruvian currency called “sol de oro” or old soles, which was later changed to the “inti”, and then into today’s “sol”. Due to a past period of high inflation between 1985 and 1990, one billion of old soles is equivalent to today’s one sol.
After lengthy proceedings before the civil courts in Peru on September 19, 2001, on appeal by the Branch, the Peruvian Supreme Court annulled the proceedings noting that the civil courts lacked jurisdiction and that the matter had to be decided by a labor court (the “2000 appeal”).
In October 2007, in a separate proceeding initiated by the plaintiffs, the Peruvian Constitutional Court nullified the September 19, 2001 Peruvian Supreme Court decision and ordered the Supreme Court to decide again on the merits of the case accepting or denying the 2000 appeal.
In May 2009, the Supreme Court rejected the 2000 appeal of the Branch affirming the adverse decision of the appellate civil court and lower civil court. While the Supreme Court has ordered SCC’s Peruvian Branch to deliver the labor shares and dividends, it has clearly stated that SCC’s Peruvian Branch may prove, by all legal means, its assertion that the labor shares and dividends were distributed to the former employees in accordance with the profit sharing law then in effect, an assertion which SCC’s Peruvian Branch continues to make.
On June 9, 2009, SCC’s Peruvian Branch filed a proceeding of relief before a civil court in Peru seeking the nullity of the 2009 Supreme Court decision and, in a separate proceeding, a request for a precautionary measure. The civil court rendered a favorable decision on the nullity and the precautionary measure, suspending the enforcement of the Supreme Court decision, for the reasons indicated above and other reasons. In February 2012, the Branch was notified that the civil court had reversed its prior decisions. On appeal by the Peruvian Branch the Superior Court affirmed the lower court’s decisions regarding the nullity of the 2009 Supreme Court decision and the precautionary measure. As a result, the nullity of the precautionary measure became final and is not appealable. However, the nullity of the 2009 Supreme Court decision was appealed by the Branch before the Constitutional Court. On April 10, 2014, the Constitutional Court denied the Company’s appeal and affirmed the lower court’s decision.
On September 23, 2015, the lower court that ordered the delivery by the Branch of the labor shares, seized 10,501,857 investment shares owned by SCC and Compania Minera Los Tolmos, S.A. (“Los Tolmos”). The Company is vigorously defending against these measures, and has challenged them on various grounds, mainly because a “labor share” created by law in 1979 is not equivalent to an “investment share”, on a one to one basis, as the latter must recognize the Peruvian inflation of the 1980-2014 period. One “investment share” represents ten million “labor shares”. Additionally, the seized investment shares are owned by SCC and Los Tolmos, companies that are not a party in the lawsuit.
In December 2015, the Company appealed the lower court´s decision before the Superior Court that declared without merit its opposition to the seizure. Los Tolmos initiated a third party claim to ownership, to have the lower court cancel the seizure order on their investment shares. In January 2016, the lower court issued a resolution clarifying that the seizure measure applies to the investment shares owned by SCC’s Peruvian Branch even if they are in possession of SCC or Los Tolmos. The Company continues to vigorously defend against the seizure measure.
2) In addition, there are filed against SCC’s Branch the following lawsuits, involving approximately 800 plaintiffs, which seek the same number of labor shares as in the Garcia Ataucuri case, plus interest, labor shares resulting from capital increases and dividends: (1) Armando Cornejo Flores and others v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed May 10, 2006); (2) Alejandro Zapata Mamani and others v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed June 27, 2008); (3) Edgardo Garcia Ataucuri, in representation of 216 of SCC’s Peruvian Branch former workers, v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed May 2011); (4) Juan Guillermo Oporto Carpio v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed August 2011); (5) Rene Mercado Caballero v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed November 2011); (6) Enrique Salazar Alvarez and others v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed December 2011; (7) Armando Cornejo Flores, in representation of 37 of SCC’s Peruvian Branch former workers v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed March 2012), (8) Porfirio Ochochoque Mamani and others v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed July 2012); (9) Alfonso Claudio Flores Jimenez and others v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed July 2013); (10) Edgardo Garcia Ataucuri in representation of 104 of SCC´s Peruvian Branch former workers (filed March 2015); (11) Nicolas Aurelio Sueros Benavente v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed May 2015) and (12) Victor Raul Marquez Cano v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed June 2015). SCC’s Peruvian Branch has answered the complaints and denied the validity of the asserted claims.
SCC’s Peruvian Branch asserts that the labor shares were distributed to the former employees in accordance with the profit sharing law then in effect. The Peruvian Branch has not made a provision for these lawsuits because it believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in the complaints. Additionally, the amount of this contingency cannot be reasonably estimated by management at this time.
The “Virgen Maria” Mining Concessions of the Tia Maria Mining Project
The Tia Maria project includes various mining concessions, totaling 32,989.64 hectares. One of the concessions is the “Virgen Maria” mining concession totaling 943.72 hectares or 2.9% of the total mining concessions.
Related to the “Virgen Maria” mining concessions, the Company is party to the following lawsuit:
Exploraciones de Concesiones Metalicas S.A.C. (“Excomet”): In August 2009, a lawsuit was filed against SCC’s Branch by the former stockholders of Excomet. The plaintiffs allege that the acquisition of Excomet’s shares by the Branch is null and void because the $2 million purchase price paid by the Branch for the shares of Excomet was not fairly negotiated by the plaintiffs and the Branch. In 2005, the Branch acquired the shares of Excomet after lengthy negotiations with the plaintiffs, and after the plaintiffs, which were all the stockholders of Excomet, approved the transaction in a general stockholders’ meeting. Excomet was at the time owner of the “Virgen Maria” mining concession. In October 2011, the civil court dismissed the case on the grounds that the claim had been barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the superior court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded it to the lower court for further proceedings. In August 2015, the lower court dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not proven the alleged unfairness of the negotiations. The plaintiffs appealed this resolution before the Superior Court. As of March 31, 2016, the case remains pending resolution.
The Company asserts that this lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously defending against it.
The Tia Maria Mining Project
There are two lawsuits filed against the Peruvian Branch of the Company related to the Tia Maria project. In October 2015, Mr. Ernesto Mendoza Padilla filed a lawsuit against the Peruvian Branch of the Company and the Peruvian Ministry of Mines seeking the cancellation of the project and the withdrawal of mining activities by the Branch in the area.
In January 2016, Mr. Nicolas Belfiori Nicolini filed a lawsuit against the Peruvian Branch of the Company, the Peruvian Minister of Energy and Mines and the Mining Council seeking the nullity of official decisions which approved the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Tia Maria Project.
The Company asserts that both lawsuits are without merit and is vigorously defending against them.
Special Regional Pasto Grande Project (“Pasto Grande Project”)
In 2012, the Pasto Grande Project, an entity of the Regional Government of Moquegua, filed a lawsuit against SCC’s Peruvian Branch alleging property rights over a certain area used by the Peruvian Branch and seeking the demolition of the tailings dam where SCC’s Peruvian Branch has deposited its tailings from the Toquepala and Cuajone operations since 1995. The Peruvian Branch has had title to use the area in question since 1960 and has constructed and operated the tailing dams also with proper governmental authorization, since 1995. SCC’s Peruvian Branch asserts that the lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously defending against the lawsuit. Upon a motion filed by the Peruvian Branch, the lower court has included the MINEM as a defendant in this lawsuit. MINEM has answered the complaint and denied the validity of the claim. As of March 31, 2016, the case remains pending resolution without further developments.
Carla Lacey and Barbara Siegfried, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated stockholders of Southern Copper Corporation, and derivatively on behalf of Southern Copper Corporation
A purported class action derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery was served on the Company and its Directors in February 2016 relating to the 2012 acquisition of 99.999% of MGE by Controladora de Infraestructura Energetica Mexico, S.A. de C.V., an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico (the “CIEM Acquisition”), the Company’s entry into a power purchase agreement with MGE in 2012 (the “MGE Power Purchase Agreement”), and the 2012 restructuring of a loan from the Company’s Mexican Operations to MGE for the construction of two power plants to supply power to the Company’s Mexican operations (the “MGE Loan Restructuring”). The action purports to be brought on behalf of the Company and its common stockholders. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the CIEM Acquisition, the MGE Power Purchase Agreement and the MGE Loan Restructuring were the result of breaches of fiduciary duties and the Company’s charter. The Company has filed an answer denying these allegations.
Labor matters :
Peruvian operations : Approximately 75% of the Company’s 4,557 Peruvian workers were unionized at March 31, 2016. Currently, there are five separate unions, one large union and four smaller unions. In 2015, two of the larger unions, which formerly represented the Ilo and Cuajone workers, and one of the smaller unions, which formerly represented some Toquepala workers, merged into one new large union. The other four smaller unions represent the balance of workers. In the first quarter of 2016, the Company signed three-year agreements with all five unions. These agreements include, among other things, annual salary increases of 5% for each of the three years.
Mexican operations : In recent years, the Mexican operations have experienced a positive improvement of their labor environment, as its workers opted to change their affiliation from the Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores Mineros, Metalurgicos y Similares de la Republica Mexicana (the “National Mining Union”) led by Napoleon Gomez Urrutia to other less politicized unions.
However, the workers of the San Martin and Taxco mines, are still under the National Mining Union and have been on strike since July 2007. On December 10, 2009, a federal court confirmed the legality of the San Martin strike. In order to recover the control of the San Martin mine and resume operations, the Company filed a court petition on January 27, 2011 requesting that the court, among other things, define the termination payment for each unionized worker. The court denied the petition alleging that, according to federal labor law, the union was the only legitimate party to file such petition. On appeal by the Company, on May 13, 2011, the Mexican federal tribunal accepted the petition. In July 2011, the National Mining Union appealed the favorable court decision before the Supreme Court. On November 7, 2012, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the federal tribunal. The Company filed a new proceeding before the labor court on the basis of the Supreme Court decision, which recognized the right of the labor court to define responsibility for the strike and the termination payment for each unionized worker. A favorable decision of the labor court in this new proceeding would have the effect of terminating the protracted strike at San Martin. As of March 31, 2016, the case remains pending resolution without further developments.
In the case of the Taxco mine, following the workers refusal to allow exploration of new reserves, the Company commenced litigation seeking to terminate the labor relationship with workers at the mine (including termination of the related collective bargaining agreement). On September 1, 2010, the federal labor court issued a ruling approving the termination of the collective bargaining agreement and all the individual labor contracts of the workers affiliated with the Mexican mining union at the Taxco mine. The mining union appealed the labor court ruling before a federal court. In September 2011, the federal court accepted the union’s appeal and remanded the case to the federal labor court for reconsideration. After several legal proceedings on January 25, 2013, the Company filed a new proceeding before the labor court. On June 16, 2014, the labor court denied the petition of the Company. The resolution issued by the labor court was challenged by the Company before a federal court. In August 2015, the Supreme Court decided to assert jurisdiction over the case and to rule on it directly. Considering this new decision of the Supreme Court, there could be grounds for a favorable decision to end the protracted strike at the Taxco Unit. As of March 31, 2016, the case remains pending resolution without further developments.
It is expected that operations at these mines will remain suspended until these labor issues are resolved.
In view of these lengthy strikes, the Company has re |
