Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1994/NAFTA.html
Content
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.
NAFTA
```
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 00:08:16 -0500
From: TEllett@AOL.COM
To: Multiple recipients of list LABOR-L
Someone had asked for information on the UE--STIMACHS Strategic Organizing Alliance. Hope this info is useful.
Tom Ellett Field Organizer United Electrical Workers Sparta, WI
---
To: Union Brothers and Sisters and other Friends and Supporters From: Robin Alexander, Director of International Labor Affairs, UE Date: October 25, 1994 Re: UE/FAT Strategic Organizing Alliance
---
NAO REPORT A TRAVESTY: FINDS MATTERS OF CONCERN AND DOES NOTHING
As we reported in the last update, the UE complaint against the General Electric Company and Teamster complaint against Honeywell were the subject of the first hearing under the labor side agreement of NAFTA, which was conducted by the U.S. National Administrative Office on September 12 in Washington. The NAO was required to issue a report on the hearing by October 12, including a "summary of the proceedings and any findings and recommendations." Unfortunately, the location of the hearing made it financially and logistically extremely difficult for Mexican witnesses to attend, and the manner in which it was structured and conducted made it clear that the NAO was not interested in conducting a meaningful investigation.
Our concerns about the shoddy investigation and hearing were borne out by the report itself. The NAO found that ministerial consultations were not required, reviewed the testimony in an extremely cursory fashion, and generally ignored the evidence presented.
Among the problems were the following:
* The NAO findings and recommendations simply ignored live testimony and sworn affidavits concerning health and safety violations. This is particularly significant as it is one of only three areas where sanctions are available under NAALC.
* The NAO Report totally ignores the allegations, supported by sworn affidavits, concerning GE's failure to give light work to pregnant women, its failure to provide work contracts to employees and its failure to provide workers with written statements regarding the reasons for their discharges as required by Mexican law.
* The NAO findings and recommendations simply ignored sworn affidavits about violations of organizational and associational rights by GE other than discharges, such as snatching union literature from the hands of employees, having buses leave employees off inside company property so that they could not receive literature from union organizers, and the detention and arrest of a union organizer.
* The NAO gave equal weight to statements by company lawyers and sworn affidavits and live testimony by union witnesses. Neither of the companies nor the Mexican government chose to present witnesses. Therefore the record contained extensivesworn affidavits and excellent live testimony by union witnesses countered only by letters from company attorneys. Nevertheless, the NAO treated these as being of equal weight, concluding only that "the timing of the dismissals appears to coincide with organizing drives by independent unions at both plants." The report also states that "according to the submission as many as 20 union activists were dismissed," when in fact the submission clearly reveals that well over 100 workers were fired or forced to sign "voluntary resignations."
* The NAO concluded that because the vast majority of workers had accepted indemnification (severance) pay, that it could not determine whether Mexico had failed to enforce the relevant labor laws. This ignores three major points. First, two workers had not accepted severance, and the testimony and certified copies of their cases revealed unwarranted delay. Despite the fact that GE had submitted no evidence against them, the labor Board failed to issue a decision. Second, UE vigorously contended that the severance pay system itself violates the ILO conventions governing the right to organize because workers are forced by economic necessity to relinquish their rights under Mexican and international law. This point was simply ignored by the NAO. Finally, even if individual workers chose to take severance pay, this does not lessen the damage or remedy the violations of the associational and organizational rights which were committed by the company. Again, this was simply ignored by the NAO.
* Mexican lawyers and union leaders presented a compelling case of how independent and democratic unions are prevented from representing workers through a wide variety of mechanisms. Among the most dramatic testimony was that of STIMAHCS General Secretary and FAT national coordinator Benedicto Martinez, who testified that government officials in Chihuahua had advised the union that their petition against GE would not be processed because they were an independent union and because GE was in the maquila sector and the interests were too great. This specific example is not mentioned in the Report, although Secretary Garza specifically asked Martinez about his testimony on this point.
Another matter addressed by a number of the Mexican witnesses as posing a major problem for independent unions is the fact that the registry of unions and contracts which is maintained by the Mexican government is not public information in Mexico. Again, this is not even mentioned in the Report.
Moreover, although UE presented fourteen specific points regarding the misapplication of Mexican law or direct intervention by the Mexican government to deprive workers and unions of their rights under Mexican and international law and requested that the NAO recommend ministerial consultations, the report simply states: "During the review, a number of other relevant issues regarding enforcement of labor law in Mexico, particularly in the maquiladora sector, were brought to the attention of the NAO. They include the difficulties in establishing unions in Mexico, the hurdles faced by independent unions in attaining legal recognition, company blacklisting of union activists, the use of blank sheets, and government preference for and support of official unions." Despite this finding, the NAO did not recommend ministerial consultations.
* The NAO specifically noted the materials relied on in reaching its conclusions; in doing so it ignored materials submitted by the Mexican lawyers and U.S. unions.
Meanwhile, the NAO has treated our supplemental submission regarding GE's election violations as an entirely new submission. They have not yet decided whether or not to accept it, although it involves the same company and is clearly part of the same pattern of violations. We are considering withdrawing it due to the NAO's outrageous performance to date.
FIRED GE WORKERS SETTLE CASES; BLAME NAO AND MEXICAN LABOR BOARD
As you know, last October Roberto Valerio, a maquila worker at GE CASA with ten years of service was fired; on November 25th his co-worker, Fernando Castro, was fired. They were two out of approximately 120 workers employed in GE's small motor plant, CASA, who were fired or forced to sign "voluntary resignations" for trying to form a union.
What was unusual about Valerio and Castro is that these were the only workers who refused to take severance pay, insisting on their right to reinstatement. Although GE CASA never submitted any evidence that the discharges were justified, and the U.S. National Administrative Office found that the discharges coincided with the organizing campaign which was being conducted by the independent Mexican Metal Workers' Union, STIMAHCS, neither agency provided the fired workers any relief.
On Tuesday, October 18, 1994, faced with inordinate delay by the Mexican Conciliation and Arbitration Board and refusal by the U.S. NAO even to address the problem at the level of ministerial consultation, the two workers reluctantly relinquished their right to reinstatement, accepting a settlement which provided for back wages and other statutory benefits.
"The decision to accept an economic settlement with CASA and give up my right to reinstatement was very difficult, but I felt that I had no other choice. It has been over a year since I was fired. Although the company offered no justification at the hearing before the Juarez Labor Board, and I was told that there would be a decision in August, the Board did not decide the case," said Roberto Valerio.
Fernando Castro added: "I went all the way to Washington to testify before the NAO because I believed that they would seriously consider our claims. Instead, the NAO gave us no assistance and the Report does not even address the delay in our cases, the health and safety and wage violations, or the refusal by the Mexican labor authorities to process the union's petition. The fact that both the U.S. and Mexican authorities were unwilling to protect our rights as workers were determining factors in our decision to accept an economic settlement."
UNIONS CALL FOR CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS
The NAO Report confirms what labor has maintained all along, that the NAFTA side agreements are toothless and ineffective. We are calling on Congress to replace them with a viable alternative that serves to defend labor rights in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.
Meanwhile, we are continuing our cross-border organizing work and are in the process of selecting new targets. We will keep you posted!
Finally, Congress will vote on GATT at the end of November. It contains absolutely no protection for labor rights. Please urge your members of Congress to vote against it!
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) 2400 Oliver Building - 535 Smithfield Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2322 (412) 471-8919 ```
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.