ARCHIVE:

Codevi Ouanaminthe Free Trade Zone Files

BATAY OUVRIYE POSITION ON MEETINGS WITH GRUPO M - IFC CONCERNING OUANAMINTHE FIRINGS

On Monday, March first, 2004, 34 union members of the Ouanaminthe Codevi Labor Union (SOKOWA, in Creole) were illegally and arbitrarily fired. At Batay Ouvriye’s initiative, a meeting was organized on Friday March 5th, 2004 between Batay Ouvriye and Grupo M concerning this matter. Since after several hours of discussion, a conclusion still had not been attained, it was agreed upon to meet a second time, on Monday, March 8th, 2004. At Grupo M’s initiative, the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank was also present at these meetings. All in all, those present were the following.

• Grupo M (Limbert Cruz, General Director, 3/5/04; F. Capellan, CEO and owner, and Limbert Cruz 3/8/04)

• IFC (Salem Rohana, Resident Director, 3/5/04; Mark Constantine, Washington office, Cassandra Colbert, Washington office Investment Officer, and Salem Rohana, 3/8/04)

• Batay Ouvriye (Paul Philomé and Anna Jean-Charles, Batay Ouvriye chosen delegates for this task; Abel Rodriguez, Batay Ouvriye lawyer in the Dominican Republic, both dates)

• Ignacio Hernandez (Fedotrazona) and Raphael Abreu (CNUS), both invited by Batay Ouvriye to assist the 3/5/04 meeting because of their experience in Grupo M industries in the Dominican Republic.

The meetings were held at Grupo M’s “Caribbean Industrial Park”, Santiago, Dominican Republic.

1. Batay Ouvriye pointed out to those present how it had worked very hard at establishing communication with Grupo M ever since the project initiated, but that GM management, after two letters of response, had chosen to never follow up on the meeting they proposed, despite several Batay Ouvriye letters.

2. That Batay Ouvriye precisely anticipated the need for this meeting in order to establish guidelines, rules for ensuring the respect of worker organization in this potentially highly conflictive terrain (the Ouanaminthe Free Trade Zone being Haiti’s first one, free trade zones being often generally noted for their intolerance of labor unions and also, given Grupo M’s specific past, as revealed in the ALGI report, a US Fair Labor Association certified firm specializing in labor investigations and social compliance audits requested by the IFC to investigate on the veracity of anti-labor charges at Grupo M prior to a proposed $20 million dollar corporate loan to Grupo M).

3. Although Batay Ouvriye clearly requested this meeting in the intent of clarifying the union situation in Ouanaminthe after the firings, Grupo M, during both sessions, constantly and deliberately diverted their content towards that which was to be previously discussed.

4. For this reason, Batay Ouvriye delegates were forced to endure long demonstrations, during both sessions, concerning Grupo M’s “goals”, history, projections and social action in Ouanaminthe in favor of the population, environment and so-called employees… … In this uncalled for situation, IFC delegates chose to agree wholeheartedly, also commenting at length GM’s “social commitment”, instead of ever touching the main point.

5. When, finally, on the first day, Limbert Cruz presented a powerpoint slideshow and video in an attempt to prove evidence of union threats of overwhelming worker blockage and violence, the truth of the matter was that, for all those present - including Salem Rohana of the IFC - none of this was in fact demonstrated. As it would become clearer throughout the meetings, Limbert Cruz based many of his arguments on speculations, often incorrect, thus obtaining results that convinced no one. Indeed, on Monday, the same would occur when Cruz put forward, with drawings, that during a work stoppage on the previous Thursday (following a worker’s unjust firing), all workers disapproved the action because when he called the union committee inside the factory to discuss with them, the rest of the workers agreed to return to work. In fact, quite the opposite could very well have been true, another interpretation being that the workers, supporting the union committee’s demand for management to meet with it found this demand satisfied and thus simply agreed to return to work…At the end of the day, the fact is none of Cruz’ allegations were demonstrated or conclusive.

6. Both Cruz and Capellan showed incredible arrogance and lack of respect throughout these meetings. For instance, at the beginning of the second meeting, Capellan suddenly chose to question Batay Ouvriye’s delegation (which we had not done for either Grupo M or IFC’s delegates during either of the meetings), alleging that he was not sure if he was to discuss with delegates as the Free Trade Zone Commission of Batay Ouvriye, Yannick Etienne, was not physically present, that he could chose to leave, etc. This point was finally put aside after Mark Constantine’s concluded, after a long and heated debate, as to the collective responsibility demonstrated by Batay Ouvriye delegates: “let’s move on”. Further disrespect would occur shortly after, however, about two hours through the four and a half hours of the second meeting, when Capellan chose to walk out of the meeting. This same disrespect, again, throughout the meetings, with Grupo M’s attitude of interrogation, which was clearly denounced by our lawyer, who clearly put forward that neither he, nor the delegation, “was here to answer an interrogation which, besides, was not the right of the company, neither legally, nationally or internationally”.

This GM attitude deeply disturbed the Batay Ouvriye delegation but was also profoundly revealing, as expressed by our lawyer who put forward that if Grupo M dealt with our delegation in this manner, how must they act towards their workers?! And how not expect that workers, in reply, would answer them in the same way?

7. The worst, however, was Grupo M’s dishonesty, lying and dissimulation of information concerning its knowledge of the union.

For example, at first, GM feigned to only be aware of 7 union members, as if the union’s Executive committee, whose members had been communicated to him in view of a meeting, represented the entirety of the union. Later, however, it revealed being aware of the full list of union members communicated to the Ministry of Labor, when it put forward that one of them was in fact a management representative. In front of all those present, the Batay Ouvriye delegation caught Limbert Cruz red-handed in this dishonesty.

The second case, however, is even more serious. According to GM, the executive committee was fired for its violence, but the 27 other persons fired were simply laid off due to a lowering of orders. Communications with Miriam Rodriguez, of Levi-Strauss (through Lorraine Clewer of the Workers’ Rights Consortium), have revealed that no such lowering has existed: “Levis has not reduced orders, is not pulling out, and has orders in the factory as we speak. This is information from Miriam Rodriguez” (email March 8th, 2004). This was again confirmed on the next day: “We have just spoken again to Miriam Rodriguez at Levis, who reiterated that Levis has kept production at the factory despite the political situation in Haiti, and that to her knowledge orders have not decreased. The fact that there are still orders there has been confirmed by Levi’s country manager and to the vice-president Miriam reports to.” (email March 9th, 2004). This fact changes the situation entirely, since there is no longer any basis for the firing of the 27 other persons; it also demonstrates how GM readily uses false information in order to support its objectives.

8. Objectively, we can conclude that:

• On the basis of the ALGI report, GM practices of permanent destabilization ("...some of their actions may well have discouraged employees from joining the committee") are real at the Ouanaminthe Free Trade Zone. Mr. Cruz himself showed us factory workers’ letters which, hoping to satisfy management’s request for opinions, openly denounce coworkers wishing to organize. These various intimidation practices continue up to now: we have been explicitly informed that in the days following these incidents, a paper was passed to all of the workers in the factory for them to sign, ensuring their satisfaction with factory conditions. Signature of this document was conditional to employment at the Ouanaminthe factory. In vulgar or subtle fashion, management’s pressures destroy all will to organize independently; they are anti-union, interference practices, clearly prohibited by Haitian law and in total disagreement with the IFC conditions for the loan as well as Levi Strauss global sourcing Code of Conduct. As was pointed out by the Australian Council of Trade Unions:

“This is a breach of Haitian labour law as well as international labour law. It also breaches the Levi-Strauss Social Responsibility/Global Sourcing and Operating Guidelines (stating that) … ‘Freedom of Association: We respect workers' rights to form and join organizations of their choice and to bargain collectively. We expect our suppliers to respect the right to free association and the right to organize and bargain collectively without unlawful interference. Business partners should ensure that workers who make such decisions or participate in such organizations are not the object of discrimination or punitive disciplinary actions and that the representatives of such organizations have access to their members under conditions established either by local laws or mutual agreement between the employer and the worker organizations.’ The Levi Strauss Company is one of Grupo M’s main clients and Grupo M is in clear breach of your Guidelines.”

• That GM’s alleged Levi-Strauss decrease in orders is false, that which annuls all of GM’s pretexts for the firings which continue to occur as we write…!

• That it is the entire union that has been fired on false bases (violence unproved by the video, false order decrease), readily demonstrating deliberate anti-union action.

• Beyond being thus arbitrary, this practice is also illegal since, objectively once again, no conciliation attempt was operated by the Haitian State, according to Haitian law stipulations.

• That this illegal and arbitrary firing occurred with violence since armed forces intervened at various moments to disperse crowds demanding their rights and even beat certain leaders;

• Grupo M never answered Batay Ouvriye’s crisis resolution proposals requesting the reintegration of all those fired in this humiliating and shameful manner.

9. Given that such practices tend to result in damaging scars and antagonistic relationships, we are also asking for:

• A definite end to brutal, crude or subtle anti-union practices

• The abolition of armed persons within the factory or inside its’ perimeter, which transforms the workplace in a military concentration camp

• The continuation of Ariel Jerome’s medical follow-up, since he was beaten (which management admitted since it sent Jerome to the receive medical service itself) and his condition not yet been stabilized

• Contact to be reestablished with the union’s executive committee, after the reintegration of all union members, of course, in order to discuss the workers’ legitimate demands for amelioration of their general living and work situation.