Latest on the free trade zone unionisation battle in Haiti

Posted on Tuesday, January 18 @ 18:31:59 GMT by mick

www.nosweat.org.uk/article.php?sid=1154&mode=thread&order=0

Response to the campaign to pressure the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation and the Levi Strauss and Co. to use their influence to support a succesful mediation process between organised workers and the management at the Codevi Free Trade Zone in Ouanaminthe, Haiti.

Issued by the Haiti Support Group, 17 January 2005

Thanks to all of you who emailed the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Sara Lee Corporation and Levi’s. The mediated talks between on the one side, the workers – represented by the Sokowa union and the Batay Ouvriye union federation, and on the other, the employer, the Dominican Grupo M textile assembly company, are finally about to begin. You will recall that the latest dispute has its origins in the June 2004 dismissal of over 350 workers, including nearly all known members of the Sokowa union. We will bring you any news of the results of the mediated talks as soon as we have it. Meanwhile we are reposting below the emailed responses from the IFC and Levi’s, (Sara Lee Corporation did not respond) and our comments on them:

On 17 December 2004, Mark Constantine, from the IFC Global Manufacturing and Services Department, wrote: “I can assure you that IFC will continue to financially support and otherwise facilitate the mediation process as long as a comprehensive agreement remains in reach. We continue to believe that it is for Codevi management and Sokowa to agree on the exact approach regarding the rehiring process and such matters as dispute resolution mechanisms. However, we have made it clear to all the parties that, from our perspective, the negotiation process will fall short of its goal and purpose unless the final outcome institutionalizes constructive labor-management engagement, protects workers rights and supports the commercial success of the enterprise. This is the only means by which Codevi will be sustainable and fully realize its considerable positive potential for Ouanaminthe, and for Haiti.”

The Haiti Support Group highlights the following issues:

1) It should be made clear that the mediation process is funded by the World Bank’s IFC – that is, the two mediators, who will endeavour to get the two parties to find grounds for agreement, are paid for by the IFC. This relationship is known about by the organised workers who have accepted it, despite its potential drawbacks, because they want a resolution to the dispute, and there did not appear any other way of getting one.

2) The IFC continues with the pretence that it is an objective party, despite the indications, on many occasions, that it has exerted its influence in support of the Grupo M company. Remember that it is Grupo M that is in receipt of the IFC’s US$23million loan.

3) The IFC states that its desired outcomes are : “constructive labor-management engagement”, “workers’ rights” and “the commercial success of the enterprise”. Grupo M showed scant concern for workers’ rights during 2004, and it will need a big shift in attitude on the company’s part for the talks to succeed, and for any agreements to be effectively implemented. It would have been helpful if the IFC had acknowledged that.

On 8 January, 2005, Michael Kobori, Director of Global Code of Conduct for Levi Strauss, wrote: “Our primary expectations for the ongoing discussions between Grupo M and SOKOWA are that there will be an agreement on a non-discriminatory process for reinstating workers; and there will be an agreement on a grievance process including conflict resolution, to address worker concerns. We also expect that both Grupo M and SOKOWA will agree on procedures that will enable freedom of association to be upheld in the factory. We are very interested in a positive outcome to the negotiations. At the same time, we recognize that we must respect the mediation process currently under way. We have communicated to both parties our expectations that the negotiations reach a positive resolution. Now we must let the negotiation process proceed towards this goal.”

1) This is better in that it does at least refer to the issue of reinstating the workers sacked in June, and the need for a process that addresses workers’ concerns.

2) Although Levi’s has “communicated its expectations” to both parties, it remains to be seen whether it really has wielded its undoubtedly powerful influence on its sub-contractor, Grupo M. If it has, then we would expect Grupo M to buckle under the pressure, given that Levi’s is such an important client.

Update on negotiations to follow when the information becomes available.

Charles Arthur Haiti Support Group