[asia-apec 461] Mexican complaint against US apple-growers

[PAN Asia Pacific]

SUNS  #4221  Friday  29  May  1998

south-north development monitor  SUNS [Email Edition]

eighteenth year  4221  friday  29  may  1998

Labour: Mexicans file complaint against US apple-growers

Washington, May 27 (IPS/Jim Lobe) -- A coalition of Mexican trade
unions and farm-workers Wednesday filed a broad complaint in accordance
with labour agreement of the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), charging that the Washington State apple industry failed to
protect workers' rights.

It called on the Mexican government to pursue arbitration under the
North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation (NAALC), the side
agreement intended to advance worker rights in all three NAFTA
signatories - Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

This the 11th case filed with NAALC since it took effect Jan 1, 1994.
Nine of the 10 earlier complaints involved alleged failures by Mexico
to enforce its labour laws and were brought by US or Canadian parties.

This latest case added "more balance" to the NAALC process, according
to Pharis Harvey, director of the Washington-based International Labour
Rights Fund (ILFR), which has been a petitioner in several other NAALC
cases. "Mexico is not the only country in North America where workers'
rights are violated."

The new case covers various aspects and is a sweeping one brought to
the NAALC so far, according to the ILFR's general counsel, Terry
Collingsworth. The case is being brought against an entire industry
which is alleged to have violated seven of the 11 basic labour
principles which NAALC was established to protect.

The petitioners include the Mexican National Workers' Union, the
Authentic Labour Front, and the Democratic Farmworkers Front. They
alleged that the mainly Mexican migrant workers, who labour in
Washington State's abundant apple orchards, are denied rights to
organise, collective bargaining, minimum labour standards,
non-discrimination in employment, job safety and health, workers'
compensation, and migrant worker protection.

"This case could provide the most comprehensive test of the
effectiveness of NAFTA's labour side agreement," said Collingsworth,
who helped prepare the petition.

More than 60,000 workers toil in the orchards and warehouses of what is
the world's largest apple-producing industry. Most are
Spanish-speaking, and many do not have US work permits. Fear of
deportation haunts may of these workers and their families in farming
communities where undocumented parents live with documented children,
married couple are sometimes half legal, and few extended families are
far removed from illegal immigration status.

Union activists maintain the apple industry long has exploited this
situation by using the fear of deportation to intimidate workers into
not joining a union or pushing for improvement in their working
conditions and wages.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters tried to unionise the field
and warehouse workers over the past two years but have not succeeded so
far in their efforts. Its campaign drew strong support from the biggest
labour confederation, the AFL-CIO, and is viewed as a major test for
the future of labour organising in the United States.

Last January, however, the union suffered a significant reverse when
workers at two of the state's largest apple warehouses voted against
joining the Teamsters by a relatively narrow margins.

Teamster attorneys filed complaints with the federal government's
National Labour Relations Board (NLRB), calling the votes illegal due
to the alleged use of threats and intimidation by the companies'
management. The Seattle office of the NLRB last week issued a
preliminary ruling in which they found merit in some of the Teamsters'
charges and sent the case to an administrative court.

The complaint declared there were frequent safety violations and
chemical hazards in packing and shipping plants, while orchard workers
are exposed to toxic pesticides. Federal and state health and safety
officials, according to the complaint have not been effective in
enforcing relevant laws.

In addition, the complaint pointed to what it calls "severe" budget
cuts affecting both the NLRB and OSHA which made it impossible to
enforce workers' rights. The Seattle regional NLRB office, for example,
has only two spanish-speaking attorneys serving Washington State where
the largest minority population group Hispanic.

The complaint also argued that NLRB should have granted the union's
request to order the companies to recognise the Teamsters and reach a
collective bargaining agreement precisely because the intimidating
effects of the employer's efforts to thwart a successful organising
campaign destroys any possibility of a fair election in the future. In
that respect, it contends, deficiencies, delays and weak remedies
provided by US labour law do not adequately protect freedom of
association and the right to organise.

The complaint said US law discriminated unfairly against migrant
workers in a range of social benefits. In Washington State, for
example, migrant workers were given lower benefits under workers
compensation scheme than resident workers.

The complaint, according to Harvey, marked "an important step for
scrutinising labour law enforcement in the United States, where there
are severe problems of discrimination against workers who try to form
unions and where migrant workers face widespread labour and human
rights violation."

Mexico's National Administrative Office, which receives complaints,
will now review the case and issue a written report "within a
reasonable period."

It may then launch consultations among the NAALC country secretaries of
labour after which a committee of outside experts may be convened. They
may recommend arbitration which could lead to fines against the US
government or the loss of NAFTA benefits for the Washington State apple
industry.