Global Framework Agreements - International Centre for Trade ...

INTERNATIONALunionrightsVolume 18 Issue 2 2011INTERNATIONAL CENTREFOR TRADE UNION RIGHTSFocus on GlobalFrameworkAgreementsIUR critically examines the potential andeffectiveness of GFAs

Volume 18 Issue 2 2011Journal of the International Centre for Trade Union Rights● Centro Internacional para los Derechos Sindicales● Centre International pour les Droits SyndicauxI N T E R N A T I O N A LunionrightsEditorDaniel BlackburnActing EditorElizabeth MolinariEditorial BoardRoy Adams, David Bacon, Colin Fenwick, Kally Forrest,Steve Gibbons, John Hendy QC, Carolyn Jones Chair,Eric Lee, Elizabeth J. Molinari, Jill Murray, Rory O’Neill,Tom Sibley, Charles WoolfsonLegal EditorProfessor Keith EwingICTUR InternationalUCATT House177 Abbeville RoadLondon SW4 9RL020 7498 4700Fax 020 7498 0611e-mail mail@ictur.orgweb site www.ictur.orgVice PresidentsFathi El-Fadl, Professor Keith Ewing, John Hendy QC,Helen Kelly, Victoria Montero, Jeffrey Sack QC,Jitendra Sharma, Hassan A SunmonuDirectorDaniel BlackburnColombia/Latin America CoordinatorMiguel PuertoSubscriptionsFour issues: £20/US$30/€25Cheques should be made payable to IUR and sent toICTUR, UCATT House, 177 Abbeville Road,London SW4 9RL, UKCONTENTS2 Editorial: Global Framework Agreements3 Focus: Global Framework Agreements:ComplianceDick Blin5 Focus: G4S Global Framework Agreementand the OECD processChristy Hoffman7 Focus: Global Agreements and Protect,Respect, RemedyJim Baker10 Focus: Global Framework Agreementsin Context: UK and USK D Ewing12 WorldwideOECD, ILO/Domestic Work, Indonesia,Ireland, Northern Ireland, IBM,New Zealand, Palestine, Mexico,Tunisia, Sweatshops, USA, Azerbaijan,Egypt, Burma14 Focus: PSI and the historical developmentof Global Framework AgreementsJürgen Buxbaum16 Focus: Global Framework Agreements:Looking Inwards, Outwards and OnwardsDimitris Stevis and Michael Fichter18 Focus: Global Agreement with IKEA:Dialogue for Deaf Ears?Bob Ramsay20 Report: Mexico – A Labour LawBosses Would LoveDavid Bacon23 ICTUR in Action: 27th Session of theICTUR Administrative Council24 Report: Canada – Report on theFraser decisionVeena Verma26 ICTUR in Action: InterventionsBahrain, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire,El Salvador, India, Iraq, Philippines,Swaziland, Turkey, UK, USA28 Report: Pakistan – Labourlegislation and fundamental rightsKurshid AhmedPrinted by The Russell Press, NottinghamINTERNATIONAL union rightsISSN 1018-5909Page 1 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011INTERNATIONAL union rights

IUR ❐ EDITORIALEditorial: Global FrameworkAgreementsNext issue of IURArticles between 850 and 1,900 words should be sent by email(mail@ictur.org) and accompanied by a photograph and short biographicalnote of the author. Photographs illustrating the theme of articles are alwayswelcome. All items must be with us by 30 August 2011 if they areto be considered for publication in the next issue of IUR.Subscribe to IUR: to subscribe, complete the box below.I/we would like to subscribe to International Union Rights and enclose£20/US$30/€25.Name/OrganisationAddressFor our focus this month, IUR brings togethera selection of articles on GlobalFramework Agreements (GFAs): their implementation,design, development and potential.These include some case studies, with articlesfrom representatives of four different globalunion federations - ICEM, UNI, BWI and PSI -introducing us to key agreements, how they werenegotiated and important lessons for the future.Alongside these experiences, we include severalcontributions that provide a broader analysis ofGFAs, their potential and limitations and howthey articulate with industrial relations and questionsof CSR.We begin with an article by ICEM’s Dick Blinthat provides an overview of GFAs, their evolutionand some examples of ICEM’s work in thisarea. The author makes a case for GFAs to beseen as a starting point for an ongoing activerelationship between companies and unions, andnot as an end in themselves. A detailed casestudy of the GFA between UNI Global Union, theGMB and G4S is provided by Christy Hoffman,Deputy General Secretary of UNI Global Union.Hoffman charts the evolution of the campaignover several years and across four continents,and highlights, among other impacts of the agreement,the important outcomes it had for organisingworkers. Jim Baker, Co-ordinator of theCouncil of Global Unions, offers an excellentPost CodeFour issues £20/US$30/€25. Cheques should be made payable to “IUR”and sent to: ICTUR, 177 Abbeville Road, London SW4 9RL, UKanalysis of GFAs in the context of the RuggieProcess and CSR (the focus of an earlier editionof IUR, 17.2). Baker explores the implications ofGFAs in terms of industrial relations, national lawand their potential as they develop to includelanguage specifying compliance by subcontractedfirms and a preference for ‘secure’ employmentover ‘precarious’ contracts, and also touchesupon the important role they play in organisingstrategies. ICTUR Vice-President Keith Ewingpicks up on the question of the legal status ofGFAs, taking the UK and US into considerationand exploring questions around the enforceabilityof agreements in the national context. DimitrisStevis and Michael Fichter introduce further interpretationson these questions, focusing on thestrategic role GFAs could have not just in regulatingcapital, but also in shaping global unionismand global social dialogue. An interesting casestudy of PSI’s relationship and involvement inGFAs is presented by J. Buxbaum, PSI’s PublicAdministration and MNE Co-ordinator. Theauthor provides an account of the challengesencountered by public sector unions in movingfrom a stance of resistance against privatisation,to negotiation with private enterprises providingwhat were once public services. Finally, BobRamsay offers an account of the BWI’s agreementwith IKEA and the challenges faced by theunions to ensure compliance.The scope of this edition is not limited to GFAsalone, however, and we are very pleased toinclude articles on other important recent developmentsfor international union rights. Canadianlabour lawyer Veema Verma gives her assessmentof the Ontario v Fraser decision in Canadaand its implications for the collective bargainingrights of agricultural workers. David Bacon writesabout recent proposals for labour law reform inMexico, with a vivid account of how unions andother organisations are responding to the challengesfaced by the state’s anti-labour legislation.Finally, we include a short piece by the PakistanWorkers’ Federation that alerts us to changes tolabour legislation in Pakistan and the threat tofreedom of association.Finally, IUR is grateful for the editorial collaborationof Dick Blin, ICEM’s Head ofCommunications and Campaigns, who assisted inthe planning and commissioning of this edition.IUR extends its thanks also to all the contributorsfor sharing their expertise with our readers.Acting EditorElizabeth MolinariINTERNATIONAL union rights Page 2 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011

FOCUS ❐ GLOBAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENTSGlobal FrameworkAgreements: ComplianceSince the 1990s, Global Union Federations(GUFs) have been signing GlobalFramework Agreements (GFAs) withtransnational companies, sometimes initiated bynational unions in the home country of the company.For nearly as long, debate over the effectivenessof such voluntary instruments of socialresponsibility has arisen. Now, at a point whenthe International Trade Union Confederation(ITUC) is seeking a role for itself in GFAs, possiblywith ILO involvement, it might be wise toexamine the practical implementation of GFAs,and necessary elements to voluntary complianceand enforcement.A GFA is a pact between a company and itsemployees, through recognised trade unionsincluding a GUF or GUFs. GFAs commit a companyto respecting global labour standards and torespect other cited benchmarks of ethical human,environmental and other conduct in all its worldwideoperations. The basic premise behind GFAsis that the best standards adopted by a companyin any one workplace ought to be standardisedeverywhere it has workplaces.At base is adherence to language spelling outrecognised global standards on trade unionrights, namely ILO Conventions 87 and 98 andoftentimes others, as well as international socialinstruments like the OECD Guidelines forMultinational Enterprises, the ILO TripartiteDeclaration of Principles ConcerningMultinational Enterprises, and other globallyrecognised frameworks. Language regardingworkplace health and safety and good stewardshipof the environment are common in GFAs, asis training, education, and career enhancement,which is seen as beneficial to both workers andemployers regarding quality of life improvementand employee longevity that builds sustainablebusinesses.In order to make GFAs work, these tenets mustbe tested frequently through local actions andconstant engagement between levels of managementand GUFs, national and local unions andworkers on the shop floor. An effective GFA isone that delivers benefits to both parties; recognition,respect, and continual dialogue for tradeunions, tangible workplace improvements forstaff and authentic social credibility for companies.A GFA must be seen as a tool, not an endin itself. It is not an alternative to a local collectiveagreement, but if implemented and maintainedproperly, it can be the backdrop for atrusting, consensual, constructive labour-managementrelationship that improves the lives ofworkers.It is crucial to remember that GFAs are not“agreements” in any formal sense of the word.There is nothing binding in them, there are onlynarrow check-and-balance systems, and companiessometimes view them, unfortunately, as apublic relations exercise, perhaps understandingthat they cannot get similar attention with internalcodes of conduct.Evolution of GFAsGUFs have placed different priority levels onGFAs. Some have stopped trying to attain themaltogether. Others diligently negotiate them, againsometimes with national affiliates, sometimes not,only to leave them sit idle and gather dust. OtherGUFs set numbers as goals to achieve GFAs withlittle regard to the language contained in it.Inherent in the signing of GFAs, the ICEMbelieves, is a duty to put them into play at companyworksites. There is also a duty to reviewthem regularly with companies in order toimprove and add language. The ICEM strives topress on the practical implementation of commitmentsmade inside GFAs. This has basically followedtwo tracks. One is joint missions with thecompany to monitor specific language in theagreement. This might include workers’ rights,health and safety, or new technologies or jobskills. The other is seeking out, exposing, andthen correcting infractions that occur on the locallevel.To be effective, this latter method of compliancedepends on communication, networkingand timeliness. It takes consistent communicationand networking between the union partners andit means thorough analysis on what to presentsenior managers and how to present it so thatcorrections are immediately made. Too often,senior corporate leaders fail to communicate GFAcommitments to regional and local managers,and GUFs – in the “gathering dust” scenario – failto engage national and local unions on properimplementation of GFAs.This last point is a serious flaw on the union sideof GFAs. It is vitally important that GUFs buildcompany networks with national and local unions,urging them to probe their worksites to ensurecompliance. It is also important that GUFs build thecapacity for research and analysis of the company,using both internal and external information.ICEM Recent CasesThe ICEM’s overall experience on implementationand compliance has been mixed, but it hasimproved over the last several years. The ICEMhas 15 GFAs and activities are increasing withinmost of them. There are a number of examples ofthis.Perhaps the most advanced relationship mightbe with the French chemical company Rhodia.A GFA must beseen as a tool,not an end initself. It is not analternative to alocal collectiveagreement, but …it can be thebackdrop fora trusting,consensual,constructivelabourmanagementrelationship thatimproves the livesof workersDICK BLIN is Head ofCommunications andCampaigns for theInternational Federation ofChemical, Energy, Mine andGeneral Workers’ Unions(ICEM)Page 3 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011INTERNATIONAL union rights

FOCUS ❐ GLOBAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENTSIn late 2010,ICEM, theBuilding andWood Workers’International(BWI), andPublic ServicesInternational (PSI)reached terms ona GFA with GDFSUEZ, the world’ssecond largestgas, waterservices, andelectric utilitySigned in 2005, the parties have a safety partnershipcommittee that has visited local facilities tomonitor and enhance safety and well-being practices.A joint committee also completed a missionto China to examine work rights and trade unioninvolvement at the company’s two plants there.What it found was at one plant, where a branchof the All China Federation of Labour (ACFTU) ispresent, there are no negotiations, workers donot give consent to the agreement and a collectiveagreement is only signed and witnessed byan on-site ACFTU representative. The other plant,a start-up operation, finds staff working underindividual work agreements. Considering theuniqueness of China and its work relations,Rhodia concluded from the visits that it mustengage directly with workers for their collectiveinterests.The Rhodia agreement has been upgradedthree times. Language has been added strengtheningresponsible behaviour by suppliers andsubcontractors and a new clause was inserted in2008 stating: “Rhodia respects the right ofemployees to be collectively organised and shallremain strictly neutral concerning their choices inthis matter.” Nowhere has this been more importantthan in the United States, where union certificationis heavily weighted against trade unions.How Rhodia neutrality language was implementedin the US reveals that continuous dialoguewith senior managers led to a timely andcorrect action upholding the integrity of the GFA.In July 2010, workers at a non-union plant inIllinois were seeking union representationthrough a government-supervised election.Rhodia, only the year before, had bought a plantfrom a small chemicals producer.Workers discovered their salaries were inferiorto other Rhodia plants in the US and they contactedthe United Steelworkers (USW) for representation.But in usual US managerial conduct,bosses at the Illinois plant vehemently resistedthe drive on the shop floor. Fortunately, USWwas attune to the neutrality language, contactedthe ICEM, and ICEM immediately contactedsenior leaders in France, informing them of thebreach. Within two days, a letter was producedwith the signatures of the ICEM General Secretaryand Rhodia’s CEO spelling out the correct conductin unionisation processes.The instruction was that plant managers woulddistribute the letter to workers on the shop floor,while the USW would distribute the letter toworkers outside the facility. With this happeningonly weeks before the government ballot, theresult saw local managers cease all hostile activity.The USW won the vote with 86%, an anomalyin the current and contorted US union certificationsystem.While the shared commitment of the GFAbetween ICEM and Rhodia is exemplary, a newchallenge awaits. Only weeks ago, Rhodia andBelgian chemical company Solvay set out on afriendly takeover of the French firm. Now aprocess of engagement and consultation withnational unions of both companies (and with managementrepresentatives) must occur to ensurethat the GFA survives in the merged company.A recent and totally different example, again inthe US, provides another look at compliance. Inlate 2010, ICEM, the Building and Wood Workers’International (BWI), and Public ServicesInternational (PSI) reached terms on a GFA withGDF SUEZ, the world’s second largest gas, waterservices and electric utility. This GFA containsperhaps some of the best language in any of the80-odd GFAs in existence. Besides adherence toglobal standards on workers’ and union rights, itcommits the company to respect the principlescontained in ILO Convention 94 related to labourclauses in public procurement.It also pledges the French company to facilitateunion shop-floor access to workers, prioritisesdirect employment over irregular work, andplaces responsibility on the company to ensurethat subcontractors pay the necessary social contributionsfor their workers. It also covers allglobal GDF SUEZ companies, even ones inwhich the company holds a minority stake.Following the signing, the US JusticeDepartment issued a set of 24 indictments against33%-held United Water for conspiracy and felonyviolations of the US Clean Water Act. Over a periodof several years in Indiana, managers of theprivatised company are accused of running ascheme in which they increased chlorine levels ina municipal wastewater treatment facility prior togovernment-mandated E.coli inspections, andthen lowered input levels after testing. The allegationsstand as a menace to public health. UnitedWater is accused of doing this as a cost-savingsmeasure, an obvious pitfall to privatisation.The Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA)called this to the attention of the GUFs and acomplaint was lodged. The UWUA is alsoinvolved in a bargaining dispute with UnitedWater at different company worksites. Althoughlocal collective negotiations are not the mandateof GFAs, when the US National Labor RelationsBoard issued an unfair labour practice complaintagainst United Water for failing to give relevantinformation to the union for bargaining purposes,the GUFs again took United Water’s antisocialconduct to corporate executives.Failure to adequately exchange informationclearly violates Article 7 of the GDF SUEZ GFA,“Respect for Trade Union Rights,” which referencestransparency in labour-managementforums. The agreement also refers to the OECDGuidelines and the ILO Tripartite Principles, bothof which have clear language regarding exchangeof information for “meaningful negotiations” insocial partnerships.These few examples stand as testament to thevigilance and thoroughness needed betweenGUFs and union partners to get companies tocomply with terms of GFAs. It is also dependent,of course, on having access and a relationship –built over time and through joint exercises – withsenior executives.A fair and just system of workplace equality onthe global level depends on GUFs establishingsuch relationships with senior leaders of companies.There are a number of principles which arereasonable to expect that corporations asemployers will live up to in their worldwideoperations. When these principles are containedin a GFA, it is the strict monitoring and a readinessto act that makes the agreement a living,breathing instrument for social betterment.INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 4 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011

FOCUS ❐ GLOBAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENTSG4S Global FrameworkAgreement and theOECD processBackgroundIn December 2008 UNI Global Union and theGMB signed an agreement with G4S, theworld’s second largest multinational employer,ending a multi-year global campaign to securethe right of workers to freely organise anywherethe company operates.The campaign to win an agreement from G4Sto allow organising rights in the U.S. began withits predecessor company, Group 4 Falck, in 2003.This expanded into a campaign for global organisingrights and in late 2006, UNI organised itsfirst meeting of Global Alliance for Justice at G4S.Workers from more than 20 countries participated.Shortly thereafter UNI filed a complaint withthe UK government alleging that G4S had violatedthe OECD Guidelines for MultinationalEnterprises based upon allegations of wrongdoingin nine countries.As time went on, the campaign gained traction,with workers organising in several countries andactivity in every continent. UNI’s organising campaignin India had taken off. The workers inMalawi had brought a UNI supported lawsuit allegingillegal pay cuts. There were conflicts inIndonesia and Panama. And the MozambicanMinister of Labour had asked G4S to leave thecountry. Investors, clients and the press began totake notice. Despite fierce opposition to UNI earlyin the year, by late 2007 there were signals that G4Swould discuss a very limited global agreement.In early 2008, further signs of a thaw emergedfollowing the March decision by the UK governmentto appoint a mediator in the case filed byUNI. The mediation began in June. Shortly thereafter,a socially responsible investor, KLD,announced that it had divested from G4S basedon its global track record.Within four contentious (and tense) months ofthe initial meeting with the UK mediator, G4Sand UNI reached a settlement not only of theissues presented in the OECD case but also onthe terms of a global agreement.The OECD caseThough the case was filed in 2006, it was notuntil March 2008 that the UK National ContactPoint (NCP, the entity responsible for enforcementof the Guidelines) accepted UNI’s complaintfor “further consideration”. Soon thereafterthe NCP engaged a professional mediator, JohnMulholland, to manage the case. The Terms ofReference for the mediator provided that if theparties were unable to reach a conciliated resolution,the mediator “will make proposals that bothparties will be pre-disposed to receive sympathetically.”Mr Mulholland therefore had theauthority to issue a recommendation if voluntarysettlement could not be achieved, with pressureon both sides to respect his recommendation.The case before the mediator involved fourcountries and substantial issues of national law.The problems in Nepal and the DemocraticRepublic of Congo were relatively easy toresolve. But in both Malawi and Mozambique,there were significant questions of overtime payments,chronic complaints of statutory violations,a question of severance pay (Mozambique) and apending lawsuit (Malawi). Furthermore, bothsides had completely different views of the facts,based upon reports from local sources.Ultimately the two parties agreed that overtimepay in Malawi would increase from 50% to 100%of normal wages, subject to some details to benegotiated with the local union. The companyalso agreed to work with union representatives toensure a jointly agreed, fair and transparent policyfor employee leave time, holidays, medicalvisits and retirement and to distribute these policiesto employees and managers. InMozambique, G4S agreed to meet with theMinister of Labour and the two unions which representedthe employees in order to emerge witha joint statement to be distributed to all employeesclarifying workers’ statutory rights.The main goal for UNI was to help to build asustainable workers’ organisation within theframework that statutory rights and organisingrights would be respected. We emerged with asettlement that empowered the local unions tonegotiate with national management over keyissues and a commitment to increase the salariesof the 10,000 employees in Malawi by an amountthat nearly doubled their wages. Most important,local management was sharply reminded thatworker abuses by a global company would notbe tolerated and the dynamics substantiallychanged for the local unions, especially inMalawi.The settlement was initially resisted at the locallevel. Three months after the signing, there hadbeen no progress. The HR Director of G4S and arepresentative of UNI then travelled toMozambique and Malawi to meet with the localmanagement and unions in an attempt to cutthrough the “he said, she said” quality of thedebate and move forward to implement the termsof the settlement. By all accounts, these meetingswere turning points.Global AgreementSimultaneous with the discussions within the NCPforum, discussions proceeded to resolve the issueson a global front. Initial bargaining proposals hadbeen developed in November, 2007, involving theThe case beforethe mediatorinvolved fourcountries andsubstantial issuesof national law...Furthermore, bothsides hadcompletelydifferent views ofthe facts, basedupon reports fromlocal sourcesCHRISTY HOFFMAN isDeputy General Secretary ofUNI Global UnionPage 5 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011INTERNATIONAL union rights

UNI PropertyServices had,over recent years,clarified that itsgoals in a globalagreement wereto facilitate theorganisingprocess through1) clearing theatmosphere ofanti-union bias,2) allowing theunion access tothe workers and3) streamliningthe processFOCUS ❐ GLOBAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENTSUNI Steering Committee, the G4S NegotiatingCommittee and a representative of the GMB.By 2008, both sides clearly wanted to end theglobal campaign. The company had determinedthat there was something to be gained in havinga global partner with which to manage its globalindustrial relations on a centralised basis, in partto maintain its brand integrity and that UNI hadthe credibility and status to play this role. Therelationship and agreement with UNI also presentedG4S with an opportunity to assert itself atthe local level, something important for a companyin a constant state of acquisition.UNI’s goals at the outset were to make it easierfor unions to organise within G4S and to raisestandards within the industry. These would seemto be modest enough, but in a world where veryfew employers respect national standards in manycountries, and employers routinely resist employees’attempts to organise, they are often quite difficultto achieve. UNI also wanted to establish anon-going mechanism for enforcement and implementationin order to give the agreement sustainabilityand integrity. G4S wanted a commitmentthat, in exchange for any commitments to facilitateunionisation, UNI would also put pressure onlocal competitors to raise standards, and that UNIwould seek to resolve disputes through dialogueand peaceful means.Both parties were satisfied that, in the end, theirbroad goals had been achieved, if not completely.The final agreement involved serious negotiationand compromise on the part of both parties,with most of the negotiations focusing on a fewkey and contentious issues. Some of these importantissues were deferred to local parties for resolution(within defined parameters), and in theabsence of resolution will be referred to the globalReview Committee. The most contentiousissues are discussed below.Organising RightsUNI Property Services had, over recent years, clarifiedthat its goals in a global agreement were tofacilitate the organising process through 1) clearingthe atmosphere of anti-union bias, 2) allowingthe union access to the workers and 3) streamliningthe process. All three of these issues werenegotiated until the very end of the process.For UNI’s part, a commitment from G4S that itwould “not oppose” the organising process wasessential for a settlement. Many CSR statementscontain a statement to the effect that workersshould have the right to organise free from threatsor intimidation. But this often means very littlewhen it comes to the resistance workers facewhen they demand a voice on the job. G4Sagreed to a provision which states clearly that it“will not oppose” the organising process andagreed to communicate this message to employeesupon request.The agreement contains clear language regardingunion access to the employees for purposes oforganising as well as the all important clauseallowing recruitment during the induction process.The recognition process proved the most difficultto resolve. UNI’s goal was to minimise thebarriers or hurdles unions must overcome inorder to establish a union. G4S maintained that itwanted to have some realistic evidence that theunion enjoyed support of the workers. The outcomewas that G4S agreed to recognise “repre-sentative and legitimate unions”, pursuant to a“fair and expeditious” process agreed upon locallyto check support for the union. If the unionhas satisfied minimum standards but there is nolocal agreement about recognition, the disputegets referred to the global “Review Meeting”.G4S was concerned that it would be forced torecognise too many unions at once using the newlanguage and insisted that it needed to have theability to phase-in the recognition language overtime. UNI agreed to a phase-in procedure, to beimplemented worldwide by December 2011.Competition and industrial actionThe primary concern of G4S is that if it recognisesunions it will face demands to raise standardsfar beyond its competitors. There is some legitimatebasis to the argument, and unions have longrecognised that successful bargaining in propertyservices always involves moving towards marketwide standards, since the barriers to entry in themarket are so low and there are so many competitors.But the company was not satisfied with ageneral statement expressing agreement with theconcern. The final agreement includes languageto the effect that the local union and managementwill negotiate an action plan to monitor and raisestandards across the markets.Finally, UNI agreed to seek to settle disputesthrough peaceful means, to avoid disruption toservice and to take steps to “avoid risks of unofficialindustrial action” by its affiliates.ProgressG4S and UNI emerged from the process with anew-found respect for each other and an agreementwhich goes far beyond a recitation of theILO core labour standards.Much progress has been made in India sincethe agreement has been signed. G4S has agreedto improve national standards and UNI hashelped to de-escalate tensions and clarify issues.G4S is the largest security employer in India withover 160,000 employees and the negotiated termsthere have represented real improvements in thelives of many workers, ranging from wages andbenefits, to hours of work and paid leave.Fewer unions have sought to use the organisinglanguage than anticipated, but this is likely tochange as the phase-in expands this year and theapplication of access language becomes moreimportant. The Review Committee has also beenable to resolve a number of other problems andkeep good lines of communication open.Educating unions on the organising benefits ofthe global agreement is a constant process. In2010, UNI and the ETUI initiated a joint programfocused on Western Europe for this purpose. Alsoin 2010, an EU sponsored program was funded forEastern European security unions whichSolidarnosc and UNI are leading. UNI has expandedits organising campaigns with affiliated unionsin Africa and South America and has proposedorganising projects in Asia. Some of the markets inwhich G4S operates, most notably India, are soenormous that traditional approaches and timelinesfor organising campaigns are simply inadequate.Nevertheless, the ability to organise freelyhas fundamentally changed the ability for workersto gain a voice on the job and to improve theirwages, hours and conditions of work.INTERNATIONAL union rightsPage 6 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011

FOCUS ❐ GLOBAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENTSGlobal Agreements andProtect, Respect, RemedyInternational Framework Agreements or GlobalFramework Agreements have expanded innumber and have evolved considerably inrecent decades. Too often, they have been examinedin isolation from the larger picture of multinationalenterprises, not only concerning otherforms of social dialogue and trade union organising,bargaining, and campaigning priorities, butalso with respect to the legal, economic, competitive,and political environment in which theyfunction, and the rapid changes in the way thatthey have been organising their business. Tounderstand the value as well as the limits ofGlobal Agreements, it is useful to put them inbroader perspective.Protect, Respect, RemedyThe Protect, Respect, Remedy Framework developedby the Special Representative of the UNSecretary-General on Business and Human RightsJohn Ruggie, is a very useful reference for globalagreements. Unlike CSR industry hype, it doesnot overlook, but underlines, the role of theState. Global agreements are also relevant to theresponsibilities of companies to respect internationalhuman rights standards, including labourstandards and to exercise “due diligence” concerningtheir impact on human rights. And, theycan help provide “remedy”.State duties to protect and company responsibilitiesto respect are both linked and separate.Governments have an obligation to protect, butpoor laws and/or governance are not an excusefor corporate violation of national laws or internationalstandards. And, the expectations of businessare based on universal human rights standardsand not on vague, corporate assurances orself-definition of international standards.There are many countries that have adoptedlaws in conformity with international standards.The enabling rights of freedom of association, theright to organise and the right to collective bargaining,often called “trade union rights”, are bestrespected by companies in countries that haveratified conventions 87 and 98 and applied them,including through effective enforcement. Thereare other countries where trade unions are illegalor where governments impose a single unionstructure or in other key ways legislate and actagainst the respect of the human rights of workers.And, there is a third category of countries,where regardless of whether laws and enforcementare adequate, there are no barriers to companiesfully respecting the rights of workers.Two countries, in particular, where difficultiesexist for the respect of global agreements areChina and the United States. While one couldargue that Chinese labour laws are a barrier tofull respect of trade union rights, the US fits intothat third category of countries where the Statedoes not effectively force companies to respecttrade union rights, but where no obstacles preventcompanies from doing so if they wish.The combination of the weakness of US labourlaws and poor enforcement has contributed tocreate a climate and culture of corporate lawlessnesson a massive scale. That does not mean thatglobal agreements have not been able to resolvea number of problems in the US, but only that ithas often been a difficult and long process, andnot all problems have yet been resolved.Even when companies are determined to implementtheir agreements, they often face US managerswho profess to see no contradiction betweenfreedom of association and anti-union campaigns.Global agreement language has evolved becauseof the hostile US environment and deeplyentrenched union-busting with provisions in severalagreements that provide greater detail as toemployer conduct in basic freedom of associationinstances. One example of such more detailed provisionsis in the agreement between ISS and UNI,which calls for unaccompanied union access toworkers and the possibility of meetings, a “positive”attitude by the company on union organising,and recognition of the union “using the most expeditiousprocess permitted under law and/or collectivebargaining agreements”.Some agreements have also called for commitmentsto engage in collective bargaining. This isimportant, in part, because, unlike freedom ofassociation where the respect of the right onlyrequires the employer to do nothing to influencethe decision of workers as to whether they wishto be represented, the right to collective bargainingrequires the employer to sit down and bargainor it ceases to be a right. One example ofsuch language is contained in the GDF SUEZagreement with BWI, ICEM, and PSI. It indicatesthat the parties to the agreement will, “promoteand encourage positive and constructive industrialrelations inside all GDF SUEZ companies andtheir business partners”.Global agreements can lead to solutions ofsome specific problems in the US in a limitednumber of companies, but they cannot substitutefor the failure of the government to protect thehuman rights of workers. In the midst of a viciousand deceptive campaign against a modestattempt to reform US labour laws in 2009 - theEmployee Free Choice Act - foreign-based multinationals,including some with framework agreements,remained in employer associations thatwere conducting that campaign, including the USChamber of Commerce. They were, therefore,complicit in the preservation of human rights violations.Some argued that to break with their USThe RuggieFramework wasused as a basis ofthe new HumanRights chapter ofthe 2011 updateof the OECDGuidelines forMultinationalEnterprisesJIM BAKER is Co-ordinator ofthe Council of Global UnionsPage 7 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011INTERNATIONAL union rights

FOCUS ❐ GLOBAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENTSAs soft lawinstrumentsbecome morelinked andcoherent and asdue diligencebecomes morecommon in thesocial area, thenature and role ofvoluntary globalagreements maychangecounterparts would be “foreign” interference inUS affairs.US companies, on the other hand, have had nosimilar compunction about interference whenthey have opposed positive changes in labourlaw elsewhere in the world, including in suchplaces as China, Georgia, and Romania.On due diligence, the Ruggie GuidingPrinciples state, “In order to identify, prevent andmitigate adverse human rights impacts, and toaccount for their performance, business enterprisesshould carry out human rights due diligence.The process should include assessing actual andpotential human rights impacts, integrating andacting upon the findings, and tracking as well ascommunicating their performance”. Often, whenthere is good communication between a companyand a GUF, the GUF provides an independentsource of information about what is happeninginside the company and, to some extent, withbusiness partners. If the relationship functionswell, it can be an important contributor to carryingout due diligence.“Remedy” applies to state and non-state actorswhen there are abuses. It includes grievancemechanisms. Global agreements are, in fact,largely used to resolve problems and comfortablyfit into the Ruggie Framework.However, Global Union representatives, in aconsultation with John Ruggie in October of 2010and in a written submission at the end of Januaryof 2011 warned that phony grievance proceduresfor employees could be abused and used toundermine trade unions. The text of the commentaryof the Guiding Principles that refers to thisproblem states, “Operational-level grievance mechanismsshould not be used to undermine the role oflegitimate trade unions in addressing labor-relateddisputes, or to preclude access to judicial or nonjudicialgrievance mechanisms”. Business organisationsargued against that provision, but itremained, unchanged, in the text as submitted tothe Human Rights Council on 31 May 2011.The Ruggie Framework was used as a basis ofthe new Human Rights chapter of the 2011update of the OECD Guidelines for MultinationalEnterprises and it shaped the formulation of newprovisions on due diligence and the applicationof the Guidelines to business partners. Theupdated Guidelines also adapted and incorporatedRuggie’s principles for the effective operationof a non-judicial grievance mechanism into therules governing the operation of National ContactPoints (NCOs). During the same period, ISO26000 on CSR was finalised and new standardsfor the International Finance Corporation of theWorld Bank were developed. Both took on boardthe Framework. A number of global agreementsinclude references to the OECD Guidelines.Some state that they are considered to be part ofthe agreements, so the changes may serve tobroaden the scope of such agreements as well.One of the frontiers of global agreements is thequestion of business partners, in other words,how to apply the agreement to enterprises thatperform work for the MNE. There are a fewagreements that have specific references to businesspartners and some references to the employmentrelationship or to “precarious work”.Discussions on this matter are, however, takingplace with a number of companies. The recentagreement with GDF SUEZ (Dec. 2010) includesone of the most far-reaching clauses, as follows:“GDF SUEZ recognizes the importance of secureemployment for both the individual and for societythrough a preference for permanent, open-endedand direct employment. GDF SUEZ and all subcontractorsshall take full responsibility for allwork being performed under the appropriate legalframework and, in particular, shall not seek toavoid obligations of the employer to dependentworkers by disguising what would otherwise be anemployment relationship or through the excessiveuse of temporary or agency labour... Companieswill ensure that workers are not classified as selfemployedwhen working under conditions ofdirect employment (bogus self-employment). GDFSUEZ expects its partners to apply comparableprinciples and regards this to be an importantbasis for a lasting business relationship”.CSR and Global AgreementsA study that is being carried out by the FreeUniversity of Berlin on global agreements indicatesthat GUFs tend to see them as being part ofindustrial relations and that signatory companiestend to consider them as part of corporate socialresponsibility. That is also beginning to changeand the Ruggie Framework is relevant in this areaas well. Respecting rights as an obligation linksmore closely with industrial relations than it doeswith making a “business case” for doing the rightthing. An industrial relations approach is alsomore realistic and pragmatic.CSR is about reputational risk and has roots inpublic relations. It is about proving virtue. Globalagreements, at least as understood by tradeunions, have their roots in industrial relations.The assumption at the global level, as at nationallevel, is that conflicts and problems will arise.The purpose of the agreements is neither toprove or deny virtue nor to enhance or jeopardisereputations. It is simply to ensure that rightsare protected and that an orderly process isdeveloped to resolve conflict. The real world ofthe workplace can never be an unending seriesof “win-win” situations. It is rather a process ofvigilance, problem solving and, at times, positivejoint action. Global agreements are a form ofglobal union recognition that provides commonprinciples and mechanisms that can be applied toreal life situations.As employer attitudes on the nature of globalagreements change, they will begin to shed theremnants of CSR mentality. Agreements will nolonger be considered something that can be heldup like codes of conduct or sustainability reportsto ward off public reproach in the same way thata cross and garlic might keep Dracula away. Onecan already see some companies beginning torealise the value of the relationship with GUFsand of agreements. There is some evolutiontowards positive action and co-operation.That was already a feature of the originalDanone (then BSN) agreements with the IUF thatwere focused both on rights and on improving thecompany in ways that were beneficial to workers.The ArcelorMital agreement with the IMF focuseson occupational health and safety. They haveINTERNATIONAL union rights Page 8 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011

FOCUS ❐ GLOBAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENTSformed a Global Joint Health and SafetyCommittee that oversees the agreement and acts“hands on” with visits to facilities and concreteimprovements in conditions and practices. Overtime, it is very possible that, instead of one agreement,there will be specific, focused agreementswith many companies that reflect joint, positivemeasures to be taken inside companies.Another area where there seems to be room forimprovement is in the understanding and use ofagreements at national level. The same FreeUniversity of Berlin study shows that awarenessof agreements varies significantly. On the managementside, particularly in the US and other difficultcountries, problems might be resolvedmore easily if contents of agreements are thoroughlyexplained to management and signals areloud and clear that managers are expected torespect agreements.“Voluntary” versus legally bindingAt an OECD Forum in May 2011, John Ruggiewas asked if he considered the OECD Guidelinesto be “voluntary”. He responded that the differencesbetween voluntary and binding werebeginning to become blurred. He said that thecontents of the Guidelines were not voluntary –they were agreed by governments, not by companiesand that the human rights standards thathad been added were also agreed by governmentsand were not determined by companies.The application of the Guidelines was determinedby NCPs and not by companies, and, tothe extent that they would be linked to exportcredits or other government incentives, theywould take on a more binding character. In otherwords, they were not legally binding, but theywere not voluntary either.As soft law instruments become more linkedand coherent and as due diligence becomes morecommon in the social area, the nature and role ofvoluntary global agreements may change. Eventhough the vast majority of MNEs have not signedagreements, they are an element in the globalrights architecture. If corporate behaviourbecomes more subject to scrutiny based on universalvalues and standards and if anti-socialbehaviour begins to be more effectively limited atthe global level, the appeal of and interest inglobal agreements might increase.Just as is true at the national level, bargainedagreements are, by their nature, flexible. Theyreflect experience with specific enterprises andsectors. They represent an institutional, mutualrecognition that incorporates the idea of balance ofpower and, even though they are not legally binding,they are agreed, which gives them a fundamentallydifferent character than unilateral declarations.Therefore, in the long run, global agreementsare likely to become more important to companies,but also to policy makers. Among other reasons,they are one way to make principles more bindingin the absence of an effective global legal framework.And, as global rules develop, they providethe “private”, but compatible space to make suchrules workable and applicable.Processes for oversight and evaluation of globalagreements have been becoming more rigorousand most GUFs have developed clear policiesas to contents and implementation andapproval including, in some cases, model agreementsto be used as guidance when they arenegotiated. Agreements are seen increasingly aspart of organising strategies and as important forbuilding organisations (or at least networks)inside companies.If one considers global agreements as a form ofindustrial relations, a missing element is sectoralbargaining. It is also missing at national level inmany countries. The one exception is an agreementbetween an association of shipowners/shipmanagerswith the ITF. But it is not a frameworkagreement, but rather a global collective bargainingagreement that includes detailed provisionson wages, hours and working conditions. It hasbeen constructed, not in isolation, but part of aprocess which has involved the negotiation andadoption of the ILO consolidated maritime convention,relations with State regulatory authoritiesand others. It also reflects a very long tradition ofsocial dialogue in the industry. The ITF is engagingin global dialogue in other transport sectorsas well, but without yet achieving similar agreementsbecause of the different nature of othertransport sectors.Global agreements are not a miracle solutionfor the problems of the world’s workers nor arethey an alternative to global governance or evento global coherence. But, related to those largerprocesses, they have a unique contribution tomake as a direct voice of workers and as an elementto strengthen democracy.Page 9 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011INTERNATIONAL union rights

FOCUS ❐ GLOBAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENTSGlobal FrameworkAgreements in Context:UK and USAlthough thequestion oflegal status hasperhaps notbeen given keenconsideration onthe trade unionside, it cannotbe assumed thatthese agreementsare not legallyenforceable in thecountries wherethey areconcludedK D EWING is Professor ofPublic Law at Kings’ College,LondonOn 11 December 2008, Uni and Britishunion GMB signed a ground breakingglobal framework agreement with securitygiant G4S.This was the culmination of a long campaignwhich had been conducted on a number of fronts,and in a number of countries. The campaign itselfwould be the subject of a superb PhD thesis,addressing questions like the trade union responseto globalisation, the effectiveness of corporatecampaigns to secure certain trade union goals, andthe importance of the OECD Guidelines inMultinational Enterprises, and in this case the creativeintervention of the UK contact point.For present purposes, however, the agreementis interesting for another reason, namely theclause it contains in relation to its legal status.Unusually, the agreement states that ‘it must beapplied within the framework of laws and regulationsthat apply in each country’ where thecompany operates, and ‘that no part of the agreementis legally enforceable, either by the partiesor by any third party, or in any way changes oramends any individual G4S employee’s terms andconditions’.This was probably strictly unnecessary in thespecific context of UK law, where collectiveagreements are presumed not to be legallyenforceable. This is a presumption that has its originsin the common law, and is now to be foundin statute, though it is possible that the G4S agreementfalls outside the scope of the statutory definitionof a collective agreement, and that the commonlaw position is sufficiently uncertain, so as tojustify an express term of this kind.The inclusion of this term in the G4S/UNI/GMBagreement is nevertheless unusual, and raisesquestions about the legal status of global frameworkagreements generally. This is not to say thatit is unique. The Falck/Uni agreement, for examplestates that it is to be governed by the law ofDenmark, though I understand that this does notnecessarily mean that it is legally binding.Apparently it all depends on whether the termsof the agreement give rise to issues that are capableof enforcement by a court.It is also the case that the Falck/Uni agreementis atypical in the sense that it is principally aboutestablishing a company council on a world widebasis with national representatives. Unlike mostagreements, it is not about committing the companyto specific substantive standards in all of itsglobal operations, standards which usually meancompliance with the four core ILO principles(though of course some agreements do go someway beyond this).Most agreements are thus characterised by theiruncertain legal status. Although the question oflegal status has perhaps not been given keenconsideration on the trade union side, I haveargued before that it cannot be assumed thatthese agreements are not legally enforceable inthe countries where they are concluded. 1 Muchwill depend on the law and practice of the 19 orso countries in which the various agreementshave been signed, the (often high) level ofsolemnity around the process, as well as theintention of the parties so far as it can be divined.But it cannot be assumed that the position isthe same in all countries, or that all agreementswill have the same legal status even within thesame country. Much may depend on the contentof the agreement or the context within which itwas negotiated. Where, for example, an agreementwas negotiated under the umbrella of aEuropean Works Council, it may be difficult todeny it legal effects if all other EWC agreementsin the jurisdiction in question are legally binding.The much neglected question of legal enforceabilityof GFAs is addressed in an excellent articleby Sarah Coleman in the Columbia HumanRights Law Review. 2 Coleman considers this questionthrough the long lens of US federal contractlaw, and examines the extent to which theseagreements could be enforced in the US courts.In doing so, she draws helpful parallels betweenGFAs and employer neutrality agreements duringunion recognition drives.Coleman argues that GFAs are contracts thatcould be enforced in the United States federalcourts as a result of the Labor ManagementRelations Act 1947, section 301. This allows forthe enforcement of contractual agreementsbetween management and labor, which are nototherwise enforceable in the National LaborRelations Board. As I understand the argument,GFAs would not be enforceable under the latter,but would be enforceable contracts under section301.This is an argument that would have a particularresonance for the agreement concludedbetween American banana giant Chiquita and theIUF in 2001, which one recent study has suggestedis still the only GFA negotiated by a US company.But even if limited to what is so far a singleagreement, Coleman’s claims are neverthelesshighly significant, particularly in view of recentallegations about violations of workers’ fundamentalrights in Guatamala identified by the ITUCand Banana Link.According to the ITUC in April 2010, workersbelonging to six unions affiliated to UNSI-TRAGUA complained about working conditionsin a Chiquita subsidiary.This was said to have been met with ‘a flatrefusal to comply with the laws of the countryINTERNATIONAL union rights Page 10 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011

worldwideOECD Guidelineson MNEsOn May 25, 2011, the OECDformally adopted an updatedversion of the OECD guidelinesfor Multinational Enterprises, 10years after the last majorreview. The guidelines arerecommendations bygovernments for the conductof multinational companies,providing non-biding principlesand standards for responsiblebusiness conduct. TUAC (TradeUnion Advisory Committee tothe OECD), the ITUC, theGUFs, BIAC (Business Forum),Amnesty International andOECD Watch were all involvedin the consultation process overthe revisions with OECDgovernments over the last year.The updated guidelines includea separate human rights chapterdetailing the minimum humanrights standards enterprisesmust adhere to and a clearerrequirement for compliancethroughout supply chains.ILO/Domestic WorkOn June 16, 2011, the ILOadopted a Convention,accompanied by aRecommendation on decentwork for domestic workers.The Convention is the result ofmany years campaigning byorganisations across the world.Marieke Koning, ITUC experton gender equality anddomestic work issues,described the Convention ashaving the potential to takemillions of workers out of theinformal economy andformalise their employment.They will have the right toform trade unions, negotiateand improve their workingconditions. ITUC GeneralSecretary, Sharan Burrow,described the Convention as “agreat victory” and called ongovernments around the worldto ratify and implement it.IndonesiaOn March 23, 2011, theBandung District Court clearedtwo trade unionists from theHyatt Bandung Regency Hotelfrom criminal charges. Thecharges against unionists EarlySobari and Yudhasari Pardikanhave been described as anattempt at victimisation andintimidation as both wereaccused of embezzlement ofjust US$15. Their local Hyattunion is a member of IUF-affiliated FSPM, Indonesia’shotel federation. The rulingbrings to a close a court casethat targeted two activeunionists who opposed Hyattmanagement’s attempt tooutsource services at the hotel.Ireland50,000 of Ireland’s lowest paidworkers may be affected byproposals to reduce Ireland’sminimum wage from Euros8.65 to Euros 7.65. The changeis expected to be introduced inthe next 12 months and willapply only to new employees,not those on existing contracts.Legislation may be needed tobring in the change and wouldneed approval from theEU/IMF deal. Unions in Irelandhave condemned the cut.Northern IrelandA report published in earlyJune by the Joseph RowntreeFoundation finds evidence offorced labour in NorthernIreland. The report detailsincidents of migrants beingforced to work in appallingconditions along with evidenceof poor working conditions,low pay, restricted freedom ofmovement, and verbal andphysical abuse. The first toinvestigate the scale and extentof forced labour in NorthernIreland, the study explores theextent of forced labour amongnew migrants to NorthernIreland across a range ofemployment sectors, andmakes a number ofrecommendations to addressthe problem.(http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/forced-labour-northernireland-exploiting-vulnerability)IBMMore than 40 unionists from15 countries met at UNIheadquarters in Nyon,Switzerland in May to launchthe “IBM Global UnionAlliance” through the EMF, IMFand UNI global union. Thealliance aims to achieve greaterengagement with the companyto improve working conditionsof IBM employees worldwideand raise the levels of tradeunion membership at thecompany. The alliance is alsoconcerned with establishing astrategic plan for future cooperationand to begin a jointorganising campaign at IBMnext year.New ZealandOn April 1, 2011, employmentlaw changes were introduced inNew Zealand that allow allemployers to dismissemployees within a first 90-day‘trial’ period, with no rights togrievance procedure. Thechange applies to allworkplaces, regardless of thesize of the workforce, andincludes: restrictions on tradeunion access to the workplace,weaker fairness tests ondismissals, the ability foremployers to bypass the unionin collective negotiations, thepossibility to exchange holidaypay for money, the right to shiftpublic holidays withoutpayment and the right foremployers to demand a medicalcertificate for one day’s sickleave. The ICEM-affiliatedEngineering, Printing andManufacturing Union (EPMU)has launched a petition toencourage employers to avoidimplementing the new law.PalestineShaher Sae’d, General Secretaryof the Palestinian Federation ofTrade Unions (PGFTU) has wonthe 2011 Arthur SvenssonInternational Award for UnionRights. The award, wortharound Euros 60,000, is awardedby IndustriEnergi (IE), aNorwegian ICEM-affiliate. ShaherSae’d has been imprisoned anumber of times and his familyhas also been at risk on severaloccasions. The selectioncommittee said that underSae’d’s leadership, “PGFTU hasshown a will for dialogue andhas refused to isolate anyPalestinian groups, includingHamas…[and] has been open todialogue and co-operation withHistadrut, the organisation oftrade unions in Israel”.MexicoThe National Mine, Metal andSteel Workers’ Union(SNTMMSSRM) of Mexico, orLos Mineros and their GeneralSecretary, Napoleon GomezUrritia, have been awarded theMeany-Kirkland Human RightsAward by the AFL-CIO. Theannual award, named after theAFL-CIO’s first two presidents,George Meany and LaneKirkland, recognises a person ororganisation that has shownexceptional bravery in thestruggle for human rightsthrough trade unionism. Gomez,praised for his commitment toINTERNATIONAL union rightsPage 12 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011

improving the lives of Mexicanworkers, continues to negotiatecollective agreements forworkers in Mexico despite livingin exile in Canada, after beingforced to leave Mexico.Mexico’s government has frozenLos Mineros’s bank accounts,helped employers set upcompany unions, declared theunion’s strikes illegal and sentin troops to control them.Despite this context of heavyrepression, the union hascontinued to negotiate contractsand organise in newworkplaces.TunisiaA new trade union and tradeunion confederation werelaunched earlier this year inTunisia, presenting alternativesto the Tunisian General LabourUnion (UGTT). The TunisianWorkers’ Union, led by formerUGTT Secretary General IsmailSahbani and the GeneralConfederation of TunisianLabour (CGTT), headed byformer UGTT member HabibGuiza, aim to “work on thedevelopment of [a] social andlegislative system” more in tunewith the “global economicsystem”. According to IsmailSabhani, the new union will“contribute to building adeveloped national economy,fight unemployment andmarginalisation, and address allforms of corruption”. The newunion will face some challengesfor recognition as although theTunisian constitution ensuresthe right of trade unionpluralism, the former regime inTunisia negotiated only withthe largest union, the UGTT,with 500,000 members.SweatshopsThe International Textile,Garment and Leather Workers’Federation (ITGLWF) publisheda report in April detailing theextent to which internationalclothing brands still contractfactories in Asia with appallingworking practices, to producetheir clothes – despite morethan a decade of campaigningon sweatshop labour. Thereport – that mentions highstreet brands such as Marks andSpencer’s, Next, Ralph Lauren,DKNY, Gap, among others –suggests that the problem isendemic across the industry.Surveying 83 factories acrossthe Philippines, Sri Lanka andIndonesia and around 100,000workers, the report highlights:the gendered nature of theproblem, with around 76% ofthe surveyed workforce beingfemale; that employment isbecoming more precarious withmore temporary contracts, daylabour and on call work; thewidespread use of compulsoryovertime; the use ofproductivity targets todetermine wages (Sri Lanka)and basic pay cut if targetswere not achieved.USAOn June 1st, the InternationalBrotherhood of Teamsterssigned a first national collectivebargaining agreement with FirstStudent Inc.,that improvesworking conditions and securityfor more than 20,000 schoolbus drivers and other workers.The agreement allows foremployees to take theirchildren on the bus in the eventof a problem with childcare andlowers the number of hours anemployee must work to qualifyfor family and medical leavecoverage from 1,250 hours to700, positively impacting thepredominantly part-timeworkforce. Further, the contract‘overlays any local contract’: ifthe national contract has betterterms than a local contract, thenational contract will supersedethe local one and vice versa.Rick Middleton, co-chair of theTeamsters First Student NationalNegotiating Team praised theagreement as “ground-breaking”and a “positive step forward forTeamsters at First Student andworkers in the school busindustry” First Student is thelargest private provider ofschool bus transportation inNorth America.USAAt the end of April,representatives from the IUFaffiliatedFarm Labor OrganizingCommittee (FLOC) completed a2 week European tour ofmeetings and protests targetingReynolds America & BritishAmerican Tobacco (BAT). FLOChas been seeking to convinceBAT to take responsibility forthe appalling migrant workerconditions on tobacco farms inthe US. A report entitled A Stateof Fear has been released byFLOC examining the harshworking and poor housingconditions of tens of thousandsof migrant farm workers whotend and harvest tobacco inNorth Carolina and uncoversevidence of widespreadexploitation that violates bothfederal and state law(http://www.tuc.org.uk/tucfiles/14/FLOCreport.pdf)AzerbaijanAzerbaijanis living and workingin Russia will be able to jointrade unions, according to theChairman of the AzerbaijanTrade Union ConfederationSattar Mehbaliyev. Anagreement between theAzerbaijan Trade UnionConfederation and theFederation of IndependentTrade Unions of Russia enablesAzerbaijanis working in theRussian city of Yekaterinburg,in the Sverdlovsk region, toform trade unions. It is believedthat the establishment of tradeunions will help addressproblems of human traffickingand forced labour, by providinglegal aid for victims in need ofsupport and protection.According to Mehbaliyev, otheragreements will be signed inother countries whereAzerbaijanis live including,other regions of Russia,Ukraine, Kazakhstan andTurkey.EgyptThe Egyptian AdministrativeCourt has overturned thegovernment’s refusal torecognise the Centre for TradeUnion and Workers’ Services(CTUWS). The CTUWS, apartner of the Solidarity Centre,offers legal aid to Egyptianfactory workers and educationon workers’ rights. It wasordered to close in 2007, amidstwidespread labour unrest,strikes and increasinglyaggressive attitudes from theEgyptian government.BurmaThe ITUC and the ETUC havecalled on the European Unionto support a UN Commission ofInquiry into war crimes andcrimes against humanity inBurma, when the EU renews itsBurma policy on April 12. ITUCGeneral Secretary SharanBurrow called on Europe andthe wider internationalcommunity “to supportinternational moves for a UNInquiry, to ensure justice isdone on behalf of the victimsof the regime’s reign ofoppression and violence”.worldwidePage 13 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011INTERNATIONAL union rights

FOCUS ❐ GLOBAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENTSPSI and the historicaldevelopment of GlobalFramework AgreementsIt could be seenas a contradictionto defend servicesin public handsand at the sametime to concludeagreements withthose who wereprivatising themJÜRGEN BUXBAUM isPSI Coordinator PublicAdministration andMultinational EnterprisesPrivate interests in the public sectorIn recent decades, multinational enterpriseshave become increasingly influential in privateindustries, with public services seeminglyimmune to the direct influence of profit making.However, public service workers and theirunions have had to learn new lessons taught bythe teachers of New Liberalism, lessons thatbecame the global ideology after the dissolutionof the Soviet Union. The message that wentaround the world told people: Private does betterthan public.It is not a surprise that many citizens of formersocialist countries, who were for a long timealready aware of the differences in wealth andeconomic efficiency between their own countriesand the capitalist world, welcomed a system thatpromised to provide better services and a betterlife. Why should what seemed to be advantageousin the private industry not work in publicservices? Here and there, the message also fell onopen ears in Western countries, where publiclyowned companies and services were sometimesbeing used in the interest of political parties, orfrustrated people with their bureaucratic proceduresor the unsatisfying quality of the servicesdelivered. However, the most influential role forpromoting neoliberal policies was probablyplayed by the media. In the Western world, thevast majority of these welcomed and supportedthe neoliberal agenda and its core message: cutpublic spending and privatise public services!Nonetheless, public resistance against neoliberalpolicies would probably have been stronger, ifconservative parties and governments in Europealone had supported the policies. The anti-publicservice agenda, however, was certainly notrestricted to conservative parties. One cannotdeny that socialists and social democrats in theUK, in Germany, in Spain and elsewhere wereparticularly active and effective in selling publicproperty and cutting into public spending andweakening the social fabric. While resistance wasnot easy under these conditions, all over theworld public sector unions opposed privatisationand marketisation. This meant first of all organisingcampaigns to mobilise public opinion againstprivatisation and outsourcing; industrial actionremained exceptional.The working conditions of public sector unionsin poor countries were, of course, much worsethan those of their colleagues in the EuropeanUnion, the US, Japan or other countries belongingto the G8. In all countries depending on internationalcredits, the policies of the IMF, theWorld Bank or the World Trade Organisationcould easily be imposed. Everywhere in thesecountries, the privatisation of public services andreductions in public expenditure were very highon the agenda. Authoritarian regimes made publicor union resistance very difficult. PSI affiliatesreported examples of Western governmentsencouraging the privatisation of water abroad,whilst in their own countries, the public ownershipof water services was guaranteed by law.The union strategy to foil privatisation was mirroredby discussions and decisions at the 2002PSI World Congress in Ottawa, Canada. The privatisationof public services was a key issue duringthis Congress. A resolution was passed tolaunch a global campaign on quality public services,identifying privatisation as a threat andaiming at keeping public services in publichands. It was agreed that the process of privatisationshould, at least, be slowed down and thatthe water sector should remain in public hands.The 2002 Congress documents illustrated that,at that time, PSI affiliated public services unionsdid not expect their global union federation tonegotiate directly on their behalf with multinationalenterprises, with the aim of concludingglobal agreements on employment standards,worker and trade union rights, etc. This may havebeen related to the optimistic view that foilingprivatisation and mobilising the public opinionwould be successful in the end. Different culturesand histories of trade union action may also haveplayed a role; where a confrontational traditionof industrial relations was predominant, negotiatingand signing agreements may not have beenseen as top priority. By signing such agreements,there might have also been the fear that privateersmay use the factual ‘recognition’ by publicservice unions in their aggressive policy on socalledpublic-public-partnership, concession contractsand other forms of direct and indirect privatisationof services. It could be seen as a contradictionto defend services in public hands andat the same time to conclude agreements withthose who were privatising them.Public service unions often stood alone in theirdefence of public services in public hands. Inmany countries, active support of trade unionsorganising workers in industrial sectors - beyondverbal or written declarations of solidarity -remained exceptional. Sometimes political andmedia campaigns, targeting real or alleged ‘privileges’of civil servants in particular and publicsector workers in general, had a strong impact.Sometimes workers employed in the privateindustry did not understand why their colleaguesin the public sector resisted working in their partof the economy. And the ideological hegemonyof neoliberalism certainly prevented major publicdiscussions about the importance of public healthand social services, water and energy supplies,municipal services and quality public administra-INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 14 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011

FOCUS ❐ GLOBAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENTStion for the well being of societies as a whole.In innumerable cases, public sector unionswere unable to prevent services from being privatised.Very often, more and more private companies,acting over a whole continent or worldwide,took over the control of water supply andhealth care facilities, prisons and correctional services,public transport and education, energyproduction and distribution, security services andeven tax administration.PSI and global framework agreementsA productive discussion about the pros and consof global agreements with MNEs is still on-goingin PSI, but two things determining PSI policieshave changed.Recently, the number of public sector unionmembers working in services run by privatecompanies has increased significantly, althoughdiffering quite a lot from country to country orfrom union to union. Unions followed - or hadto follow - their members into the private sector.When the private employers were multinationalcompanies, workers were under threat by unfaircompetition within the enterprise and by socialdumping. Globalisation under neoliberal conditionsforced not only countries, but also workersin global companies, into a ‘race to the bottom’.This is why an increasing number of publicsector unions began demanding theirInternational put multinational enterprises muchhigher on their agenda. However, it stillremained an exception that in January 2005 PSI,together with many national and internationaltrade union organisations, signed its first globalagreement with the French multinational energycompany EDF.The second important development for changingconditions of public sector unions’ and PSI’spolicy is the significantly increased public awarenessand the recognition among unions of theprivate sector that quality public services are vitalfor equal chances in society, economic wealthand social justice, even for democracy and thelife expectancy of citizens. The experience of theglobal financial and economic crisis certainlycontributed to public consciousness that neoliberalpolicies are the problem and not the solution.This new awareness culminated in the majorglobal conference on quality public services inOctober 2010 in Geneva, the first joint eventorganised by the Council of Global Unions,which unites the International Trade UnionConfederation and all Global Union Federationsthat represent the unions from all sectors of society.The conference adopted the Geneva Charteron Quality Public Services and agreed on a jointaction programme to fight for and defend qualityservices in public hands. It goes without sayingthat PSI did not and does not change its policy ofadhering to the principle that services fundamentalto society must be in public ownership. But atthe same time, the last PSI Congress in 2007 inVienna adopted a new policy on multinationalcorporations, recognising that the Internationaland its affiliates need to deal with MNEs wherethey appear in the public sector. Congress resolutionPSI Global Policy and Strategic Objectives2008 – 2012 mentions activities related to MNEs,including monitoring their activities, developingnetworks and organising workers within MNEs,lobbying for improved regulation of MNEs,denouncing violations of trade rights, etc.Negotiating with multinational enterprises andsigning global agreements are declared explicitlyto be strategic objectives of the organisation.In 2009, PSI commenced negotiations with theFrench multinational corporation GDF SUEZ. Thecompany employs more than 200,000 workersworldwide, and its operations concentrate on theenergy, water, gas, infrastructure and environmentsectors. Negotiations were carried out jointlywith PSI’s sister organisations, the Building andWood Worker’s International (BWI) and theInternational Federation of Chemical, Energy,Mine and General Workers’ Unions (ICEM),which both have affiliated unions organisingworkers in subsidiaries of GDF SUEZ.Successful negotiations were concluded on anagreement that many see as a model for othercompanies and GUFs. Key features of the agreementinclude:■ applies to all present and future GDF SUEZcompanies, employees, subcontractors andsuppliers, and it commits the company torespect the rights and dignity of people underall circumstances and to a zero tolerance policyon fraud and corruption.■ recognition of major international standards,e.g.Universal Declaration of Human Rights,the OECD Guidelines and the ILO Declarationon Multinational Enterprises, the ILODeclaration on Fundamental Rights at Work,guarantee of equal treatment of all employeesregardless of age, origin, nationality, religion,culture, sexual or political orientation.■ respects the rights of employees to form orjoin trade unions with no discriminationagainst these workers or trade union or otherworkers’ representatives. Access of tradeunion representatives to the employees willbe facilitated by the company and it will provideinformation on its operations to tradeunions to facilitate collective bargaining.■ Preference shall be given for permanent,open-ended and direct employment, noexcessive use will be made of temporary oragency labour, and bogus self-employmentwill not be applied.■ GDF SUEZ and all subcontractors shall paysocial security and pension contributions fortheir workers where such provisions exist.Best occupational health and safety practiceshall be promoted.■ The company shall endeavour to preservenatural resources and protect biodiversity.The parties to the agreement expressed theirintention to conclude follow-up agreements onmore specific fields of application, such asrestructuring, occupational health and safety,training, sustainable development and climatechange. The agreement includes specific chapterson implementation, monitoring, control andreporting and conflict resolution.The agreement was signed in November 2010.PSI will continue and enforce its policies to concludeagreements with other multinational corporationssetting up networks of unions and workersin multinational enterprises.The last PSICongress in 2007in Vienna adopteda new policy onmultinationalcorporations,recognising thatthe Internationaland its affiliatesneed to deal withMNEs where theyappear in thepublic sectorPage 15 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011INTERNATIONAL union rights

Global Framework Agreements:Looking Inwards, Outwardsand OnwardsIf collaborativerelations are acentral goal, thenGFAs offerthemselves as aspecific targetaround whichnetworks canfocus theiractivitiesDIMITRIS STEVIS teachesinternational political economyand governance at ColoradoState University, USAFOCUS ❐ GLOBAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENTSWhy Should We Care About GlobalFramework Agreements?Global, or International, FrameworkAgreements (GFAs) are not a panacea forall of labour’s problems with globalisationand transnational corporations. But we shouldconsider their relevance both because of theirpromises and their possible consequences. Weshould care about GFAs because they are notonly about reregulating global capital but alsoabout reorganising global unionism.Historically, labour GFAs contrast sharply andinterestingly with the 1960s and early 1970s whenunions sought, unsuccessfully, to engage corporationstransnationally. During that period ofearly modern globalisation when the welfarestate was stronger, unions were more powerfuldomestically and corporations less globalised,capital was resolutely unwilling to recogniselabour beyond the national level.Yet almost thirty years later, with the welfarestate being frontally challenged, unions weakerand under attack, and corporations more deeplyglobalised, capital decided to recognise labour asa legitimate transnational interlocutor. This owesmuch to skillful initiatives by Global UnionFederations. Yet, the long-term impacts of GFAswill be shaped by the resources and the strategicacumen of unions and firms under circumstancesthat favor the latter.Will this modest collaborative strategy achieveglobal social dialogue and industrial relations orwill it legitimate the global trend towards corporatesocial responsibility and human resourcemanagement?But GFAs are not only about regulating capital.They are also about relations amongst labourunions, the shape of global union federations andnetworks, and labour’s governance of its ownaffairs. During the past century unions haveshaped and been shaped by the national politicaleconomies and industrial relations in which theyare embedded. Even when they are willing participantsin global labour collaboration unionsmust still negotiate their different traditions,modes of governance, and access to power.To the degree that they are still anchored innational economies they are affected by the anxietiesengendered by transnational processes andrules that privilege capital over workers.In taking stock of what we know about GFAs,therefore, it is appropriate and wise to pay attentionnot only to their implications for globalsocial dialogue with capital but, also, global dialogueacross different labour traditions and positionsin the world political economy.Taking Stock: From Origins to PatchworkInstitutionalisationAfter nearly two decades, global agreementsremain a European phenomenon, negotiated atEuropean-based headquarters and only sporadicallyimplemented worldwide. This is a reasonfor concern but it is not grounds for abandoningthe strategy. Getting TNCs from the US and othercountries on board will require more pressureand transnational collaboration amongst unions.There is some hope that major companies fromthe USA will join the ranks, as did G4S from theUK. There is also an evident need for major non-European unions to make GFAs a central elementof their strategy. Even if the companies that signagreements are primarily European-based, theengagement of unions from other parts of theworld can be the foundation of a strongertransnational labour strategy.The path to negotiations has been largely collaborativewith GUFs, key national unions, andemployee representatives leveraging historicalrelations into global agreements. Where labourhas no such power base, corporate resistance hasbeen more resolute. Moreover, so far, only rarelyhave global campaigns and targeted pressureinduced companies to respond positively to thecollaborative global relations inherent in GFAs.Until unions can be more successful in gettinghesitant companies to the bargaining table, GFAswill be limited to the willing among corporations.To expect that their numbers will grow significantlywithout pressure would be illusory andwould divert attention from determining whatunion priorities and strategies should be.Negotiations over GFAs are conducted solelyby labour representatives with access to centralmanagement, whether the GUF, the home countryunion(s), or an employee body. It may be thatthe initial stage has to be handled at that level.Sooner, rather than later, key unions along theproduction and supply chain have to be broughton board. While GUFs can facilitate that process,home country unions also have to be moreattuned to the diverse local challenges faced byunions in the various host countries. They mustrealise that unless they engage with unions alonga company’s production networks GFAs cannotdeliver on their promise.Management has taken an even more centralisedapproach to negotiations. Subsidiaries arerarely involved and largely not even informed.Headquarters’ motivation may be to set the agendaof corporate commitments, but this approachmakes subsidiary resistance inevitable and implementationhighly uncertain. Indeed, as ourresearch shows, this centralisation rarely translatesinto a pro-active policy toward the GFA.INTERNATIONAL union rightsPage 16 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011

FOCUS ❐ GLOBAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENTSBased on their struggles for implementingGFAs, Global Union Federations have concludedthat the key to improvement lies in using theseagreements to build union organisations at subsidiariesand suppliers. New and renegotiatedagreements have to include language whichstrengthens ILO Convention 87 on trade unionrecognition and enables unions to organise bymeeting a country’s minimum legal requirements.While Global Union Federations and nationalunions recognise that GFAs are largely about collectivelabour rights there has been some interestin using them as vehicles for advancing broaderagendas with respect to the environment, occupationalhealth and safety and even restructuring.A strategic broadening of the content of globalagreements is desirable if it provides grounds forinstitutionalising global dialogue with the corporationand facilitates collaboration among unions.In this context, union agendas may also find supportin cooperative alliances with social and environmentalmovements. Broadening that does notfacilitate deeper engagement, however, seemslike a risky strategy given the limited resources ofglobal union organisations and networks.Proper implementation of well-crafted agreementsis the proof of whether the GFA strategyhas long term promise. Our research in Brazil,India, Turkey and the USA has turned up someexamples of good implementation (Seehttp://www.polsoz.fu-berlin.de/polwiss/ifa_projekt).But the majority of cases do not fall in thiscategory. We have found no evidence of a‘California effect’ whereby good practices in anyone country rachet up a corporation’s globalpractices. This seems to be in part at least a consequenceof the marginalisation of the implementationissue during negotiations. The mosthopeful cases have been those that limit theroutes of corporate escape from their GFA obligationsvia transnational union strategies. Thismost important lesson affirms what those whohave taken a strategic approach towards GFAshave been saying all along: they should be treatedas vehicles for transnational collaborationrather than already operational regulatory rules.GFAs have given rise to a variety of institutionalinnovations ranging from regularised meetingsto world company councils recognised and fundedby the corporation. Labour needs to be awareof the dangers of the GFA strategy evolving intoa corporation-bound instrument. In contrast,union networks and alliances in collaborationwith Global Union Federations are more likely tofurther global implementation and facilitate sectoralimprovements.But networks and alliances cannot be effectiveunless they possess adequate resources and acommon agenda that can sustain long-term collaborationamongst unions. If collaborative relationsare a central goal, then GFAs offer themselvesas a specific target around which networkscan focus their activities. GFAs have changed therealm of the possible compared to the 1970swhen networks unsuccessfully sought to engagecorporations.GFAs have no direct legal standing and theirdispute resolution mechanisms are based on findingcommon agreement between labour andmanagement. Some disputes may not be resolvablein this manner, and thus we would arguethat there is a need to pursue legalisation via theadoption of national agreements based on GFAs.This would enhance the chances of more comprehensivecollective agreements and furtherlegalisation. These are opportunities that unionsmust consider if they are to avoid ending up withonly scattered corporate-bound private regulationsthus legitimating CSR and HRM rather thansocial dialogue and social regulation.Keeping Labour’s Eyes on the PrizeIt is apparent that the implementation of IFAs mayresult in both intended and unintended consequences.These can range from positive to negativeones from the point of view of global socialregulation and global labour governance. Positiveimpacts would include a patterned global socialdialogue and social regulation with a strong rolefor Global Union Federations and long- term institutionalarrangements that enjoy broad legitimacyand support by national unions. Episodic successes,however profound, are positive if they becomestepping stones to the above; alternatively theycan very well lead to fragmentation if the result isno more than company-induced cost displacement.Similarly, firm-level institutionalisation canbe positive if it is stepping-stone to more patternedsocial dialogue. What must surely be avoided isthe signing of GFAs for their own sake. That is aregressive strategy, which will only lead to failure.In our view, GFAs should be seen as a strategy,the goal of which is a comprehensive globallabour relations regime, grounded in public regulationand structured by labour-managementnegotiations. The prospects of such a regime arecurrently not very bright but the march throughpublic institutions should continue. It is not likelyto be very effective, however, if it is not partof a broader manifestation of a willingness tochange public rules. Stronger and better implementedGFAs can and hopefully will play animportant role in this effort.In any event, the desirability of global rulesshould not de-legitimate national and regionalrules with a global reach. So long as world capitalis enabled by national and regional rules withglobal reach, as we think is the case, unions cannotabandon the national state. Yet, these strategiesdo not and should not be parochial, protectionistand self-serving. Rather, they should aimat forcing a thousand California effects as a partof a multilevel, transnational labour strategy.In our view, GFAsshould be seenas a strategy, thegoal of which isa comprehensiveglobal labourrelations regime,grounded inpublic regulationand structuredby labourmanagementnegotiationsMICHAEL FICHTER teachespolitical science and labourrelations at the Free UniversityBerlin, GermanyPage 17 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011INTERNATIONAL union rights

FOCUS ❐ GLOBAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENTSGlobal Agreementwith IKEA: Dialoguefor Deaf Ears?In 2011, welearned thatSwedwood hadhired a knownunion-bustingcompany to give itadvice on whatappears to be thebest way to stopworkers fromjoining a unionand bargaining acollectiveagreement.BOB RAMSAY is directorof Wood and Forestry for theBuilding and Wood Workers’InternationalIKEA is the world’s largest retailer of furnitureand furnishing products. It is owned througha series of secret foundations, based inHolland and Lichtenstein, which are tax free andultimately controlled by the Kamprad family whoestablished the company in the mid twentiethcentury. The Kamprad family, through the variousfoundations, also owns a manufacturingcompany called Swedwood, which is reputed tobe the world’s largest manufacturer of woodbasedfurniture.Swedwood produces exclusively for IKEA, tothe designs that IKEA dictates and in the quantitieswhich IKEA requests. IKEA and Swedwoodare more like two arms of the same octopus.Each is inter-dependent, and each backed ultimatelyby the same owners.Back in 1999, IKEA signed an agreement withthe Building and Wood Workers’ International(BWI) where it agreed to include the most basicof labour standards in its code of conduct forsuppliers, the IWAY. It would work to ensurethat these working people, no matter where onthe planet they worked, would have the samerights. Over the years, BWI and IKEA havedeveloped their cooperation to ensure thesestandards are adhered to by the over 1,000 IKEAsuppliers. This dialogue was proving beneficialto both parties. However, the dialogue hasstalled in recent years, ever since BWI startedasking some uncomfortable questions (forIKEA).In 2008, BWI began a dialogue with IKEA andlater with Swedwood, to ensure that 300 workersat its newly opened plant in Danville,Virginia (USA) should also benefit from thisagreement and dialogue. BWI requested that itsaffiliated union, the International Association ofMachinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW),which organises workers in the wood industry,be allowed to enter the Danville plant andinform employees of their rights to join theunion. Despite several discussions, the managementof Swedwood has never agreed to allowthe union in to talk to its employees and let themdecide freely.BWI has received alarming reports from theplant in Danville, USA. Workers reported thatthey were dismissed just for saying they wouldwelcome joining a union. Others reported thatsome managers were discriminating againstworkers.There were health and safety problems at thefactory. Finally the company was fined by theVirginia health and safety authorities US$10,000for breaches of relevant legislation.Earlier in 2011, we learned that Swedwoodhad hired a known union-busting company togive it advice on what appears to be the bestway to stop workers from joining a union andbargaining a collective agreement.Throughout this time, both IKEA andSwedwood have claimed that they are adheringstrictly to the laws in the state of Virginia, andthey have time after time, refused the unionaccess to talk to the workers directly, and allowthem to make up their own minds about joininga union. The companies have further repeatedlyclaimed that the Swedwood employees are freeto make their own decision.However, the reality is very different, accordingto the information we have received from theunion in the US after it has been in contact withsome of the workers in Danville.One worker, Kylette Duncan, quoted in the USmedia on April 10, complained that she had toleave her job because she was forced to workovertime and had to cancel her husband’s visitsto his doctor.The same article raises issue of discriminationat the plant, “If we put in for a better job, wewouldn’t get it — it would always go to a whiteperson,” said Jackie Maubin, who worked thenight shift in the packing department until lastyear, when she was fired on her birthday.In the working atmosphere created by managersand supervisors in the Danville plant,workers are scared to utter any pro-union sentiments.IKEA claims that it hired an expensiveteam of consultants to carry out a survey ofworker attitudes.Our information says that the workers interviewedwere very wary about giving their trueopinions, given the pervading atmosphere ofthreats and fear which exists.BWI and its affiliates have shown considerablepatience throughout a process of dialogue anddiscussion which began in 2008. It is now 1,068days since we first met with Swedwood. Duringthe process of communication, there have beentwo CEOs of IKEA, two CEOs of Swedwood, twoIKEA sustainability managers and three plantmanagers at Danville, yet still we have made noprogress.Workers in Danville have faced harassment,discrimination and have been refused the rightof representation. We have seen no decisionfrom the company to simply allow the union into talk to the workers.Throughout this process of drawn-out discussionsand dialogue with the companies, unionshave not been sitting idle as IKEA asks for moretime, more meetings, more discussions. Througha series of appeals on their own websites, theBWI and its key affiliates the IAMAW and GS(the Swedish union which organises Swedwoodworkers in the company’s home country) havebeen calling for support from the general publicINTERNATIONAL union rights Page 18 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011

EducationInternationaland union members around the world to lendtheir solidarity to their campaign. Thousandshave joined this action, to politely demand therights of the workers in Danville. Despite thegrowing wave of opinion, IKEA will not agree tothe simple demand of the workers and theunions in Sweden, the USA and around theglobe: Do the right thing! Open the doors atDanville to the union and let the workers decidefor themselves!■ More information can be found at:www.bwint.orgPromoting qualityeducation for all anddefending human andtrade union rights in ourunions, in our schoolsand in our societiesEI is the global union federation representing 30million teachers and education workers in 171countries and territories around the world.To learn more, please visit: www.ei-ie.orgUniting Food, Farmand Hotel WorkersWorldwidewww.iuf.orgInternational Federation ofChemical, Energy, Mine, &General Workers’ Unionswww.buyoutwatch.infoBuilding global solidarityInternational Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel,Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’Associations8 Rampe du Pont-Rouge, CH-1213, Petit-Lancy, SwitzerlandTel: + 41 22 793 22 33 Fax: + 41 22 793 22 38 Email: iuf@iuf.orgGeneral Secretary: Ron OswaldPresident: Hans-Olof NilssonGiving Practical Solidarity toTrade Unions Across the WorldICEM President Senzeni Zokwana(National Mineworkers Union of South Africa)ICEM General Secretary Manfred Warda20 rue Adrien Lachenal, 1207 Geneva, SwitzerlandTel: +41-22-304-1840. Fax: +41-22-304-1841E-mail: info@icem.orgwww.icem.orgPage 19 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011INTERNATIONAL union rights

REPORT ❐ MEXICAN LABOUR LAWA Labour LawBosses Would LoveIn one of therecent diplomaticcables publishedby Wikileaks, theU.S. governmentadmits “The netwealth of the 10richest people inMexico – acountry wheremore than 40percent of thepopulation lives inpoverty _representsroughly 10percent of thecountry’s grossdomestic product”DAVID BACON is a journalistbased in San FranciscoLabour law reformChanging labour law sounds like some technicalmodification, a subject lawyers argueabout in musty hearing rooms. In Mexicoit’s been front-page news for weeks. Changing thecountry’s labour law would transform the lives ofmillions of workers. It would cement the power ofa group of industrialists who have been on thepolitical offensive for decades, and who now controlMexico’s presidency and national government.“Labour law reform will only benefit the country’soligarchs,” claims Andres Manuel LopezObrador, who many if not most Mexicans thinkactually won the last presidential election in2006, as candidate of the leftwing Party of theDemocratic Revolution. Napoleon GomezUrrutia, head of the miner’s union who wasforced into exile in Canada in 2006, says Mexico’sold governing party, the Party of theInstitutionalised Revolution (PRI), which lost controlof the presidency in 2000, “is trying to assureits return by making this gift to big business,putting an end to labour rights.”In part, the change is drastic because on paper,at least, the rights of Mexican workers are extensive,deriving from the Revolution that ended in1920. At a time when workers in the U.S. still hadno law that even recognised the legality ofunions, Article 123 of the Mexican Constitutionspelled them out. Workers have the right to jobsand permanent status once they’re hired. Ifthey’re laid off, they have the right to severancepay. They have rights to housing, health care,and training. In a legal strike, they can string flagsacross the doors of a factory or workplace andeven the owner can’t enter until the dispute issettled. Strikebreaking is prohibited.The new law would change most of that.Companies would be able to hire workers in asix-month probationary status, and then fire themat the end without penalty. Even firing workerswith 20 or 30 years on the job would suddenlybecome much easier and cheaper for theiremployers, by limiting the penalty for unjust terminationto one year’s severance pay. The justificationis that by reducing the number of workersat a worksite, while requiring those remaining towork harder, productivity increases and profitsgo up. The labour law reform proposal deepensthose changes. The 40-hour work week was writteninto the Federal Labor Law, which codifiedthe rights in Article 123. That limit would end.Even the current 7-peso/hour minimum wage($5/day) would be undermined, as employerswould gain the unilateral right to set wages. Theindependent review of safe working conditionswould be heavily restricted.Even in union workplaces with a collectiveagreement setting wages and conditions, anemployer could force individual workers to signindividual agreements with fewer rights or lowerwages. Companies could subcontract work withno limit, giving employers the ability to find lowcostcontractors with no union to replaceunionised, higher-wage employees. And it wouldbecome much more difficult to go on strike.The proposed labour law reform is the fourthin a series of basic changes in Mexico’s economic,legal and political framework over the lastdecade. A fiscal reform began the process of privatisingthe country’s pension system, much likethe Social Security privatisation plans propose forthe US Teachers charge that Mexican educationreform is intended to remove their influence overthe curriculum, which still espouses values thatwould seem very progressive in a US classroom.In many cases, they say, it will remove them fromtheir jobs also. Current Mexican President FelipeCalderon of the National Action Party (PAN) proposedan energy reform aimed at privatising thenational oil company, Pemex. Fierce opposition,however, was able to restrict it to some degree.All the reforms have been part of a program ofeconomic liberalisation opening Mexico to privatedomestic, and especially foreign capital. lnfact, the World Bank pressured Mexico to adoptan earlier labour law reform after the PRI lost thepresidency in 2000, and Calderon’s predecessor,Coca-Cola executive Vicente Fox, won it. Thetwo labour law reform proposals are not identical,but very similar. Both reflect the surgingpower of corporate employers in Mexico, and theway the PRI and PAN often trade places, pursuingthe same political and economic agenda.Mexican poverty is already a scandal for acountry whose leaders insist its economic growthmerits a seat in the “first world.” Changing itslabour law would make that poverty more permanent,however, as well as rendering unionsmore impotent in challenging it.In 2010 Mexico had 53 million people living inpoverty, according to the Monterrey Institute ofTechnology. Even the CIA says half the country’spopulation lives in poverty and almost 20% inextreme poverty. The government’s unemploymentfigures are low - 5-6% - but a huge numberof working-age Mexicans are part of the informaleconomy, selling articles on the street or workingin jobs where the employer doesn’t pay into theofficial funds (the basis for counting employedworkers) Some estimate that there are more workersin the informal sector than in the formal one.Even the formal jobs don’t pay a wage capableof supporting a family, however. According tothe Bank of Mexico, 95% of the 800,000 jobs createdlast year paid only $10 a day. Yet when amaquiladora worker buys a gallon of milk in aTijuana or Juarez supermarket, she pays moreINTERNATIONAL union rights Page 20 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011

than she would on the U.S. side. The price of thatgallon of milk used to be fixed and subsidised,along with tortillas, bus fare and other basicnecessities. Previous waves of economic reformsdecontrolled prices and ended consumer subsidies,as Mexico was pressured to create morefavorable conditions for private investment.And investors have done very well. In one ofthe recent diplomatic cables published byWikileaks, the U.S. government admits “The netwealth of the 10 richest people in Mexico -- acountry where more than 40 percent of the populationlives in poverty -- represents roughly 10percent of the country’s gross domestic product.”Carlos Slim became the world’s richest man whena previous PRI President, Carlos Salinas deGortari, privatised the national telephone companyand sold it to him. Ricardo Salinas Pliego, whoowns TV Azteca, is now worth $8 billion andEmilio Azcárraga Jean, who owns Televisa, isworth $2.3 billion. Both helped current MexicanPresident Feiipe Calderon get elected in 2006.German Larrea and his company Grupo Mexicogot the concessions to operate some of theworld’s largest copper mines. Grupo Mexico wasaccused of industrial homicide by miners’ unionpresident Gomez Urrutia after 65 people (manyof them contract workers) died in an explosion inFebruary 2006. Since June 2007 the GrupoMexico copper mine in Cananea has been onstrike. Last year Larrea and the Mexican governmentcooperated in using armed force to open itsgates and bring in strikebreakers.In reality, much of the PRI’s labour law reformis already the reality on the ground in Cananea,at other mines, or among maquiladora workersnear the U.S. Mexico border. For years the rightsof workers in northern Mexico, and even the ruleof law itself, have been undermined by the growingpower of corporations.Corporatism and nationalismThe corporate transformation of the Mexicaneconomy began long ago, moving the countryaway from nationalist ideas about developmentwhich were dominant from the end of theMexican Revolution through the 1970s.Nationalists advocated an economic system inwhich oil fields, copper mines, railroads, the telephonesystem, great tracts of land, and other keyeconomic resources would be controlled byMexicans and used for their benefit.Under President Lazaro Cardenas in the late1930s, Mexico established a corporatist system inwhich one political party, the PRI, controlled themain sectors of Mexican society - workers, farmers,the military and the “popular” sector. PRIgovernments administered a network of socialservices, providing healthcare and housing, atleast for people in those organised sectors.Cardenas also nationalised Mexico’s most importantresource - oil - in a popular campaign.National ownership of oil, and later electricalgeneration, was written into the Constitution.Land redistribution and nationalisation had apolitical as well as economic purpose - the creationof a section of workers and farmers whowould defend the government and its politicalparty, into which their unions and producerorganisations were incorporated.After World War Two, Mexico officially adopteda policy of industrialisation through importsubstitution. Factories produced products for thedomestic market, while imports of those productswere restricted. The purpose was to develop anational industrial base, provide jobs, andincrease the domestic market. Large state-ownedenterprises eventually employed hundreds ofthousands of Mexican industrial workers in mines,mills, transportation and other strategic industries.Unions had their greatest strength in the publicsector. Foreign investment was limited.Enrique Davila, professor at San Diego CityCollege, calls the system “nationalism in rhetoric,selling out the country in practice.” Under successivePRI administrations a vast gulf widenedbetween the political and economic elite, whomanaged the state’s assets and controlled governmentpolicy in their own interest, and workersand farmers, especially those not in the formalsector. To protect this elite, the country’spolitical system became increasingly repressive.In the 1970s, to finance growth while the priceof oil was high, Mexico opened up its financial systemto foreign capital (mostly from the U.S.), andthe country’s foreign debt soared. Managers ofstate enterprises like the oil company ran privatebusinesses on the side, along with politically connectedunion officials. Rackets and corruption proliferatedwhile labour and campesino leaders whochallenged the system were imprisoned or worse.The debt and the hold it gave to foreign financialinterests spelled the end of nationalist development.Oil prices fell, the U.S. Treasury jackedup interest rates and in 1982 the system collapsedwhen Mexico could no longer make debt payments.The government devalued the peso inwhat is still infamous as the great “peso shock.”In the Constitution Mexicans still had the rightto housing, healthcare, employment and education,but millions of people went hungry, had nohomes, were sick and unemployed and couldn’tread. The anger and cynicism felt by manyMexicans toward their political system is in greatpart a product of the contradiction between theconstitutional promises of the revolution a centuryago, plus the nationalist rhetoric that followed,and the reality of life for most people.In a desperate attempt to generate jobs and revenuefor debt payments, the government encouragedthe growth of maquiladoras, the foreignownedfactories on the northern border. By 2005over 3000 border plants employed over two millionworkers making products for shoppers fromLos Angeles to New York. In 1992 they alreadyaccounted for over half of Mexican exports, andin the NAFTA era, became the main sector of theeconomy producing employment growth.Maquiladora development undermined thelegal rights of workers in the border area, andany laws viewed as discouraging investment. Thegovernment had a growing interest in keepingwages low as an attraction to foreign investment,instead of high enough that people could buywhat they were making. The old official unions,including the Confederation of Mexican Workers(CTM) controlled restive workers, rather thanorganising them to win better conditions.One of the most important methods of control isthe protection contract. Cooperative unions signagreements with factory owners, who pay it “dues”for workers who often have no idea that the unionand contract even exist. They find out quickly,however, when they try to organise any independenteffort to raise wages or improve conditions.The company and official union claim a contractalready exists. If workers try to protest, they’reLabour historyin Mexico fordecades hasbeen dominatedby valiant battlesfought by workersto organiseindependentunions and ridthemselves ofprotectioncontractsPage 21 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011INTERNATIONAL union rights

Progressiveunions inMexico today arefighting for theirsurvival. The stateinstitutions thatenforce Mexicanlabour law arealready heavilystacked againstthemMexico City © David Bacon.forced into a process before “tripartite” labourboards dominated by business owners, politiciansdependent on them, and the official unions.Labour history in Mexico for decades has beendominated by valiant battles fought by workers toorganise independent unions and rid themselvesof protection contracts. Thousands have beenfired and some even killed. Despite defeats,organisations like the Coalition for Justice in theMaquiladoras (CJM), the Border Committee ofWomen Workers (CFO), Enlace and the WorkersSupport Committee (CAT), have helped workerschallenge this system. Some of these battles,fought together with independent unions like theAuthentic Labour Front (FAT), have won unioncontracts, slowly building an independent andprogressive sector of Mexican labour.The FAT and the National Union of Workers, towhich it belongs, have made their own proposalsfor labour law reform. They’ve suggested makingall contracts public to let workers know whatunion they belong to, and to shine a light on thecorruption of the present system. They wouldreform the labour boards, making its process moreusable to workers, and remove some of the governmentcontrols used to punish independentunions. The PRI proposal would not make protectioncontracts public or limit them, nor would itchange the labour boards or enhance union rights.Instead, it takes direct aim at those independentunions, some of which have been organised infierce fights against shutdowns and privatisation,like the recent one at the government-ownedMexicana Airline. New private businesses in aviationand other industries don’t want to see theseunions spread by organising their workers. A newprivate carrier, Volaris, for instance, recently startedservice to the U.S. Now that the governmenthas forced Mexicana into bankruptcy and laid offits workers, Volaris hopes to take over the old airline’sroutes, and perhaps even its assets. What itdoesn’t want is the Mexicana union.The new labour law reform would restrictunions to the one company or enterprise wherethey start. Industrial, or even craft, unions, representingworkers at many employers, wouldbecome impossible to organise. The new privatebusinesses in Mexico would face no challenge bya union seeking to set a base wage for a particularindustry, for instance. Unions would havemuch greater difficulty in organising solidarityamong workers, in any effort like the ones thatled to the large industrial unions in either the U.S.or Mexico.Reactions and resistanceProgressive unions in Mexico today are fightingfor their survival. The state institutions thatenforce Mexican labour law are already heavilystacked against them. PRI’s reforms would turnthe struggle for survival into a desperate war.The miners union has been forced out of manymines by government-sponsored companyunions. Its leader is still in exile in Canada.President Calderon declared Mexico’s oldest andmost progressive major union, the MexicanElectrical Workers (SME) “non-existent” inOctober of 2009. He dissolved the state-ownedPower and Light Company for central Mexico,and fired all of the SME’s 44,000 members whoworked there. Most Mexicans believe that is aprelude to privatising the electrical industry.Already, despite the Constitutional prohibition,almost half of the electricity generated in thecountry comes from private producers.Nevertheless, the union has been able to winback its legal recognition and is fighting for therights and jobs of the 16,000 members who haverefused to accept their termination.Meanwhile, unions in the US and other countrieshave tried to find ways of supportingMexican unions. In February five internationalunion bodies, the International Metalworkers’Federation (IMF), International Federation ofChemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers’Unions (ICEM), International Transport Workers’Federation (ITF), UNI Global Union, and theInternational Trade Union Confederation (ITUC),cooperated in organising actions in 40 countries.Over 50,000 workers, students and human rightsactivists demonstrated at Mexican consulates orotherwise showed their public opposition to thereform. Twenty-seven actions took place inMexico itself.The international federations and Mexicanunions formed a coalition which agreed to pressthe government to abolish the protection contractsystem and to stop the use of force against strikersat the Cananea mine, the Power and LightCompany and in other similar situations. Theunions demanded an end to repression againstthe miners union and the SME and that governmentofficials be held responsible for the explosionat the Pasta de Conchos coal mine.In April unions, community organisations andeven churches and farmers filled Mexico City’smain avenue, the Reforma, in a huge march tothe central plaza, the Zocalo. In the Chamber ofDeputies and Senate, legislators from the PRDannounced they would begin holding “days ofinformation” in neighborhoods, helping ordinarypeople understand the changes that await them.As the presidential election of July 2012 drawscloser, politicians increasingly try to calculate theway the reform might influence it. For the PAN,having the PRI introduce the proposal helpscement a political alliance against the left, andmakes the PRI complicit in the government’s antilabourcrusade. This causes problems in the PRI,however. Even some official union leaders, affiliatedwith the PRI, seek to defend themselvesagainst accusations from their base that they’rebetraying their union and history. A few haveeven called the bill an “aggressive attack on workers,”while others advocate more meetings to discussthe proposal, echoing the call by the PRD.Carlos Navarrete, PRD coordinator in theSenate, ridiculed the secrecy in which the PRIproposal was introduced. “The country needsgood-paying jobs, with secure benefits and alevel of technology that makes them competitive,”he argued, “not stealth initiatives made withno public debate.” The longer the debate goeson, however, the closer the elections approach.Some PRI candidates, at least, would rather nothave to defend an unpopular reform, fresh in thememory of voters. They’d like to see a vote assoon as possible. “The PRI and PAN deputies willtry to pass it during holy week, when people areon vacation,” predicts Lopez Obrador.On the defensive or not, though, the independentunions and left wing activists are far frombeaten. They’ve defeated previous efforts, andpopular support is on their side. If they canmobilise it effectively, they can still defeat thepresent proposal and hold the government atbay. July of 2012 is not that far away.INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 22 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011

REPORT ❐ COLLECTIVE BARGAININGCanada: Report onthe Fraser decisionThe AEPAostensiblyprotectsagriculturalworkers’ right toorganise.. andthe right tomerely makerepresentationsto their employerwith the onlycorrespondingobligation that theemployer read orlisten to therepresentationsVEENA VERMA is a labourlawyer living in Montreal andBoard member of the CanadianFoundation for Labour Rights(CFLR)Arecent decision from the Supreme Court ofCanada has the Court dancing the tangowith workers’ collective bargaining rights:one step forward, two steps backwards. On April29, 2011, the Court released the long awaiteddecision in Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser,2011 SCC 20 curtailing the definition of collectivebargaining rights in Canada. James Clancy andRoy Adams recently debated the implications ofthe case on minority unions’ rights in Canada inIUR (17.44). In addition to this question, the decisionis significant in defining the scope of collectivebargaining rights within the ambit of the freedomof association provision in Canada’s constitution,the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.This case deals with the exclusion of approximately80,000 agricultural workers from theOntario Labour Relations Act (“LRA”) and the constitutionalityof the Agricultural EmployeesProtection Act (“AEPA”), which purports to createa separate regime for protecting agricultural workersto organise in “employees’ associations” andmake “representations” to their employer.Notably, there is no mention in the AEPA to “tradeunions” or “collective bargaining”. The Courtupheld previous jurisprudence finding that collectivebargaining rights are protected under the constitution.But, it provided an unworkable andrestrictive interpretation of these rights, ultimatelyruling that it was constitutional to deny agriculturalworkers the same collective bargaining rightsas enjoyed by the majority of workers in Ontario.One Step ForwardIn order to understand the full import of theFraser decision, it is necessary to trace theSupreme Court’s treatment of collective bargainingrights since the adoption of the CanadianCharter in 1982. The first cases dealing squarelywith the issue of whether collective bargaining isprotected under the Charter were a group of threeconcurrently released appeals now known as thelabour “trilogy”: Reference re Public ServiceEmployee Relations Act (Alta.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313(“Alberta Reference”), PSAC v. Canada, [1987] 1S.C.R. 424, and RWDSU v. Saskatchewan, [1987] 1S.C.R. 460. In these early decisions, the majorityview in the Supreme Court of Canada was thatfreedom of association did not extend to collectivebargaining. Central to this analysis was theopinion that freedom of association covers onlyactivities performable by an individual, and sincean individual cannot perform collective bargaining,then collective bargaining is not covered.The Court began to shift its treatment of collectivebargaining rights in Dunmore v. Ontario(Attorney General), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1016. This caseis the precursor to Fraser in which the UnitedFood and Commercial Workers Canada(“UFCW”) first challenged the exclusion of agriculturalworkers from the LRA. The Court retreatedfrom the labour trilogy analysis and embracedthe view that there may be activities that are collectivein nature deserving protection under freedomof association. The Court held at para. 17:“[T]he law must recognise that certain unionactivities – making collective representations toan employer, adopting a majority political platform,federating with other unions – may be centralto freedom of association even though theyare inconceivable on the individual level.”The Court found that the government interferedwith farm workers’ freedom of associationbecause the lack of legislative protection asenjoyed by all other workers in Ontario had a“chilling effect” on their ability to organise in anemployees’ association. Farm workers are so vulnerableand disadvantaged that it was impossiblefor them to organise in a meaningful way toachieve workplace goals. Therefore, it wasappropriate here to recognise a positive stateobligation to extend protective legislation overtheir efforts to organise in an association and tomake representations to their employer.However, the Court stopped short of recognisingthat freedom of association included collectivebargaining rights.While the labour community initially heraldedthe Dunmore case as a victory, a closer readrevealed an unworkable distinction between theright to join a union and the right to collectivebargaining. The absurdity of this distinction wasdemonstrated by the Ontario government’sresponse to the decision, which was to enact theAEPA. The AEPA ostensibly protects agriculturalworkers’ right to organise in an employees’ association,and the right to merely make representationsto their employer with the only correspondingobligation that the employer read or listento the representations. Under the AEPA, theUFCW attempted to bargain collectively onbehalf of farm employees, but employers saidthat the company was not required to bargainwith the union. The UFCW then launched a constitutionalchallenge of the AEPA that is the subjectof the Fraser decision.In Fraser, the UFCW argued that it was unconstitutionalto deny agricultural workers collectivebargaining rights as enjoyed by the majority of allother workers in the province under the LRA.This includes: 1) a statutory duty on the employerto bargain in good faith; 2) precluding the formationof multiple employees’ associations withina single workplace (i.e. recognition of the principlesof majoritarian exclusivity), and 3) a disputeresolution mechanism for resolving bargainingimpasses.INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 24 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011

REPORT ❐ COLLECTIVE BARGAININGThe limitations of Dunmore soon becameapparent when the court at the trial level dismissedthe Fraser case by finding that Dunmoredid not open the door for constitutionalising collectivebargaining rights.The Supreme Court of Canada subsequentlyreleased the seminal case of Health Services andSupport – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v.British Columbia, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 391 (“B.C.Health”) marking a sea change in the Court’streatment of collective bargaining rights. In thiscase, health sector unions squarely asserted thatfreedom of association protected a right to collectivebargaining (as opposed to associationalprotections seen in Dunmore) which the BritishColumbia government had violated by legislatingto both overturn existing contracts and precludeeffective collective bargaining in the future.Reviewing Canada’s labour history, internationallaw, and Canada’s Charter values, the Courtfinally held that freedom of association constitutionallyprotects collective bargaining on fundamentalworkplace issues, and the right to collectivebargaining includes the duty to bargain ingood faith, consistent with the Canada LabourCode and legislation from all provinces. Laws orstate actions that prevent or deny meaningful discussionand consultation between employeesand their employer on fundamental working conditionsare unconstitutional if they substantiallyinterfere with the activity of collective bargaining.Justices Rothstein and Charron. However, indefending B.C. Health, a political compromiseappears to have been made on the backs of agriculturalworkers. Indeed, the bulk of decisionfocuses on the correctness of B.C. Health asopposed to addressing the vulnerable and marginalisedposition of agricultural workers.The majority maintained that collective bargainingis constitutionally protected and includesa duty to bargain in good faith on importantworkplace issues. Relying on B.C. Health, theCourt found that freedom of association requiresboth employer and employees to meet and toengage in “meaningful dialogue” in pursuit of acommon goal of peaceful and productive accommodation.They must avoid unnecessary delaysand make reasonable efforts to arrive at anacceptable contract. It does not, however,include a particular process; it does not requirethe parties to conclude an agreement or acceptany particular terms; it does not guarantee a legislateddispute resolution mechanism in the caseof an impasse; and it protects only the right to ageneral process of collective bargaining, not to aparticular model of labour relations, or to a specificbargaining method.The majority decision strips collective bargainingrights of some of the essential aspects thathave been commonly expected in the labourcommunity. While the majority repeatedly statedthat freedom of association guarantees in thelabour relations context a “meaningful process”,it missed the point that without protecting majoritarianexclusivity and, in particular, a dispute resolutionprocess in the case of an impasse, collectivebargaining becomes meaningless.Left with the only having to show a statutoryduty to bargain in good faith, the majority goeson to review the AEPA. Citing B.C. Health, theCourt notes, “The right to collective bargainingcannot be reduced to a mere right to make representations”.Despite clear language in the AEPAthat includes only the mere right to make representations,the majority nevertheless found theAct to be constitutional by, astonishingly, reading-ina requirement of good faith bargaining.The Court’s analysis makes general principles ofstatutory interpretation unrecognizable. No partyto the proceeding argued that AEPA could beinterpreted in such a manner. As noted by AbellaJ., the sole dissenting judge: “I have great difficultywith stretching the interpretive process in away that converts clear statutory language andexpress legislative intention into a completely differentscheme. The AEPA does not protect, andwas never intended to protect, collective bargainingrights.”Finally, the majority’s use of international law inthis case is troubling. In the defence of B.C.Health, the majority said it was appropriate toshow deference to ILO principles and the ILOCommittee on Freedom of Association (“CFA”),which found that the B.C. Government had violatedthe health sector employees’ freedom ofassociation. However, incredibly, the majoritycompletely ignores and makes no reference to thefact that the CFA also found that the AEPA violatedagricultural workers’ freedom of association. InTwo Steps BackwardsRelying on B.C. Health, UFCW successfullyappealed the Fraser decision at the Ontario Courtof Appeal. The Ontario government appealedthis decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.By the time the Supreme Court heard the Fraserappeal, B.C. Health had been in place for onlytwo years. It quickly became apparent that governmentsand business intended to use the Frasercase as an opportunity to re-litigate B.C. Health.Several provincial governments and industrygroups intervened in the case arguing that theCourt had gone too far in B.C. Health and interferedwith government policy-making by inappropriatelyconstitutionalising a labour relationsmodel (i.e. the Wagner model). The UFCW andothers pointed out that having already selected alabour relations regime for all workers in Ontario,the government could not then deny vulnerableagricultural workers the fundamental elements ofcollective bargaining found in existing legislationsuch as the LRA.It took 16 months from the date of oral submissionsbefore the Court released its decision.The delay seems to reflect an internal battle overthe legitimacy of B.C. Health, resulting in a fourway split decision. In a minority judgment,Justices Rothstein and Charron suggested thatB.C. Health (and implicitly Dunmore) waswrongly decided and should be reversed.Accordingly, in their opinion, if the Charter doesnot protect collective bargaining rights, then theAEPA is constitutional. Remarkably, none of theparties took this position in their submissions andno notice was given to the parties to address thefact that B.C. Health may no longer be precedent.The majority of the justices disagreed with Continued on Page 28...Though purelypolitical strikesmight not enjoyConvention 87support, astoppage of workto protest againstgovernmentpolicy affectingthe social andeconomicinterests of theworkersconcerned wouldbe protectedPage 25 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011INTERNATIONAL union rights

ICTUR IN ACTION ❐ INTERVENTIONSBahrainA series of sackings, threats,violence, and arrests of tradeunionists has recently takenplace in Bahrain. As many as300 workers have beendismissed from the ALBAaluminium company and theKhalifa Sea Port and as manyas 40 workers have beendismissed by Gulf Air. ICTURunderstands that thesedismissals are retaliatory inresponse to workers’participation in widespreadstrikes and protest actions inthe country. Among thosedismissed is Abdul GhaffarAbdul Hussain, President ofthe BAPCO petrol workers’union. On 29 March the VicePresident of the BahrainiTeachers’ Association andfour other leaders from theunion were arrested andsalaries have been stoppedfor a number of unionmembers. There have alsobeen reports of violence andrepression meted out tothose who have participatedin the recent wave ofdemonstrations, resulting inat least 20 deaths and thearrest and detention ofhundreds of people.ICTUR has written to theauthorities emphasising thatthe arrest of trade unionleaders and the dismissal oftrade unionists followingtheir participation in strikesand demonstrationsconstitutes a serious violationof international labour rights.ICTUR reminded theauthorities that Bahrain hasan obligation to respect tradeunion rights arising underthe terms of the ILO’sDeclaration of FundamentalPrinciples of 1998. ICTURfurther emphasised that tradeunion rights and the humanrights of trade unionists arerequired to be protectedunder the fundamentalinstruments of internationalhuman rights law, includingthe Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights.ColombiaOn May 26, Carlos JulioGómez, a teacher andmember of of the teachers’union Valle-SUTEV, wasmurdered by armed men inCali, Valle del Cauca. OnMay 27, Freddy AntonioCuadrado Núñez, a memberof a teacher’s union, wasmurdered by contract killersin Ciénaga, Magdalena.ICTUR continues to monitorthe situation in Colombiathrough the publication of adedicated bulletin, which isavailable in both Englishand Spanish languageeditions from our website atwww.ictur.org. To sign up toreceive the bulletin by email,please send a request tomiguel@ictur.org.Cote d’IvoireOn 26 April the ITUCreceived word that BasileMahan Gahé, GeneralSecretary of the Dignité tradeunion centre, had beenarrested and taken intodetention by the authorities.The authorities failed torespond to the ITUC’s letterof concern and theinternational trade unionmovement has received noofficial word on hiswhereabouts or theconditions of his detention.Meanwhile local media havepublished conflicting storiesconcerning the detention ofthe union leader. ITUC hasdemanded to know whereGahé is being held, underwhat conditions he is beingkept, and whether specificcharges have been broughtagainst him.ICTUR wrote to the authoritiesto call for clarification of thewhereabouts of the tradeunion leader. ICTURreminded the authorities thatthe arrest of a trade unionleader for reasons connectedwith the exercise of his tradeunion role is a very seriousviolation of internationallabour standards. ICTURcalled for the authorities toclarify the situationimmediately, to ensure thatGahé is provided with accessto legal counsel and that thelocal and international tradeunions should be grantedaccess to information abouthis detention. ICTUR remindedthe authorities that tradeunion rights are protectedunder ILO Conventions 87and 98, which Cote d’Ivoirehas ratified, and under theterms of the African Charter of1981.El SalvadorOn June 8, during a peacefulstrike against the companyLIDO, Atilio Pérez, SecretaryGeneral of the worksiteunion SELSA, was detainedunder false pretences forleading the strike. Thecompany said it wouldretract its accusations if thestrike was called off. Pérez isbeing held in the Civil Policeprison of San Bartolo.ICTUR has written to theauthorities of El Salvador todemand that it take allnecessary measures to ensurethe release of the trade unionleader and reminded theauthorities that the principlesof freedom of associationmust be respected by all ILOmember States under the1998 Declaration ofFundamental Principles.IndiaOn 7 April police inVizianagaram respondedviolently to a protest stagedby women health workers atthe office of the DistrictMedical and Health Officer.ICTUR understands thatseveral women were beatenwith ‘lathi’ sticks and thatmore than twenty workers,including officers from theCITU trade union centre,were arrested. On the sameday up to 275 workers fromthe Vadodara General Motorsplant were arrested anddetained following theirparticipation in a 500-strongdemonstration concerningthe conduct of managementat the plant and theapproach of local police totrade union matters.ICTUR reminded theauthorities that although itappears that the arrests wereof a temporary nature andthat the officer understood tobe responsible for some of themost serious violence inVizianagaram has beensuspended from duty, they stillconstitute a serious violationof international labourstandards. ICTUR insisted thata workers’ protest should beresolved by collectivenegotiation in accordancewith international law, andthat the state hasresponsibility to ensure thateffective and efficientchannels for the resolution ofdisputes are created andmaintained. ICTURemphasised that India isrequired to respect tradeunion rights under the termsof the ILO’s Declaration ofFundamental Principles, andthat trade union rights areprotected under the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights.IraqOn April 17, the Iraqiauthorities withdrew theirrecognition of the GFIW asthe national trade unioncentre in Iraq and began aprocess of instituting newelections within the tradeunion movement that will beoverseen by a Governmentcreatedbody, the MinisterialPreparatory Committee.ICTUR has also receivedreports that a youth leader ofthe Mechanics’ and PrintersUnion of the GFIW wastaken away by Iraqi securitypolice during ademonstration in TahrirSquare for trade union rights,and that Jamal Abdul-Jabbar,President of the Oil and GasWorkers’ Union also of theGFIW in Kirkuk, was forciblytransferred from his positionat Northern Oil company to aremote location due to hisunion activities.ICTUR has written to theauthorities expressing itsgrave concern at therepression of trade unionistsengaging in union activityand participating indemocratic assemblies. ICTURhas called on the State tocease its interference in tradeunion affairs and torecognise the GFIW as alegitimate representative ofworkers. ICTUR has remindedthe authorities that Iraq hasan obligation to respect tradeunion rights under the termsof the ILO’s Declaration ofFundamental Principles of1998. ICTUR furtheremphasised that trade unionrights and the human rightsof trade unionists arerequired to be protectedunder the fundamentalinstruments of internationalhuman rights law, includingthe Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights.INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 26 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011

ICTUR IN ACTION ❐ INTERVENTIONSPhilippinesOn 8 March Cielito Baccay,an officer and foundingmember of the Maeno-GikenWorkers Organisation, wasshot and killed byunidentified assassins onmotorcycles while he wasriding home on hismotorcycle. The Centre forTrade Union and HumanRights in Manila reports thatsince the union’s inception,management has activelyinterfered with unionorganising.ICTUR has written to theauthorities urging a fullinvestigation in order toidentify all those involved inthe murder. ICTUR remindedthe authorities that themurder of a trade unionistrepresents an extremelyserious violation of theprinciples of freedom ofassociation and that thePhilippines has in recentyears witnessed serious andnumerous violations of therights of trade unionists, asevidenced by the 2008 reportof UN Special RepresentativePhilip Alston following hisvisit to the country in 2007.Trade union rights areprotected under the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rightsand under ILO Conventions87 and 98, which have beenratified by and are bindingupon the Philippines.SwazilandOn 12 and 13 April thepolice arrested a dozen tradeunionists, raided the officesof the SFTU federation, andassaulted trade unionists andstaff.ICTUR has written to theauthorities urging them torecognise that the arrest oftrade unionists is a seriousviolation of internationallabour standards. ICTURcalled for the release of thosein detention and for the Stateto revise its approaches todealing with trade unionprotests so that the rights oftrade unionists are respectedin full. ICTUR has remindedthe authorities that tradeunion rights are protectedunder the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rightsand under ILO Conventions87 and 98, which have beenratified by and are bindingupon Swaziland.TurkeyThe Turkish government hasfiled criminal charges against111 trade union leaders aftera demonstration on 1 April inAnkara in defence 12,000workers made redundantfollowing the privatisation ofthe state tobacco companyTEKEL. Prior to theirdismissal in December 2009,IUF affiliate Tekgida-Is, thatrepresented the TEKELworkforce, had been seekingnegotiations with thegovernment over the futureof the workers whoremained precariouslyemployed in the statecontrolledportion of thecompany. Tekgida-Ismembers and theirsupporters organised ademonstration against thegovernment during whichthey were beaten, peppergassedand subsequentlyindicted. Those facingcriminal charges include:Tekgida-Is President, MustafaTurkel, four other nationalofficers, 12 branchpresidents, the current andformer heads of the nationalcentre DISK, two formerleaders of the public sectorconfederation KESK andother prominent union andsocial activists.ICTUR has written to theauthorities stressing that thearrest of trade unionistsfollowing their participationin strikes and demonstrationsconstitutes a serious violationof the fundamental principlesof ILO Convention 87, whichhas been ratified by Turkey,and of the EuropeanConvention on HumanRights. ICTUR has calledupon the authorities towithdraw all charges againstunionists engaged in thedefence of their rights and toensure that workers in Turkeycan exercise their tradeunion rights without fear ofcriminal prosecution orviolence.UKICTUR has received reportsof a number of recentdevelopments concerning theUK’s commitment toimplementing, upholding andpromoting internationallabour standards in the UKand around the world.Electrician Franck Morris,was dismissed by DaletechServices from his position atthe Olympics Media Centre.Mr Morris was dismissedafter raising concerns of anunlawful blacklist of tradeunionists being circulated athis site. Further, PaulWhitehurst, National Officerof the GMB union, wasarrested on 4 May whileattending a lawful protest atBP in Saltend, Hull.ICTUR has written to theauthorities to recognise thatblacklisting and the arrest ofa trade unionist constituteserious violations of the rightsprotected under ILOConventions 87 and 98,which have been ratified byand are binding upon the UK.ICTUR also recalled that tradeunion rights are protectedunder Article 11 of theEuropean Convention ofHuman Rights, of which theUK was one of the architectsand earliest signatories.ICTUR has also raised itsconcerns over the recentwithdrawal of financialsupport from DFID(Department for InternationalDevelopment) for the ILO, andthe negative implications thismay have for creating decentwork as a route out of poverty.ICTUR has called on theauthorities to give adequateconsideration to thecommunications submitted bythe TUC and the ILOconcerning the decision tocease DFID funding and toenter into serious discussionswith the TUC and ILO with aview to reinstating thoseprogrammes.USACollective bargaining rightsfor public sector workershave recently been removedor diluted in several US statesand inappropriate legislationhas been applied in someindustrial relations cases.Amnesty International reportsthat legislation restrictingcollective bargaining rightsfor public sector workers hasbeen passed in Wisconsinand similar Bills have beenproposed in Colorado,Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,New Mexico, Ohio,Oklahoma and Tennessee.The IUF has reported thatthe Racketeer Influenced andCorrupt Organizations Act(RICO) has once again beenused against a trade union,specifically the SEIU in alawsuit filed by themultinational companySodexo. ICTUR is concernedthat this legislation has beenused inappropriately as abarrier to trade unionorganising campaigns.ICTUR has written to theauthorities that the USA hasan obligation to respect tradeunion rights arising underthe terms of the ILO’sDeclaration of FundamentalPrinciples of 1998. ICTURfurther emphasises that tradeunion rights and the humanrights of trade unionists arerequired to be protectedunder the fundamentalinstruments of internationalhuman rights law, includingthe Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights.Page 27 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011INTERNATIONAL union rights

REPORT ❐ PAKISTAN LABOUR RIGHTSPakistan: labour legislationand fundamental rightsThe 18thConstitutionalAmendment…has created aparadoxicalsituation denyingthe right offreedom ofassociation tothe nationalindustry-widetrade unions andfederationsLabour legislation in Pakistan aims to ensurecordial labour management relations inorder to promote the welfare of the workers,raise productivity and ensure social justice insociety. It is also meant to promote industrialpeace through mutual consultation and dialoguebetween the representatives of the employersand workers.Unfortunately, the 18th ConstitutionalAmendment introduced by the Government hasdeleted item No. 27 of the Concurrent List, namely‘trade unions and industrial labour dispute’ anddevolved this subject to the Provincial List.This amendment has created a paradoxical situationdenying the right of freedom of associationto the national industry-wide trade unions and federationsand national employers federation fromgetting their organisation registered and obtainlegal status.The effect of this amendment is that tradeunions that promote national unity and harmonyand defeat divisive forces based upon ethnic,parochial and religious sectarian forces, might beconfined to work only at the Provincial level.This amendment is not only in violation of fundamentalrights enshrined in Article 17/A of thePakistan Constitution pertaining to Freedom ofAssociation and Collective Bargaining, but also ofinternational obligations undertaken by the governmentof Pakistan, including ILO ConventionsNo. 87 & 98.Various provincial governments includingPunjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhunkhwa, Balochistanhad adopted Provincial ‘Industrial RelationsLegislation’ in recent months. The ProvincialGovernment of Punjab in its legislation, namely“Industrial Relations Act 2010’, has debarred ‘theworkers engaged in establishments having lessthan 50 workers. It has done so on the groundthat the majority of the workers are engaged insmall and medium enterprises. The governmentclaims that these workers have no right either toform trade unions or to have a collective voice toattain social justice through exercising their fundamentalright of freedom of association and collectivebargaining in conformity with ILOConventions 87 and 98.Had the legislators taken the trouble to consultthe essential stakeholders prior to bringing theConstitutional Amendment on labour issues, thislegal vacuum would not have occurred.The ILO has recommended to the Governmentof Pakistan to review this legislation and constitutionalamendment to bring it into conformitywith international obligations.The Provincial Government should honournational constitutional obligations by removingrestrictions for membership of trade unions fromworkers in enterprises with fewer than 50employees, something which is not only antidemocraticbut also in violation of the fundamentalrights of workers.KURSHID AHMED, GeneralSecretary of the PakistanWorkers’ Federation...Continued from Page 25particular, the CFA observed that “neither theGovernment nor the complainant have referred toany successfully negotiated agreement since theAct’s adoption in 2002, nor even to any good faithnegotiations engaged in” [emphasis added] and,therefore, concluded “that the absence of anymachinery for the promotion of collective bargainingof agricultural workers constitutes animpediment to one of the principal objectives ofthe guarantee of freedom of association – theforming of independent organisations explicitlycapable of concluding collective agreements.”The Fraser decision does not bode well for thefuture of collective bargaining rights in Canadaand leaves agricultural workers in a precariousposition. Several Supreme Court judges will beretiring in the next four years and the recentlyelected right-wing Conservative federal governmentwill make the new appointments. The fearis that the new appointments will continue rollingback collective bargaining rights.On May 30, 2011, the Canadian Foundation forLabour Rights held a seminar in Toronto to discussthe implications of the Fraser decision.Participants included prominent trade unionlawyers, academics and union leaders. There wasconsensus that the trade union movement willhave to take this dance outside of the courts andconcentrate resources in political mobilisation.There will be an election in Ontario this fall andthe UFCW intends to make agricultural workers’bargaining rights an election issue. We will haveto wait and see if any of the political parties or thefuture government will come on the dance floor.INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 28 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011

PublicServicesInternationalPSI is a global union federation representing20 million workers, members of public sectortrade unions, in 160 countries.PSI and its affiliates are committed to buildingquality public services that meet the needs ofworkers and communities.Priorities include global campaigns for water,energy and health services. PSI promotesgender eauality, workers rights, trade unioncapacity building, equity and diversity. PSI isalso active in trade and development debates.PSI welcomes the opportunity to workco-operatively with those who share theseconcerns.Visit our website www.world-psi.org

Plus:■ Ontario v Fraser Decision■ Mexican labour law reform■ Report on the 27th ICTUR Administrative Council in Geneva■ ICTUR web site:www.ictur.orgCover Images:TUC Anti-Cuts March, London, March 31, 2011.