Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 344, Mars 2007

353. The complainants presented their complaint in communications dated 1 December 2005 and 13 January 2006.

1. 354. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 12 September 2006. In a communication dated 2 October 2006, the Government sent UNILEVER’s comments on the complaint.
2. 355. Brazil has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949
   • (No. 98), and the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), but has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

A. The complainants’ allegations

1. 356. In its communication dated 1 December 2005, the complainant organization alleges non-compliance by IGL Industrial Ltd, part of the transnational economic group UNILEVER, with the guarantees relating to freedom of association provided for in Conventions No. 87 and No. 98.
2. 357. The complainants state that the Unified Trade Union of Chemical Industry Workers (Vinhedo Region) – hereafter referred to as the Union – represents approximately 2,000 chemical industry workers in Vinhedo, of whom 822 are members. They also indicate that 313 of the 524 workers of IGL Industrial Ltd are members of the Union – a unionization rate of 59.7 per cent, which is far above the average for the country.
3. 358. Specifically, the complainants allege that over the past 20 years, the company systematically engaged in authoritarian practices and avoided social dialogue, as can be seen from the long list of disputes that it has had with the Union during that time.
4. 359. By way of example, the complainants cite a three-day work stoppage in 1991 that ended with the intervention of the Special Force of the Military Police of the State of São Paulo, which was requested by the company to stop strikers demonstrating outside their plant. During the 1990s, the Union called a number of work stoppages that lasted several hours. Since 2001 it has halted the company’s production three times for one day to back its demand for higher wages and renewed collective agreements and to protest against the mass dismissals of recent years. IGL Industrial Ltd reacted on every occasion by making threatening telephone calls to workers and filming the demonstrations so as to identify the workers involved and put pressure on them. In addition, the company systematically infiltrates the workers’ meetings and denies union officials access to the industrial plant. When access is allowed, they have to be accompanied by security guards, which makes contact with the workers difficult.
5. 360. During the last work stoppage called by the Union in March 2005, the company ordered the security service to cut the barbed-wire fences so that the strike breakers could avoid the strikers’ picket line. In addition, line managers and coordinators tried to intimidate workers into returning to work, even outside the premises.
6. 361. The complainants allege that the company set up its own form of workers’ representation in the workplace, parallel to the Union, through a body known as the Working Group on Improving the Environment. The Group, which is sponsored by the management of IGL Industrial Ltd and at its beck and call, is acting as an enterprise trade union – a legal impossibility in Brazilian labour law. Moreover, UNILEVER refuses to recognize the National Trade Union Committee of UNILEVER Brazil, which encompasses all the representative trade unions from all plants in the country.
7. 362. The most recent and serious step taken by the company, which led to a consultation with MERCOSUR’s Social and Labour Committee and to this complaint, has been its campaign to get employees to leave the Union. This began in January 2005 with the distribution of forms of resignation from the Union and culminated in March 2005 with the setting up of a toll-free 0800 telephone line, which inter alia provided company employees with the option of requesting their resignation from the Union. A worker, who selected this option, was assisted by a company agent to fill in resignation forms and send them to the Union. According to the complainant, this situation, which lasted for about a month, constituted serious interference in the legitimate activities of the Union.
8. 363. In conclusion, the complainant organizations request that the Government of Brazil be recommended to guarantee, freedom to demonstrate inside and outside the premises of IGL Industrial Ltd, freedom to join the Union, freedom to form peaceful picket lines without interference from the company; abstention by the employer from any practice giving incentives to leave the Union, recognition of the National Trade Union Committee by the company, and the company’s abstention from filming or photographing demonstrations and workers’ meetings without the prior consent of the individuals concerned and the Union.
9. B. The Government’s reply
10. 364. In its communication of 12 September 2006, the Government reports that a complaint against UNILEVER for alleged violation of the principles contained in the Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was submitted to Brazil’s National Focal Point by the Unified Trade Union of Chemical Workers (Vinhedo Region) and the National Confederation of Chemical Workers affiliated to the Single Central Organization of Workers (CUT), following the company’s announcement of the closure of the production plant in Vinhedo and its transfer to the municipality of Ipojuca, without having informed the workers’ representatives.
11. 365. Another complaint against the company for alleged anti-union practices was submitted by the CUT to MERCOSUR’s Social and Labour Committee in May 2005, in the form of a consultation, specifically concerning the distribution of a resignation form entitled “Exclusion of trade union members” and the setting up of a toll-free telephone line by the Human Resources Department so that employees could ask for union dues not to be deducted from their payslip. This practice, which had already been reported to the Ministry of Labour and Employment with a request for intervention by the Public Prosecutor for Labour, is also the subject of the present complaint before the Committee on Freedom of Association.
12. 366. The Government reports that the Ministry of Labour and Employment sent an investigator from the Public Prosecutor’s Office to interview the parties concerned and sent a written request to UNILEVER for its comments on the complaint.
13. 367. In its meeting with the investigator from the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Union’s representatives outlined their complaint and added a number of new points. In particular, they said that the company was pursuing an anti-union policy that could not always be proven with objective data but was reflected in its constant efforts to undermine the representative role of the Union. In addition, during working hours the management tries to pressure the workers to leave the Union. Until 2004 trade union officials employed in the company had to be accompanied by security guards when entering company premises; after this was reported to the authorities, the company adopted the same procedure for all its employees outside working hours. The Union does not take part in negotiations on profit sharing, as required by law. The company had set up an internal telephone service for workers to request to leave the Union, but this was deactivated following a complaint by the Union. The company organizes discussion forums with the workers – such as an open forum known as Programe Aberto Para Ouvir and the Working Group on Improving the Environment – and this would normally be a positive step, except that they do not allow the Union to take part. Lastly, the complainants allege that the company does not send the Union copies of the meetings of the Occupational Accidents Committee.
14. 368. At the meeting with the investigator from the Public Prosecutor’s Office the company’s representatives denied the existence of any practice, covert or otherwise, aimed at restricting trade union activities. They stated that being accompanied by security guards applies to any non-member of the staff, whether a union official or not, including employees when visiting the plant outside working hours.
15. 369. With regard to the alleged setting up of a toll-free telephone line to help workers resign from the union, they said that the company has an internal telephone service for various purposes, one of which was for workers to request that their union dues cease to be deducted from their payslip. In such cases, workers were advised first to contact the Union to make their resignation official. The company’s representatives did not give any explanation why the telephone service had been stopped. On this point the Government encloses the text of a communication issued by the company, which was sent to it by the Union, entitled “Exclusion of Union members”, which reads: “Call the human resources 0800 number to request that union dues not be deducted from your payslip and send us the call number”.
16. 370. With regard to the Working Group on Improving the Environment, the company’s representatives stated that this had ceased to exist in 2004. That and similar forums such as the Programe Aberto Para Ouvir serve as a channel of communication with employees for discussing ways of improving the quality of life at work. Participation is open to all workers and the quarterly meetings take place during working hours. The company’s representatives specified that union officials not employed by the company are not allowed to take part because the forum is open only to staff members. A Global People Survey was later introduced with similar objectives as those of the Working Group on Improving the Environment. They added that there was no written documentation about how these programmes work.
17. 371. Lastly, the Government states in its communication that the Ministry of Labour and Employment, through the Regional Labour Office in São Paulo, has full jurisdiction to investigate any instance of non-compliance with labour legislation and to facilitate agreement between the parties through social dialogue.
18. Observations made by UNILEVER and
19. communicated by the Government
20. 372. In its communication of 2 October 2006, the Government communicated UNILEVER’s observations on the complaint. UNILEVER states that it has been operating in Brazil for 80 years and that its 13 factories in the country employ more than 13,000 workers. Its Code of Business Principles calls for respect for any legitimate workers’ representation, as well as their right to organize. The company believes in dialogue and keeps channels of communication with its workers permanently open. UNILEVER has direct contact with
21. 15 different trade unions in the country, and the Unified Trade Union of Chemical Workers (Vinhedo Region) represents only 3.4 per cent of all its workers in the country. It notes that the high rate of unionization mentioned by the Union is itself enough to disprove the company’s alleged anti-union practices and authoritarian attitude. UNILEVER rejects outright the allegations made in the complaint and states that it has always acted in such a way as to protect the physical integrity of its workers and its assets and has always respected the free exercise of the right of trade unions to demonstrate, even when it has been exercised violently and aggressively.
22. 373. With regard to the alleged campaign encouraging workers to leave the Union, UNILEVER states that in January 2005 it introduced a new human resources service for its workers by setting up an 0800 telephone line so that all its employees in Latin America could ask questions about staff administration matters (e.g., reimbursement of medical expenses, enrolment in training courses and authorization for the deduction of union dues from the payslip). The service is provided by a subcontracted enterprise sponsored by UNILEVER. UNILEVER states that the Union is distorting the truth when it claims that a service was introduced in March 2005 to encourage workers to leave the union; the service was in fact introduced in January and had nothing to do with trade union affairs. What happened was that, because of the large number of requests for information about how to leave the trade union, which entails suspending the monthly deduction of union dues from the payslip, an employee of the subcontracted enterprise, on his own initiative and in good faith but against management policy, decided to produce an information sheet and put it on the notice board to make his job easier. The information sheet was removed from the board on the same day, and not a month later as claimed by the Union; it was replaced by another communication reiterating UNILEVER’s respect for the freedom of association of its workers and its position on the subject under its Code of Principles. The terms of the communication were even agreed with the Union.
23. 374. With regard to the allegation concerning the Working Group on Improving the Environment, UNILEVER explains that, in its constant effort to maintain permanent channels of communication with its workers, it has set up, developed and perfected various methods of doing so. One such method is the system known as Vai e vem that was set up in 1998, which has been modified and adapted over the years but whose primary purpose is to provide employees with information and to hear their opinion. The Vai component of the system involves giving employees company progress reports through information bulletins and general meetings, etc.; the Vem component enables employees freely to express their opinions and demands, to clarify any doubts they might have, to make suggestions, and so on. This has taken many forms: the broadest in scope was a survey carried out two years ago with a 93 per cent response rate; other programmes included “Talk to the Chairman”, “Morning coffee with the Director”, etc. UNILEVER stresses that the Working Group on Improving the Environment set up in 1988 was only one of the methods used and was in no way intended to take the place of or discourage trade union activities.
24. 375. With regard to recognition of the National Trade Union Committee, UNILEVER maintains that the Unified Trade Union of Chemical Workers (Vinhedo Region) has persistently demanded that it be represented on the Committee, which currently consists of only three trade unions which together represent 1.9 per cent of UNILEVER’s workers. The other
25. 11 trade unions, which represent 95 per cent of the staff, consider the initiative as a threat to their organization and do not recognize the National Trade Union Committee as representing their interests.
26. 376. Lastly, UNILEVER attaches to its communication three letters from different trade unions in which, in very similar terms, the general secretaries affirm that the company respects its collective agreements and the ILO’s Conventions.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 377. The Committee recalls that the allegations in this case refer to anti-union practices aimed at the Unified Trade Union of Chemical Workers (Vinhedo Region) (hereinafter, the Union), the establishment of a parallel workers’ representative body at the instigation of the company, non-recognition of the National Trade Union Committee, and pressure on workers to resign from the trade union operating in IGL Industrial Ltd, which is part of the UNILEVER transnational economic group. The Committee observes that, in addition to the information sent by the complainants and the Government, it has before it the observations of UNILEVER. The Committee also notes with concern that, by and large, the Government confined itself to transmitting the information obtained from both parties, without expressing any judgement.
2. Anti-union practices: Intimidation of unionized
3. workers on account of their participation in
4. protests and work stoppages
5. 378. The Committee notes that, according to the complainants, UNILEVER has for the past
6. 20 years discouraged social dialogue and pursued an anti-union policy. In particular, the Committee notes that the complainants allege a series of anti-union practices such as threatening telephone calls to workers following their participation in work stoppages, the filming of demonstrations so as to identify employees and put pressure on them, and the infiltration of workers’ meetings by managers. In addition, they allege that during one work stoppage in March 2005 the company ordered the security unit to cut the barbed-wire fences so that strike-breakers could avoid the picket line and that on the same occasion managers tried to intimidate workers to return to work, even outside the industrial plant.
7. 379. The Committee notes that the company’s representatives deny the existence of any practice, covert or otherwise, aimed at restricting trade union activities and stress that their Code of Business Principles calls for any legitimate workers’ representation to be respected. The Committee further notes that, according to the company’s representatives, the high rate of membership of the Union (59.7 per cent) is itself enough to disprove the allegations of anti-union practices.
8. 380. The Committee observes the contradiction between the statements of the complainants and those of the company’s representatives. The Committee regrets that the Government’s reply does not contain specific observations on the alleged anti-union practices, in particular the telephone threats, the filming of demonstrations and the infiltration of workers’ meetings by managers, and requests the Government to carry out an investigation into those allegations and to send it detailed information on the subject.
9. 381. With regard to the allegation concerning the procedure followed by security guards accompanying union officials inside the plant, the Committee notes that, according to the statement of the company’s representatives, confirmed by the complainants, this procedure now applies to anybody who is not a member of the staff, whether or not they are union officials, and including its own employees when the visit is outside their working hours. The Committee recalls the general principle that, for the right to organize to be meaningful, the relevant workers’ organizations should be able to further and defend the interests of their members by enjoying such facilities as may be necessary for the proper exercise of their functions as workers’ representatives, including access to the workplace of trade union members [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, para. 1106]. At the same time, the Committee is of the opinion that the accompaniment by security guards when accessing an enterprise may be considered a necessary measure in certain circumstances. Considering, however, that such a procedure should not result in any interference in internal trade union affairs or in the capacity of trade union representatives to communicate freely with workers in order to apprise them of the potential advantages of unionization, the Committee requests the Government to take steps to ensure that union officials have the necessary space to communicate freely with workers without interference from the employer and without the presence of the employer or the security guards. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
10. Establishment of a parallel workers’ representative body at the request of the company
11. 382. With regard to the alleged establishment by the company of its own form of workers’ representation in the workplace, parallel to the Union, through a body known as the Working Group on Improving the Environment, the Committee notes that, according to the complainants, this and other discussion forums could be positive if the Union were not prevented from taking part and if they did not play the role of a company union sponsored by the management. The Committee also notes the observations of the company’s representatives according to which: the Working Group in question and other similar programmes serve as a channel of communication with employees in discussing ways of improving the quality of life at work and respect the right of workers to be informed and to express their opinion; participation is open to all workers and the quarterly meetings take place during working hours; union officials not employed by the company are not allowed to participate because it is an activity which is only open to staff members. The Committee notes that UNILEVER stresses that the Working Group is only one of the methods used as a channel of communication and that it is in no way intended to take the place of or discourage trade union activities. Considering that in themselves the discussion forums and communication programmes promoted by the company do not constitute a violation of freedom of association, the Committee requests the Government to adopt measures to ensure, in light of the findings of the investigation into the alleged anti-union practices, that these are not used to the detriment of the Union, which is the only body that can guarantee independence both in its establishment and its operation.
12. Non-recognition of the National Trade
13. Union Committee of UNILEVER
14. 383. The Committee notes that the complainants allege that UNILEVER refuses to recognize the National Trade Union Committee of UNILEVER Brazil formed by unions representing its plants throughout the country. The Committee notes that on this matter UNILEVER states that the Union has persistently demanded trade union representation through that committee but that the latter currently consists of only three other trade unions. The other 11 trade unions, which represent 95 per cent of the staff, consider the initiative as a threat to their organization and do not recognize that committee as representing their interests. The Committee observes the contradiction between the version of the complainants and that of the company’s representatives. Observing with regret that the Government has not sent its observations on the matter, the Committee requests it to promptly carry out an investigation into this allegation and to inform it accordingly.
15. Pressure on workers to leave the Union
16. 384. Lastly, the Committee notes the complainants’ allegation that the company embarked on a campaign to encourage employees to leave the trade union, which began in January 2005 with the distribution of resignation forms and culminated in March 2005 with the setting up of a toll-free telephone line by the Human Resources Department which offered, among various options, the possibility to request resignation from the Union. This situation, they allege, lasted for about a month. The Committee notes the company’s observations that this service, provided through a subcontracted enterprise, was intended for asking questions about staff administration and in principle had nothing to do with trade union affairs. However, because of the large number of requests for information about how to leave the trade union and suspend the monthly deduction of union dues from the payslip, an employee of the subcontracted enterprise produced the information sheet on his own initiative and put it on the notice board. The company claims that the sheet was taken down the same day.
17. 385. The Committee considers that the distribution of resignation forms and the setting up of a toll-free telephone line providing information on how to resign from the Union constitute interference in the internal affairs of the Union. In that regard, the Committee recalls that Article 2 of Convention No. 98 stipulates that workers’ and employers’ organizations shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference by each other or each other’s agents or members in their establishment, functioning or administration, and requests the Government to put into place a mechanism that would enable it to rapidly redress any effects of this type of interference, including through the imposition of sufficiently dissuasive sanctions on the employer where appropriate, and to avoid such incidents in the future.