Violations of Trade Union Rights in the AMERICAS

International Confederation of Free Trade Unions

Introduction
ARGENTINA C87/C98
BELIZE C87/C98
BOLIVIA C87/C98
BRAZIL C98
CANADA C98
CHILE
COLOMBIA C87/C98
COSTA RICA C87/C98
CUBA C87/C98
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC C87/C98
ECUADOR C87/C98
EL SALVADOR
GUATEMALA C87/C98
HAITI C87/C98
HONDURAS C87/C98
MEXICO C87
NICARAGUA C87/C98
PANAMA C87/C98
PARAGUAY C87/C98
PERU C87/C98
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Introduction

The key statistical tool for assessing the state of industrial relations in Latin America is still the body count.

It was down in 1996, but the blood still flowed, especially in Colombia and Guatemala. And there was little sign of any determination by governments to protect those of their citizens who carry a union card.

Police can be at the scene of a strike in minutes, but seem struck with lethargy when it comes to investigating the killing or attempted killing of union activists.

Governments in Latin America are guilty of more than sins of omission, however. Their obsession with all the paraphernalia of free-market economic reform - deregulation, privatisation and flexibility - has led many to stigmatise trade unionists as terrorists or saboteurs. Politicians in this region who use that kind of language are signing people's death warrants.

Governments are still touting their export-processing zones as sources of cheap labour where unions are suppressed, and anything goes as long as it turns a profit.

Employer-controlled Solidarist associations still threaten independent trade unions - with the blessing of governments.

In the face of this, trade unionists in Latin America show a determination to play by the rules that is beyond courageous. And it is paying off, albeit slowly. They and their allies in the US trade union movement have used the US GSP system, where goods from certain countries are allowed preferential access to US markets as a tool to defend human and trade union rights. They have forged alliances with human rights organisations and pressure groups.

And they have strengthened their links with the international trade union movement through the ICFTU's Inter-American Regional Organisation, ORIT.

ARGENTINA C87/C98

The CGT union centre held three general strikes during the year in protest at President Menem's austerity and restructuring policies, introduced as part of an agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The president continued his attack on trade union and other workers' rights. As part of his "second reform of the state", he announced his intention to "revolutionise" Argentina's labour legislation. He said that if necessary he would impose the reforms by emergency presidential decree.

The CGT and all other sections of the trade union movement opposed the reforms and said that the austerity policies had led to recession and record unemployment.

There was increased public opposition to the measures which included privatisation and the loss of several thousand jobs in the public sector; social security cuts affecting the families of the poorest two and a half million workers; and the taxation of food subsidies paid by employers to over a million workers as part of their wages. The government also raised the cost of public transport.

In June, the president announced that he aimed to deregulate the "obras sociales", the health schemes run by trade unions. President Menem had already ordered the deregulation of the health schemes by decree in 1993 but the unions had boycotted his plans.

On 8 August, the CGT and the two other labour confederations held a general strike. The Interior Ministry said it would not authorise any assemblies, and warned that the police would break up any unauthorised ones. Small gatherings were broken up by riot police with tear gas and batons. Police also attacked them in assault vehicles. Thirty-seven trade unionists were detained and several were injured.

The detainees included Juan Palacios, general secretary of the UTA road transport union; Victor Pinstone, an official of the truckers' union, and president of the Mercosur Trade Union Commission Office of the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF); and Raul Cuence, director of the ITF Mercosur Trade Union Commission Office. Other detainees included Jorge Silva, Pablo Moyano, Mario Tamborro and Timoteo Ocampo of the truckers' union. They were released after eight hours.

On 30 August, the president announced a radical reform of Argentina's labour legislation. The reforms scrapped collective pay deals, provided for company-level contracts which allowed employers to alter contractual terms and gave employers greater control over rules governing working conditions. This would allow them to increase working hours and change holiday periods. The reforms also eliminated existing rules on severance pay and made it easier to hire and fire workers. It was widely believed that the intention of the reforms was to lower wages and make the country more competitive.

The president threatened that if congress did not approve the reforms he would pass them by decree.

The CGT announced a 36-hour general strike and demonstration for 26-27 September against the reforms and economic policies which was supported by the two other union centres. Protest rallies were held in several cities around Argentina.

In October, the president escalated the confrontation with the trade unions and said that he would deregulate the "obras sociales" by decree. The labour bill was due to be discussed in congress during the second week of October, with the CGT threatening a 48-hour strike if the president went ahead.

The congress postponed its discussion of the labour reforms owing to wide opposition. The CGT held a third general strike on 26 December.

At the end of the year, President Menem imposed the reforms of labour legislation and the "obras sociales" by presidential decree. A court ruling on the constitutionality of the decrees was expected at the beginning of 1997.

Most of the economic reforms introduced over the last six year-period, were carried out under emergency presidential powers. Labour flexibility and deregulation measures had already included many legislative attacks on trade union rights. Successive decrees had undermined free collective bargaining, and the establishment of an extensive list of essential services where strikes were banned had undermined the right to strike.

Decrees relating to public enterprises issued in 1990 fixed a maximum wage and allowed the authorities to cancel any clauses in collective agreements which they thought would damage productivity and efficiency. A 1991 decree made wage negotiations conditional upon increases in productivity. A 1992 decree suspended clauses in collective agreements and in legislation which established conditions of employment prejudicial to productivity in the ports and the merchant navy. This was amended by a subsequent 1992 decree suspending collective agreements in maritime, river and lake transport, and the ports.

Certain collective agreements concluded at enterprise level must be approved by the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry has to take into account whether the agreement infringes public order, as well as criteria for productivity, investment, the introduction of technology, vocational training, and other legal provisions.

The law also requires excessive conditions for granting trade union status to unions and provides that an enterprise union can only be granted trade union status if another union does not operate within the geographical area or area of activity. Only associations which have trade union status enjoy trade union protection and can defend the individual and collective interests of workers.

BELIZE C87/C98

The banana industry in Belize, represented by the Banana Growers Association, employs mostly immigrant workers from other Central American countries. The legal residence status of these workers depends on the work permit which the authorities issue to the employers. Since the 1980s, employers in the industry have blocked all attempts by workers to form trade unions.

Working conditions are usually hazardous and degrading, and sometimes the workers are not paid. The mostly women workers in the packing sheds are regularly subjected to sexual harassment. Security guards employed by the companies treat the workers violently. Any who complain are fired.

The government appears to be unwilling to enforce its employment law in the industry, and there are reports that it connives with employers, instead of prosecuting them for breaking the law.

In February, the management at the Fyffes Company in the Independence/Cow Pen area forced members of the United Banners Banana Workers' Union (UBBWU) to sign a membership form for an employer-organised solidarist association or be sacked. The document also committed them not to have any more contacts with the union and authorised the company to deduct $10 a fortnight, from each workers' pay packet. No-one ever told the workers what happened to the money.

When the union, which affiliated to the NTUCB national centre, was formed in 1995, the company used force to try and stop workers joining it. The union called a strike because the management would not talk to them. The police and soldiers were called in to beat up the workers, some of whom were deported. Later in the year, the national police force's Serious Crimes Squad detained and harassed the union's executive, making it clear that it was because of their union activities.

BOLIVIA C87/C98

There were general strikes to demand wage rises and to protest at the government's austerity measures and privatisation plans imposed as part of IMF and World Bank programmes. The security forces cracked down violently on demonstrations, arresting workers and detaining them for short periods.

In the Chapare region, rural workers’ federations continued to protest against the compulsory eradication of the coca crop. In January, 350 workers were arrested during violent clashes with the police.

Hundreds of workers and trade unionists were arrested on 25 January during a general strike called by the union centre, the COB. The strikers demanded wage increases and protested against fuel price rises and privatisation. Armed security forces violently repressed demonstrations.

The government threatened to re-impose the state of emergency which had been in force for six months during 1995.

On 11 March, the COB called an indefinite general strike to support the coca growers, to protest against privatisation of the state oil company and social security reform, and to demand wage increase. Teachers, civil servants, and oil workers staged a succession of stoppages. The authorities put oil fields and oil refineries under military control on 21 March. Other sections of society joined the strike.

At the end of March, there were four days of union demonstrations in La Paz and around the country. Armed troops and riot police clashed with striking teachers. The police killed a bystander on 25 March in La Paz. Many others were injured. Workers were detained, particularly in Cochabamba and Oruro. Around 1,200 trade unionists were reported to be on hunger strike around the country.

The strike continued into April. There were two deaths, and many others were injured in police repression. On 2 April, 78 people were arrested after a demonstration in La Paz by teachers and public service drivers. Many of those arrested were trade unionists leaving union offices after the demonstration had finished. The police arrested them indiscriminately and without warrants. The detainees were held together in one cell in appalling conditions and were charged with damage to public property and armed uprising.

Peasant workers and a regional branch of the COB held demonstrations in Cochabamba in April, during which plain-clothed members of the intelligence service arrested several union leaders. Alejo Veliz, a leader of the rural workers' union, FSUTCC, in Cochabamba was arrested on 14 April. Luis Garcia, a FSUTCC official, and union leaders Andres Chavez and Nelson Rodriguez were arrested on 15 April. They were all arrested without warrant and their whereabouts were unknown for several days. Fifteen others were detained on 15 April and released a few days later. There were also reports that 250 hunger strikers had been detained.

At the end of September, hundreds of rural workers marched to La Paz to protest against the government's plans for agrarian reform. The security forces fired tear gas at the marchers, killing one and injuring others.

There were further clashes and confrontations in La Paz and other towns and cities when the COB called a general strike on 3 October and on subsequent days. The strike was held to protest at the government's economic policy and to support the rural workers who had arrived in La Paz.

The COB said that at least 20 trade unionists and rural workers had been arrested in Cochabamba, Oruro, and Caravi-La Paz. The police tortured four of those held in Cochabamba: Remigio Valerio, Martin Felipes, Aurelio Ignacio Maldonado, and Maximo Mercado. Five people were reported to have been killed during the protests. On 16 October, the COB said that the police were raiding trade unionists' homes. Arrests continued for several days.

Bolivia's labour code prohibits public servants from joining unions. Only one union is allowed per enterprise. The authorities have wide powers to supervise union affairs as well and can dissolve trade unions by administrative order.

Three-quarters of all employees have to vote in favour of a strike; strikes are banned in all public services including banks; compulsory arbitration can be imposed to end strikes; and general and solidarity strikes are illegal and can be punished by imprisonment.

In practice public sector workers belong to unions and go on strike, and general strikes take place.

Agricultural workers are excluded from the scope of the labour act. Only trade union leaders are protected against anti-union discrimination and there are no measures to protect trade unions against acts of interference by employers.

BRAZIL C98

The government said during the year that Brazil's labour law will need to undergo "profound modifications". It had set up a Permanent Commission on Labour Legislation in 1995. The government wants to reform the public sector, and introduce temporary work contracts, labour flexibility and deregulation measures. It is also proposing to make striking punishable by criminal penalties in certain cases. The unions say the whole reform package would restrict organisation rights and collective bargaining rights.

Brazilian labour law continues to impose a single trade union structure known as "unicidade". This allows only one union per occupational category in a given geographical area. It is strongly opposed by trade unions and widely ignored in practice.

The law also obliges all workers to pay a "union tax" to the Ministry of Labour, which redistributes the funds to national trade union federations, according to their membership. The government has extensive powers to cancel collective agreements which are not consistent with its wage policy.

Clashes took place throughout the year during land disputes between local landowners backed up by state police, and landless rural workers. Rural workers' organisations occupied land to put pressure on the government to speed up and broaden its land reform programme. President Cardoso has made it clear on several occasions that he sees the illegal land occupations as a security issue.

The CUT, CGT and Forca Sindical national union centres held a general strike on 21 June to call for land reform as well as to protest about unemployment and low salaries.

It is estimated that 1,500 rural workers have been killed over the last ten years during land disputes. Hired guns have helped state police evict rural workers from land. The gunmen are hardly ever brought to justice.

Four leaders of the Movimento dos Sem-Terra, (MST – Landless Peasants' Movement), were arrested in Pontal de Paranapanema Sao Paulo state on 25 January for conspiracy after 2,000 rural workers had invaded the Sao Domingos estate. Deolinda Alves de Souza, Laercio Barbosa, Claudio Cano and Felinto Procopio were detained until 12 March when they were freed on bail. Two other MST leaders, Jose Rainha Junior and Marcio Barreto went into hiding to escape arrest.

On 17 April, 22 rural workers and a child were massacred when over 150 military police attacked a demonstration of 1,000 people near Eldorado dos Carajas, Para state, with machine guns. Many workers were injured and others fled in fear. They were protesting at the authorities' failure to keep an agreement to resettle 1,500 families. There were reports that the massacre had been planned in advance by landowners and local police commanders.

The Attorney General of Para undertook to prosecute the 155 military policemen who had participated in the massacre. He said that the military police were trying to obstruct his investigations.

On 8 August, a Sao Paulo metalworkers' union held a peaceful march to state government offices where union leaders sought a meeting with the authorities about the closure of a local steel plant, Fabricas de Sofunge, and a factory owned by the textile group, Tecelagem Vicunha.

The union leaders were brutally evicted from the office in Sao Paulo by the military police. Several of them were seriously injured, including the union's president, Paulo Pereira da Silva, and its general secretary, Jose Eduardo Freitas de Almeida.

There were reports of increasing insecurity and violence for trade unionists in the state of Para. On 18 September, a CUT activist in Para, Rejane Guimaraes, was killed by a professional killer in front of her children. He was later captured and killed by the police in what was said to be an attempt to hide the evidence.

In the textile sector, there were reports of members of workers' committees in factories being regularly intimidated and threatened with dismissal, while management tried to strip the committees of power. Workers protesting outside factories were violently attacked by police.

The CUT held a national day of protest in September against public sector reforms, and in particular plans to cut around 200,000 state jobs.

CANADA C98

The federal government of Canada and the various provincial governments continue to use legislation to interfere in collective bargaining in violation of the trade union rights of public employees.

In 1996, the federal government amended the Budget Implementation Act and changed the job security provisions in collective agreements for federal employees.

The new law is the fifth legislative intervention in collective bargaining for public employees by the national government since 1991 when the Public Sector Compensation Act was adopted. Under the act, strikers and union officials could be fined, and there was a two-year extension of existing collective agreements. Wages were frozen until the end of the agreements, with one small wage increase payable in the following year.

In 1993, legislation was adopted extending collective agreements in the federal sector for a further two years.

In 1994, the federal government adopted the Budget Implementation Act as the second extension of the wage restraint provisions of the Public Sector Compensation Act.

In 1995, the federal government adopted the Budget Implementation Act which prohibits job security provisions in collective agreements for three years.

In 1996, public employees in six provinces and one territory were working under collective agreements that were frozen, or suspended, or whose provisions were limited by earlier legislation.

In Nova Scotia, public employees worked under a wage freeze and wage cuts imposed in 1994. Newly-organised groups of public employees are not allowed to negotiate wages and benefits greater than those that existed before the new legislation.

Public employees in New Brunswick worked under collective agreements negotiated under 1992 legislation limiting the scope of collective bargaining. The 1992 Expenditure Management Act obliged public sector unions to accept wage cuts in already negotiated agreements, and to extend those agreements or to negotiate agreements having the same financial effect.

The public employees of Prince Edward Island worked under legislation adopted in April, 1994, imposing a permanent wage cut and suspending all collective bargaining involving money. Quebec adopted legislation in 1993 imposing a wage freeze and extending existing collective agreements that was in effect throughout 1996.

In Ontario, the 1993 Social Contract Act imposed a three-year wage freeze and reductions in compensation for public employees earning above a specified annual amount. This law was adopted after the government had failed to achieve its objectives through collective bargaining.

In Manitoba, the 1993 Public Sector Reduced Workweek and Compensation Management Act authorised the government to impose mandatory layoffs of up to 15 days without pay as a way of reducing public employee compensation. This law remained in force throughout 1996. Public employees in the Yukon territory worked throughout 1996 under a collective agreement that had expired but was extended by legislation adopted by the territorial government in 1994. This legislation also imposed wage cuts.

In Alberta and Newfoundland, collective bargaining in 1995 took place in the shadow of a threat by the respective provincial governments to achieve their fiscal objectives by legislation, if the bargaining process failed to produce the desired result.

These provinces have a long history of legislative interference in collective bargaining. As a result of a series of laws beginning in 1991, public sector workers in Newfoundland have not had a wage increase since 1990. Nova Scotia also adopted legislation in 1991 and followed it with additional laws in 1993 and 1994. Quebec has adopted three laws since 1992. New Brunswick imposed a wage freeze in 1991 which was followed by a law adopted in 1992 dictating the level of pay rises negotiated through collective bargaining.

Two provinces, Alberta and British Columbia, restrict the right of public employees to strike, providing arbitration to settle labour disputes. Both provinces also limit what can be discussed at arbitration.

Alberta law excludes: the organisation of work; the assignment of duties; the determination of the number of employees; job evaluations; job selection; appointment; promotion; training; transfers; and pensions. The law also excludes broad categories of public employees from exercising their trade union rights.

Excessively broad definitions concerning essential services are used to restrict the right to strike for some public employees in Newfoundland and in the Federal sector.

Alberta's Labour Relations Code allows excessive government intervention in collective bargaining and provides ways for the employer to bypass the union as the collective bargaining agent.

Section 88 of the code presumes the use of strike-breakers by the employer and provides that strikers only be given "preference" over strike-breakers in getting their jobs back when a strike has ended. The burden is on the strikers, who must under some circumstances apply in writing within restrictive time limits. The authorities also use injunctions against strikes and strikers, and make excessive use of police during strikes.

CHILE

Police using tear gas, truncheons and armoured cars attacked workers arriving at the assembly point for a demonstration organised by the CUT national centre on 23 October.

The union had obtained prior authorisation for the demonstration which had been called to support demands for pay rises by public sector workers.

COLOMBIA C87/C98

At least 80 trade unionists were killed during the year. Many of them belonged to SINTRAINAGRO, the agricultural workers' union in the banana region of Uraba. The unions blamed the security forces and their paramilitary allies, guerrillas, and killers hired by drug-traffickers and landowners. They said that violence against union leaders was never investigated.

Many murders of trade unionists have been linked to collective bargaining and industrial disputes.

On 27 January, trade unionist, Orlando Ocampo, a member of the national union of bankworkers, UNEB, and a member of the CUT union centre was threatened in a telephone call made to a member of the Civic Human Rights Committee. On 26 January, Orlando Ocampo had received a telephone death threat at home. Unidentified men kept watch on his home on 27 and 28 January.

On 13 January, three rural workers were killed near Turbo, the port in the Uraba region.

Guerrillas killed Francisco Mosquera Cordova and Carlos Arroyo de Arco, at the Empresa Maderas in Darien in Uraba after a trade union meeting on 5 February which over 70 workers attended, to discuss a wage claim.

On 14 February, armed men fired indiscriminately at banana workers belonging to SINTRAINAGRO on their way to work at the Hacienda Osaca in the municipality of Carapa, Uraba. Twelve were killed and others injured.

In February, CUT said that the Minister of Agriculture and the general manager of the Colombian Agrarian Bank, had proposed to replace the bank with a new one which did not have a union or a collective agreement. The union in the bank, SINTRACREDITO which represented over 8,000 workers, went on strike.

Trade unionist Alejandro Matia Hernandez Van-Strahlen and another man were abducted on 16 February by heavily armed men who forced them into a vehicle in Barranquilla, Atlantico. The abductors were thought to belong to JILIN, the intelligence unit of the national police. The abduction took place in a street being patrolled by army and police officers who were policing a carnival in the city. No vehicles had been allowed in the street that day.

Alejandro Matia Hernandez, a union leader in the Cicolac factory in Curumani, Cesar, was forced to flee the town in 1988 after receiving death threats. He moved to another town which he had to leave because of death threats and had only just moved to Barranquilla.

Four SINTRAINAGRO officials - Francisco Antonio Usuga, a regional co-ordinator in Carepa, Jose Silvio Gomez, an official in Banafinca, Alvaro David, a committee member in the Los Planes Estate, and Oriel Chaverra - were assassinated on 21 March in Uraba.

Four banana workers were killed in several violent incidents between 14-16 April.

On 14 April in Currulao, Turbo, seven union leaders were murdered in an ambush - Hernan Correra, the national treasurer, Medardo Cuestas, head of the Turbo office, Manuel Marquez, Apartado branch treasurer, Pedro Barbosa, press secretary, Omar Casarubio, branch member, Fernando Perez, vice-chairman in Apartado, and Amin Palacio, Turbo executive member.

It was reported on 25 April that in the mining town of Segoviade, an extreme right-wing group had machine-gunned a public park and cafe terraces, killing 14 people and injuring many others. It was believed that it was because the townspeople had supported a strike.

On 7 May, there was an attempt on the life of union leader Aida Avella. She went into exile.

Later in May, the paramilitary group, COLSINGUE, (Colombia without guerrillas) issued death threats against Jairo Alfonso Gamboa Lopez and all other members of the executive committee of the union at the Titan S.A. company, in Yumbo, Valle. The union had been on strike for 70 days because the company refused to negotiate a collective agreement. A union member had been murdered in December, 1995. Union member asked for police protection but it was refused.

Armando Umanese Petro, a member of the Cordoba Teachers' Association was murdered on 23 May in the town of Monteria, by unknown men.

Libardo Antonio Acevedo, president of the FESTRALVA union in the Cauca valley, treasurer of the SINTRACOLOMBINA union and a member of the executive of the CTC union centre, was murdered on 7 July in the town of Tulua, by an assassin on a motorcycle.

On 7 July, a bomb went off at the headquarters of the SIDICONS construction workers' union in Medellin.

During the year, over 20 leaders of the USO union were threatened by telephone or in writing by paramilitary groups. On 23 July, two written death threats were delivered to USO headquarters in Barrancabermeja, Santander, threatening Danilo Sanchez, USO national executive member, and Hernando Hernandez, USO president and Jairo Calderon Hoy, a USO official. They were signed by a group called Death to Kidnappers (MAS).

On 6 August, Elba Hernandez de Aguilera, president of the north Santander workers’ union was murdered by unknown assailants as she was going to the union headquarters.

On 10 August, two gunmen on a motorcycle shot dead Ramon Alberto Diaz, union president at the Cementos del Valle company and a prominent CUT official in the Valle de Cauca region. He had been named on a COLSINGUE death list in October, 1995.

In September, the FUTRABOC building and woodworkers' union at the Philaac company said that three unionists had been sacked and other unionists threatened. The Cineco company sacked five members of the union committee and two union members of the recently-founded union and intimidated workers.

On 25 September, a group of armed men, thought to be guerrillas murdered Juan de Jesus Correa Miranda, the brother of a SINTRAINAGRO official who was attending an ILO meeting in Geneva, and Daniel Roberto Mosquera, representative of the Workers' Committee, on the "Navarra" farm in Uraba. Five rural workers were murdered on the same day by ‘self-defence squads’.

On 4 October, Gustavo Palmezano Ojeda, a former president of the SINTERCOR miners' union, was killed in San Juan del Cesar.

On 10 October, Rafael Gonzalez Barraza, the general secretary of USO was killed by two gunmen in El Cerro, Barrancabermeja.

On 15 October, Pedro Antonio Mosquera Palacio and Alirio Alzate of the Carepa branch of SINTRAINAGRO were murdered. They had taken part in a union general assembly on 11 October,

On 19 October, Jose Luis Arrieta of the Turbo branch of SINTRAINAGRO was killed.

On 20 October, another member of the branch, Jose Francisco Lopez, was murdered.

At the end of November, the teachers' union FECODE said that 34 of its members were murdered in 1996 for carrying out trade union activities. Two others had disappeared in July and December.

On 5 December, Isidro Segundo Gil, general secretary of the SINTRAINAL union in Carepa and a negotiator with the Coca Cola company in the region was murdered.

During 1996, the government said that it had drawn up a bill to repeal or amend some provisions of the labour code. This followed the 1994 signing of a Social Pact on Productivity, Prices and Wages when the government had pledged to amend the laws on collective bargaining in the public sector, regulations relating to strikes and essential public services, and other aspects of the labour law.

The provisions to be amended included: the prohibition on more than one union per workplace; the requirements that candidates for office in unions, federations or confederations must belong to the relevant trade or occupation; the stipulation that to form a union, two-thirds of the membership must be Colombian and a candidate for union office must be Colombian; the supervision of the internal management and meetings of trade union by public servants; the presence of government officials at trade union assemblies called to vote on strikes; denying union officials responsible for the dissolution of their union trade union rights for three years; prohibitions on confederations and federations calling strikes, and the power of the ministry of labour to ballot all workers on going to arbitration after a strike has been called.

The government said that the bill would be submitted to the current parliamentary session. It also drew up a bill which defines essential public services and regulates the right to strike in them as well as a bill guaranteeing the rights of collective bargaining to public employees. It said that the latter had been submitted to congress.

Current law forbids certain public employees from bargaining collectively. They are not protected against acts of anti-union discrimination if they join union organisations which include workers in industrial and commercial state enterprises. The government said that this provision had been overturned by the Supreme Court in November, 1993, although there were no reports that the law had been repealed.

Except in essential public services which are not specified, the right to strike is guaranteed in the constitution. At the same time, the 1990 and 1991 laws severely restrict strikes in a wide range of public services, which are not necessarily essential, and allow workers to be sacked for striking. The government can also make unilateral decisions about what constitutes an essential service, and can impose compulsory arbitration to end a strike which has lasted for 60 calendar days. Trade union officials involved in an unlawful strike can be dismissed. A constitutional court ruling said that the government had the right to end a strike when it affected the economy.

The authorities can use, and have used, the penal code to punish strikers. Strikes have been termed acts of "terrorism", "sabotage", "violations of the right to work", or "illegal restrictions", and carry prison sentences ranging between two and 20 years.

Colombian labour law was revised in 1990-91 as a result of the country's structural adjustment programme. The labour market was deregulated, making it easier to sack workers, and institutionalising temporary employment contracts. It became impossible in practice for many workers to belong to unions and to be covered by collective agreements.

COSTA RICA C87/C98

Trade unions in the public and private sectors came under sustained attack from employers and the government in what looked like a campaign to destroy them altogether. The number of workplace agreements signed by Solidarist Associations increased.

In the public sector, where the government again broke its promise to change the law so that workers could bargain collectively and strike, privatisation led to the sacking of union leaders and attempts to get rid of unions.

Thousands of workers were laid off under laws passed in 1995 to privatise and restructure public enterprises as part of Costa Rica's structural adjustment programme. Many union leaders were fired despite being legally protected against dismissal. The authorities did not comply with contract provisions. Some public institutions were closed down. Public sector unions lost membership or disappeared completely.

Nine executive committee members from the employees' union of the state Agrarian Development Institute, UNEIDA, were dismissed at the end of 1995 and the beginning of 1996, along with other union representatives. The government sacked around 100 workers without notice over the Christmas and New Year holidays, including the union leaders. They were given their notices of dismissal on 2 January, when they returned to work and found a group of policemen stopping them from entering their offices.

The company destroyed the union to prevent it from being involved in the Institute's restructuring.

It remained virtually impossible to form a union in the private sector, including in the nine EPZs, because unionists were fired and blacklisted. Collective bargaining was almost unknown.

The unions continued to say that changes made to the labour code in 1993 to give trade unionists protection against anti-union discrimination were "a dead letter".

The CTRN union centre said that labour laws had not been implemented. The labour ministry ignored union complaints about firings and harassment of union members and violation of the labour laws. It took an average of two years before complaints about victimisation of unionists or unfair labour practices were settled. During this time, unionists were out of a job and their unions were destroyed. In the EPZs, union complaints were usually declared without merit and no measures were taken.

The labour ministry has admitted that it has one labour inspector for every 30,000 workers in the EPZs which employ around 90,000 workers.

The law on Solidarist Associations was also changed in 1993. The legal advantages which they enjoyed were removed and they were prohibited from acting against trade unions in any way, or signing collective agreements.

But the number of Solidarist associations continued to increase, as employers continued to set them up and the Ministry of Labour continued to register them.

While there were ten collective agreements signed in 1996, there were 45 direct agreements signed with Solidarist associations. Unions said that officials from the Ministry of Labour gave information to employers about unions who in turn encouraged Solidarist associations.

Strikes are banned in around 65 per cent of the manufacturing and service sectors which are designated as "public interest", including insurance; banks; oil and related industries; electricity; water; communications; transport; ports; agricultural producers of seeds, fertilisers and insecticides; the cement industry; education; health care; and sugar cane and coffee plantations. Only two strikes were legal out of a total of 398 during the last two years.

The labour code does not allow non-nationals to hold office in trade unions.

The government also failed to keep its 1993 promise to ratify eight ILO conventions. In October, parliament voted against ratifying three conventions and sent them back to a parliamentary committee. Unions said that there were no legal reasons to prevent ratification of the conventions.

The strike at ATFE, the fertiliser sector of the Central America Fertiliser Company, FERTICA, which had begun on 26 November, 1995, at Puntarenas, continued in 1996. The union had called the strike to protest at management breaches of the collective agreement, the sacking of union leaders and members and unfair labour practices.

The company would not negotiate a new collective agreement with the union. It used legal manoeuvres to avoid settling the dispute, and dismissed all the union members and most of the union's leaders, including the general secretary, Indalecio Ordonez, and the assistant general secretary, Marcos Guzman. Some 165 workers were dismissed altogether. The company agreed to re-hire workers if they did not belong to a union and would work for less pay.

The company set up a Solidarist association. An investigation by a labour inspector in response to the workers' complaints confirmed the union's grievances, but no action was taken. The authorities sent armed riot police to help the company disperse workers who were peacefully demonstrating outside the factory.

By the end of January, 1996, the sacked workers and their families were in a desperate financial state. The company and the government refused to negotiate to try and break the strike. The strike continued throughout the year. In November 1996, 162 workers were still on strike and had not been reinstated although the labour ministry had ruled that they should be. No-one else would give them jobs.

At the end of August, police violently attacked striking workers in the city of Limon. The authorities had been refusing to talk to a civic committee formed in the town, which included banana workers' unions. Three people were killed in the protests and 78 were injured.

They were protesting about privatisation of the transport sector which would lead to lay-offs and lost benefits, and for trade union rights.

CUBA C87/C98

The CTC is the only legal union centre in Cuba. The 1985 labour code says that its task is to "mobilise workers to fulfil their tasks of constructing a new society, improving efficiency and productivity, strengthening labour discipline, and organising socialist emulation and voluntary work".

The ruling party selects CTC leaders and the CTC's statutes say that it must follow party policy.

Wages are set by the state. The CTC can negotiate limited collective agreements about working conditions. Strikes are banned.

The CTC reported during the year that it was participating in discussions about planned modifications to labour legislation.

Cuba's constitution and labour code permit freedom of association, but in practice it is denied. The authorities have refused to grant legal status to the handful of small, independent trade unions that have emerged since 1991.

While the state remains the main employer, Cuban industry continued to undergo restructuring, and state enterprises laid off massive numbers of workers.

In the new private sector, two state-controlled employment agencies provide contract workers to multinational corporations and other foreign-owned and joint-venture enterprises. The investors pay the agencies in dollars, but the agencies pay the workers in pesos at low rates. There were reports that workers were politically vetted before being selected to work in the private sector.

The independent USTC applied for legal status for the fifth time in February, 1996. The authorities ignored the application. They have also ignored applications made by the independent CTDC.

Security officials continued to harass independent union activists by summoning them regularly to police and security headquarters, and detaining them for short periods.

Independent unionists are likely to be sacked and labelled as counter-revolutionaries. Lazaro Ortiz Perez, the USTC general secretary in the province of Las Villas, remained jobless after being sacked in 1995.

The Concilio Cubano, an umbrella group of dissident and human rights organisations, including at least seven labour groups, applied for permission to hold its conference on 24 February in Havana. Permission was denied, and the authorities cracked down on council leaders in mid-February, arresting some of them for short periods.

Agents of the Department of State Security (DSE) arrested the press secretary of the independent CUTC union, Luis Lopez Prendes, on 15 February, and took away union documents. On 21 February, they arrested Pedro Pablo Alvarez Ramos, the president of the CUTC.

The CUTC, which was created in 1995, reported constant persecution of its members. Raul Rodriguez Blanco, president of the independent food and commercial union, was threatened at his home in Havana by state security agents later in the year.

The CTDC also reported harassment of its members in 1996. Its president, Juan Guarino Guillen, went into exile in March. He had been detained and interrogated in 1995.

On 26 September, security agents raided and searched the home of Manuel de Jesus Alvarez Solano, an official of the CTDC-affiliated Democratic Trade Union of Sancti Spiritu, in Las Villas. Solano was detained for four days without explanation. His detention coincided with a visit by President Castro to the town.

On 5 November, the CTDC said that trade unionist Eliobardo Portal had been detained in San Jose de Las Lajas, Havana, by a DSE agent, and had been held for 48 hours and rigorously interrogated.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC C87/C98

Although there was an improvement in labour law enforcement in the country's 32 EPZs after the US threatened to suspend trade privileges in 1994, only eight of the 114 registered unions in the zones, were able to function by the beginning of 1996, and only four collective agreements had been signed.

Most of the 500 enterprises in the zones, which employ 180,000 mainly women workers, make clothes and have contracts with, or are owned by, US companies.

A union must represent at least 50 per cent of the workers in an enterprise before it can be recognised for collective bargaining. Employers harass unionists and illegally fire them before they can recruit the target figure, even though the law guarantees the right to organise, and protects union officials against discrimination.

In June, a survey of the 114 trade unions registered in the zones found that every union reported harassment.

A tripartite agreement signed in 1994 set up a procedure whereby disputes in the zones would be mediated by the labour ministry. If this proved unsuccessful, a dispute would be referred to the National Council of Free Trade Zones. The Council would have the power to suspend or cancel the export licences of companies that broke the law. The suspension of one company's export licence had led to the signing of the first-ever collective agreement in the zones.

However, the council was deficient in processing cases. Labour courts were slow and often corrupt. Judgement had still not been made on a two-year old case in which nine union leaders were sacked at the Han Chang factory in the Bani and San Isidro Industrial Park.

The CNTD union centre's union in the zones, Fenatrazonas, said that more than 500 workers, including union leaders, were still out of work after being sacked from the Han Chang factory and other companies such as Philmoro Dominicana, JP Industries, and GM Textil over the last two years.

All the companies, with the exception of GM Textil, were owned by a Korean, Phillip Chao, who had ignored several court and appeal court rulings against him.

The owner of GM Textil had closed the factory down and left the country without paying the workers. The park authorities sold the factory's machinery to a fictitious company even though the courts had withheld the machinery to pay the workers.

Workers said there was a reign of terror at the Antillas Manufacturing and EuroImport Internacional companies, in the Santiago free trade zone, where the owners had set up gangs of thugs to break the unions. The thugs were armed with pipes, clubs, knifes and other weapons and threatened to attack anyone who sided with the union. In EuroImport Internacional, the thugs carried guns. The general secretary of the Antillas Manufacturing, Sacarias Martes, was hit in the face by a stone thrown by the thugs.

Working conditions in the zones were bad. Female workers were physically abused; there were two-way mirrors in bathrooms to spy on employees; tickets to control access to the toilets; forced overtime with no toilet facilities; unsafe work practices and conditions; and intimidation. Protests were met with threats to close factories and leave the country.

Haitian workers employed as cane cutters in the sugar fields continued to work in conditions of near-slavery. Although in 1991, the authorities had registered a trade union formed by the workers, SINATRAPLASI, the Director of Industrial Relations for the State Sugar Board refused to negotiate with them for basic employment rights.

There continued to be reports that union representatives were banned from circulating in the fields or meeting workers. Workers were threatened if they took part in union activities.

At the end of the year, an agreement was negotiated between trade union representatives from the Dominican Republic and Haiti with the State Sugar Board, to improve the conditions of Haitian workers in the sugar cane plantations.

ECUADOR C87/C98

The law does not allow public servants, and certain public sector workers, to form and join trade unions. Those public sector workers who are permitted to form unions can only negotiate collective agreements if the union represents more than 50 per cent of the workforce. Otherwise, a single union committee must be established for bargaining purposes. In practice, many public sector workers join unions and go on strike.

The law bans trade unions from taking part in religious or political activities. Workers are not fully protected against acts of anti-union discrimination. Strikers can be imprisoned.

In order to inhibit unionisation in small enterprises, the government increased the minimum number of workers required to form unions and works councils from 15 to 30 in 1991. A works council can be dissolved if membership falls to less than 25 per cent of the workforce.

Ecuador's 1990 EPZ law allows a company to have EPZ status wherever it is located, and only provides for temporary workers to be hired in the enterprises. Temporary workers are not covered by the labour code, and are more difficult to organise.

The government used the army to break-up several major strikes in 1996, including a strike by oil and power workers at the beginning of the year held in protest against privatisation of the state electricity company.

EL SALVADOR

Violations of trade union rights continued, but there were fewer reports of violence against workers than in previous years.

The government still refused to ratify ILO Conventions 87 and 98 although it had given an undertaking in 1993 to the tripartite Forum for Economic and Social Dialogue set up by the peace agreement which ended the civil war.

The labour code bans unions in the public sector and bans strikes in nine autonomous government agencies. Disputes are settled by mandatory arbitration. Public sector workers can form associations which, in practice, bargain collectively and go on strike.

The code prohibits party political activity by unions.

In April it was reported that the labour ministry was being reorganised and the number of labour inspectors was being increased. The ministry opened offices in two EPZs.

The law was changed in January to protect the rights of the 84,000 workers in the zones. The new law obliged multinational companies in the zones to make severance payments to workers if they shut down. (In the past, companies have closed down and relocated to get rid of unions.) Flagrant violators of the law can be fined, and their tax and duty-free privileges can be temporarily suspended and eventually cancelled.

But despite this, there was still evidence of factory owners and the labour ministry collaborating to keep unions out of the zones. The law is not enforced, and unions find it virtually impossible to recruit the 50 per cent of members needed to gain recognition for collective bargaining. Workers continued to be illegally sacked when they joined unions, even though the law provides protection against anti-union discrimination and obliges employers to re-hire anyone fired for trade union activities.

Factory owners from Korea and Taiwan in particular have a reputation for repressing union-organising and mistreating the mainly women workers. Workers have testified to threats and physical violence from managers and security personnel, and say that working conditions in the zones are inhuman.

On 15 January, the CTD union centre said that two factories, Fabricas Molinera Salvadorena S.A. (FAMOSSA) and Pastas Fama S.A. (TECNICER) in Antiguo Cuzcatlan, Libertad, had closed down after the unions, SEFMOSSA and SETTECSA, asked the company to respect the collective agreement. The management ignored the unions and tried to impose individual contracts.

Police surrounded the factories and paramilitary soldiers went inside. Around 200 union members and leaders were locked out. The employers put notices on the doors announcing that the factory had closed down. The authorities took no action.

Several other factories closed down at the beginning of the year to destroy unions, including Muebles Imperio, Muebles Vulcano, Confecciones y Ensembles, and Minerva.

In February, someone tried to kill Iliberto Dominguez, the president of the Association of Small Shopkeepers, ANPECOVAL, and an official of the UNTS national union centre. He was attacked by four unidentified people in front of his home in Prados de Venecia, Soyapango. He had been assaulted eight times previously because of his union activities.

On 22 February, two workers in the Autran Zacarias SA de CV factory, Maria Merlene Galicia Vasquez and Sonia Carmen Gonzalez, went to the labour ministry to complain about brutal treatment of workers in the factory and the banning of holidays for the past eight months.

On the following day, the owner of the enterprise, called the two workers to see him and repeated the complaint they had made to a labour inspector back to them in precise detail. He sacked them without compensation.

On 27 February, Lucas Bernal Marmol, the general secretary of the federation of independent small traders, FETIPEC, and an executive board member of the CTD was prevented from entering the association's offices in Libertad market. Market officials stopped him and threatened him with arrest.

Unions chalked up a victory on 22 March, when a resolution on worker-management relations was signed at the Taiwanese-owned Mandarin International company in the San Marcos Zone in the capital, San Salvador. It included an agreement for a team of independent monitors to ensure that Mandarin's operations were in compliance with the law and the guidelines of the US retailer, The Gap clothing company.

Following pressure from unions in the USA, the company had agreed in December, 1995, to independent monitoring of its offshore contractors after workers who joined a union at Mandarin International had been fired and brutally attacked.

In May, eleven workers were fired for organising a union in the furniture factory, Kapricho, in the municipality of Antiguo Cuzcatlan. The management had refused to pay social security for the workers, forcing them to arrange private health care. The management would not pay compensation, even though the sackings were illegal.

On 6 June, the newspaper, El Diario de Hoy, falsely accused union leaders of planning terrorist attacks. The source was supposedly the national police. Lazaro Alvarenga and Wilfredo Berrios, of the association of workers at the telecommunications company, ASTA-ANTEL, affiliated to the CTD, were accused of organising sabotage, strikes, marches and attacks on leading civil servants, because they were against privatisation of the company.

Trade unionists feared that the accusations would lead to their being attacked by right-wing vigilantes.

In September, managers at Gabo, a Korean-owned enterprise in the free trade zones closed down the factory and fired 400 workers. A worker there had died in 1995 because the employer had refused to allow her to go to hospital. The company blamed the closure on financial difficulties and made no severance payments.

On 6 September, the North American textile company, INMCASA, in the city of Mejicanos, closed down and sacked 280 workers, of whom 20 were pregnant. INMCASA also blamed financial difficulties. When they arrived at work, the workers found an unsigned letter saying that the factory was closing and compensation would be paid later. They were given a false telephone number at which they could contact the company lawyer to arrange their payments. The factory owner tried to take the machinery away with him but the workers stopped him, and complained to the labour ministry.

In September, soldiers occupied the AGAVE, S.A. de C.V. factory, for a month. The owner said it was necessary to guarantee the security of the equipment. The union in the factory, SETAG, said it was part of the hostility and reprisals against workers and their unions. They said the authorities regularly sent security forces to factories where mass dismissals were taking place.

GUATEMALA C87/C98

Workers who defend union and labour rights in the maquilas which employ over 70,000 mainly women - mostly in clothing factories which produce for export to the US - are likely to lose their jobs, to be kidnapped or threatened with death. Factory owners and employers hire thugs and gunmen who act in collusion with or on behalf of state security forces. They are never prosecuted.

Unions are destroyed through sustained threats and pressure, firings, and plant closures. Only four unions are able to function. There are no collective agreements. Anti-union repression accounts for much of the success of the Solidarismo movement which is promoted by employers to weaken unions and undermine collective bargaining.

The government introduced an agreement which applied to the maquilas early in the year through which sanctions, including the temporary cancellation of export licences, could be applied against owners of maquilas who violated the law. By June the agreement had only been applied once - to a company which was already closing down.

An amendment to the labour code in 1992 made it illegal to sack workers for organising unions, but the unions said that the reforms of the code were ignored or misapplied. The law says that illegally sacked workers must be reinstated within 24 hours, but the labour ministry has no power to enforce it. Labour courts are inadequate and corrupt. There were reports that the labour ministry warned companies in advance of "surprise inspections".

Working conditions are poor in the maquilas and workers are forced to work long hours. There have been reports that workers took stimulants because they were forced to work 18 hours a day, and that women workers were forced to take contraceptives.

Guatemala’s labour code allows strict government supervision of trade union activities. Workers must be Guatemalan to found a trade union or to stand for union office. Union officials must work in the enterprise they represent.

A minimum of two-thirds of the workplace, as well as of the union, must vote in favour of a strike. Agricultural workers cannot strike at harvest time and the government can ban strikes which it thinks would seriously affect the national economy. Workers can be arrested for calling an illegal strike.

The government further streamlined union registration procedures in 1996.

On 24 May, the congress passed a new anti-strike decree banning state workers from striking. Unions said the law was approved in record time. It established a list of essential services, including transport, post and telecommunications, and restricted collective bargaining. It prevented unions from taking action against privatisation. Heavily armed soldiers were called out to stop a peaceful demonstration of workers arriving at the congress building during the third reading of the bill.

The unions said that the law was unconstitutional and laid the way for privatisation. It took the case to the constitutional court.

Later in the year it was reported that the government introduced measures to reform the labour code which further restricted union rights.

Presidential elections in January saw a resurgence of violent attacks against the unions and other democratic forces and the re-emergence of death squads.

On 5 January, Jose Feliciano Godoy Vivas, leader of the independent taxi drivers' union at Las Aurora Airport, a CGTG affiliate was found murdered in his taxi. He had been shot in the head. There had already been assaults on other leaders of the union and its president had been beaten up by unknown attackers.

The conflict continued at the Lunafil textile factory in Amatitlan. It had started when the company closed down in May 1994, illegally making 230 workers redundant.

The company did not pay any compensation and the leader of the Lunafil union, Felix Gonzalez, and many other workers continued to protest outside the factory.

In 1995, hired thugs had abducted and threatened Debora Guzman, the former leader of the union at the MJ y L&L Modas maquila factory, and the wife of union activist Felix Gonzalez, as well as other members of the Lunafil union and their families to try and break the strike.

In 1995, an investigation by Guatemala's Human Rights Procurator found that the official security forces, the Ministry of the Interior and the Director of the National police were responsible for the attacks. No-one was brought to justice however.

On 2 February 1996, a meeting took place between the general manager of Lunafil and a representative of the union centre, UNSITRAGUA, to which the Lunafil union belongs, to try and end the dispute.

On 12 February, Debora Guzman received an anonymous letter death threatening her and her husband and members of the Lunafil and UNSITRAGUA unions. She received three more threats throughout the month and went into hiding with her four-month old baby and her husband. After another threat, she moved to a different hiding place but was threatened yet again. Only when she stopped her trade union activities did the threats cease.

In April, a settlement was made in which the Lunafil workers got a percentage of the compensation due to them. Lunafil closed down.

At the US-owned Inexport company, 250 workers were illegally dismissed on 12 February. Workers protested outside the factory round the clock to demand reinstatement and unpaid wages. At a meeting between the union executive committee, the factory owner, and a government labour inspector, an agreement was reached to value the equipment in the factory with a view to paying wages.

Two days before the evaluation was due to take place, the company owner sent a lorry to the factory to take out some of the machinery and thus reduce the valuation. The workers, who had been alerted, stopped the lorry from leaving. The factory owner did not turn up for the evaluation.

On 24 February, the son of Rolando Yoc, the leader of the National Assembly of Public Health Workers, ANTRASOG was kidnapped.

On 27 February, the sister of the general secretary of the Insurance and Bank Workers Federation, FESEBS, was kidnapped by four heavily armed men as she left work. Vilma Cristina Gonzalez was forced into a van which was driven around for three hours during which time she was raped, tortured, sedated and forced into saying that her brother was linked to the UNRG guerrillas. They said that unless she and her brother left the country the whole family would be murdered.

On 17 March, she was abducted for a second time and tortured with lighted cigarettes while her attackers questioned her about her brother's union activities.

Other members of the FESEBS federation have received repeated death threats. Union officials were told that unless they provided information about members of the federation, they risked being attacked.

Early in the year Victor Hugo Duran, general secretary of the union at the telecommunications company, GUATEL, and Felix Hernandez, an adviser of the same union, as well as Jorge Galindo and Danilo Aguilar, leaders of the FENASSEP public servants federation, reported persistent threats and intimidation.

In May, UNSITRAGUA said that trade union and popular leaders continued to receive threats from the Jaguar Justiciero, JJ, a death squad, which accused them of being communists.

In June, UNSITRAGUA said that Wellinton Tello Martinez a union official of the union of Casa Alianza had received death threats and had been persecuted and threatened. A vehicle with dark windows whose number plate could not be read had followed him for several days. He had received telephone death threats against him and his family warning him to drop his union activities.

On 5 September, Victor Hugo Duran was shot at while driving his car. The bullets penetrated his baggage. The next night, around ten bullets were fired at his home in Villanueva. The attackers stayed outside his home for 20 minutes demanding that he should come out. He was able to hide with his family and to contact friends to call the police. The police arrived one and a half hours later.

He received several telephone threats between 8 and 14 September, as well as anonymous letters telling him to leave the country and stop his union activities. After the threats continued, he left the country temporarily on 19 September.

Felix Hernandez was also threatened in an anonymous note sent to the union's offices which said that he was next on the list. The note said that the union secretary, Jose Maria Ortega would be beaten up. The union disputes secretary, Jaime Manfredo Diaz Celada, received a telephone threat on the same day and the next day.

It was believed that the threats arose because they had campaigned against the privatisation of the telephone company, Guatel.

On 31 March, Salvador Archila Miranda, a member of the executive committee of the workers' union at the Los Cerros agricultural Estate was kidnapped by heavily armed men. For over a year, he had been engaged in a dispute with the estate owners on behalf of the union.

Juan Francisco Alfaro Mijangos, the general secretary of the CUSG union centre received death threats. On 17 April, the news programme, Notisiete, carried a report saying he was the mastermind of a dispute at the El Tablero Estate, in which several people had been killed and others injured. Rural workers had occupied the land and security forces had used tear gas to get rid of them.

Immediately after the article was published, Mijangos began to receive death threats over the telephone.

On 7 June, the general secretary of the road workers' union of Santa Rosa, Crisanto Garcia Alonzo, was kidnapped by heavily armed men. He was freed eight days later. His family paid a ransom of 50,000 quetzales.

In September, the CUSG said that Robinson Manolo Morales Canales, organising secretary in the Zacapa municipality was attacked on 14 September. He had been involved in a dispute with the mayor over violations of the union's collective agreement.

The authorities colluded with management at Philips-Van Heusen's two maquila factories in Guatemala City, to stop a collective agreement being negotiated.

After a recruitment drive in July, the union, STECAMOSA, had signed up the 25 per cent of the workforce needed under the law before a company could be obliged to bargain with it. The union had been legally recognised in 1992 and was the first maquila union to be recognised in six years. The company had refused to negotiate with it.

Plant supervisors intimidated and discriminated against union officials, tried to bribe them, and threatened to close down the plant to stop the union signing up the membership required.

In October, the union provided the authorities and the employer with documentation to prove that it had 25 per cent support, but they refused to accept it. The labour ministry did not register the union for bargaining.

In November, the General Labour Inspector refused to make a decision about whether the union had 25 per cent support and sent the matter to the labour courts. As these are corrupt and inefficient, he was killing the request for bargaining.

However, US union pressure continued to be put on the labour minister to make a decision based on the union's membership list.

On 19 November, the company headquarters in the US said in writing that they would negotiate with the union if it was determined that it had at least 25 per cent of the workforce.

The company continued to try and break the union in Guatemala. Unions said they were threatened with violence. Management called in union members one by one and pressurised them into resigning.

At the company, Mi Kwang S.A. in Villa Nueva the management intimidated and threatened members of the UNSITRAGUA-affiliated union, sacked them, abused and mistreated them. The union was on the point of being legally recognised in October.

In October, a member of management at M.J. Modas was reported to have taken away the machines from the union executive committee members so that they could not do their jobs.

HAITI C87/C98

Although Haiti's constitution respects trade union rights, the labour code dates from the Duvalier era and contains numerous violations of those rights. The authorities created a tripartite commission at the beginning of 1995 to reform the code but it has yet to report.

The law does not recognise public sector workers' right to organise, although in practice public sector unions exist. Workers are not adequately protected against anti-union discrimination and the labour code imposes restrictions on strikes.

The penal code requires the government to give prior approval before an association of more than 20 people can be formed. A 1983 decree gives the government wide powers to supervise unions and to intervene into the preparation of collective agreements.

There were several violent attacks on trade unionists throughout the year.

On 16 January, a group of workers went to the Haitian-American Sugar Company, Hasco, in Port-Au-Prince to demand their wages. Security guards fired at them and called the police who tried to disperse the crowd. The workers would not move and the police opened fire, killing one women and a baby. Several workers had been wounded in a similar event at the same company one year earlier.

As President Aristide's mandate drew to an end at the beginning of the year, there were reports of trade unionists being threatened by paramilitary groups. On 16 January, at the Haitian Flour Mill Company, members of an armed paramilitary group tried to intimidate union members into getting rid of the union's leaders. The union leaders received telephone threats and night visits at their homes. The union leader, Wilfred Joseph, went into hiding. Similar events took place at the Haitian Cement Works.

Towards the end of the year, there were reports of tension in state-owned enterprises due to be privatised under Haiti's economic reform programme. At the end of the November, trade unionists, including leaders of the electrical workers federation, FESTREDH, at the national state electricity enterprise, EDH, were forced to take leave of absence and then sacked because of the union's opposition to privatisation.

Union leaders were also arrested and held for several hours without arrest warrants. They included Paulin Eliadin, FESTREDH Co-ordinator, Jean-Rene Martineau, union branch president, Ronald Leveille, union delegate at the Joseph Janvier factory, Felix Pierre Michel, member of the FESTREDH national executive committee, and Fritz Belizaire, a union member at the Joseph Janvier factory.

There were severe violations of trade union and workers' rights and abuse in Haiti's re-opened sub-contracting factories or maquiladoras. Around 17,000 workers are employed in textile factories by companies under contract to US manufacturers.

The companies include L.V. Myles, N.S. Mart, and Classic Apparel factories. They are under contract to L.V. Myles and H.H. Cutler, who in turn produce under licence for the Walt Disney Corporation. The clothing is sold at US retailers such as Wal-Mart, KMart, J.C. Penney, Sears, and others.

Women workers in these and other factories said that any hint of interest in a union resulted in the companies' firing everyone suspected of involvement. They reported being treated like animals, physically and verbally abused, and paid well below the legal minimum wage. Workers who complained were fired.

At the Classic Apparel company, the workers identified the production manager as a former member of FRAPH, a notorious paramilitary death squad, during 1993-94.

HONDURAS C87/C98

Honduras and the US signed an agreement at the end of 1995 to improve trade union rights and working conditions for the 75,000 workers in the privately-owned free trade zones.

The agreement set out measures to ensure that Honduras complied with the workers' rights provisions in the US Generalised System of Preferences, which grants countries preferential trade access to the US.

There would be random inspections of maquila operations by the Ministry of Labour. Illegally sacked workers had to be reinstated within 24 hours.

Registration procedures would be sped up. Lists of union founder members would be submitted directly to the Ministry of Labour's Inspector General, bypassing local inspectors. The names would be delivered to the plant manager in a sealed envelope, which would be opened in front of union representatives.

Previously, newly-formed unions had to submit the names of the founder members to the labour ministry, which then had to tell the company a union had been formed before it was registered. This usually meant all the founding members were fired, although their anonymity was supposed to be protected.

The new agreement included a long-term intention to change the labour code so as to require a 50 per cent plus one majority of workers to get bargaining rights, and to strengthen protection for workers organising unions.

There are also discussions on introducing a penalty system under which employers who break the labour law could lose their export licences for up to two weeks.

The agreement reflects the concern at what has been happening in the zones over the past two to three years. Violations of union rights have increased dramatically and conditions have deteriorated, particularly in factories owned by foreign employers producing clothes for the US market.

The government's pledge at the beginning of 1994 that it would take decisive action to enforce the labour code came to nothing. Although the code protects workers against anti-union discrimination, workers forming unions were systematically sacked.

Under the administration of the former president, potential Korean investors were lured into the zones by promises that unions would not be tolerated and that the labour code would not be strictly applied. Resistance to unions by foreign investors, many of whom showed a complete disregard for the law, and the failure of the government to enforce it meant that the zones remained union-free. There were persistent reports of workers being physically abused and working in degrading and unsafe conditions.

Few unions are legally recognised and able to operate. Sacked unionists are often put on a blacklist.

Where a union has obtained legal registration, a company will usually relocate to avoid having to deal with it. Although the law obliges employers to bargain with unions, resistance to collective bargaining has meant that no new collective agreements have been signed for over a decade.

Employers, generally with the backing of the authorities, set-up Solidarist associations and other forms of company-controlled unions.

Only in the government-owned zones can unions expect to sign collective agreements.

The labour code does not cover certain agricultural workers and it bans more than one union in any enterprise or establishment. Under the Civil Service Code, workers in the public sector, excluding state-owned enterprises, do not have the right to strike.

Trade union officials must be Honduran and must be employed in the sector the union represents.

Workers can only strike if two-thirds of union members vote in favour; federations and confederations cannot go on strike; and compulsory arbitration can be imposed on disputes in non-essential public services.

The government said that a new draft labour code of December, 1995, repealed some of these restrictions and was awaiting adoption. There were no reports of progress during 1996.

In September, a building union, STINCAH, reported that a labour judge in Ceiba, Atlantida, had ruled in its favour over a claim for unpaid salaries and social benefits owing to its members by the Empresa C.B.I. Lumber Internacional de Honduras. The company appealed to the same judge who then reversed his ruling.

At the beginning of October, the Korean-owned Kimi factory in the Continental Industrial Park sacked 80 workers for organising a union and refused to pay compensation. In October, early one Saturday morning, two of the workers, Maria Magdalena Diaz and Juana Diaz were hit by a delivery vehicle which tried to run them over.

During the same month, workers occupied the Korean-owned Triache factory for three days in protest at appalling treatment by the owners. They demanded the removal of two Korean managers. Women workers were beaten by public security guards. The workers also complained that the CGT union was collaborating with the management to set up a parallel union and destroy the union which already existed.

The owners of Polson Garment in the Choloma zone closed down the factory to get rid of the union. They left the country without paying the workers their benefits.

MEXICO C87

Although trade union rights and freedom of association are recognised in both the constitution and law, the right to organise and the right to strike is not always respected in practice.

The legal registration of unions in Mexico is impeded by the authorities, and by local Conciliation and Arbitration Boards (CABs), which have sole authority to regulate union elections and handle all phases of dispute resolution. Trade unions have to be registered with CABs to obtain legal status. These boards act to withhold or delay registration from unions hostile to either government policy or to vested economic interests.

Fierce resistance to attempts to organise trade unions by employers colluding with local officials, remains a major cause for concern at Mexico's maquiladoras plants.

Mexican labour law makes little provision for the rights of individual union members. This means that workers can be denied access to their own collective agreements and to internal union rules, and can do little when internal union procedures are violated in union elections. Where such abuses lead to employer-dominated trade unions, registration requirements and election procedures have been used to stop workers forming new unions.

Non-registration can subsequently be used as an excuse for prohibiting, or failing to recognise strikes. The boards also have the power to declare strikes "legally non-existent" leaving strikers vulnerable to being fired, and to suppression of work stoppages by force. Peaceful labour protests are frequently dispersed by the police using force.

Although the law protects workers against anti-union discrimination, the provisions are inadequately enforced and there are still reports that employers are blacklisting workers for union activities. Workers fired for union activity are pressured to sign voluntary resignation papers giving up their reinstatement rights. Should they choose not to sign and to seek redress instead, they face a lengthy and expensive procedure with little confidence in the neutrality of the government. They also risk losing their statutory redundancy pay.

In August, 1995, the workers employed at a factory owned by Maxi Switch S.A., a subsidiary of the Taiwan-based Silitek Corporation, began to organise a trade union. The company countered their efforts by the use of threats and intimidation and by dismissing a union activist. On 22 November, 1995, the workers held an assembly to set-up the union, elect officers and complete other procedures required for union recognition. On 24 November, the newly-elected officers presented the documents required under Federal Labour Law to the Sonora Conciliation and Arbitration Board. Several days later the secretary-general of the union was physically assaulted and forced to leave her job. Shortly afterwards, two more union official were dismissed. All three union officials refused to accept severance pay and filed complaints with the CAB.

On 23 January, 1996, the CAB. issued a decision denying recognition to the union on the grounds that there was an existing collective agreement with another union. The CAB refused to provide the name of the other union, the date that it was recognised, or a copy of the alleged collective agreement.

Workers dismissed for trying to form a union at Magneticos de Mexico, a subsidiary of the Japan-based Sony Corporation, remained unemployed throughout 1996, and it is reported that they are blacklisted from employment in the area. The dispute dates back to 1994 when union officials in the registered union were sacked, and the management interfered in the election of new officials. The campaign against union activists included threats, surveillance, demotions and dismissals and two improper refusals by the CAB to permit the registration of a new union.

The Maxi-Switch and Sony cases show the improper use of administrative authority by CABs. Mexican law does not restrict employees in the private sector from forming more than one union. Federal law covering public employees, however, does provide for trade union monopolies.

In 1996, a number of legal developments took place concerning the issue of trade union monopoly. The first concerned the trade union that represented employees of the government agency responsible for fisheries. In 1994, this agency was integrated into a larger government agency that was also responsible for natural resources and the environment. In January, 1995, the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal (FCAT) ruled that SUTSP, the registered union for the employees of the former fisheries agency, ceased to exist because the agency had ceased to exist. In March, 1995, FCAT registered a new union, SNTSMARNAP as the single union to represent employees in the newly-combined ministry.

In 1996, SUTSP won the restoration of its registration through the court and the right to hearings on its registration and the registration of the new union. However, FCAT interpreted the court decision to mean that the registration of SUTSP would only be for the purpose of its dispute with SNTSMARNAP, but not for the purpose of representing workers. FCAT rulings also delayed the effect given to the court decision. A second court case eventually led to the deregistration of SNTSMARNAP in March, and an election between the two unions in October.

SNTSMARNAP won the election - largely because it enjoyed the privileges of recognition, including access to government facilities, paid time-off for union officials, and was treated as the recognised union by the Ministry in the run up to the election. Although the lengthy legal process showed the contradiction between freedom of association and the monopoly requirement in the law, in the end it was the bias of the CAB and the preference of the employer that determined which trade union would be registered.

In May, 1996, the Supreme Court of Mexico found provisions for trade union monopoly in an analogous state law (Jalisco) unconstitutional and in a separate decision overturned a decision by an arbitration board for state employees (Oaxaca) because it denied registration to a trade union because another union was already registered. These decisions however do not constitute binding jurisprudence and violation of freedom of association for public employees by imposed trade union monopoly continues in both law and practice.

Other restrictions on freedom of association in the public service are the prohibition against re-election of trade union officers and excessive limitations on the right of public employees to strike. Freedom of association is also restricted to the kinds of trade unions that public employees may form. Public sector trade unions are by law forced to belong to the FSTSE confederation which is not allowed to join other trade union organisations.

NICARAGUA C87/C98

A new labour code came into force in November, 1996, to replace laws dating back to 1944 and the Somoza regime.

The code had been adopted by the National Assembly as early as October, 1994, but parts of it were vetoed by the Chamorro government in 1995. The government had argued that it would limit the country's capacity to implement its structural adjustment programme. In September, 1996, the bill was again obstructed by the president, several deputies in the National Assembly, and the organisation of private sector employers, COSEP.

Overall, unions said that the law improved protection of workers' rights. While restrictions still exist on the right to strike, including lengthy pre-strike procedures, the new law was reported to have streamlined these procedures. The law increases protection against anti-union discrimination, by requiring companies to obtain permission from the labour ministry before a union executive member can be fired.

There are no unions in the country's two Export Processing Zones. Although Nicaragua's labour legislation applies in the zones, there are reports that in practice it is not enforced by the authorities and workers are fired for joining unions.

Many of the factories in the zones are South Korean- and Taiwanese-owned and export clothing to the US market. Working conditions are very bad. Production quotas are strictly applied and regularly increased. Employers generally pay below the minimum wage and do not pay social security payments on behalf of their workforce.

PANAMA C87/C98

On 3 January, 1996, the Panamanian parliament passed a bill allowing special provisions to be decreed in the export processing zones covered by Panamanian labour law.

On 11 January, another bill was passed exempting employers in the zones from signing collective agreements for the first five years of their operation, with the possibility of renewing the exemption up to the year 2005.

The law said that workers could be sacked for instigating a strike without following lengthy pre-strike procedures – making legal strikes virtually impossible.

At least half the workforce had to work during a strike so that the company could fulfil its contracts. Strikes were banned outright if they interrupted "essential services" in the zones. These included food supply, transport, post and telegraph, telecommunications, water supply, electricity, air and sea transport control, fire fighting and security. Binding arbitration could be imposed.

The new law gave employers a three-year exemption from hiring workers on fixed-term contracts. Employers could hire temporary workers and terminate employment contracts if fluctuations in the international market reduced demand.

The laws were changed on 28 February after strong protests from the unions. But the changes did not remove the exemption on hiring temporary workers. And while the exemption from collective bargaining was removed, the amendments were ambiguous. They provided for collective bargaining with employees' representatives, but did not mention trade unions. Collective agreements were permitted only if they had "no effects on the profitability of the enterprise". Arbitration became mandatory.

The amendments removed most of the strike prohibitions, although workers could still be sacked for instigating a strike which did not abide by pre-strike requirements which, though the same as under current law, still remained lengthy.

On 5 September, police arrested 17 union members as they picketed the Empresa Cool Dragados de Panama factory, in the Colon free trade zone, and the company's headquarters in Panama City. The workers wanted to talk to management about their unpaid wages, and non-payment by the employer of social security contributions. They were detained and strip-searched during their arrest.

The company accused them of stealing 60,000 dollars. They were released some days later because there was no proof against them. Immediately after they were released, another employee accused them of stealing a gold chain and they were re-arrested.

On 14 September, they were released again because of lack of proof, except Marcos Allen, general secretary of the UTICAP union. The authorities said that he could not be released because another court case was already pending against him. He was released three days later after paying a fine. Otherwise he would have remained in prison for a year.

Panama's 1995 labour law reforms brought easier registration procedures and reduced the number of workers required to from a union from 50 to 40. But they also introduced new labour market flexibility measures, in line with structural adjustment requirements. The changes made it easier to sack workers, reduced severance pay, lowered the minimum wage, and allowed pay reductions in periods of "national or international economic crisis".

The new code also addressed the hiring of workers on temporary contracts to avoid compliance with the labour code. The Labour Ministry can now review employment contracts and increase its factory inspection. Fines for breaking the law were introduced.

A 1994 law allowed public servants to join associations which can bargain collectively and have limited strike rights. But only one association can exist per institution and only one branch can exist in each region.

The government was expected to introduce a new EPZ law in early 1997.

PARAGUAY C87/C98

A general strike by the four trade union centres brought the country to a virtual standstill on 28 March. The strike was over pay increases, land reform, preservation of the social security system and against privatisation and corruption.

On the eve of the strike, five men attacked Geronimo Lopez, president of the CPT union centre, at the union's headquarters and threatened him with a knife. The men, who claimed to be acting on behalf of the Minister of Justice and Labour, said it would be his last strike because the union would be dissolved afterwards.

After the strike, the president of the country said the unions "were endangering democracy".

The unions held another general strike on 2-3 May which also called for the sacking of the Minister of Justice and Labour and the impeachment of the president for corruption and mishandling the economy.

The authorities and employers exerted pressure on workers not to go on strike. The police said they would not tolerate barricades or any attempt to interfere with the flow of public transport and other traffic. There were reports that non-union bus drivers and police would be used to break the strike.

On the first day of the strike, a demonstration was held in the capital, Asuncion. Strikers blocked roads and riot police armed with clubs were told to repress the strikers. The police fired shots in the air. Over 100 strikers were injured. Many went to hospital.

Sixteen strike leaders were arrested on public order charges, including Alan Flores, president of the CUT union centre, and Eduardo Ojeda, a leader of the CNT union centre. They were freed around 12 hours later without being charged. The government said some policemen would be charged with ill-treating the detainees, many of whom were injured. Some detainees said that they had been beaten by more than 15 police at once. The police chief admitted that excesses had occurred. Many other trade unionists, rural workers and students were detained.

The Ministry of Labour and Justice sent the ICFTU and other organisations a book of what they claimed were political statements by union leaders in the media and at meetings in March and April.

Public servants are not covered by the 1993 labour code and cannot form or join unions. The government has recently said that this provision is unconstitutional and therefore null and void. An act which would allow public servants to organise is said to be before parliament.

The 1993 labour code protects union leaders from being sacked for union activities, but not workers or union members. Employers can be fined for sacking union leaders, but the fines are too low to act as a deterrent.

A union must have at least 300 members before it can be set up. Candidates must work in the enterprise and be active union members to be eligible to hold union office.

PERU C87/C98

Economic stability measures implemented in Peru since 1990 have seriously undermined trade union rights.

Peru's 1993 constitution, as well as decrees issued in 1992, introduced labour market flexibility and deregulation. These measures sped up the privatisation programme, and made it easier to lay workers off and hire workers on temporary contracts - usually with no union rights. Massive numbers of workers lost their jobs, with trade union leaders among the first to go.

Young workers were also recruited, who, according to a new law, were employed on training programmes without basic employment rights and without the right to join unions.

Other laws abolished job security and removed workers' protection against arbitrary dismissal. Employers were no longer obliged to reinstate workers, even if they were found to have been unfairly dismissed.

Law 26093 allows municipal administrations to evaluate a worker's performance every six months. A worker can be sacked for failing the evaluation. In March, the CUT union centre said that massive numbers of workers were being sacked in this way. This including 557 workers in the municipality of Iquitos and 2,000 members of the SITRAMUN union in Lima. The 90,000-strong municipal workers' union FETRAMUN, called a strike in March to protest against the law, saying it feared losing all its members.

On 25 January the biggest union demonstrations for many years, organised by the CGTP union centre, took place to protest at the privatisation of the state-owned oil company Petroperu.

In April, 1996, a new law was passed introducing more labour market flexibility. It took away guaranteed rights such as annual paid holidays and bonuses, and industrial accident compensation, making them subject to bargaining. Another law introduced flexibility for workers in the diminishing state sector.

On 15 June, congress voted President Fujimori special powers to legislate by decree for three months to introduce a serious of economic policy initiatives setting in motion a second wave of privatisation.

In November, the CUT union centre said that several members of the union executive committee were included among the 1,500 employees forced to accept redundancy at the privatised Peruvian Telephone Company.

The Industrial Relations Act of 1992 was adopted by decree at a time when President Fujimori had dissolved the national parliament, suspended the constitution, and assumed emergency powers.

The 1992 law requires a minimum of 100 workers to form a union by branch of activity or occupation. It allows the labour ministry to cancel a union's registration, and obliges unions to compile reports when requested by the ministry.

It bans trade unions from engaging in political activities. It restricts the free election of union officials, and workers' eligibility for union membership - staff on probationary periods, for example, are no longer allowed to join unions. Public servants' federations or confederations cannot join organisations representing other categories of workers.

The authorities can suspend strikes. Workers are not allowed to strike over general economic and social policy issues. The law contains a broad definition of "essential" public services, including health, electricity, water, gas, energy, sanitation, communication and telecommunications, and public transport, in which arbitration is compulsory and strikes are virtually impossible.

The law does not protect workers against acts of anti-union discrimination, nor protect organisations of workers from acts of interference by employers.

Collective bargaining is hindered by the requirement that a majority of both workers and enterprises is necessary to conclude a collective agreement for a branch of activity or occupation. The law also obliges the regular re-negotiation of collective agreements.

A decree of November, 1992, allowed companies to propose temporary changes of work, working conditions and wages, and to suspend collective bargaining agreements for up to 90 days, if required to do so by "economic conditions".

FETIMAAP, the union federation in the timber sector, said that the company Fabricas Maderas Laminadas, based in Pucallpa had closed down illegally in order to avoid paying workers back wages.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The right to strike and the right of workers to organise trade unions are not adequately protected in the labour legislation of the United States. The law is unable to protect workers when the employer is determined to destroy or prevent trade union representation.

The procedures of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which governs industrial relations in the private sector, do not provide workers with effective redress in the face of abuses by employers. The remedies available to workers who have been fired illegally for trade union activity are inadequate, and the penalties against employers who illegally fire them are ineffective. Many workers, including those fired illegally, do not use available legal procedures because they take too long and fail to provide adequate compensation, or redress the wrong done to them. It can take an average of 503 days for the NLRB to settle a case.

In 1994, the U.S. based telecommunications company, Sprint, concluded its anti-union campaign eight days before a scheduled union election by notifying the 235 employees of its La Connexion Familiar subsidiary in San Francisco that it would permanently close the facility. In late December, 1996, two and one half years after the doors were shut, the NLRB ruled the closing illegal and ordered the company to rehire the workers with full back pay.

The company has filed an appeal in the court which is expected to delay the application of the NLRB ruling by another 18 months. Sprint, which has admitted to over 50 violations of labour law in the course of its anti-union campaign at this facility, has a long-standing company policy of remaining "union-free."

At least one in ten union supporters campaigning to form a union is illegally fired by the employer. For every thirty people who vote for a union in elections in any one year, one union supporter will be illegally fired. At least one worker will be illegally fired in 25 per cent of all union-organising campaigns. A poll conducted in 1994 found that 79 per cent of Americans believe workers are likely to get fired if they try to organise a union at the place where they work.

In practice, US labour legislation allows for double standards with respect to the rights of employers and of workers. Employers regularly use meetings conducted on their own property during the working time of their employees to campaign aggressively against collective bargaining and trade unions. Supervisors not eligible to be represented by the trade union may be required by the employer to participate actively in a vicious and intimidating campaign against the union. Employees who support trade unions are identified and often isolated from other workers.

Except in rare circumstances, trade union representatives are denied access to the employer's property to meet employees during non-working time. During organising campaigns, threats of arrest made against trade union representatives and their expulsion from the employer's property, contribute to an atmosphere of intimidation that denies workers any reasonable opportunity to consider freely the advantages of trade union membership. The government-conducted election used to determine if workers want to be represented by a union is usually held on the employer's premises, - the place where most anti-union intimidation has occurred.

Throughout the period under review, the management of the New Otani Hotel and Garden in Los Angles continued a vicious anti-union campaign that has included illegal dismissals of union supporters, harassment, and surveillance in an effort to halt a union organising drive now in its fourth year.

In 1996, an international trade union mission concluded that the management campaign had created a climate of intimidation that made it impossible to hold any fair election for workers to decide on union representation.

The National Labor Relations Act requires the National Labor Relations Board to seek injunctions in a federal court against trade unions committing certain kinds of unfair labour practices. There is no corresponding obligation when the unfair labour practices are committed by employers. The result is that unlawful acts committed by employers that deny trade union rights to their employees often accomplish their intended goal before any proceedings are concluded.

Because trade union organising in the United States often involves excessive and costly litigation, the right to join trade unions and participate in collective bargaining is in practice denied to large segments of the American workforce.

Regardless of the margin of victory in the election for representation rights, employers regularly challenge the results when the trade union wins. The government will spend many months, and sometimes years, examining what are often minor or frivolous charges before ordering a company to bargain with the trade union. In the meantime, union supporters quit or are fired, and new workers are hired, often after the employer has screened out potential union supporters.

The options available to employers to discourage workers from exercising their trade union rights do not end if a union is certified. It is conservatively estimated that approximately one third of employers engaged in bad faith or "surface" bargaining with newly-certified unions. Forty per cent of negotiations for a first collective agreement fail to result in any agreement. One study showed that in one fourth of the remaining cases where a first collective agreement was achieved, the union was unable to negotiate a subsequent agreement.

The law, and various administrative and judicial decisions, place a variety of restrictions on the ability of workers to engage in "concerted activity" including restrictions on intermittent strikes, secondary boycotts and other forms of mutual aid as well as on various kinds of "on-the-job" activity.

However, the law gives employers the "free play of economic force". Should employers be unable to achieve the desired result through collective bargaining, they may unilaterally impose their terms, lock out their employees, and transfer work to another location, or even to another legal entity. For example, in the construction industry, it is a common and legal practice for employers to create separate non-union companies in order to avoid collectively-bargained commitments.

Recent surveys of employers with impending negotiations have found that upwards of 80 per cent are committed to, or contemplating, replacing their workers if the employers are unable to reach an agreement to their satisfaction. Under the law, employers are permitted to hire replacement workers during an economic strike. Legislation explicitly prohibits the dismissing of strikers - but the use of permanent replacements is, in practice, indistinguishable from dismissal.

More and more employers have deliberately provoked strikes to eliminate trade unions. Unacceptable demands are made of workers and are often accompanied by arrangements for the recruiting and training of strike-breakers. Following a period of one year after the expiration of collective agreements, replacement workers are eligible to vote in a decertification election to eliminate union recognition. Should a contract be negotiated during a strike, the right of strikers to return to their jobs which have been filled by permanent replacement workers is often subject to negotiation.

Throughout 1996, employees of the Frontier Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada, and employees of the walnut producer co-operative Diamond Walnut, in Stockton, California, continued strikes that began in 1991. A strike which began on 13 July, 1995, involving 2,600 employees of the Detroit News, owned by media conglomerate Knight-Ritter, and the Detroit Free Press, owned by media conglomerate Gannett, continued throughout 1996. These strikes were provoked by employers - whose enterprises were successful - demanding big cuts in existing wages, working conditions and benefits in contracts established through collective bargaining.

The duration of these strikes, and the corresponding hardship for the striking workers, was caused by the legal use of strike-breakers by the employers. In the case of the Diamond Walnut dispute, the employer even required workers to train their replacements. These strikes, although among the longest, were not the only cases in which employers used replacement workers in violation of the right to strike.

In the United States, legally established labour standards covering wages and hours, child labour and workplace safety are inadequately enforced owing to an under-funded labour inspectorate and inadequate penalties for employers who violate the law. This, together with the failure of US law to protect trade union rights, has led to an increasing number of instances of extreme exploitation.

National labour legislation does not cover agricultural and domestic workers, security guards and certain kinds of supervisory workers. Moreover, the concept of "employee" as used in the law does not accord protection to "independent contractors" even where they have no separate economic identity independent of a particular employer.

The inadequacy of laws is not limited to the private sector. Approximately 40 per cent of all public sector workers, more than seven million people, are still denied basic collective bargaining rights. At the national level, only postal workers enjoy such rights and 80 per cent of the postal workers are represented by trade unions. Over two million employees of the federal government are governed by the 1978 Federal Labor Relations Act which outlaws strikes, proscribes collective bargaining over hours, wages and economic benefits, and imposes an excessive definition of management rights which further limits the scope of collective bargaining rights.

While the situation varies from state to state, the absence of proper legal protection of trade union rights in the public sector is reflected in bans on strikes, bans on collective agreements, provisions for their invalidation, limitations on the scope of collective bargaining and discrimination against national trade union organisations. Thirteen states provide for collective bargaining only for certain public employees and 13 states do not allow it at all. More than 5.4 million of the total of 15.5 million state and local government employees in the United States are denied the right to bargain collectively.

Table of contents