Read this article in:
11 February, 2008
Mr. Miguel Pestana
VP Global Affairs, Unilverer Plc
By Fax: 44-20-78.22.59.51
By e-mail: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Pestana,
The (name of union), representing Unilever employees in (places/countries), wishes to convey our concern over ongoing violations of international labour standards and trade union rights by Unilever in Asia.
We have followed the progress of the IUF's submission to the UK National Contact Point of the OECD concerning the closure of the company's Sewri factory in Mumbai, India and the attempts to achieve a negotiated solution with the trade union representing the 700 dismissed employees.
Following the intervention of the NCP, the company had committed to finding a negotiated solution, yet has repeatedly postponed meetings with the union. Two months have passed since the last meeting (November 27) and the company has yet to propose a date for the next meeting. Since the Mumbai workers have received no compensation to date following their many years of service, we find this footdragging intolerable and unconscionable - and an offense against Unilever employees everywhere.
In Assam, India, the company locked out the entire workforce at its Doom Dooma plant last year, and as a condition of resuming employment forced the workers to sign statements renouncing their union membership and seeking membership in the company-sponsored union.
While Assam Unilever management has denied this in response to the IUF's OECD submission, local management continues to use these unlawful documents in support of its claims to the authorities that the "union" it sponsors represents a majority, It is also using these documents obtained under coercion in support of its deductions of membership fees in the organization it sponsors.
We find this particularly cynical in view of the fact that management in our country would presumably not engage in such practices. Does Unilever have varying approaches to complying with international labour standards, depending on the country it is operating in? Our members are increasingly asking this question.
We are also shocked to learn that brutal anti-union practices continue at the Unilever factory in Rahim Yar Khan, Pakistan, which are also the subject of an IUF submission to the UK National Contact Point for the OECD.
The union at the plant sought to open its membership to temporary workers and support their efforts to be reclassified as permanent employees after nine months of continuous service, in accordance with the law. Management's response was to fire all temporary workers at the plant and replace them immediately with agency workers, who have no legal possibility to ever qualify for permanent status.
Following these mass firings, management continues to harass union members and officers. Union officers, shop stewards and activist members have been frequently transferred from one post to another and management is now threatening them with replacement by agency workers.
The union president is being denied access to his members, and union members received lower salary adjustments at the beginning of 2008. Again, we note that such practices would presumably not be tolerated by Unilever in our country - why then are they being pursued in India and Pakistan? Is it because the law is weaker? Because they take place away from the spotlight of those scrutinizing the company's corporate social responsibility practices?
We are watching, and call upon you to act to ensure that these practices are halted. In all three cases, Unilever management should enter into good faith negotiations with the unions representing employees in order to achieve negotiated solutions to all outstanding problems. We will, for our part, continue to closely follow these developments and keep our own members informed.
Yours sincerely,