Grupo de Monitoreo Independiente de El Salvador, GMIES
Grupo de Monitoreo Independiente de El Salvador, GMIES
Blv. Los Héroes, Pasaje Las Palmeras, Edificio DEMSA Of. 22
San Salvador, El Salvador
Telephone (503) 260-8661
E-mail:
GRUPO DE MONITOREO INDEPENDIENTE
DE EL SALVADOR, GMIES
Verification of compliance with labor laws and the code of conduct of Liz Claiborne, Inc., in three plants of a company in El Salvador
(Final report)
EL SALVADOR, JULY 2001
CONTENTS
I. Introduction
II. Methodology
III. Findings on aspects related to labor laws
IV. Conclusions
V. Recommendations
I. INTRODUCTION
a) What is the GMIES?
The GMIES is an organization which has carried out monitoring and verification of compliance with codes of conduct in El Salvador since 1996. That year it was established as the first national, regional and international instance of external independent monitoring carried out by organizations of civil society. Its work, therefore, has been a pioneer within El Salvador and internationally in fields as diverse as the world of labor activists, women’s organizations interested in improving the working conditions of the maquila workers and companies with social responsibility.
Through its efforts, the GMIES contributes to the economic growth of the nation, through the promotion of social responsibility by businesses and maintaining productive employment under fair working conditions. From its inception, it defined the principal objective of is work: to effectively contribute to the creation and consolidation of jobs with decent working conditions, through the verification of compliance with the basic norms of human and labor rights, both in the national as well as international arenas.
Its basic principles are the following:
· Independence. The GMIES is an autonomous organization, with its own norms and methodology of work, which does not involve itself in the business of the company monitored, the decisions of the contracting company, nor the actions and decisions of the workers and its representatives.
· Not a representative of the parties. The GMIES does not enter into the monitoring process as a delegate or representative of any of the parties involved.
· Credibility. The GMIES is made up of people with broad experience and national and international recognition in the area of human and labor rights, which serves as a basis for the confidence and credibility it generates in the local civil society.
· Transparency. Before, during and even after the process, both the Group’s roles and tasks, as well as the tools to be employed, are clearly defined among the parties involved.
· Professionalism. In order to efficiently carry out its work, the GMIES has a solid team made up of personnel trained in techniques of monitoring and verification of working conditions, with extensive knowledge in the areas of human rights, labor laws and codes of conduct.
· Non profit. The GMIES’s work is conceived of as a social service aimed at the consolidation of working conditions in accord with the respective norms.
For the GMIES, independent monitoring is a tool for the support of the exercise of human rights within the framework of a globalized economy. Through its work of monitoring and verification, the GMIES becomes aware of situations that have or could generate problems related to the respect for labor and human rights within the factories. This allows it to recommend, in an opportune way, corrective actions to resolve or prevent conflicts. Similarly, as it observes the compliance with legal norms and codes of conflict, monitoring contributes to maintaining and improving working conditions within this framework, where extreme conflictivity does not exist.
Broadening the benefits beyond what is established in internal and international legislation and codes of conflict is not the responsibility of monitoring or social audits. The achievement of this is, rather, a task that corresponds to the parties.
When it was created, the GMIES was made up of the Human Rights Institute of the “José Simeón Cañas” Central American University (IDHUCA) of the Society of Jesus (Jesuit priests); the Center for Labor Studies (CENTRA) and the Legal Aid Office of the Archbishop of San Salvador (OTLA). All three are institutions with a long and recognized track record in the promotion and defense of labor and human rights. In this way, the GMIES had the professional capacity to carry out the work it intended to do. Currently, the GMIES is seeking to establish itself as an autonomous and pluralistic organization, in which those persons and institutions, which share an interest in consolidating fair and harmonious labor relations, may participate.
To date, the GMIES has carried out tasks of monitoring of working conditions and verification of labor laws and codes of conduct for two important U.S. apparel companies: GAP and Liz Claiborne. The process has been longer in the case of GAP suppliers, where the benefits of this type of effort can be more clearly appreciated.[1]
In order to carry out the concrete tasks of monitoring in a specific factory, visits are planned in which a team of professionals is responsible for interviewing the plant’s personnel and management; in addition, this team takes responsibility for observing the workday, reviewing the payroll sheets, examining time cards, inspecting conditions of industrial safety, analyzing health and hygiene conditions and carrying out surveys. All of this is done under the supervision of specialists in labor and human rights.
In addition to the activities strictly related to monitoring and verification in certain factories, since January 2001, the GMIES is carrying out research in the area. Similarly, as of 2000, it has given training on monitoring and verification activities along with the Committee of Verification of Codes of Conduct in Guatemala (COVERCO), and the International Labor Rights Fund in the United States (ILRF).
The GMIES is also working—along with similar initiatives in the region—on the consolidation of a shared space in, from and for the “South” with the goal of fomenting effective actions in the area of codes of conduct and independent monitoring. In addition to the GMIES, the COVERCO, the Reflection and Research Team of the Jesuit Community in El Progreso in Honduras, the Honduran Women’s Collective (CODEMUH), the ”María Elena Cuadra” Movement of Working and Unemployed Women of Nicaragua, the Center for Feminine Studies, CIPAF of the Dominican Republic and the Association of Labor Promotion Services, ASEPROLA, of Costa Rica, are participating in this effort. The objective of this important initiative is to raise the level of dialogue by organizations that work towards the consolidation of just and harmonious relations in maquilas and other areas of export production.
b) Background to the present report
This report presents the results of the investigation carried out by the GMIES in the three plants of a company located in El Salvador. Said company is the supplier of the Liz Claiborne company and the investigation has been carried out at its request, for the purpose of determining the state of compliance with its code of conduct and Salvadoran legislation in said company. As established in the agreement with the Liz Claiborne Inc., this document is public in nature.
The agreement with Liz Claiborne, Inc. established the holding of three inspection sessions and several unannounced visits to give follow-up to the findings and the possible corrective measures taken by the company. After the first and second sessions, the corresponding reports were prepared and given to the Liz Claiborne, Inc, company and the representatives of the trade unions existing therein. Said documents were held in private by these parties in order to allow the company to take the necessary measures for implementing the recommendations of the GMIES contained in those reports. It must be stated that, regarding the first report, there was no reaction by the company. With regards to the second, the company met with the GMIES and committed itself to carry out some corrective actions. In the current report, which is the last in the process and whose nature is public, an account is given of the implementation of all the recommendations made by the GMIES. The handling of the information resulting from the investigation and the distribution of each report, has been carried out in strict accord with the agreements established between the GMIES and Liz Claiborne, Inc.
According to the agreement with Liz Claiborne, Inc., the first session of inspections was to take place in the month of August 2000. However, it was held between September 20 – 30, 2000, since the company evaluated did not provide the conditions for it, maintaining that the monitoring team of the GMIES could not enter the company’s installations on the scheduled date. The same happened with the second visit, which was originally projected for January 2001 and was only able to be held during the week of February 20 of that year. Nor did the company facilitate access to the installations for the unannounced visits, which were not able to be made until almost the end of the process: 15 days before beginning the third and final session of inspections. That is, almost 9 months later than what was originally programmed. Within the framework of this reticent attitude on the part of the company, it is important to point out that the analysis of water quality (despite being planned for the first visit), was not able to be made until the third and final session. On this point we must also indicate that the company did not allow the second inspection of safety and hygiene.
In the same vein, the company—especially in the last session of visits—denied access to any documents necessary for the verification and showed, throughout most of the process, a negative and uncooperative attitude towards the tasks of the GMIES. During the first set of visits, the company went so far as to offer “gifts” (which, of course, were rejected) to the team charged with the inspection. Lastly, it must be made known that on repeated occasions, the work team of the GMIES received mistreatment and intimidation by the security personnel of the Free Zone, who denied access to it, despite the fact that the GMIES team possessed the respective letters of authorization.
II. METHODOLOGY
In order to carry out the third session of verification in company X, the following verification instruments were used:
Ø Interviews with men & women workers:
§ Plant 1: 16 in total—11 women and 5 men
§ Plant 2: 28 in total—22 women and 6 men
§ Plant 3: 18 in total—13 women and 5 men
Ø Interviews with supervisors
§ Plant 1: 1 in total
§ Plant 2: 5 in total
§ Plant 3: 1 in total
Ø Interviews with administrative personnel: 2 in total
Ø Observation of one day of work in the 3 plants
Ø Analysis of the payroll sheets
Ø Inspection of industrial hygiene and safety
Ø Analysis of water quality
III. FINDINGS
1. INDIVIDUAL JOB CONTRACTS
§ In plant 1, only the situation of those job contracts of personnel who started after March 28, 2001 were verified (21 in total); for which the obligation to send them to the Ministry of Labor was met. Regarding the rest of the contracts, no evidence of their being sent to said Ministry was obtained.
§ The delivery of the job contracts to the Ministry of Labor in locales 2 and 3 was not able to be verified. The information was not provided, but since the first report it was known that the company had not complied with the registering of the job contracts with the National Labor Office, of the Labor Ministry, in non-compliance with article 18 of the Labor Code.
§ In locale 3, contracts lacking the signature of the employer or even the company stamp were found. They are only signed by the worker, in non-compliance with numeral 14 of article 23 of the Labor Code. This was indicated in the first report, in October of 2000.
§ In the three locales some contracts were found in which the information regarding article 23, numerals 4,7 and 8 of the Labor Code were not filled in, which refer to the length of the contract, time of service, salary (method, period and place of payment).
§ In locales 2 & 3 some contracts in which the signature of the worker is different from that of their Personal Identity Card were found.
2. WORKERS’ FILES
The job files are maintained individually for each employee working in the company, annexing the sick days, permissions, and other relevant documents.
3. PREGNANCY TEST
According to what is found in the files of the women workers who began working in the factory after the month of May of the current year, the company has ceased its practice of demanding a pregnancy test in order to be contracted.
4. PAYMENT OF SALARIES AND JOB BENEFITS
4.1 Minimum wage
The company complies with the payment of the minimum wage to the men and women workers. This corresponds to ¢42.00 colones per day, that is, ¢1,260.00 monthly (U$S 144.00). We did not hear complaints about the company’s non-compliance with this obligation.
4.2 Other withholdings
Several people complained that there are irregularities in the withholdings made to cover personal loans requested of institutions outside the company. The withholdings are not registered in the payroll sheets. The company’s accountant marks the pay envelopes manually with the appropriate amounts. This situation could cause doubts about the use and final destiny of the funds pertaining to the worker. Examples[2]: