PHILIPPINES: Labour department’s complicity in unlawful acts deprives sexually abused workers from creating a union

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) writes to inform you that several union leaders and factory workers of a footwear company were illegally terminated when some of their female colleagues exposed their employer’s sexual abuse on them. Their termination had also effectively deprived them possibility from having their union legally recognized. As they were terminated a day before the certification election was held this effectively frustrated their chances of having a necessary majority to win the election.

CASE DETAILS: (According to information from the Center for Trade Union and Human Rights (CTUHR))

On July 24 of this year, more than 50 factory workers of the Bleustar Manufacturing and Marketing Corporation (BMMC), a manufacturer of branded footwear Advan, were illegally terminated from their work. The workers, some of whom began working in the company in 1993, were neither not informed beforehand nor given adequate explanations as to why they were terminated.

The workers though believe that their employer had terminated them in order to effectively deprive them the possibility from having their union, the Bleustar Workers Labor Union (BWLU), obtain legal recognition in the Certification Election (CE) which the Department of Labor and Employment (DoLE) held on July 25. Had they won, they would have the right to represent the workers in negotiations.

In the Philippines, before any union is legally recognized both by the employer and the DoLE they had to first obtain majority vote in the CE wherein the workers involved would cast their vote to decide whether or not they favor the union who would represent them in any negotiation for their rights and welfare. The workers, who belong to the rank-and-file employees, are the only ones that can vote for the union, which is seeking certification.

In the BWLU’s case though, when the election was held on July 25, the DoLE prevented those illegally terminated union leaders and other workers from casting their votes. Had the staff from the CTUHR not argued and insisted upon the DoLE representatives to allow the 43 workers who were illegally terminated to be allowed to cast their votes, pending the challenge to the legality of their termination, they would have not been allowed in.

Also, the DoLE had also allowed workers from managerial positions and included their votes in the official counting–which should have not been allowed. Twenty eight employees in managerial positions voted and had their votes counted. This is in contrary to the labour code, which says that only rank-and-file employees should partake in CE seeking for the establishment and recognition of a union formed by rank-and-file workers. In doing so, the DoLE representatives present during the election had effectively tolerated and acquiesced to these unlawful acts.

After the illegally terminated workers were allowed to cast their votes, the DoLE excluded their votes from the counting which resulted in the failure to acquire certification. In the election 87 voted for No Union, while 60 voted for Yes. Had the 43 ballots been counted, the BWLU would have won the CE. Once the union loses an election, they need to wait for one year before they could seek for another election for certification.

When the CTUHR staff questioned the DoLE representatives and the employer regarding the irregularities in the conduct of the election, some security personnel arrived and drove them out of the factory. Even before the election, the company had already made attempts to deny the worker’s effort to have their union created and represent their colleagues.

On July 12, the company tried to take the industrial machines out from the factory reportedly in an attempt to abscond on pretext of bankruptcy, which could have sabotaged the schedule CE for July 25. At that time, more than 60 workers were forced to alternately hold a die-in protest in front of the company’s gate to prevent the trucks from leaving. They succeeded, except that 59 of them were prevented from coming back to work, and their salaries were withheld.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

As mentioned, before the CE was held some of the female workers had already been exposed to sexual abuse and harassment from their employer, Filipino Chinese Jimmy Ong. The abuse began as long ago as the early ’90s.

When the CTUHR interviewed some of the workers, they recounted that Mr. Ong started sexually harassing and abusing some of them in 1993. Mr. Ong often arrives at the workplace drunk. He then calls on some of his female workers–who were young at the time–and started touching their breasts, genitals, and butt. The workers were then between 17 to 22 years old. He also forcibly kisses them on their lips, asked them to sit on his lap, and showed them his private parts.

Mr. Ong also made indecent ‘invitations’ to female workers whom he liked. Those invited could not do anything. They are forced into agreeing fearing that they would be terminated should they refused his invitation. One of them, who asked her name be withheld, said she had to submit to some of her employer’s requests because she feared that he would terminate her. BMMC was the first place where she had acquired employment.

Her colleagues also said that they were so young and naïve then and they were not courageous enough to complain. Some of them have already developed serious trauma from their experience. Violeta (not real name), a seamstress in the company for 18 years, said that since Mr. Ong’s indecent proposal, she has gotten scared and would hide under the tables and behind cabinets every time she saw him to avoid being summoned and harassed.

Another worker, Girlie (not her real name), also a seamstress at the company said that at times they complained to their supervisors and manager. However, even though their supervisors had already been informed or are fully aware of Mr. Ong’s sexual abuse and harassment on these girls they failed to take any action. They were sorry on Mr. Ong’s behalf but they simply told to the girls to just keep quiet: “wash your face or take a bath to make you feel clean again” (Ihilamos o iligo mo lang ‘yan, tanggal yan!).

When asked why it took them 14 years to make this known, the workers replied that they had tolerated these traumatic and degrading experiences for long years due to a lack of choice.

According to Girlie, these experiences prompted them to organize union as protection not only against sexual harassments and abuses but also to improve their economic conditions. She noted that whilst there were reports that supervisors were paid hefty sums of money, they are still paid the minimum wage (Php 382 per day/ USD 8.64) after 18 years of service plus a Php 2 seniority pay given every three years.

The worker’s union, the Bleustar Workers Labor Union (BWLU-Independent), represents 205 rank-and-file employees had been registered on 2 October 2007.

Although there is already an existing law, Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 (RA7877), that is supposed to protect women from being sexually abused and harassed, the workers did not complain for fear of losing their jobs. The law also only imposes maximum penalty of six months imprisonment and a Php 20,000 fine (USD 450).

The BMMC produces and distributed about 5,400 pairs of Advan-branded rain boots and 2,700 pairs of shoes per day. Its biggest buyer is the SM chain of department stores. It employs 205 rank-and-file workers, 85 percent are women, five supervisors and less than ten are office personnel. It is located in Wilmark 2, RMT Industrial Complex, Tunasan, Muntinlupa City.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write letters to the authorities below; requesting for a thorough investigation into the allegations of irregularities of the union’s election. Also, please request that the complaints involving sexual abuse of workers be investigated. The authorities must also ensure the victims’ complaints are acted upon.

The AHRC has also written to the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General on human rights, Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and transnational corporations and other business enterprises calling for their intervention.

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER