 Nike’s
reaction to the MSP appeal and the point-by-point CCC reaction
to it
Feb 2005,
Dear Friends,
First of all we would like to thank everyone who has sent protest
letters to Nike and MSP to support the reinstatement of the illegally
dismissed union activists in Thailand. Some of you who have sent
letters may have received a reply from Nike where the company
expresses its standpoint in this dispute. CCC has discussed this
letter with the workers concerned and with CLIST, and given the
many inaccuracies and misleading statements, we wish to respond
in some detail. Please find below the full text of Nike's letter,
which a point-by-point reaction, in italics, inserted in the letter.
Nike, Thank you for your letter regarding the situation
at MSP Sportswear factory in Huatalea Moung Nakornrachaseama in
Thailand.
Nike's goal is to do business with contract factories that consistently
demonstrate compliance with our Code of Conduct and that operate
in an ethical and lawful manner. We take violations of our Code
of Conduct, including freedom of association, very seriously.
But we have also learned that alleged violations of freedom of
association are some of the most complicated issues that both
Nike and its contract factories face.
CCC, Though in general this is certainly true, in this
case three union organizers (and only union organizers) were fired,
and in the conciliation meeting of December 14, organized by the
Thai Labor and Welfare Protection Department of the Ministry of
Labor (MOL) and to which Nike refers later in the letter, the
MOL official clearly stated that the employees were dismissed
because of their union activities. Five representatives from Nike
attended this meeting, and made no comments to the contrary. As
Nike knows very well, MSP has a history of union repression. Two
of the workers concerned were fired previously and re-instated
following intervention of the Human Rights Commission, who expressly
stated that MSP in future had to respect the right to freedom
of association and to collective bargaining.
MSP management claims misconduct, but does not substantiate
these claims and furthermore counters its own statements by offering
up to 10 months compensation, while by law no compensation is
required if workers are indeed guilty of misconduct.
Nike, While your letter presents some disconcerting facts,
they are representative of only one viewpoint: that of the union.
The demands of the union do not necessarily reflect the views
of all, or even a majority, of the workers currently employed
at MSP. In fact, a number of MSP workers made an independent request
to the provincial labor office to deny reinstatement to the workers
in question.
CCC, As indicated above, these facts are not only the
viewpoint of the union, they also reflect the opinion of the Thai
Labor and Welfare Protection Department of the MOL. . Furthermore,
the issue is not about how many workers support the union. Instead,
it is about the right to freedom of association (which is an individual
right) that the workers in question exercised and their subsequent
dismissal by factory management. Also without the support of the
majority of the other workers, this is still a violation of Thai
labor laws and Nike's own code of conduct.
Concerning the 'independent' request of other MSP workers
to the provincial labor office: abundant evidence has been provided
to Nike that this was a management-orchestrated event. The 5 buses
in which the workers went from the factory to the provincial labor
office were hired by management. The demonstration took place
during working hours, and workers were paid to participate. Workers
carried placards in English, a language they are not accustomed
to writing or reading. Read more >>
Nike, Unraveling and resolving the underlying issues in
these types of cases requires the involvement of neutral, third-party
organizations. As a buyer in the MSP factory, Nike is not an appropriate
mediator in the dispute. Furthermore, where freedom of association
is supported by law, as is the case in Thailand, we believe it
is in the best interest of all workers to have local governments
build capacity in addressing these issues.
CCC, Substantial fact finding and dialogue took place
during November and December 2004, including two sessions organized
by the Thai Labor and Welfare Protection Department of the Ministry
of Labor as part of a conciliation process. Effective and direct
action could have been taken by Nike by late December, without
the need to resort to further third party mediation. The recommendation
of the MOL official was very clear, and we fail to understand
why Nike refuses to follow it, and fail to understand why Nike
refuses to explain this to the Union and their supporters.
Having said that, by now the union would certainly agree to
independent third party mediation, as should be clear from the
complaints that were filed to the Thai Human Rights Commission
and the Fair Labor Association, of which Nike is a member, in
early January. We obviously also agree that Nike itself is not
an appropriate mediator (no-one has ever suggested they would
be). What we don't understand is why Nike, after failing to take
up the advice of the government conciliator, has not only never
proposed a mediator, but in fact has refused to respond to suggestions
in this direction? Early January it was suggested to Nike to establish
an independent mediation committee made up of human rights lawyers,
academics and other expert , to which no response was ever given.
If Nike was serious about resolving the issues, why did it not
actively pursue mediation so that a fair settlement could be reached?
Nike's passive approach has resulted in delays that cause extreme
difficulties for the dismissed workers and for the union activists
still working in the factory.
Obviously it will be in the interest of all to build local
governmental capacity to resolve these types of disputes. It is
however equally obvious that the current regulatory gaps are among
the main reasons for having a code of conduct in the first place.
By not upholding its own code of conduct, Nike hides behind a
legal system that it knows to have insufficient capacity to effectively
protect workers rights.
Nike, With respect to the three workers dismissed from
MSP Sportswear, on December 14, 2004, Nike representatives observed
an informal mediation session in which representatives from the
Thailand Ministry of Labor, MSP Sportswear, and the 3 dismissed
workers met. Following that informal mediation session, the union
elected to file a formal grievance with the Ministry of Labor.
We are pleased to note that both the union and management view
the Thai government as an appropriately neutral body. The Labor
Relations Committee has already commenced their investigation,
indicating their commitment to expedite this process as much as
they are able.
CCC, First of all, this was not an 'informal' session,
but the second of two formal conciliation meetings (the first
one was held on December 2) organized by the ministry following
a petition filed by the dismissed workers on October 25. As stated
above, the recommendation of the government officials was to reinstate
the workers, since they were fired, in their opinion, for organizing.
Since MSP refused to do so, and instead offered higher compensation
money, the MOL officials also explained that the workers have
the right to file a complaint to the Labor Relations Committee.
Nike conveniently fails to mention that at the 14 December meeting,
the MOL official also stated that in his opinion, a legal process
usually is very lengthy, and rarely ends with the reinstatement
of the dismissed workers. The most likely outcome would be a severance
payment, effectively breaking the union.
Nike states that the union 'elected' to file a formal grievance
with the Ministry of labor. In fact, the union waited until the
very last possible day to do so, hoping Nike would intervene with
factory management instead. The union has consistently communicated
their lack of faith in the legal process to Nike, see for example
the December 15 letter. It is therefore incomprehensible that
Nike concludes that the union sees the Thai government as an appropriately
neutral body.
Nike, Regardless of the Government's ruling, MSP management
has also committed to working with the Ministry of Labor in the
implementation of workers' training - - specifically focused on
their rights with respect to Freedom of Association. Nike commends
MSP in this decision; we believe this type of capacity building
is one of the best investments a factory can make in promoting
positive management-worker communication, and creating an environment
free from intimidation and harassment for all parties.
CCC, By taking MSP's 'commitment' at face value, Nike
selectively chooses to believe this statement because it gives
the appearance that Nike (and MSP) are serious about upholding
workers' rights. If Nike and MSP are committed to respecting worker's
rights, it should begin by reinstating the dismissed union activists
and by ending the harassment of the remaining union activists
at the plant. Workers (and management!) training in freedom of
association can be an important element of the remediation process,
but clearly training that ignores a present conflict between active
union members and management can not make a meaningful contribution
to creating an environment free from intimidation and harassment
for ALL parties.
Nike, Our goal in Thailand is that workers' rights are
respected, and we will collaborate with all relevant parties toward
that end. Please write to continuous.improvement@nike.com for
response to future inquiries. We also invite you to visit nikebiz.com
for the latest information regarding Nike's corporate responsibility
initiatives. We appreciate your interest and support in the matter.
Sincerely,
Dusty Kidd
Vice-President, Compliance
Nike, Inc.
|
