Mexicans File Complaint Against U.S. Apple Growers

by Jim Lobe

The petitioners say that the mainly Mexican migrant workers, who labor in Washington State's abundant apple orchards, are denied rights to organize, collective bargaining, minimum labor standards, non-discrimination in employment, job safety and health, workers' compensation, and migrant worker protection.

"This case could provide the most comprehensive test of the effectiveness of NAFTA's labor side agreement," said attorney Terry Collingsworth, who helped prepare the petition.

It called on the Mexican government to pursue arbitration under the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC), the side agreement intended to advance worker rights in Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

The move marked the 11th case filed with NAALC since it took effect Jan. 1, 1994. Nine of the 10 earlier complaints involved alleged failures by Mexico to enforce its labor laws and were brought by U.S. or Canadian parties.

This latest case added "more balance" to the NAALC process, according to Pharis Harvey, director of the Washington-based International Labor Rights Fund, which has been a petitioner in several other NAALC cases. "Mexico is not the only country in North America where workers' rights are violated."

The new case is also the broadest of any which have been brought to the NAALC so far, according to Collingsworth. The case is being brought against an entire industry which is alleged to have violated seven of the 11 basic labor principles which NAALC was established to protect.

Union activists maintain the apple industry has long exploited this situation by using the fear of deportation to intimidate workers into not joining a union or pushing for improvement in their working conditions and wages.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters tried to unionize the field and warehouse workers over the past two years but, so far, has not succeeded. Its campaign drew strong support from the biggest labor confederation, the AFL-CIO, and is viewed as a major test for the future of labor organizing in the United States.

Last January, however, the union suffered a significant reverse when workers at two of the state's largest apple warehouses voted against joining the Teamsters by a relatively narrow margins.

Teamster attorneys filed complaints with the federal government's National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), calling the votes illegal due to the alleged use by the companies threats, such as inviting raids by Immigration authorities against the workers. The Seattle office of the NLRB last month issued a preliminary ruling in which they found merit in some of the Teamsters' charges and sent the case to an administrative court.

The complaint declared there were frequent safety violations and chemical hazards in packing and shipping plants, while orchard workers are exposed to toxic pesticides. Federal and state health and safety officials, according to the complaint have not been effective in enforcing relevant laws.

In addition, the complaint pointed to what it calls "severe" budget cuts affecting both the NLRB and OSHA which made it impossible to enforce workers' rights. The Seattle regional NLRB office, for example, has only two spanish-speaking attorneys serving Washington State where the largest minority population group is Hispanic.

The complaint also argued that NLRB should have granted the union's request to order the companies to recognize the Teamsters and reach a collective bargaining agreement precisely because the intimidating effects of the employer's efforts to thwart a successful organizing campaign destroys any possibility of a fair election in the future. In that respect, it contends, deficiencies, delays and weak remedies provided by U.S. labor law do not adequately protect freedom of association and the right to organize.

The complaint said U.S. law discriminated unfairly against migrant workers in a range of social benefits. In Washington State, for example, migrant workers were given lower benefits under workers compensation than resident workers.

The complaint, according to Harvey, marked "an important step for scrutinizing labor law enforcement in the United States, where there are severe problems of discrimination against workers who try to form unions and where migrant workers face widespread labor and human rights violation."

Mexico's National Administrative Office, which receives complaints, will now review the case and issue a written report "within a reasonable period."

It may then launch consultations among the NAALC country secretaries of labor after which a committee of outside experts may be convened. They may recommend arbitration which could lead to fines against the U.S. government or the loss of NAFTA benefits for the Washington State apple industry.