Exploring the origins of the routine cruelties that characterize this company’s labor policy.

In any company worthy of its name, human resource management is an area to which particular attention is paid. The reason is that one of its main tasks is -or should be- the continuous improvement of the personnel’s performance and contributions to the organization, in the framework of an ethical and socially responsible activity. Any organization, including companies, depend on the human factor for their operation and evolution, that is, on the human resources it has, which is why it is often said that an organization is equal to the sum of its parts. 

But Nestlé Peru’s labor policy cannot be analyzed under the lens of human relations, and rather merits psychiatric analysis. When you look at the facts, the conclusion that must be drawn is that this policy can only be the product of mentally ill, resentful, unsatisfied people, people whose aspirations have been frustrated. Because only such people can be capable of devising and spouting such a steady flow of relentless small cruelties. These people are minor -but highly damaging- characters. What is most shocking is that they get paid for what they do. Let’s look at some examples.

-One

In a letter dated November 26, 2008, Manuel Monge, Human Resource Manager at Nestlé Peru, informed the National Director of Labor Relations that he would not be attending the extrajudicial meeting called by her to find a solution to the company’s conflict with the National Sole Union of Workers of Nestlé Peru S.A. (SUNTRANEP). He blamed the Union for his decision not to attend, pointing to “the Union’s behavior over the last few days, such as the public statements that distorted facts and aggravated the conflict” (assertions which he did not back with any evidence, but apparently if Nestlé says so, then it must be true), “with scarce coverage in the news” (so, had there been wider coverage, would he have gone to the meeting?). He closes his letter by stressing “the lack of respect for the authority of the Ministry of Labor, as is evidenced by workers temporarily chaining themselves to the gates of your institution.” What’s this about “your institution”? Mr. Monge seems to be unaware that the Ministry of Labor is not the property of the National Director of Labor Relations, or of any other officer, not even of the Minister himself, and is instead a body that belongs to all Peruvians, including Nestlé’s workers.

Nothing justifies that, while taking on the role of both judge and jury, Nestlé -or the minor characters that represent it- should feel it necessary to take up the Ministry’s defense against this alleged disrespect. In fact, the only disrespect here comes from Mr. Monge himself, as he tells the Director that, according to Nestlé’s code of procedure, she was mistaken in convening the meeting. Now let’s look at some other examples that illustrate just how much respect Nestlé Peru has for the authority of the Ministry of Labor and for the laws that the Ministry is entrusted with enforcing.

-Two

On November 24 -just two days before Mr. Monge exalted the “authority of the Ministry of Labor”- the Collective Bargaining Division of that Ministry issued the following order:

“In view of the Inspection Proceeding Report of November 13, 2008, which found that the contingency plan adopted by the company NESTLE PERU S.A. contravenes the provisions of paragraph (a), Article 77 of High Decree No. 010-2003-TR, and, moreover, violates the right to strike of the Sole Union of Workers of Nestlé Peru S.A.; this division now instructs that that the company NESTLE PERU S.A. discontinue the contingency plan indicated in the Inspection Proceeding Report of November 13, 2008, on the grounds that it prevents workers from exercising their right to strike, and further instructs that the said report be referred to the Lima-Callao Regional Labor Office to be duly acted on.”

The three inspections conducted in the dairy, culinary, canning and technical plants, where SUNTRANEP members work, the labor officers found that the company had carried out “acts of substitution” affecting the activities of workers who had complied with the decision to strike. These substitutions took on the following modalities:

a)     Hiring outside workers to perform the tasks of the striking workers;

b)    Rotating workers to different posts to carry out tasks other than their regularly assigned tasks;

c)     Assigning workers employed in production areas to other positions in order to cover for the operators on strike;

d)     Extending the work hours for contract workers so that they worked on Sundays;

d)     Extending the work hours for indefinite contract workers who were not striking.

Based on these findings, it was determined that Nestlé Peru had violated the workers’ right to strike, contravening legal provisions, including Article 25 - “Very Serious Infringements of Labor Relation Regulations” of High Decree No. 019-2007-TR. This Article clearly establishes that “The following breaches constitute very serious infringements: […] 25.10) Carrying out actions that affect the freedom of unionization of a worker or workers’ organization, including actions that violate a worker’s right to freely join a trade union, pressure workers to leave the trade union of their choice, prevent the forming of trade unions, hinder labor representation, use contract schemes that undermine union freedom, collective bargaining and the right to strike […].

There is no doubt, then, that Nestlé Peru violated the workers’ right to strike by adopting measures that are considered “serious infringements” under Peruvian law. What is not so clear is if the employees, or the workers hired to substitute the striking workers, can guarantee the quality of the products, especially considering that what the company manufactures are food products. Neither is it evident if these severe irregularities are the sole responsibility of the minor characters, or if they are committed following orders of the company’s main characters. This is something that Nestlé Peru needs to clarify.

-Three

Lastly, 36 days into the strike, on December 3, the 2008 collective bargaining agreement, which had been submitted for discussion in February, was signed. The Human Resource Management Division -perhaps seeing that in January it would have to start discussing the 2009 collective bargaining agreement- thought it would be a good idea to prepare the ground by issuing a Communication to the Personnel on December 18, which could perfectly be interpreted as a provocation. A passage of the communication reads:

“The union uses the adjective ‘antiunion’ to describe the Company’s actions during the 36-day strike. How can a Company that has 6 unions and 52% of its labor force unionized be considered an antiunion company? The work performed by non-unionized personnel, by personnel belonging to another union within the same area and by personnel hired in August 2008 is entirely legal, and we congratulate all of these workers for their great efforts, which made it possible to keep our factory operating and our customers satisfied. The Company has received communications from inspectors of the Ministry of Labor stating that the work performed by these collaborating workers is not in compliance with legislation governing the right to unionize and strike. We will duly counter these charges and proceed with the corresponding administrative process.

-Four

On December 10, SUNTRANEP approached the Head of Human Resource Administration and Information at the Lima Factory to protest against the behavior of some of the people in middle management positions, who, claiming to follow Management orders, deny the requests for overtime made by workers who participated in the strike. The Union also denounced the company’s failure to comply with the agreements that established the annual leave calendar.

These are just two more examples of the perversity displayed by the minor characters who serve the interests of Nestlé Peru. . 

To be continued...