-What was the triggering issue of the conflict with LIDO that left you out of work?

-The conflict started when the trade union SELSA requested the Labor Ministry to have one of the covenants in our bargaining agreement revised, specifically number 43, which sets forth that salary adjustments must be made yearly. In December 2001, we requested the salary negotiation concerned before the Labor Ministry. Article 480 of the Labor Code provides four stages to manage this type of conflict. First, direct negotiation with the company, which was worn out after four meetings since the company withdrew from the negotiating table, allegedly because ‘a salary increase, as requested by the workers, was not viable’. The union applied again before the Labor Ministry to have the conciliatory stage in December 2001, but we got to May 2002 with no salary increase granted by the company despite our moderate demands and that we wanted a settlement through dialog and negotiation – we even put forward a salary increase of 112 colones (approximately 14 US dollars). Instead of an increase, the company LIDO proposed a 5 percent reduction of our current salaries.

-When were you laid-off?

-When we made an eight-hour work stoppage on 6 May, 2002. The company’s response was the suspension of individual labor agreements, with a discriminative and illegal approach, and the workers were not allowed to enter the workplace. There were 36 workers at first, including all members of the union board.

-At this time when almost 3 years have elapsed, what instances are you engaged in?

-Throughout the whole conflict, we had to resort to the Legislative Assembly and to the Labor Ministry itself, with a view to a conciliation with the company. We filed remedies before the Assembly, we made a complaint against the Ministry before the Attorney Office for the Defense of Human Rights; we had to lodge an action against the Labor Ministry before the Administrative Appeals Division of the Supreme Court of Justice to request a special inspection carried out by the Ministry so they would establish and confirm the illegal conduct of the company. The Ministry did not implement it, actually they passed a resolution against their own domestic law, the “Law of organization and functions of the labor sector and social security." We then filed a suit against the Ministry, an office which only serves the interests of factory owners and not the workers’, as it was made evident. The Court’s ruling, one year after the suit was filed, was a 30-dollar-fine to the Ministry of Labor. This was to be paid by the Labor Ministry General Director of Inspections to the Supreme Court of Justice, a ridiculous fine, which does not enforce the law, nor our labor and union rights, and needless to say, does not acknowledge the human rights of LIDO workers.

-What instances have you gone through at the international level?

-When the Labor Ministry refused to abide by the national laws, we had to resort to the ILO Trade Union Freedom Committee. In June, we included a note requesting the support from the international organizations to the action before the Trade Union Freedom Committee. In March 2003, the Committee made a resolution favorable to the union and several recommendations to the government, such as the respect of union freedom in El Salvador, and there is also a point among the recommendations which requires the government not to allow trade union leaders to be dismissed and their reincorporation to their posts. So far, both the Salvadorian government and the company have ignored the ILO recommendations.

-LIDO’s case has also been known in the famous report of “Humans Rights Watch”, where it was an example of labor rights violation in the context of the Free Trade Agreement. But the government insists that the company LIDO has been penalized with a fine. Why does the government say that and what did actually occur?

-The Ministry of Labor had to perform a special inspection in the company and pointed out there had been law infringement, because they were ordered to do so by the Supreme Court of Justice. It was not because they duly care for labor rights, but because they were required to do it. Two inspections were carried out, the outcome of the first one was a fortnight to solve the problem and a fine of 500 colones (less than 60 US dollars) which was never paid. We then insisted that a correct inspection should be carried out by the Ministry of Labor and that the ILO recommendation, which stipulates a 77,400 US dollars fine, should be observed. But the attitude of the Ministry of Labor only sets a cover-up, a justification of the government to show, at international level. In particular with reference to the process of ratification of the FTA; as Salvadorian workers and LIDO employees, organized in the SELSA, we do not support such ratification because we are conscious of its negative consequences for the workers.

-Finally, has the company paid the fine?

-They have not paid a cent, instead they have taken action against the Ministry of Labor which proceeds at the Supreme Court now and also at the Administrative Appeals Division. LIDO's owners argue that the Ministry of Labor is acting against the law as it does not take into consideration article 251 of the Labor Code. This article provides that if no intention of shattering the union is manifest, then the fine is not applicable. In this case, the company claims that there has been no such situation. In reality, many workers are leaving on their own will or because they have reached retirement age, others were illegally dismissed in an attempt to destroy our union, which was founded 45 years ago.

-The company makes a case with the fact that they have not destroyed the union because they have not dismissed 35 of its members.

-That’s what they say and the blind eye of the Ministry of Labor intends to give the wrong impression at the US Congress before the ratification of the FTA.

-Which is the lesson of the past three years when a fair number of workers have been out and the long time the company has put anti-union policies into practice? -What would you tell the international labor movement and the international community about this case?

-Costs are high and among them the layoff of 68 fellow workers, until this year when there was another layoff, a clerical officer under a special agreement who joined the union. There have been negative effects in the workers’ families as many have split up. As a consequence, children suffer as it is harder to provide them with lodging, health care, education, specially when they are very young children. Besides, the employment situation in our country is very difficult, many have not been able to find a job and others work for an extremely insufficient pay, they are paid just the minimum wages fixed by the government. Moreover, the workers who are still with the company receive ill-treatment from their bosses, there is an anti-union campaign in the company; workers have been told to leave the union, they are advised to negotiate their unemployment benefit, i.e. their compensation, and by reason of the economic situation in the country, many fellow workers have been caught in the trap and they end up with only 25 or 30 per cent of the compensation deserved. We believe that the company is trying to destroy our union, using intimidation and illegal means. Besides, there is a violation of our collective bargaining agreement in most of their covenants, the company does not provide the workers with the mandatory health conditions, but nonetheless they demand the workers to comply with hygienic standards at the production line.

-What would you request your Salvadorian brothers and sisters who live in America and have a sense of nostalgia towards the LIDO bread, a ‘typical product of El Salvador’ as the government has described it?

-To our Salvadorian friends, brothers and sisters in America or in other countries of the world -we know LIDO is exporting 50 percent of its production to the American company Rio Grande-, we ask them not to consume LIDO products in solidarity with their fellow countrymen and women, because these products are marked with violations of human rights, labor rights and union rights. We request their support and require the company Rio Grande to demand LIDO the amendment of their anti-union policy.

Gilberto García

© Rel-UITA

20 de junio de 2005