Over the last two
years, IUF has conducted several international campaigns in support of the
struggle of SICO’s Carepa division, which represents Coca-Cola workers in
the Urabá banana production region. The negotiations for the new Collective
Bargaining Agreement began early this year. It was a conflict-ridden
process, which the unity of the labor organization and the international
solidarity it received were able to overcome, achieving benefits never
before attained. Luis Alejandro Pedraza, President of SICO and the Agro-Food
and Livestock Production Association (UNAC), spoke with Sirel and described
in detail the bargaining process and its outcome.
-How long did the
negotiations take?
-Colombia’s legislation
stipulates three stages for collective bargaining. The direct resolution
stage, which can take up to 20 calendar days, which can be extended for
another 20 days with the agreement of the parties. Then comes the pre-strike
stage, ten days long, in which negotiations can continue, and finally there
is the strike, for which 60 days are provided, and during which time
negotiations can also take place. In our case, the first 20 days were
exhausted and there was an agreement to extend negotiations for another 20
days. Thus the signing of the Agreement demanded a total of 40 days.
-What is your evaluation of
the bargaining process?
-It was an interesting
process, where two opposing views were debated. The view of the Bebidas y
Alimentos de Urabá company, which promotes outsourcing and the
flexibilization of the Collective Agreement, and coincides with FEMSA’s and
the Coca-Cola Company’s position; and the view held by UNAC, SICO and IUF,
which entails securing labor stability for all workers through Collective
Agreements, thus strengthening trade unions.
In that sense, the role
played by IUF in its negotiations with Coca-Cola was key, because under
isolated conditions, without being part of an international structure, this
union would’ve disappeared already.
-What were the toughest
points in the bargaining process?
-The articles concerning
union guarantees and job stability. The company denounced these articles to
the Ministry of Labor, and in its counterproposal to the set of demands
presented by the union, it insisted that these articles be eliminated from
the Agreement with the aim of furthering its outsourcing policy. For that
reason, the negotiations focused primarily on these issues. When the company
backed down in its attempt to eliminate the basic guarantees that protect
union activities, the bargaining process became easier.
-Coca-Cola Urabá has been
pushing to introduce these changes since the last negotiation, and
management has maintained a permanent confrontational attitude towards the
Union over these articles.
-This is due to the company’s
being influenced by the position that Coca-Cola is implementing in our
country and in much of the region. That’s why it uses the same arguments,
and why it has that attitude that you point out.
-Besides preserving these
clauses, the bargaining was very successful in economic aspects.
-No doubt about it. We were
able to break the limit set by the labor market, where the policy is to go
by the Consumer Price Index –which in Colombia stands at 4 to 7%–, and,
based on that, might allow one or two additional percentage points. Most
collective bargaining agreements in the beverage sector have obtained a wage
increase of around 6.5 or 7%, maximum. We achieved an increase of 12%. There
was a significant improvement in social issues. In Urabá, health care
services are in chaos. For many surgeries and treatments for certain
illnesses, patients must travel to Medellín, which is 14 hours away by car.
It was established that if any workers or their family members must receive
care in Medellín, the company will pay for their air travel expenses, plus
eight days of per diem for whoever accompanies them. This solves a serious
problem faced by workers.
Another important aspect
worthy of highlighting in the Agreement is that if management were to decide
to sell the company, the workers would maintain the Collective Agreement and
the union’s position would continue to be recognized. This formula is part
of the Agreement that IUF signed with Chiquita Brands, which in Colombia
enabled the protection of some 2,600 jobs and an equal number of members of
SINTRAINAGRO, when the transnational pulled out of the Urabá area. In our
case, if the company is acquired by, for example, FEMSA, the latter would
have to recognize the Union and the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
-In a country where
collective bargaining agreements are an endangered species, how is it that
SICO secured such achievements?
-One of the greatest concerns
in IUF and in trade unions is the problems introduced by the processes of
outsourcing, and that is what we are working on. The company attacked labor
stability and union autonomy, and after being defeated in those two issues,
it was in a weak position when it came time to bargain the economic part of
the agreement.
Nonetheless, this is the
result of efforts that go back four years, when we began consolidating the
union. Last year, under a project that IUF is implementing with the LO-TCO
(Labor center of Sweden), we held several Study Circles and a seminar on
collective bargaining, so that the Executive Committee would be prepared to
take on the bargaining process. Through these activities, we were also able
to raise awareness among the vast majority of the workers, so that they
would back the struggle to defend the Agreement. These efforts enabled the
Executive Committee and rank-and-file members to have a clear idea of what
was at stake, especially considering that the company had unilaterally
imposed outsourcing schemes in violation of the Collective Agreement. Faced
with the threat of outsourcing -and with the example they had of two Union
leaders whose contracts were terminated, but whom we were later able to
reinstate-, workers were on the alert and willing to join together to defend
the Collective Agreement.
-Another contributing element
was the solidarity of the Union of Agroindustry Workers (SINTRAINAGRO).
-SINTRAINAGRO’s involvement
played a role in geopolitical terms. Banana workers account for 70% of the
region’s beverage consumers, and every agricultural establishment has a soft
drink distributing center. A strategic alliance between SICO and
SINTRAINAGRO to block consumption would strike a serious blow to Coca-Cola’s
finances.
-What you say is confirmed
by the fact that after a 15-day banana workers’ strike in 2005, in the
framework of negotiations for their Collective Bargaining Agreement, it took
Coca-Cola four months to regain their average sales level.
-When we signed our
Collective Agreement, the bargaining process between SINTRAINAGRO and the
banana workers’ union was starting, and the company’s management hoped for a
successful outcome because, as you point out, during the last strike sales
had dropped 70 percent.
-What’s your evaluation of
IUF’s support?
-It was decisive! The
bargaining process was backed by support that came greatly in advance.
Because, under the meetings held with the Coca-Cola Company towards the
signing of an agreement with IUF, the problems affecting SICO in Urabá were
present in every agenda. IUF’s General and Regional Secretariats expressed
at all times their concern and their unbending intention to support their
affiliated organization. This attitude strengthened the bargaining process,
and it proved decisive. And I repeat, without that support, the Union would
have perished long ago.
-Lastly, in light of all the
benefits wrestled from the company, will SICO in Carepa, Urabá, continue to
be accused of being a social club sold out to Coca-Cola?
-This has been a victory of
IUF as a whole. And the new Collective Agreement is a political response to
those who claim that the labor strategies of our International Federation
are mistaken.
I don’t know what debate will
be opened with this Collective Agreement. I don’t know what those who have
accused SICO of being a union playing to the interests of management are
going to say now. We’ve achieved this Collective Agreement because we have
always taken a clear and determined stand to defend the interests of
workers, and because our struggle is backed by widespread solidarity in
Colombia and the world through IUF.
From Bogotá, Gerardo Iglesias
© Rel-UITA
April 10, 2006
Volver
a Portada
