KILUSANG MAYO UNO (May First Movement Labor Center)

TAGAPAMANDILA NG TUNAY NA UNYONISMO No. 63 Narra St. Bgy. Claro, Proj. 3 Quezon City, Philippines

Telfax (632) 421-0768; Ph: (632) 421-1049 / 421-0986 Email: kmu.intl@gmail.com __________________________________________________________

KMU is a founding member of the International League of Peoples’ Struggle 15 September 2008 Mr. Juan Somavia Director General International Labour Organisation (ILO) 4, Route de Morillons CH – 1211 Geneva 22 Switzerland Re: Observations by Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center on the Implementation of

Convention No. 87, 98 and 100 in the Philippines (Article 22 Annual Report on ratified Conventions)

I. Implementation in Laws/Regulations

The 1987 Philippine Constitution affirms the workers rights to equality of employment, to security of tenure, to humane conditions at work, to living wage, to self-organization, to collective bargaining and negotiations, to strike and to engage in concerted activities as well as the right to participate in decision making process affecting their rights. This is clear from Sec 3, Art XIII thereof which states:

“Sec. 3. The State shall afford protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making process affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.”

The right to form labour unions and other forms of organizations is also guaranteed under Sec. 8, Article III of the Constitution:

“Sec 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.”

These rights are also re-affirmed in Article 211: Declarations of Policy in the Labor code, to wit: A. It is the policy of the state:

(a) To promote and emphasize the primacy of the free collective bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as modes of settling labor or industrial disputes; (b) to promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the enhancement of democracy and the promotion of social justice and development;

2

(c) To foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong and united labor movement; (d) To promote the enlightenment of workers concerning their rights and obligations as union members and as employees; (e) To provide an adequate machinery for the expeditious settlement of labor or industrial disputes; (f) to ensure a stable but dynamic and just industrial peace; and (g) to ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy making processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare. B. To encourage a truly democratic method of regulating the relations between the employers and employees by means of agreements freely entered into through collective bargaining, no court or administrative agency or official shall have the power to set or fix wages, rates of pay, hours of work, or other terms and conditions of employment, except otherwise provided under this Code.”

Chapter III, Art. 243 of the Philippine Labor Code entitled Coverage and employees’ right to self-organization declares:

“All persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical, or educational institutions, whether operating for profit or not, shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers, self-employed people, rural workers and those without any definite employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 70, May 1, 1980)”

While the Constitution is clear about the workers rights, there are also a host of legal obstacles not only to trade union activity but for workers to enjoy equal remuneration at work and counter both anti-union and employment discrimination. A. Right to organize and collectively bargain The process of union organizing starting from gathering workers to form the union to registering to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) up until getting union certification through union election, is a labyrinthine process which is oftentimes likened to the proverbial saying “a carabao passing thru the eye of a needle”.

1. Union registration requirements (Articles 234 and 237 of the Philippine Labor Code and Republic Act 9481]

Before a union is registered at the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), a number of requirements must first be fulfilled. Book V, Title IV, Art. 234 of the Labor Code of the Philippines lists the following requirements for a union to get a certificate of registration:

a. Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee; b. The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor

organization, the minutes of the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings;

3

c. The names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate; (As amended by Executive Order No. 111, December 24, 1986)

d. If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years, copies of its annual

financial reports; and e. Four (4) copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union, minutes of its

adoption or ratification, and the list of the members who participated in it. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, August 21, 1981)

Additional requirements must be submitted to establish a labor federation or a national union, as mandated in Art. 237, to wit:

a. Proof of the affiliation of at least ten (10) locals or chapters, each of which must be a duly recognized collective bargaining agent in the establishment or industry in which it operates, supporting the registration of such applicant federation or national union; and

b. The names and addresses of the companies where the locals or chapters operate and the list of all the members in each company involved.

Failure to comply with these requirements would mean rejection of the application for registration. Without a registration, a union (whether local or national) and a federation do not have a legal personality and are not entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations. In setting difficult requirements for the registration of a labor organization, the Philippine government is in effect creating barriers against the right to self-organization. Similarly, Republic Act (RA) 9481 or The Act Strengthening the Workers Constitutional Right to Self organization, Amending for the purpose PD 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, upheld the 20% requirements for union registration. RA 9481 lapsed into a law in May 2007. The 20 per cent requirement, as well as the names and addresses of leaders for union registration, expose the leaders to the company’s retaliation at a critical stage of their union formation. Once known, workers whose names appeared on the list are subject to management attacks, such as termination, suspension, physical isolation, being put into “floating status”, considered as “redundant employees” and slapped with trumped-up charges. Thus, before the union election is held, often, union officers are already dismissed from the company.

2. Union Cancellation (Art 238 & 239 of the Philippine Labor Code and RA 9481) Stringent measures outlined in Art. 239 of the Philippine Labor Code likewise serve as obstacles to union organizing. Failure to comply with one or more of these requirements can lead to a cancellation of a union registration. Art. 239. Grounds for cancellation of union registration. The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration:

a. Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification and the list of members who took part in the ratification;

b. Failure to submit the documents mentioned in the preceding paragraph within thirty (30) days from adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto;

c. Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of officers,

minutes of the election of officers, the list of voters, or failure to submit these documents together with the list of the newly elected/appointed officers and their postal addresses within thirty (30) days from election;

4

d. Failure to submit the annual financial report to the Bureau within thirty (30) days after the closing of every fiscal year and misrepresentation, false entries or fraud in the preparation of the financial report itself;

e. Acting as a labor contractor or engaging in the "cabo" system, or otherwise engaging in

any activity prohibited by law;

f. Entering into collective bargaining agreements which provide terms and conditions of employment below minimum standards established by law;

g. Asking for or accepting attorney’s fees or negotiation fees from employers;

h. Other than for mandatory activities under this Code, checking off special assessments or any other fees without duly signed individual written authorizations of the members;

i. Failure to submit list of individual members to the Bureau once a year or whenever

required by the Bureau; and

j. Failure to comply with requirements under Articles 237 and 238. Misrepresentation and fraud are often used by company-organized group of workers to question or to file petition to cancel the union registration effectively delaying or pre-empting the holding of certification election (CE). This means that even if the union is registered, but it has not yet acquired certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent (SEBA) through certification election, the union does not have legal personality to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). B. Right to Collective Bargaining Philippine Labor Code specifically guarantees the freedom to collectively bargain, to wit:

Book 5, Chapter 3, Art. 242. Rights of legitimate labor organizations. - A legitimate labor organization shall have the right: (a) To act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining; (b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining;

C. Right to strike The right to strike and other concerted actions are explicitly guaranteed in Book 5, Title VIII, Chapter I, Article 263 of the Philippine Labor Code, to wit:

(a) It is the policy of the State to encourage free trade unionism and free collective bargaining. (b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection. The right of legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and of employers to lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall continue to be recognized and respected. However, no labor union may strike and no employer may declare a lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intra-union disputes.

But while the letters of the law say so, a long list of conditionalities also exist such as the mandatory 30-day cooling-off period after filing the notice of strikes for issues involving deadlock in Collective bargaining negotiation, and 15-days period when matters of strike involve unfair labour practice. In addition, the Marcos-era strike provision allowing free ingress and egress of company goods and scabs is still in place and has been strengthened by the blanket power of DOLE Secretary to issue Assumption of Jurisdiction (AJ) orders on disputes in industries that in the Secretary’s opinion are indispensable to the national interest. The definition of what constitute `indispensable to the national interest’ is overly broad and open for abuse.

Art. 263 (c). In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with the

5

Ministry at least 30 day before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. However, in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting, where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately. (As amended by Executive Order No. 111, December 24, 1986). Art. 263 (e). During the cooling-off period, it shall be the duty of the Ministry to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement. Should the dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days from the mandatory filing of the notice, the labor union may strike or the employer may declare a lockout.

The requirement to give an advance strike notice gives employers ample opportunity to divide workers and, in most cases, to organize retaliatory actions against them. In many cases, the notice of strike is used by companies to declare closures. Most cases of run-away shops also occur during the cooling-off period.

Art 263 (f). A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a majority of the board of directors of the corporation or association or of the partners in a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose. The decision shall be valid for the duration of the dispute based on substantially the same grounds considered when the strike or lockout vote was taken. The Ministry may, at its own initiative or upon the request of any affected party, supervise the conduct of the secret balloting. In every case, the union or the employer shall furnish the Ministry the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to the cooling-off period herein provided. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, August 21, 1981 and further amended by Executive Order No. 111, December 24, 1986). (g) When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return-to-work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same.

Companies affected by labor disputes can easily request for an injunction order from the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and it has been proven, time and again, that the labor agency is biased to the employers. The power of the Labor Secretary to assume jurisdiction has been gravely abused. Assumption of Jurisdiction has been imposed even on industries that do not fall in the category of “essential and indispensable to national interest” Under the Assumption of Jurisdiction (AJ) Order, the Labor Secretary has the power to deputize the police and the military to enforce a return-to-work order. In most cases, deputization of police results to violent break-up of picketlines. The most tragic example is the Hacienda Luisita strike that resulted to the massacre of at least seven (7) workers. Noncompliance to the AJ together with its accompanying Return to Work Order within 24 hours would risk the strike being declared illegal, as well the loss of employment status of the officers who led the strike including those who defied the return to work order. This order can even be issued by the DOLE Secretary without hearing and even without resolutions to the matter of the disputes. Some notable experiences are the strikes in Nestle Cabuyao, Nissan Motors, Toyota Motor Corp. and many others.

6

Under Art. 264 of the same Book, among the prohibited activities in a labor dispute are:

(a.) No labor organization or employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the Ministry. No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout. Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full backwages. Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful strike. (b.) No person shall obstruct, impede, or interfere with, by force, violence, coercion, threats or intimidation, any peaceful picketing by employees during any labor controversy or in the exercise of the right to self-organization or collective bargaining, or shall aid or abet such obstruction or interference. (c.) No employer shall use or employ any strike-breaker, nor shall any person be employed as a strike-breaker. (d.) No public official or employee, including officers and personnel of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Integrated National Police, or armed person, shall bring in, introduce or escort in any manner, any individual who seeks to replace strikers in entering or leaving the premises of a strike area, or work in place of the strikers. The police force shall keep out of the picket lines unless actual violence or other criminal acts occur therein: Provided, That nothing herein shall be interpreted to prevent any public officer from taking any measure necessary to maintain peace and order, protect life and property, and/or enforce the law and legal order. (As amended by Executive Order No. 111, December 24, 1986)

(e.) No person engaged in picketing shall commit any act of violence, coercion or intimidation or obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employer’s premises for lawful purposes, or obstruct public thoroughfares. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 227, June 1, 1982)

By experience, not a single employer has been convicted of violating Art 264(b) and (c). Rather, it is always the workers who are slapped with cases in alleged violations of Art 264 (e). Upon the orders of company managements, police and military elements together with paid goons violently break legitimate strikes and picket protests. The picket protest of workers of Hanjin Garments in Laguna have been repeatedly harassed and dispersed by elements of the Laguna Industrial Park Police Assistance Group (LIPPAG) in the early part of this year. Art 264(e) or the “free ingress and egress” clause is gravely abused to disperse legitimate protest pickets and strikes. Even in cases where companies are forcibly taking out their produce and machines and/or preventing the entry of scabs, workers who block the gates to protect their livelihood are slapped with charges for allegedly violating this clause. Article 264 (e) thus effectively clips the workers right to strike and strips the essence of a strike being a workers’ economic weapon dependent on their ability to stop production. Even for so-called lawful purposes, the “free ingress, free egress” clause negates this weapon. In run-away shops, strikes are not being exercised as an economic weapon. The presence of military in strikes and labor disputes are made legal in Art 264 (d). This is further strengthened by Art 264(g), wherein military elements are used in compliance to AJ. AJ is subject to grave abuse simply because it is subject to the opinion of the Labor Secretary. Thus the burden of proof for a strike not to be considered “indispensable to

7

national interest” lies on workers instead of the other way around. Chapter IV, Article 272 of the same Book outlines the severe penalties that await the “violators” of the law.

(a) Any person violating any of the provisions of Article 264 of this Code shall be punished by a fine of not less than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) nor more than ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) and/or imprisonment for not less than three months nor more than three (3) years, or both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. Prosecution under this provision shall preclude prosecution for the same act under the Revised Penal Code, and vice versa.

3. Labor flexibilization Attacks on workers’ basic rights to organize, collectively bargain and to strike are made worse by labor flexibilization, commonly known in the country as labor contractualization. Department Order No. 18 - 02 (Series of 2002) or Rules Implementing Articles 106 to 109 of the Labor Code, as amended, legalized labor contractualization in the country. To wit:

Section 1. Guiding principles. - Contracting and subcontracting arrangements are expressly allowed by law and are subject to regulation for the promotion of employment and the observance of the rights of workers to just and humane conditions of work, security of tenure, self-organization, and collective bargaining. Labor-only contracting as defined herein shall be prohibited.

Section 8. Rights of Contractual Employees. - Consistent with Section 7 of these Rules, the contractual employee shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges due a regular employee as provided for in the Labor Code, as amended, to include the following:

(a) Safe and healthful working conditions; (b) Labor standards such as service incentive leave, rest days, overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay and separation pay; (c) Social security and welfare benefits; (d) Self-organization, collective bargaining and peaceful concerted action; and (e) Security of tenure.

Labor contractualization exacts a heavy toll on trade unionism as contractual workers are explicitly warned by the management not to join unions. In export processing zones and industrial enclaves, workers are made to commit not to join unions before they can be accepted for work. Because contractual workers have fixed terms of employment, their so-called rights specified above (particularly on security of tenure and freedom of association, collective bargaining and peaceful concerted action) are also co-terminus with their contracts thus becoming mere lip service and are not exercised. Consequently, DO18-02 does not only legalize the practice of labor flexibilization but degrades the workers rights as mere contracts. One of the common types or forms of labor flexibilization schemes is the use of students in a company to perform the work of regular workers as part of their on-the job training. This is made possible with the promulgation of Republic Act No. 7686, otherwise known as the Dual Training System Act of 1994. Trainees are required to work for eight hours at wages below the minimum without protection and are not promoted to regular status even after the training period.

Section 8 of the Dual Training System Act of 1994 or Republic Act No. 7686, states: Section 8. Status of trainee. For the duration of the training under the system, the trainee is to be considered not an employee of the business/industrial establishment but rather a trainee of both the accredited dual training system educational institution and the agricultural, industrial and business establishments: provided that the union or the workers of the latter have been duly informed in advance of such an agreement. A trainee who has successfully completed a training programme in a particular agricultural, industrial or business establishment shall be given priority of

8

employment in that agricultural, industrial or business establishment. The appropriate authority shall keep a roll of these successful trainees for purposes of identifying them for employment.

Likewise, Section 14 in the Memorandum of Agreement, states: (e) the trainee's allowance and the rate to be applied, which in no case shall start below seventy-five (75) per cent of the applicable minimum daily wage for days spent in the establishments;

4. Obstacles to enjoying equal remuneration at work and living wages as mandated by the Constitution and Convention 100

a. Wages in the Philippines are determined by Regional Tripartite Wage and Productivity Board (RTWPB), which was created by virtue of Republic Act 6727 or Wage Rationalization Act approved in 1989. RTWPB decides wage increases on the minimum wage, supposedly based on their understanding or estimates of prevailing cost of living in the country’s different regions. This law paves the way for the creation of over 1,000 wage levels in the Philippines, despite the similarities in work performed, as well as similarities in the cost of living, poverty and price increases impact on workers.

SUMMARY OF CURRENT REGIONAL DAILY MINIMUM WAGE RATES Non-Agriculture, Agriculture

As of August 2008 (In pesos)

AGRICULTURE REGION WO No./

DATE OF EFFECTIVITY NON-

AGRICULTURE Plantation Non-Plantation

NCR a/ WO 14/June 14, 2008 P 345.00 – 382.00 P 345.00 P 345.00

CAR b/ WO 13/June 16, 2008 243.00 - 260.00 226.00 - 242.00 226.00 - 242.00

I c/ WO 13/June 22, 2008 220.00 - 240.00 220.00 195.00

II d/ WO 13/June 15, 2008 227.00 - 235.00 215.00 - 223.00 215.00 - 223.00

III e/ WO 14/June 16, 2008 251.00 - 302.00 236.00 - 272.00 216.00 - 256.00

IV-A f/ WO 13/June 01, 2008 236.00 - 320.00 216.00 - 295.00 196.00 - 275.00

IV-B g/ WO 04/June 19, 2008 240.00 - 252.00 198.00 - 207.00 178.00 - 187.00

V h/ WO 13/ July 1, 2008 196.00 - 239.00 207.00 - 217.00 187.00 - 197.00

VI i/ WO 16/ July 6,2008 240.00 - 250.00 218.00 208.00

VII j/ WO14/June 16, 2008 222.00 - 267.00 202.00 - 249.00 202.00 - 249.00

VIII k/ WO 15/June16, 2008 238.00 219.00 219.00

IX l/ WO 15/ July 3, 2008 240.00 215.00 195.00

X m/ WO 14/June 1, 2008 241.00 - 256.00 229.00 - 244.00 229.00 - 244.00

XI n/ WO 15/June 16, 2008 265.00 255.00 255.00

XII o/ WO 15/June 16, 2008 245.00 225.00 220.00

XIII p/ WO 09/June 20, 2008 233.00 223.00 203.00

ARMM q/ WO 11/ June 29, 2008 210.00 210.00 210.00 a/ Granted a P 20 increase consisting of P15 basic wage & P5 COLA, The COLA shall be integrated into the basic wage on August 28, 2008. b/ Granted P P10.00 & 15.00 COLA per day depending on the area and industry classification. c/ Granted P 10.00 COLA. d/ Granted P 12.00 wage increase and integrated P8.00 COLA under WO No. RTWPB-II-09 into the basic wage. e/ Granted P 15.00 increase consisting of P5 basic wage & P10 COLA; integrated the P9 COLA under WO No. RB III-13 into the bsic wage. f/ Granted P 12-20 wage increase as follows: P 16-P20 (Growth Corridor Area) P14 (Emerging Growth Area) P12(Resource Based Area) g/ Granted P 10 wage increase to all minimum wage workers & P5 COLA to non-agriculture sector only. h/ Granted P 13 COLA, the P6 from P13 COLA shall be integrated in the basic wage on January 1, 2009. i/ Granted P15 Emergency Relief Allowance (ERA) until October 15, 2008 j/ Granted P P17.00 wage increase k/ Granted P10 COLA l/ Granted P 15 wage increase consisting of P5 basic wage and P10 COLA for a period of three months; thereafter, P5 out of the P10 COLA under WO No. IX-14 shall be integrated into the basic wage. m/ Granted P12 COLA & integrated the P16 COLA under WO No. RX-12 into the basic wage. The P10 COLA under WO No. RX-13 shall be integrated into the basic wage on November 16, 2008. n/ Granted P15 COLA & integrated the P16 COLA under WO No. RTWPB XI-13 into the basic wage. The P10 COLA under WO No. RX-14 shall be integrated into the basic wage on September 16, 2008.

9

o/ Granted P 7-10.50 wage increase & P3-5 COLA. p/ Granted P13 increase consisting of P8 basic wage & P5 COLA. q/ Granted P 10.00 wage increase. Source: National Wages and Productivity Commission Updated: 11 August 2008 Many companies are found to be violating the minimum wage law and worse cases are found in female-dominated industries such as garments, electronics and food manufacturing. In Korean-owned K & Y Apparel Corporation in Taytay, Rizal, workers only get P110-237 ($2-$6) daily wage for more than 12 hours of work. This is way below the P287 (6.57$) minimum wage mandated by the regional wage board in Region 4-A/CALABARZON area. Mandatory wage orders are not implemented in this company with around 900 workers, 98% of whom are women, but instead increase wages are granted at management prerogative. At Hanjin Garments in Cabuyao, Laguna – manufacturer of GAP and Polo Sports garments-- workers who served the company for more than nine years are paid P260/day (US$ 5.77), those 5 months to 9 years in service get P160/day (US$3.55) and those considered as extra employees are paid P130/day (US$2.88) for the same job as the other workers. Overtime pay is not given. All wage rates are below the P282/day (US$ 6.25) mandated minimum wage level in the province. Hanjin Garments has around 1000 workers, 85% of whom are women. In Republic Biscuits Corporation (Rebisco), one of the biggest food manufacturing in Novaliches, Quezon City, workers are paid P 272 /day (US$6.04) as against the P382 (US$8.48) legally mandated wages in the National Capital Region. Workers do not enjoy a day-off and are required to work for 12 hours. Overtime rate is calculated based on the company minimum wage instead of the mandated minimum wage. In Ryttek Inc, a company producing computer parts in Kaybiga, Caloocan city, workers only receive P260 (US$5.77) for an 8-hour work and an additional P42 (US$0.93) as overtime pay. In PHI Corp, a packaging company, workers only receive P180 (US$4.00) for an 8-hr work and an additional P50 (US$1.11) for overtime pay. In Tin Box Inc, workers receive P230/day (US$5.10) without overtime pay. In Chuawa Garments - a sub-contract company - workers are paid by piece-rate for only P8.50 (US$0.18) per dozen of their produce. In Unity Packaging, women workers only receive P231 (US$ 5.13) for an 8-hr work. It is not only way below minimum wage level but also lags behind with what their male counterpart receives at P331 (US$ 7.35) for the same amount of work and length of time. All these companies are found in the National Capital Region where minimum wage stands at P382 ((US$8.48)/day. (Source: CTUHR June-August 2008 Survey) b. Republic Act No. 9178, otherwise known as the Barangay Micro Business Enterprises (BMBE) Act of 2002 exempts enterprises with a capital of P3Million and below to pay their workers the mandated minimum wage. The Philippine government has set a policy to promote the establishment of BMBEs by providing various incentives and benefits to entrepreneurs. Reportedly, 99 percent of the registered establishments in the Philippines are considered SMEs. Thru the Act, the Philippine government altogether abandoned the minimum wage law compliance among the small and medium-scale establishments (SMEs). Many companies registered as an SME have been found to circumvent labor and wage laws. RA 9178 only legalized the non-compliance of the minimum wage law which is already prevalent in the country. II. Implementation in Practice 1. Violation of Freedom of Association A mere 1.92 million or 5.72% of the 33.53 million employed are unionized in the Philippines. Partial data from DOLE in Jan-March 2008 also showed the existence of only 17,073 unions. The very low unionization rate in the country is brought by a combination of factors, to name a few: flexibilization of labour, stringent legal requirements for union registration and recognition and the employers’ calculated move to frustrate union organizing, such as summary or constructive dismissal

10

of union officers and active members, filing of false charges to suspected unionists and company closures.

a. Labyrinthine process of union certification and recognition The process of union organizing starting from petition for certification election up to union recognition is in itself a labyrinth. It remains common practice for employers to file administrative and criminal charges against union leaders and activists. This involves, for example, filing charges of theft of company assets and products; forgery of union registration documents; fraudulent union documents; and libel cases for making labour claims against the company. Among the tactics seen frequently during the year to frustrate the formation of unions were: physical isolation of union officers and activists; physical prevention of union certification elections, despite lawful orders and the presence of officials from the DOLE; and instant court-issued temporary restraining orders (TROs) alleging damage to the enterprise if workers are allowed to voice their choice. (Source: ITUC 2007 Annual Survey) Even when a union has already been certified by DOLE, employers can still appeal the decision. This could sometimes takes months or years as it can be dragged into higher courts such as the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. A victory in the certification election is no guarantee that the union would be recognized, be declared as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining agent or reach past submission of proposal for collective bargaining. And it is in the period of a collective bargaining negotiation where most labor disputes happen. Under the guise of losses and bankruptcy, companies can arbitrarily declare closure and leave workers hanging in the air. To cite a classic example: Anita’s Home Bakeshop

Prompted by wages way below the minimum wage and unexplained salary deductions, 35 workers at Anita's Home Bakeshop, in Lahug, Cebu City (Visayas islands) - a company supplying buns in McDonald branches in Visayas islands - organized their union in February of this year. Workers are only receiving P190 (US$4.22), P210 (US$4.66) or P230 (US$5.11), way below the P267 (US$5.93) mandated daily minimum wage in Central Visayas.

To facilitate the union registration, the union -- Anita's Home Bakeshop Workers Union (AHBWU) -- decided to affiliate themselves with KMU federation to become a local chapter of ANGLO-KMU. On April 22, simultaneous to filing all their documents at the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Region 7, they have also filed a request for certification election (CE). A day after the management learned of the union registration, JEANGIE ANDRINO, the union elected secretary was dismissed from her service; JOCELYN SARIO and SALOME ZERNA, both are union board members, were suspended for 30 days and then dismissed without proper investigation; VALENTINO DAGUPAN, the elected union president were then transferred from main branch to Tabunok Branch to isolate him from his members; MARIETA LAGATIC, union Board of Directors (BOD) member was transferred to Banawa Branch; CRISTY CANETE, BOD member was transferred to Fuente Osmeña Branch. THERESA BAUTISTA and BRIGETTE CAAYON, both cashier and reliever cashier, were suspended for (30) days and then dismissed charging them of sales discrepancy. Different charges of insubordination and work efficiency were done thru memorandum from the Human Rights Department (HRD) were received by the workers. Other union officers were transferred to other bakeshop branches, effectively cutting their union contacts and preventing them from joining union activities. Moreover, a police from Mabolo (a village in Cebu city close to the company’s main branch) Police Station frequently visited their workplace during nightshift, asked them about their "union activities" and called on them not to join the union. The company also withheld the salary increase of remaining union members and those suspected as union members were also deprived of PAG-IBIG housing and loan benefits.

11

In May, AHBWU filed a Notice of Strike over unfair labor practice. Within few days, the management went to the DOLE and showed a copy of an alleged collective bargaining agreement (CBA) entered into by the company and a certain Anita’s Bakeshop Employees Association, registered at the DOLE in 1986. Apparently, the union’s registration was renewed on March 12, 2008 and then a CBA was concluded shortly thereafter. On June 10 of this year, DoLE-Region-7 approved AHBWU's petition for CE and dismissed the company’s claim of having a CBA. On the same day, pictures of some 30 active union members labeled and tagged as "trouble maker" and "terrorist group" were posted in the company bulletin board. Virgilio Obaob, a union officer and working as an oven operator, was demoted to utility worker. He was later dismissed and was accused of stealing padlock in the trash can. He was also accused of sabotaging the company premises. Until the time of this writing, the certification election is yet to happen, in the meantime, union officers remain out of job and those remaining are being falsely charged of different cases. [CTUHR, AMA Sugbo-Cebu Sept 2008]

Chiyoda Integre Philippines Incorporated (CIPI)

Workers at Chiyoda Integre Philippines Incorporated, a Japanese-owned electronics company in Light Industries and Science Park I (LISP I) in Cabuyao, Laguna, took three (3) years of painstaking and discreet organizing to form their union Tunay at Lumalaban sa Ikatatatag ng Manggagawa sa Chiyoda (TALIM-Chiyoda).

On 22 February 2007, TALIM-Chiyoda-Independent won the certification election and was declared the sole and exclusive bargaining agent (SEBA) in the company. The company however refused to recognize the union and to negotiate for collective bargaining. To push for a negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the workers launched three (3) waves of red ribbon-wearing.

On June 18, Chiyoda management served notices of dismissal to 51 union officers and members, charging them of “inciting or participating in riots, disorders, illegal strikes or concerted actions to the detriment of the company interests". It later dropped the charges to a 30-day preventive suspension on June 22. Two days after, workers were illegally detained in the company canteen. The doors were padlocked, and the workers were starved and prohibited from using the toilet. Many fell ill, including a pregnant union member who failed to take medication during the 6-hour ordeal. On July 23, workers established a protest picket in the company lobby after the management served termination notice to the 51 suspended workers. The management in turn sought assistance from the security personnel in LISP to block the entry of possible support from outside and enforced food blockade.

The labor dispute was then brought to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB-Region IV-A). Instead of providing a clear and valid explanation on the illegal suspension cases and the CBA negotiation, the management merely offered separation pay to the workers. On August 2, 2007, the union declared a strike. The company tried to violently disperse the picketline which resulted to the injury of at least five workers. The company’s Japanese president Shinsuke Ozaki was later compelled to talk with the workers. This resulted to the signing of a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the two parties on August 3, 2007. The MOA included the payroll reinstatement for all 52 dismissed employees effective August 6, 2007, the physical reinstatement of some of the members starting a week after the MOA is signed until all the members are employed and the lifting of the picket line in the company premises effective 3 August 2007. The parties also agreed that the CBA negotiation will be made after the case regarding the certification election has been finally resolved and that no retaliatory action shall be taken by either of the parties against each other in relation to the strike incident. The Chiyoda management has reneged on its promise and up to present, only eight had been physically reinstated and the remaining 44 received no payroll reinstatement since November 2007.

On February 11, as Chiyoda workers rallied to remind Chiyoda management about the MOA, the company’s Japanese CEO himself threatened to shoot the workers if they cross the company premises. (Source: Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Timog Katagalugan or PAMANTIK-KMU)

b. Flexibilization of labor

Flexibilization of labor proves to be the most effective way to either thwart or skirt unionism.

12

Between 1995 and 2005, contractual workers soared from 65 percent to as much as 78 percent of the country’s employed labor force. In 2003, around seven (7) out 10 firms in the country practice contractualization as admitted himself by Mr. Donald Dee, President of the Employers Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP). Many of these companies are among the Top 1000 Corporations in the Philippines, such as Eduardo "Danding" Cojuangco's San Miguel Corporation (SMC) conglomerate (1,100 regulars out of its 26,000 total workforce); Henry Sy's SM Shoemart (1,300 regulars out of 20,000); and Manny Pangilinan's Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (4,100 out of 10,000). (Source: The Philippine Labor Situation, Ecumenical Institute for Labor Education and Research, July 2008) There is no law prohibiting the unionization of contractual workers but practical impediments such as short term employment status stands in the way of fully organizing them. Contractual workers have fixed terms of employment ranging from 3-5 months only. This makes them highly mobile and transfer from one company/location to another. It is unlikely then for employers to consider them as part of a union’s bargaining contract. In the same way, it will be almost impossible for a union composed mostly or exclusively of contractual workers to be able to obtain a CBA or even to uphold one in a practicable period of time. Ironically, the Supreme Court has allowed the fixed term of employment provided that a) the workers were not coerced into accepting the contract; and b) it is not for the purpose of circumventing the rights of the workers. (Brent School, Inc. vs. Zamora, G.R. No,48494, February 5, 1990). Considering the economic crisis and high unemployment in the country, workers are forced to accept jobs even for only a fixed period. They are left with no option due to a shortage of jobs vis-à-vis a swollen unemployed labor force out to compete for jobs even with inhumane situations. As contractual workers have no security of tenure, exercising their right to join unions becomes the least of their concerns. They would rather focus on working non-stop without complaining in the hope of becoming regular workers. Thus, even in the face of management violations and inhumane working conditions, such as low wages and sexual harassment, they tend to close their eyes and tolerate the situation for fear of losing their jobs. Before they are even employed, contractual workers are also lectured on the negative impact of unionism and dissuaded from forming a union or else face dismissal. Agency workers are not considered employees of the company and are therefore not allowed to join unions. Attempts to unionize contractual workers are easily busted through termination of contracts. To cite an example: Hanjin Garments Korean-owned Hanjin Garments Incorporated in Cabuyao, Laguna employs around 1000 contractual workers who have remained contractuals despite being in the company for 10-12 years. Workers are paid between P160-260 (US$3.55 – 5.77) daily, with no overtime pay whenever the production quota is not met or in cases of re-work items, and with a P10 (US$ 0.22) deduction during paydays. Hanjin workers also complained of poor working conditions, non-payment of leaves, and irregular SSS and Pag-ibig remittance. In the hope of improving their situation, workers painstakingly and successfully formed the Aniban ng Manggagawang Inaapi sa Hanjin Garments (AMIHAN). To bust the union, management resorted to successive waves of termination of employment contracts starting 2007. On January 14, 2008, it terminated 200 contractual workers who rendered service to the company for more than 10 years. Workers conducted a 13-day picket protest and eventually a strike to demand reinstatement, job regularization and union recognition. Their strike was met by series of violent dispersals, with four (4) workers arrested and detained and scores wounded. On February 7, the union lifted their strike after reaching a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the management. The management never complied with the MOA and up to now, dismissed workers are still waiting

13

for the promised reinstatement. (Source: PAMANTIK-KMU) Companies use the contractual workers to coerce the union into submission or curtail their right to strike. Union power is being eroded, such as in cases of strikes, because the management threatens to employ contractual workers to do the job of the regular workers. Oftentimes, the management pits the contractual workers with the regular workers and consciously creates animosity between them. The rampant practice of contractualization shrinks the number of regular workers inside the company, dramatically eroding the traditional base of unionism. Thus, whilst the company workforce continues to increase, the capacity of the union to negotiate agreement and effect changes is radically reduced by sheer number of contractual workers compared with the regular workers. In so doing, contractualization seriously undercuts both the constitutional rights of workers to security of tenure and economic benefits and the right to self-organization. A case in point: Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company The Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) used to have a 16,000-strong workforce until 1995, with majority of them in the union. At the time, regular employees were distributed in various departments corresponding to the different processes such as telephone line installation and repair, and maintenance and repair of underground cables. When the company started to rationalize its operations, big number of regular workers became redundant and thus forced to avail of the early retirement package, or resigned. Ten years of rationalization which included sub-contracting of other jobs, PLDT is left with only about 3,000 regular employees who are now forced to do all kinds of jobs, under the multi-skill and multi-task scheme for employees. Previously regular lines of work such as installations of new telephone lines are now being done by agency-hired contractuals. These contractuals are paid by piecemeal, meaning their pay depends on the number of telephone lines they installed: no installation, no pay. (Source: The Havoc of Contractualization, Karl G. Ombion, Bulatlat)

c. Unwritten “no-union, no-strike” policy, bogus labour cooperatives and inhumane working conditions inside export processing zones and industrial enclaves

An unwritten policy of no-union and no-strike in the export processing zones (EPZs) and industrial enclaves, where there is high concentration of foreign investment, remains widely practiced. Extreme exploitative conditions exist inside the EPZs and industrial enclaves such as low wages, back-breaking jobs, long hours of work, non-payment of overtime and other benefits and repressive practices. A Chong Won worker in the Cavite Export Processing Zone confided that they sometimes have to work 48 hours nonstop to reach a daily quota of 1,500 to 5,500 pieces of clothing articles. They are not allowed to eat, drink or use the toilet during working hours or even during overtime. Thus, urinary tract infection, usually caused by irregular urination, is common, as well as respiratory problems. (Source: Export Processing Zone Workers Victims of Unfair Labor Practices, Ma. Rosa Cer M. Dela Cruz, Philippine Collegian, Posted by Bulatlat Vol. VII, No. 34, Sept. 30 – Oct. 6, 2007) The EPZs implement their own rules, operating like a separate entity excluded from Philippine labor laws. The DOLE has no teeth and political will and has proven to be a willing accomplice in the non-enforcement of labour legislation in the EPZs. Workers who have tried to form or join unions are subject to dismissal, threats and other kinds of emotional and physical abuse. In many cases, companies closed as soon as unions were organized and would later reopen under a new name but with the same company owner/s. Very few have succeeded in establishing a union inside an enclave. But even with a union, they still face a rough sailing in negotiating with their managements. Companies refuse to recognize the union, much more negotiate with them for a collective bargaining agreement. In many cases, companies resort to closures either of the whole company or of strategic departments where most unionists are located, downsize their operation and retrench union leaders and active members. In

14

some cases, employers have resorted to putting up their own "sweetheart" or company unions in order to avoid independent and progressive unions. In addition, there is the proliferation of pseudo “labor cooperatives” - a new phenomenon which has come out in many workplaces especially in the Cavite Export Processing Zone (CEPZ). In essence, these “labor cooperatives” are suppliers of contractual labor and were created to make the workers their virtual “milking cows” and perpetuate slave labor. This system serves as a stumbling block in forming unions. Reports reaching the KMU identify powerful politicians in the province of Cavite as owners and financiers of these pseudo “labor cooperatives”.

d. Union-busting thru closures, illegal termination and a host of other reasons From 2007 until the first half of this year alone, the Center for Trade Union and Human Rights (CTUHR) monitored more than 10 unions to have been busted by closures, re-structuring, mass dismissals and a variety of union-busting schemes.

Two hundred thirty eight (238) workers of Laws Textile Ltd. in Taguig City, Metro Manila lost their jobs when the garment factory declared a permanent closure last January allegedly due to bankruptcy and dollar devaluation. For the same reasons, around 400 garment workers - 163 regular workers and 250-300 casual/contract workers (direct-hired and agency-hired) – lost their jobs when Far Eastern International Garments Incorporated (FEIGI) ceased operations on July 31 of this year. At the time of closure, FEIGI management and union has a standing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) valid till 2009.

Both unions are affiliated with the National Federation of Labor Union (NAFLU-KMU). Prior to the closure, Laws Textile management told the workers that the shut down was temporary and that regular operation will resume in January. No talks were held between the union and the company before the closure declaration. Union members continue to hold a picket protest outside the company premises in the hope that the management will negotiate with them.

Meanwhile, FEIGI management is only offering 15 days per year of service as separation pay and only for the regular rank and file workers or union members. It also refuses to sign an agreement recognizing a “priority hiring” for displaced workers should it reopen. Most of the workers have been in FEIGI for over 15 years and are unlikely to find new jobs given their age.

In May of this year, 279 workers were meted with preventive suspension (99 workers) and termination (180 workers) in Sensuous Lingerie, Incorporated in Calamba, Laguna. The company produces and exports expensive lingeries with brand names such as Victoria’s Secret, Marks and Spencer, Calvin Klein, and Gap. The suspension and firing of workers occurred immediately following the deadlock in collective bargaining negotiations on May 6. The company eventually closed on June 10, 2008.

In Sept. 4, 2007, Ajinomoto Inc. shutdown its MSG (Monosodium Glutamate) production and 271 regular rank and file workers immediately lost jobs. The management alleged that the closure was prompted by the company’s desire to focus on sales and marketing of imported MSG products. The union thought otherwise as the closure happened at the beginning of a CBA negotiation. It filed an illegal closure against the company at the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) but was advised to settle the dispute amicably.

Trade unions in San Miguel Corp. (SMC) are decisively busted due to company’s rationalization of operation. Last year, CBA proposals from three of its plants (Manila Glass, Pandacan Complex and Metal Closure) covering around 200 workers were rejected by SMC arguing that individual ownership of the three plants have already been sold to other companies. However, the workers later discovered that the companies were not sold but only changed names and employing mostly contractual workers.

On Oct. 9 last year, 270 workers lost jobs when the management of the Davao International Transport Facilities, Inc (DITFI) abruptly announced closure of its operation citing contract termination between DITFI and DOLE-Stanfilco. DITFI provides hauling services for the latter’s export products and DOLE-Stanfilco is publicly-known as DITFI’s principal or owner.

The union decried the company’s decision as both illegal and unfair citing the ongoing CBA negotiation. Less than a week after the 270 workers were dismissed, the workers resumed its operation employing contractual workers. (Sources: CTUHR, PAMANTIK-KMU)

15

2. Violation of the Right to collectively bargain Parallel with the very low unionization rate in the country is an alarmingly lower number and coverage of collective bargaining agreements. Only 1,519 of the existing 17,073 unions in Jan-March 2008 have collective bargaining agreements covering 228 thousand workers. (DOLE Partial data, Jan-Mar 2008) Among the many violations on the right to collectively bargain is the company’s penchant to refuse recognition of a union newly certified as sole and exclusive bargaining unit (SEBA), refusal to bargain and deadlock in negotiation. Some prominent cases:

In Toyota Phils Inc., the company was instrumental in the holding of a certification election in favor of the management-backed union Toyota Motors Philippines Corp Labor Organization (TMPCLO). This despite a Supreme Court order asking the company to recognize and bargain with the existing duly-certified union Toyota Motor Philippines Workers Association (TMPCWA), whose leadership was illegally dismissed. With 233 officers and union members illegally dismissed and staying outside still waiting for reinstatement, their opportunity to campaign for the certification election was greatly diminished as against the management-supported union. The latter expectedly won the elections and declared as SEBA despite the standing case of TMPCWA. AMADO KADENA, the rank and file workers union in the pineapple plantation Dole Philippines in South Cotabato (Mindanao), has been hit with series of coercive measures by the management to force them into accepting company CBA proposals. These include, among others, management’s deliberate failure to deduct from workers’ wages the union dues and amounts owed by the workers from the union’s store, an arrangement that was part of an earlier CBA. Around 575 workers were imposed with excessive disciplinary penalty charge, illegal deduction, infringement of benefits on employees who have mis-swiped their ID cards as AWOP (absence without permission) or charging them with insubordination or falsification followed by suspension or termination. In November last year, Dole Philippines terminated the union vice president and filed a perjury case against the union president. The latter was forced to post bail after a warrant of arrest was issued against him.

3. Violation of the right to strike and peaceful assembly

a. Assumption of Jurisdiction Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, which empowers the Labor Secretary to assume jurisdiction of a labor dispute on industries “indispensable to the national interest”, fundamentally violates the workers right to strike, collectively bargain and to strike. In numerous cases, AJ has proven to perpetuate union-busting. Worse, this blanket power of the Labor Secretary is subject to grave abuse, simply put, the matter of an industry being “indispensable to the national interest” absolutely lies on the Labor Secretary’s opinion. The burden of proof for a strike not to be considered “indispensable to national interest” is given on the workers instead of the other way around. To cite a case:

It took almost three (3) years for the mostly women workers of Sunever Lights Corp. to organize and register their union. The company refused to bargain with the union even after an overwhelming victory in the certification election, and instead, dismissed three (3) union officers and suspended many union members. The union filed a Notice of Strike over the issue of unfair labor practice. DOLE issued an AJ order even without a petition from the company. Elements of Special Weapons Action Group (SWAG) were deployed to man the production line. On Nov 30, 2004, workers launched a noise barrage. The company guards violently attacked the protest – workers were hauled in nets as if they were wild animals and a food blockade was enforced to break the spirit of the workers. On the next day, the workers were evicted out of the industrial enclave escorted by elements of the Philippine National Polices (PNP). All protesting workers were dismissed from work. Until now, there is no union in the company. Sunever Lights

16

produces appendage parts for mobile phones, computers and other products located in Ayala Technopark in Binan, Laguna.

AJ legalized the use of naked force in enforcing the Return to Work Order against the will of the workers. In violation of Art 264(b), police and military are heavily involved in harassment and strike dispersals and are proven to become instruments in sowing terror in an otherwise peaceful strike and assembly. Even in the absence of an Assumption of Jurisdiction, the military can disperse peaceful protests of the workers upon the orders of company management. The deputization of police and military in enforcing an AJ and its accompanying return to work order has proven to be the culprit of numerous violent dispersals and break up of picketlines. The DOLE Secretary can issue such orders even in an absence of a hearing and even without resolutions to the matter of the disputes. Such was the case in Hacienda Luisita, Lepanto Mining Corporation, Solid Development, RFM Swift, Nestle Cabuyao and Nissan Motors, to name a few.

In Lepanto Mining Corp. located at Mankayan, Benguet, DOLE issued an AJ order on May 10, 2005, a month after a notice of strike was filed. A day after the strike erupted on June 2, the PNP Provincial and Regional Mobile Group enforced a food blockade and harassed the picketline 15 times. On Aug 6, two union officers were nabbed and detained while on Aug 15, a violent dispersal at 5:00am resulted to the injury of a number of workers including women and children.

Seven (7) protesters were killed, 187 injured and 111 arrested in the brutal dispersal of striking workers in Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac, Central Luzon. Considered to be the most bloodied dispersal of a labor dispute under the post-Marcos era, the infamous Hacienda Luisita massacre is the “epitome of the repressive and oppressive nature of Assumption of Jurisdiction Orders and of the absolute power of DOLE Secretary to decide which industry or company is indispensable to the national interest.” (CTUHR Position Paper on Amending the Philippine Labor Code by Repealing Article 263(g), submitted at the Committee on Labor and Employment, House of Representatives, Aug 2005)

b. Assault in the picketline The decline in the number of union organizations is by no means a guarantee of improvement in industrial relations. Unions who continue to protest are met with assault and violent dispersal. Last year, CTUHR documented at least five (5) cases of assault at the picketline victimizing 81 workers and eight (8) cases of violent dispersal of workers’ peaceful concerted actions including rallies affecting 1,993 workers and supporters. Majority of these cases are inflicted on workers who have been on strike for several years now. The first half of 2008 saw another five (5) violent assaults on workers actions victimizing 1,025 individuals. These assaults resulted to the subsequent death of a worker, arrest and detention of 10 including a woman, and fatal injuries of more than 58 persons.

The most atrocious incident occurred on March 6 of this year when elements of the Manila Police District (MPD) under the Command of Gen. Rosales dispersed the lawful demonstration of around 400 workers, unionists and supporters from Southern Tagalog Region. The protesters were planning to hold their vigil outside the premises of the national office of DOLE to condemn Labor Secretary Marianito D. Roque’s failure to enforce favourable court decisions for workers and protect workers against unfair labor practices. Few hours after they have settled, ground commander of the Manila Police denied any negotiation with the protesters and ordered its troops to disperse the protesters with water cannons. The protesting workers tried to stand their ground but were violently hit by truncheons until they were effectively dispersed. Seventeen (17) were seriously injured and brought to the nearby hospitals, six (6) were arrested by the Police and were brought and detained at the MPD Headquarters. Marlon Torres, the Public Information Officer of PAMANTIK-KMU, could hardly walk as he sustained wound on his head, bruises all over his body, his arms were fractured. Despite the danger of hemorrhage, the police refused to immediately bring him to the hospital for immediate treatment. Later, despite his frail condition, he was forcefully brought to the precint unattended by medical personnel.

17

The six were presented to the fiscal on March 7 and were charged with violation of the Batas Pambansa 880 or illegal assembly, robbery, assault of person in authority, and physical injuries but later freed while the case was pending. Weeks after the dispersal, one of the injured protesters, a Kadamay member, died due to blood clot in his head. PAMANTIK-KMU filed a complaint at the Commission on Human Rights, but as of this writing, nothing was heard from the Commission. In another incident, 70 company guards and 20 LIPPAG operatives (Laguna Industrial Park Police Assistance Group) violently dispersed 300 Nestle workers belonging to UFE-DFA-KMU (Union of Filipro Employees-Drug Food Alliance-Kilusang Mayo Uno) and arrested three workers on April 23, 2008 while doing a peaceful demonstration in front of the Nestle Phils. Plant in Cabuyao, Laguna. The workers union has been on strike since January 2002 in protest against company’s refusal to bargain and include the seniority pay as matter of CBA. In the last four years, the union won two favorable decisions from the Supreme Court affirming its 1991 decision that seniority pay is a CBA matter and had in fact directed the Nestle management to return to the negotiation table with the union. The company however, refuses to abide by the decision. At least 80 union members were facing several criminal charges filed by the management. On September 2004, union president, Diosdado Fortuna was assassinated, the second union president in Nestle Philippines murdered during a strike. Complaint was filed at the Commission on Human Rights which the latter archived in 2006 allegedly for lack of direct witnesses.

Failure of the DOLE to enforce Supreme Court Decisions aggravates injustice Despite deep frustration bordering to lack of trust on the existing legal system, workers and trade unions continue to optimize existing legal mechanisms to improve their situation and affirm their rights. Unions religiously follow legal processes and file complaints to DOLE offices up to the Supreme Court. In cases where the Supreme Court decides in favour of the workers or union demands, DOLE which is the authority to enforce the decision sleeps on the enforcement, waiting for the workers to get tired of following-up. This nagging process of delay of enforcing decision not only undermines the authority and dignity of the Supreme Court but also exacerbates the violations and injustice to the workers. In the case of Nestle workers for instance, the Supreme Court has issued an order with finality on March 26, 2008, ordering the company to go back to negotiation and directed the DOLE to enforce the decision. DOLE called for a mandatory conference between the UFE-DFA-KMU (the workers’ union) and the Nestle management but several times, it was ignored by the company. Nestle filed a “Motion for Cancellation” of the mandatory conference and reiterated its position that the Retirement Plan is a Unilateral Grant. Instead of directing the company to comply, DOLE agreed to the Nestle management position, for both parties to submit position paper on matters of Supreme Court order implementation. This means that DOLE is sending the union back to square one, and essentially asking them to wait until the position papers are read and decided, which will then again, a decision appealable to higher authority. This process grossly undermines the Supreme Court decision, as the highest court of the land. Attacks to life and liberty, illegal arrest and detention, harassment and intimidation

1. Killings Since the filing of the KMU Complaint in October 2006, there has been an additional 23 cases of extra-judicial killings victimizing trade unionists, informal workers, organizers and labour advocates. This translates to a worker being killed every month in the last 23 months. Notable cases are as follows:

a. Gerardo Cristobal, union organizer and former union president of Samahang Manggagawa ng Emi Yazaki (SM-EMI-Independent). Cristobal was shot dead on March 10, 2008 in front of MAKRO in Imus, Cavite. He was driving his car from his house in Malagasang II in Cavite when men on board a Pajero vehicle chased him and fired at his car continuously. This was the 2nd attempt in Cristobal’s life. On April 28, 2006, he was ambushed by SPO1 Romeo Lara of Cavite Police and narrowly escaped death. After recovering, Gerry continued his activities in their

18

union as an organizer until at the time of his death. Cristobal was the second union organizer of Emi-Yazaki who was ambushed and killed since 2006. b. Antonio Mercado, 54 yrs. old, Chairperson of the National Federation of Sugar Workers-Food and General Trade-Kilusang Mayo Uno in Negros Occidental (NFSW FGT-KMU). Mercado was shot dead on October 13, 2007 by two men wearing camouflage shorts and balaclavas while driving his tricycle in Purok Malinawon Poblacion, Toboso, Negros Occidental. The assailants used a .45 caliber pistol as they came close to him on their Honda motorcycle. Mercado died instantly. As chairperson of NFSW, Mercado was active in the advocacy for improved wages, adequate benefits, medical services and distribution of farm lots to sugar workers. c. Charlie Solayao, 50 yrs. old, vice president of the fish vendors group Katipunan ng mga Gudti nga Magtirinda (KAGUMA) and vice chairman of Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap (Kadamay) Tacloban City -- an urban poor organization active in the campaign against demolition of sidewalk vendors in Tacloban Market and urban poor communities in the metro. Two motorcycle riding men shot Solayao in front of a parking area in Barangay 71, Naga-Naga, Tacloban City on July 17, 2007 at around 1:30am. He later died at the hospital. d. Renato Pacaide, 53 yrs. old, Anakpawis Coordinator and union organizer in Davao del Sur. Pacaide was shot dead on March 2, 2007 by two unidentified assailants on board a motorcycle while he and his daughter were on their way to NAMADS-KMP (Nagkahiusang Mag-uuma sa Davao Del Sur-Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas) office. He sustained four (4) gunshot wounds from a .45 caliber pistol, two (2) in the chest, one at the back and one in the head. At the time of his death, Pacaide was organizing a union in the Nakayama Corp. in Digos City, Davao del Sur in Mindanao. Pacaide’s death occurred barely a month after UN Special Rapporteur on Extra-judicial killings Prof. Phillip Alston visited the country to investigate the spate of political killings. e. Jesus Buth Servida, 32 years old, full-time union organizer in Emi Yazaki, was shot dead on Dec 11, 2006, conspicuously a day after the commemoration of the International Human Rights Day. A lone gunman shot Servida on the face and mouth at 6:15am in front of the company’s gate 2 which caused his instant death. His companion, Joel Sale, 32 years old, also fulltime organizer, sustained three gunshot wounds on the face and back but survived. Kenny Mari Severo, 21 years old and worker of the said company, was also hit in the left temple by a stray bullet. f. Gerson Lastimoso, a worker in the banana packing plant Suyapa Farms in Compostela Valley, died on Dec 16, 2006, a day after two unidentified motorcycle-riding men opened fire on eight workers, including the union president on way to their work at 5:30am on Dec 15, 2006. The ambush took place in Brgy. Alegria in Compostela, Compostela Valley, just few meters away from the factory. A bullet shattered Lastimoso’s kidney and caused his death.

Three workers were also injured in the said attack, namely, Vicente Barrios, the president of Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Suyapa Farms (NAMASUFA) who was hit in the left arm and the bullet exited in his abdomen, Dennis Glenzondon who sustained a gunshot in the neck and face and another worker who was hit in the shoulder.

2) Abduction and enforced disappearances of trade union leaders, members, organizers and union-supporters and informal workers committed by elements of the military and police.

Not only the killings of leaders persist but also abductions, which in several occasions, led to forcible disappearance. Some notable cases are as follows:

a. Melvin Yares, chairperson of KAKABAS (Kahugpungan sa Kabus sa Basak) was abducted by seven (7) suspected agents of the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP) at the junction of Lincoln and Plaridel Sts., in Carbon Public Market in Cebu last January 4, 2008 at around 9:30 a.m.. KAKABAS is a union of semi-workers and urban poor people in Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu affiliated with the Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap (KADAMAY). Tortured and threatened to be killed if he did not cooperate, Yares was coerced to pose as a rebel returnee and vilify Anakpawis and Kadamay in a press conference on the following day organized by his captors. Luckily, he managed to escape when his captors allowed him to get out of the vehicle. At this time, he fears that his abductors will come back soon and kill him.

19

b. Jaime “Jimmy” Rosios, 42 years old, Board of Director of Yellow Bus Line Employees Union (YBLEU) in Koronadal City, Cotabato. He was abducted on August 11, 2007 in front of Yellow Bus Line garage by unidentified armed men who alighted from a gray Toyota Tamaraw FX without plate number. Rosios is an active union leader of Yellow Bus Line and has been with the YBL for 16 years as a custodian, purchaser and later as a mechanic and was even given a certificate of commendation by the former Governor Larry de Pedro. At the time of his abduction, he was the spokesperson of the P140 million (US$3.11M) claims filed by the union before the National Labor Relations Commission against the YBL management for unpaid overtime, wage distortion, illegal check-off, non remittances of agency fee, massive illegal suspension of officers and union members etc.

c. Aurora Afable (42 years old) and Normelita Galon (39 years old), leaders of striking workers of Phils. Jeon Garments, Inc (PJGI) in Cavite Export Processing Zone (CEPZ). At the early dawn of August 6, 2007, the two were forcibly taken by 10 unidentified men hooded with balaclavas. Blindfolded and with faces covered with towels, the two were shoved inside a vehicle and were later dumped into a canal near a gasoline station in Bacao municipality close to the Zone. No one was investigated about the incident despite complaints made by the union against the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA). Phils Joen workers had been on strike since September 2006 over protests against the company’s refusal to bargain, union busting and subsequent dismissal of those who joined the strike. d. Lourdes "Nanay Ude" Rubrico, 62 years old, one of the pioneers and current chairperson of Ugnayan ng mga Maralita sa Gawa at Adhika (UMAGA), a federation of urban poor organizations under KADAMAY. Six armed military men abducted Nanay Ude on April 3, 2007 while she was taking a nap in one of the benches in a shelter in Megahouse, Sta. Cruz 1, Dasmarinas Cavite. She was brought at the Philippine Air Force Field Station in Fernando Air Base, Lipa City, Batangas and was put under military custody for eight (8) days. She was tortured and threatened and was released only after she agreed to be a military agent. Nanay Ude has been involved in the struggle for the right to decent housing for four decades in Dasmarinas, Cavite.

3) Arrest and detention of trade union leaders, members, organizers and union-supporters and informal workers due to their involvement and active participation in the economic and political activities of the trade unions and informal workers associations

a. Four (4) workers were arrested and 13 workers seriously injured when more than 100 policemen belonging to the Laguna Industrial Park Police Assistance Group (LIPPAG) violently dispersed on February 6, 2008 the strike of the workers in Hanjin Garments Incorporated in Laguna. The four arrested were charged with direct assault resulting to multiple serious physical injuries. They were released on the next day after posting bail. The workers belonging to the union Aniban ng Manggagawang Inaapi sa Hanjin Garments (AMIHAN) were demanding reinstatement of illegally terminated workers, regularization, and union recognition. b. Ricardo Bellamia, union organizer of the National Federation of Labor Union-Kilusang Mayo Uno (NAFLU-KMU) in Cebu, was arrested on November 03, 2007 by the Philippine National Police (PNP) on charges of being a high-ranking New Peoples Army (NPA) officer based on an alias warrant dated Nov. 12, 2004. Bellamia denied the PNP’s accusation and asserted his being a legitimate union organizer. He found it surprising that he was not arrested when the warrant was issued in 2004 when all along, he was just staying in Barangay Casay. Witnesses said that Bellamia was visible in the community and even campaigned for the candidacy of his brother Joseph, who won as the number one barangay (village) councilor in Casay in the Barangay election held last October 29, 2007. Bellamia was released after posting bail in June of this year. c. Fifty two (52) workers of Chiyoda Integre Philippines Inc. were detained for nearly six hours by the management inside the company canteen on June 20, 2007, with poor ventilation and lighting, without food and without restroom to use. They were only released after their relatives and co-workers inside the zone protested. The workers were dismissed from jobs the following day. The workers belong to a registered union that already won the union election and was fighting for the commencement of their collective bargaining negotiation which the management strongly refused. d. On May 7, 2007, Vincent Borja, a Board Member of LAGPEU (Leyte A Geothermal Plant Employees Union)-PNOC-NAFLU-KMU, was nabbed by elements of the 19th Infantry Battalion in Brgy. Linao, Ormoc City, Leyte led by Col. Lope Dagoy on false accusation of being an NPA member. He was brought to Camp Downes, Altavista in Ormoc City and was only

20

turned over to the police precinct on May 8. He remains in detention at the BJMP (Bureau of Jail Management and Penology) at Ormoc City, Leyte while facing rebellion and murder charges. Borja is also a National Council Member of Kilusang Mayo Uno and one of the Anakpawis leaders in Leyte.

4) Harassment, intimidation, witch-hunting and grave threats committed by the military and police forces against trade union leaders, members, organizers and union-supporters and informal workers.

Harassments and intimidations of state forces inside and out of the workplace remain a threat for unions all over the country. In 2007, CTUHR received 11 new cases affecting 347 individuals. This does not include the continuing harassments and intimidation to key leaders that started since 2005. CTUHR also received reports that military and police were deployed right in the vicinity in three (3) workplaces sowing terror to the workers especially the leaders and active union members. Some notable cases:

a. Mercy Santomin, union president of United Association of Footjoy, was forced to go into hiding after military elements belonging to the 7th Infantry Division of the Philippine Army started to do interrogation and surveillance on the striking workers of Footjoy Industrial Corporation in Guiguinto, Bulacan. The military launched a vilification campaign against Santomin, calling her a leftist and an evil. Workers in the Footjoy Industrial Corp., a company producing shoes and slippers owned by Filipino-Chinese Antonio Tan, have been on strike since February 2001 over the closure of the factory. Since the company was closed, the picket line outside the factory has become the home of many dismissed workers because they can no longer afford to pay rent. b. Since March 2008, elements of the 71st Infantry Battalion have been “visiting” the office of the International Wiring Systems Workers Union (IWSWU), inviting the workers to come to the army headquarters for “questioning”. Military elements have also repeatedly went to the house of a woman union officer, threatening her family that if she will not show up, her family would be killed. IWSWU is located inside Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac City. It was an active supporter of the Hacienda Luisita strike which gained international prominence after a bloody massacre on Nov. 16, 2004 resulting to the death of at least seven (7) workers and the wounding of more than a hundred people. c. Members of the Sulpicio Lines workers union, United Dockhandlers Inc and Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Pantalan or Association of Port Workers (SMP) have been `invited’ by members of Civilian Military Operations of the Phil Army to attend anti-communist lectures, zeroing on their allegations that KMU is a communist front. Both unions are affiliated with KMU national federations. Union leaders have also reported the ongoing surveillances, armed men on civilian clothes maintaining watch and unexplained multiple cables on the ceiling of their offices that were placed there without their knowledge.

5. Militarization of workplaces and communities Under the guise of maintaining “industrial peace”, military detachments are being put up in strike-bound companies or where there is a presence of militant unions and/or there is a deployment of military forces in communities perceived to be strongholds of informal workers associations and other militant organizations. The military are used to violently disperse legitimate workers’ strike, protest actions and peaceful assemblies, to “safeguard” the companies against disruption by “untoward elements” and to bust existing or budding labor organizations. It is also being used to harass, intimidate and to conduct vilification campaign against KMU and other progressive organizations - all aimed at crushing workers’ organizations to the ground. The presence and direct intervention of military and police in labor disputes is a growing practice. Elements of Regional Special Action Forces, the Philippine National Police (PNP) Mobile group and Special Weapons Action (SWAT) in full battle gear are a common sight in companies in Southern Tagalog and Central Luzon, two of the industrial areas in the country where most of the foreign investors are concentrated.

21

Cases in point:

a. On March 10 of this year, the 7th Infantry Division put up a detachment at the Cruz Barangay Hall in Guiguinto, Bulacan supposedly to maintain peace and order in the place. Since then, the soldiers have been regularly visiting the picket line and asking numerous questions about the whereabouts of union president Mercy Santomin and other union officials as well as their union activities. Workers are being questioned as to their supposed link with the rebels. The union has been on strike since 2001 over sudden company closure affecting more than 1,000 workers. b. At Dole Philippines in Cotabato City, members of the 27th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army were deployed in the company premises at the midst of CBA renegotiation to monitor the union activities and movements of the union leaders. c. On January 10, 2008, elements of the 202nd Infantry (Unifier) Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division of the Philippine Army put up a detachment in Brgy. Pulong Sta. Cruz, Sta. Rosa, Laguna where Nissan and Toyota unions are located. No less than the City Mayor of Sta. Rosa endorsed the setting up of the military detachment allegedly to launch community organizing and development in the community. On Jan. 24 and Feb 4, three (3) military personnel without their nameplates visited the office of the TMPCWA (Toyota union) and asked the names of all the people living in the office on suspicion that streamers and placards used in KMU-sponsored rallies/protest actions are being made in the said office. Workers reported that military elements belonging to the said unit have been seen coming in and out of the Toyota plant. The Toyota management also allowed the Laguna Industrial Park Police Assistance Group (LIPPAG) to put an outpost inside the company aside from the detachment of Philippine national police (PNP) in front of the company. Both Nissan and Toyota unions are currently embroiled in a labor dispute with their respective managements for more than 6 years now. d. military deployment in urban poor and workers communities in Manila and other big cities in the country under Executive Order 546 or government’s counter-insurgency program. Civilian and military operations (CMOs) are conducted in workers communities where KADAMAY (an urban poor and informal workers association) is strongly organizing. Military elements conduct vilification campaigns against KMU, KADAMAY, Anakpawis Partylist and other militant organizations. House-to-house census, often between 11:00pm-4:00am, is conducted, zeroing on who are the members of these organizations and where are they residing. In some areas, seminars are conducted aided by film showing identifying these organizations as communist fronts. In a statement, Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff Gen. Hermogenes Esperon Jr. said ‘communist cells' are present in urban poor communities and schools.

6. Blatant state-sponsored vilification campaign against the KMU Labor Center

The Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo government has unleashed a clearly malicious and dangerous vilification campaign against the KMU through the sponsorship of the Department of Education (DepEd). A textbook issued to high school students labeled the KMU as a rebel organization. On pages 27-28 of the textbook Filipino I: Wika at Panitikan sa Makabagong Henerasyon, under Aralin 3: Pamahalaan at mga Batas, the KMU was lumped with the New Peoples Army (NPA), National Democratic Front (NDF), Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), with complete acronyms spelled out. The book was published by Diwa Scholastic Press Inc. Previous to this, in May 2007, is the release and dissemination of a full-length film directly linking the NPA into organizing KMU unions and in instigating strikes in the cities. At the end of the film, it attributes to KMU the company closures and loss of jobs of 75,000 workers since 1985. The film did not show credit ratings, nor the names of the producers. The deliberate, well-financed and well-crafted ascription of KMU to NPA activities and as culprit to the closures and unemployment directly violates the workers right to freedom of association, as innocent workers could be dissuaded from joining KMU unions for fear of being linked to NPA activities. The film is shown in Metro Manila and in other parts of the country where there are union activities such as union election and CBA negotiation or where there are labor disputes. In the case of Marsman Estate Plantation in Mindanao, military elements from the 73rd Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army showed the film to the workers prior to the holding of the certification election. The strongest contender in the election is a union affiliated to NAFLU-KMU. The barrage of what

22

the organizers called black propaganda and fear of harassments cost the KMU union to lose in the election by a small margin. Marsman Estate Plantation is owned by Sebastian conglomerate of Marsman Drysdale, USA. This vilification campaign against KMU only reaffirms the government’s repressive attacks on unions and the workers. The government thus implies that to struggle for the organizing of unions, to fight for decent wages, to collectively bargain, and to exercise the right to peaceful assemblies and strikes – rights that KMU has been asserting since its inception – are all acts of rebellion. General Conclusions and Recommendations Having said the above, the sharp decline in unionization rate resulting from the repressive industrial and political climate is perhaps the toughest challenge facing not just the Filipino workers but the practice of democracy in the country today. Where unions are weak due to combination of factors and administration of labor justice extremely slow, unorganized workers, particularly in the industrial enclaves and export processing zones where organizing becomes impossibly difficult, are more exposed to further exploitation and abuses. This condition will definitely exacerbate the current economic and social woes that workers are subjected into. To stem the further decline of union organizations in the country, to break the prevalent fear and encourage workers to assert their rights to uplift their situation through union formation, it is imperative that the government undertakes meaningful changes in policies and legal system and enforce the mechanism urgently. To achieve social justice, the Philippine government should be reminded that it is a signatory to numerous ILO Conventions, and therefore have the responsibility to ensure that these fundamental rights are being enjoyed by its people. Thus, the Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center (KMU) urgently recommends the following: 1. Legislation and labor law changes

1.1. Repeal Article 263(g) of the Labor Code or the power of the Labor Secretary to assume jurisdiction of a labor dispute imbued with “national interest”. Similarly, the repeal shall include the Memorandum of Agreement entered into by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Philippine National Police (PNP), Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) calling for these law enforcement agencies “to ensure compliance” with the order of the Secretary of the DOLE, and all other pertinent laws, statutes, guidelines, implementing rules and regulations, Executive Orders found or suspected to have adverse effects on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of people to associate, to collectively bargain and to strike, all of which are basic human rights to life and survival. 1.2. Enact a provision in the Labor Code or Revised Penal Code to either make union busting a crime and companies proven to have committed the crime face stiffer penalties involving: imprisonment and/or suspension of license to operate up to maximum of cancellation when union busting involves the destruction of the union, loss of livelihood, threats to security and safety and loss of lives of unionists. Stricter implementation of the Penal provisions of the Labor Code in so far as companies are concerned, as stipulated in Book V, Chapter 4, Title VIII, Article 272, should be enforced. 1.3. For government to strengthen enforcement mechanisms of decisions involving companies or incorrigible companies who blatantly violate or ignores decision of the court; impose stiffer penalties for companies who refuse to abide by the Supreme Court decisions.

23

1.4 Revocation of Article 264 (e) of the Labor Code or the “free ingress, free egress” clause which is found to be gravely abused by the employers and by the government to effectively cripple the power of the strike, coerce the striking workers into submission and/or allow the police and military to violently attack the strike in the pretext of enforcing this clause. 1.5. Enact a provision in the Labor Code categorically prohibiting the use of scabs during strikes or labour disputes. While Article 264(d) prohibits public officials, military and armed persons to “bring in, introduce or escort in any manner, any individual who seeks to replace strikers in entering or leaving the premises of a strike area, or work in place of the strikers”, there is no categorical declaration regarding the employment of scabs during labour disputes. 1.6. Simplify the requirements in forming labor organizations, specifically: the removal of the 20% requirement and the removal of the requirement to submit voluminous documentation which most oftentimes discourages the workers to put up unions. In a similar manner, a shorter process for union recognition must be enforced, such as the process for a petition for certification election (PCE). In cases of PCE, the Med-Arbiter’s decision should be immediately executory and must not be subject to appeal. 1.7. Revocation of Department Order No. 18-02 pursuant to Article 106 of the Labor Code. DO 18-02 legalized contractualization and thus encouraged the swelling of labor agencies and labor contractors. The Labor Code should be amended and it should specifically prohibit companies to engage in sub-contracting and labor only contracting.

2. The government must end the integration of industrial relations into the counter-insurgency programs, thus looking at the exercise of the right to unionize as indicator of vibrant democracy rather than a deterrent to stability. Similarly, the government must pull-out troops from industrial areas and factory premises which prohibit and inhibit workers to exercise their rights to organize and/or demand improvement in the working conditions. The military presence in industrial enclaves and factory premises essentially weakens if not eliminates possibilities for fruitful dialogues between workers and managements specifically when workers are restless and disputes exist. 3. To stop the criminalization of labor disputes. A number of workers are being slapped with trumped-up charges just because they are actively engaged in unionizing or peaceful assemblies. 4. To stop the vilification campaign against KMU and its member-organizations as well as other legitimate groups. 5. That the government allows independent monitoring body, inside EPZs and economic enclaves to monitor compliance of labor standards and ILO conventions 98. Reports of the monitoring body and accompanying recommendations shall be given to the government, and the ILO for study and action; 6. That the government allows the ILO high level mission to the Philippines. Quezon City, Philippines. September 15, 2008 Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center (KMU) Balai Obrero, 63 Narra Street, Project 3 Quezon City, Philippines, 1102