The battle of union against discriminations at IBM

IWIS-Paris 26-28 juin 2007 JC ARFELIX - CGT IBM France 1

The battle of union against

discriminations at IBM

JC ARFELIX - CGT IBM France 2IWIS-Paris 26-28 juin 2007

IBM’s two slogans :

« IBM is a good citizen and IBM respects individuals»

History of our struggle against discriminations at IBM

In realty :IBM marginalizes and excludes all those who do not adhere to « IBM’s values » and do note devote their life and soul to it… with all the consequences that these acts could have on the private life and health (stress,…).



The actions to obtain professional equality among men and women at IBM is the continuation of a long process of fights by unions in defending themselves against union discrimination at IBM.



1st phase : The fight against union repression exclusively carried out by IBM site in Montpellier among existing 11 sites

2nd phase : The extension of anti union fight throughout IBM France reveals sexist discrimination

3rd phase : The fight against sexist discrimination was engaged.



I - 1987The discrimination against

unions




19871987 The FIOM produced an international

report denouncing the anti union practices of IBM worldwide concluding that « IBM policies and practices are deeply hostile against trade unions throughout the world» !

Montpellier, 12 union representatives seize work inspectorate because of total blockage of their wages and careers since their designation as union representatives.



1990 : After 3 years of investigation, the work

inspectorate declares the existence and continued structural discrimination and draws up a “verbal” lawsuit for the obstruction of the exercise of the rights of trade-union

IBM, ignores the lawsuit and puts in question the work inspectorate conclusion.

The union seizes the civic and punitive justice courts.



1992 :

The Appeal Court of Montpellier ( penal Chamber) condemns IBM for syndicalist discrimination, but drops the case of blocking of the careers and wages of elected union representatives against IBM Montpellier director under the pretext: « that there is no element to make it possible to establish that the managers received directives [ of the director ] to evaluate the employees according to their union membership».

The direction’s conclusion : that there is no discrimination against syndicalists, that they are being treated normally… and it hardens its repressive policies against the syndicalists (disciplinary procedures, dismissals, firing attempts)!



To eliminate the resistance, IBM insists to obtain the dismissal of a syndicalist under pretext of "professional insufficiencies". In spite of its successive failures it will go, in vain, until the end of the procedure.

In front of justice IBM makes insulting, and scorning remarks. Example for a union representative, with 25 years in company, that IBM tried to lay off: <<collaborator of the more banals … mediocre… takes considerable advantage of his credit hours for being sydicalist…each year adding up sick leaves, cures,…, without support of his union in the name of clanish and zeal concept of union solidarity …he would have been fired…>> !



1997 - 1999 : evolution of the jurisprudence which reverses the burden of proof

July 1998 : the union once more challenges the chairman, on the critical situation of its deputies. After investigation of the Direction of Human Resources (DRH), it concludes that based on the implementation of the agreement on the trade-union rights “there is no general abnormal situation with respect to union deputies” (says so Mr. Tim Stevens current director of HR)

The trade union again seizes the work inspectorate and the referred court (of the Council of Conciliation boards).



November 1999 : IBM is condemned by the Council of Conciliation boards (CPH) of Montpellier, the direction wants to regulate only the judged individual case .

March 2000 : new verbal lawsuit drawn up by the Work inspectorate.

July 2000 : 4 new condemnations by CPH Montpellier December 2000 : After 5 judgments and a penal threat

(statement), the direction agrees to enter into a total negociation which leads to an agreement on repairing and the partial harmonization of the wages and careers of all the militants of Montpellier, including some retired ones.




II - 2000 The syndicalist and sexist

discriminations


Condemned in only one of the 11 establishments of IBM France, the direction refuses any national negotiations.

Comparative analysis of the situations Individuals suffer from two handicaps. They are the victims of sexists discriminations and their conditions worsens as soon as they are elected as union representatives.



December 2000 : The union, files 4 new cases on behalf of (2 women RD and GK, and 2 men JMD and DJF) in Nanterre, to be judged by the Council of Conciliation boards , having jurisdiction on IBM France headquarter. Two of these cases related to syndicalist and sexist discriminations

September 2001 : The Appeal Court of Versailles orders a report of experts.

IBM resist but provides certain information partially



Conclusions of the legal expert: «The wages for women are among the four

most low paid salaries» « Averages of pay scales* » :

Men, fulltime 35 220 F (5 369 €)

Women fulltime 26 192 F (3 992 €)

Women on partial time** 19 983 F (3 046 €)

*Sampling of engineers of major universities ** based on 100%, very far from 20% claimed in equality report by IBM.




III - 2001The sexist discrimination


The mediatization of the judgments against IBM and trade-union information encourage certain women to come out and speak about their situation.

November 2001 : Supported by its trade union, (Florence B), a union member, presents its case to the Council of the Conciliation boards of Montpellier (referred).



Florence B CASE: In 1985, IBM hires 20 technicians (16 men and 4

women) with college degree, ¨DUT¨ ( high school + 2 years), for working in computer build up.

In 2001 all the men got promotion to a new level “cadre”, however the 4 women were left as technicians with lower wages.

May 2002 : The Appeal Court of Montpellier orders a study and

report of experts. IBM does not provide the information demanded by

experts for their report.



March 2003 : The Court of Appeal of Montpellier condemns

IBM for sexist discrimination, orders the realignment of job and the payment of amends on the damages caused by prejudice.

IBM carries out the order, does not pursue the case, but refuses to adjust the wages !

April 2003 : Florence B. and the union seize the Council of the Conciliation boards of Montpellier , based on the principle of obtaining a complete compensation (wage prejudice).



June 2003 : The Court of Appeal of Versailles condemns IBM for sexist and syndicalist discrimination (for two women RD and GK), it orders the payment of a bail for prejudice.

August 2003 : IBM, counter attacks, and brings the plaintiffs in front of the Council of the Conciliation boards of their respective establishment (Lille, Paris, Bobigny) attempting to get a judgment: that IBM has not committed discrimination ! the recuperation of paid bails.



November 2003 : CK, being part of sampling used by experts to

study RD, and on the basis of information provided by union, seizes the CPH of Toulouse for sexist and syndicalist discrimination.

January 2004 : The other two from Montpellier (DR et JF) seize

the CPH of Nanterre for syndicalist discrimination.



2004-2005 : Union engages in procedural battle to bring back the cases to CPH of Nanterre, where IBM is under its jurisdiction and had already obtained positive judgment for the them.

3 of the cases were returned to the CPH of Nanterre (GK,JMD, DJF)

Because of IBM maneuvers, RD’s case was transferred to Lille.



May 2005 : The CPH of Montpellier orders the re-alignment of career and salary of Florence.

June 2005 : The Appeal Court of Toulouse condemns IBM for mental harassment to pay 42 000 € of damage and interest to CK. It also orders study and report of experts for syndicalism and sexist discrimination.



August 2006 : The CPH of Lille cancels the judgment of the Appeal Court of

Versailles, declaring that there is neither sexist nor syndicalism discrimination and orders the restitution of the provisional payment of 42000 € that RD received in June 2003 !

November 2006 : The Appeal Court of Versailles re-sentenced IBM ordering also

the realignment of career and salary of DJF (1 of the 4 cases judged in June 2003)

For the other two (GK et JMD), whom were not transferred, the hearing is scheduled for September 2007.



February 2007 : The Court of Appeal of Versailles validates

the judgments of August 2005 of the CPH of Nanterre concerning DR and JF of Montpellier.

IBM is condemned to pay 80000 € and 70000 € respectively to DR et JF. Also their reclassification in the higher category.



March 2007 : Based on expert report, the Court of Appeal of Toulouse condemns IBM for harassment, syndicalist and sexist discrimination, ordering payment of 74.000 € for damages as well as the reclassification of employee (CK).

NB : This case is identical to the case of RD, the employee was part of the selected sample used for expert’s report that Court of Appeal of Versailles ordered to be done. RD case which was prepared by the Union was used as a basis for CK case



May 2007 : The Appeal Court of Douai modifies part of CHP judgment of Lille. It condemns IBM for discrimination against

union but claims that there is no sexist discrimination.

Court orders 10 000 € of damages of interest and the return of provisional compensation of 2003 ! RD wins her rights, but, in realty, she is « condemned » to pay 30 000€ to IBM !




RD and CGT cases are in higher court

Other cases of JMD and GK will be treated by the Appeal Court of Versailles in September 2007…

Stay tuned …



After 20 years of fights by union and more than 15 guilty verdicts on IBM, it refuses to recognize and undo proven discriminations.

Recent French laws makes it an obligation for companies to eradicate any existing income gaps among men and women by 2010. In response IBM is trying to manipulate the numbers to show that it is not concerned by this law. » !



The repression at IBM

Documents

The battle of union against discriminations at IBM