Panasonic Automotive Target of Rapid Response Labor Complaint
A Mexican union and a U.S. nonprofit have jointly filed a rapid response complaint against Panasonic Automotive's plant in Reynosa, Mexico. The Sindicato Nacional Independiente de Trabajadores de Industrias y de Servicios "Movimiento 20/32" (SNITIS) says more than 600 workers at the plant asked for SNITIS to be their new union, but the company is collaborating with a Confederación de Trabajadores de México (CTM) union. According to the complaint, there are about 2,000 workers at the plant, who make audio systems and screens for automobiles that are exported to the U.S. and to other markets.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Mexican labor law reform was designed to give workers the option to get out from under protection union contracts, a sort of contract that benefits the employer more than the workers. The complaint says that the Panasonic workers did reject the old union contract last fall.
Because the CTM and SNITIS both claim to represent Panasonic workers in Reynoso, an election is scheduled for April 21 and 22. SNITIS and Rethink Trade say Panasonic fired more than 60 workers who support SNITIS, and said that Panasonic announced it will not sign a contract with the union that receives the majority of the votes in the election. It says it has reached a contract with the CTM subsidiary, and it started withholding union dues for that union on March 25, the complaint says.
The complaint also says that the captive union's representatives "have tried to bribe workers in exchange for their votes, offering them sums of money up to 1,500 Mexican pesos and other items."
The petition asks that dues deductions end, and that the reductions be refunded; that fired workers get reinstated with full back pay and interest. It also asks that SNITIS officials get access to the plant before the election and that the election be observed by federal authorities and human rights groups.
The petition says the contract with the CTM union must be terminated, and the Mexican government should order the company to negotiate in good faith with whichever union wins the election.
The groups announced the petition April 18, and in that press release, Susana Prieto Terrazas, labor leader and member of the Mexican Congress, was quoted as saying: “Neither SNITIS nor other minority unions will rest until justice is achieved. The government of Tamaulipas cannot keep unlawfully undermining freedom of association and union democracy and we commend the U.S. government for helping us to keep in check corporations that benefit from labor rights violations in Mexico.”
The last time the federal government was asked to start a rapid response case against a Mexican factory, it took one month for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Labor Department to announce they would begin consultations with the Mexican government over the issue. At that time, liquidation was suspended on exports from that factory.
A USTR spokesman did not respond to a request for comment by press time. Panasonic Automotive also did not respond to a request for comment.
If the U.S. government brings a case, the Mexican government will have 10 days to say if it will look into whether the complaint has merit, and can take up to 45 days to come to a decision. If it determines it does, Mexico will consult with the U.S. on remediation, and at the end of 10 days, they will endeavor to have a remediation plan. If Mexico doesn't agree, or if the two sides cannot agree on remediation, the issue can go to a dispute panel, and ultimately, tariff benefits on the goods from the factory could be lifted.
The complaint from Rethink Trade said that Panasonic has put 3,343 people out of work in the U.S. by closing factories over the last 22 years, and said that about a third were offshore to Mexico. While that kind of history motivated the push for this kind of rapid response mechanism, bringing a case is not based on what happened to American workers of the firm.