FROM OUR READERS
In
Defense of Toyota
In
her article "How Toyota Ran Over Its Filipino Workers" (May 4-10
Issue), Ms. Anna Santander cited many cases of violations the company committed
against its rank-and-file union. She
has investigated quite extensively but, unfortunately, she has failed to verify
some major facts.
1)
"Summary dismissal" was
not the action done by Toyota Motor Philippines (TMP) on March 16.
The infractions committed by the dismissed workers were done on February
22 and 23, almost three weeks before the dismissal.
Their individual cases were investigated by TMP and the company gave
enough opportunities for the workers to explain their side regarding the
incident; many of them refused to reply to the internal due process forms (DPFs).
TMP even extended the deadline for the submission of their written
explanations. This proves that TMP
was not "trigger-happy" in issuing the termination papers.
2)
TMP dismissed NOT 290 workers.
Only 227 team members were terminated for acts in violation of the company's
Code of Conduct. The termination
was carried out NOT because of their attendance in the DOLE hearings on February
22 and 23, but because they participated in a concerted action that was
detrimental to TMP's interest. This
means that all the team members could have collectively stayed at home on those
two days, and yet they would still be violating company rules if they did so in
unison. Several reminders on the
consequences of their actions were given prior to those two days, but the
dismissed workers chose to ignore them.
3)
It is not true that the dismissed
workers did not receive their salary on March 23, which was a payday for TMP.
The period covered for that payday was March 1-15.
Since the dismissal was effective March 16, the workers were paid for the
entire period, UNLESS they incurred many absences-without-permission (AWOPs),
which obviously is a no-work-no-pay situation. Regarding loans being deducted
from the salary, that practice has been in effect for many years in TMP, so it
should come as no surprise for any employee to see a small net pay after all
loans have been deducted.
4)
To say that "the union's 900
rank-and-file workers walked out and paralyzed both plants" is grossly
inaccurate. For one thing, TMPCWA
itself claims only 600 plus members and sympathizers.
In addition, less than 400 workers joined the strike.
5)
Although former DOLE Secretary
Bienvenido Laguesma recognized TMPCWA "as the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent of the Toyota workers," this decision is still NOT final and
executory because the law provides a remedy for TMP to appeal his decision.
During the Certificate Elections last March 8, 2000, to determine the
workers' acceptance of TMPCWA as the official bargaining agent, there were 1,048
valid votes cast. TMPCWA needed 525 to win, but it clearly did not get the
majority with only 503 YES votes, against 440 NO votes, the remaining 105 sealed
votes being challenged by TMPCWA. Up
to this date, the opening of those 105 ballots, which is vital to TMPCWA's
future as bargaining agent, is still NOT final and executory, as TMP has
appealed the DOLE secretary's decision. As
we know in our judiciary, the Supreme Court's decision will be THE final and
executory decision.
6)
The strike did not last ONLY for 5
days, but for a total of 9 days, until April 6, Friday.
7)
It is not true that "the
company did not implement" the return-to-work order by DOLE starting April
16. DOLE's order suggested an
option to merely implement a payroll-reinstatement scheme, which means that all
dismissed workers will receive regular compensation from the company while
staying in their respective homes. This
means that TMP, much to its chagrin, followed the order issued by DOLE. It is
worth noting that all non-terminated workers, numbering almost 100, who
participated in the strike were unconditionally accepted back.
Therefore, your report that "only 30 of the 300 strikers were
allowed to return to work that day" is again grossly erroneous.
Ms.
Santander's article and other related stories in your webpage pictured TMP as a
company who (sic) violated (or ran over, as she put it) workers' rights, while
holding the government hostage with threats to pull investments out of the
country if labor dispute worsens. At the same time, the workers were pictured as
the aggrieved party whose rights have been trampled upon.
A classic case of Samson versus Goliath, if I may compare.
As a TMP employee taking pride in my job for almost a decade, I take
offense in such accusations. Such picture is not the true case.
Many of the dismissed workers do not come pristine white and without
faults. The exploitation of workers is nothing new in the Philippine labor
scene, but I am pretty sure it has not yet reached the shores of TMP.
It
is quite obvious the author based her article on evidences (sic) from only the
"aggrieved party." If
this is true, then one will surely be prone to distortion of the facts. TMP
employs 1,400 team members. In the interest of balanced reporting, I hope the
author seeks the truth by getting in touch with the remaining majority of 1,100
employees.
Along
with hundreds of team members in TMP, I sympathize with our rank-and-file
co-employees who did not get the CBA as early as they would want to.
But that is beside the point. In
my opinion, fighting for one's beliefs while jeopardizing the majority's
interests is not justifiable. I
believe TMPCWA was not pushed to the wall before it declared a strike.
All they had to do was wait; wait for the sealed ballots to be opened to
determine the legality of their being the sole representative. But I guess
patience is not one of their better virtues.
More
power to Bulatlat.com as you strive to fight for truth and justice, and seek to
shape a strong public consciousness in the process.
Sincerely,
Jose
Caparas
Ms. Santander replies:
The
Toyota management might quibble about some of the details about the strike, but
the essential situation is this: over 200 workers (290 as reported in YCW's fact
sheet or 227 as claimed by Mr. Caparas) were laid off by Toyota for exercising
their basic trade-union rights. Over
200 families are now without a source of livelihood for asserting their right to
form a union and their right to conduct concerted actions.
It
took the workers nine years to build their union, nine long years, for the
entire duration of which workers could not press for better wages and benefits
and improved working conditions by exercising their right to bargain
collectively. When the union was
finally formed – and duly recognized by the Secretary of the Department of
Labor and Employment "as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the
Toyota workers" -- management resorted to dilatory tactics by invoking the
long, tedious and expensive process of questioning the results of the
certification elections and appealing the decision of the DOLE.
Mr.
Caparas mentions that there are 105 sealed votes still under dispute. What he conveniently omits from his detailed account of
management's side of the dispute is that these sealed votes were cast by
employees with supervisory functions, thus aligning them with management rather
than rank-and-file workers. This is
why no less than the DOLE secretary recognized the legitimacy of TMPCWA as
bargaining agent.
Given
the long and daunting history of organizing the TMPWCA, it is perfectly
understandable why the workers would be vigilant in defending the fruit of this
organizing effort. The attendance
of over 200 workers at the DOLE hearings was, in fact, the concrete expression
of this vigilance.
Of
course, from management's point of view, this was a gross violation of company
rules and regulations -- which were, to begin with, drawn up unilaterally by
Toyota management -- and grounds for dismissal.
But
stripped of legalese and technicalities, the fact that the workers had formed a
union was already, in the eyes of the management, detrimental to Toyota's
interests. That's why Toyota
management is prepared to gloss over the rights of its workers in the
Philippines, even soliciting the help of the administration (through the
Departmetn of Trade and Industry and the new labor secretary) in quelling
workers' unrest.
The
management’s tactic is quite obvious – drum up excuses and charges against
the workers and their union, say that their activities have proven disruptive to
company operations, and thus lay the grounds for the dismissal of the union
members. All of this has the effect of dismantling the union. This is what the
company had in mind all along.
Like
most capitalists, Toyota is ferociously against unions, particularly against
unions that are militant in character. Managements always cite company interests
-- confounding this with the national interest -- to justify their anti-labor
practices. While their workers
bring in profits by the millions through their commitment and hard work,
managements still have the gall to accuse workers of economic sabotage when they
press for their rights. In the case of Toyota, the workers only wanted their
union recognized and to forge a collective bargaining agreement. In response,
the company fired them.