| letzte Änderung am 23.Apr.2002 | |
LabourNet Germany ARCHIV! Aktuelle Meldungen im neuen LabourNet Germany |
|
| Home -> Internationales -> USA -> Brylane -> WRB-Bericht | | Suchen |
Report and Recommendations of the
Central Indiana Workers Rights Board
concerning union organizing rights
at Brylane Distribution Center,
Indianapolis and Plainfield, Indiana
On February 26, 2002, the members of the Central Indiana Workers' Rights Board conducted a public hearing to investigate the conditions under which Brylane warehouse workers are attempting to unionize. Brylane workers had raised concerns about the company's policies and actions in recent months, and the hearing was scheduled in an effort to clarify the issues and to make sure that the workers are treated fairly. This report summarizes the hearing and the subsequent recommendations of the Workers' Rights Board.
The following members of the Workers' Rights Board participated in the hearing (organization listings provided for identification purposes only):
The hearing took place at 6:00 p.m. on February 26, 2002, at the Indianapolis Urban League. It was open to the public, and advance notice was provided to the news media. The following individuals provided testimony:
Other Brylane workers also made comments during the hearing.
Brylane was invited to participate, but declined to do so. [Letter from Pat Cross, Vice President of Human Resources for Brylane, to Reverend Darren Cushman-Wood, February 25, 2002]
After hearing all of the testimony, questioning the witnesses, and reviewing all information made available to them, the members of the Workers' Rights Board believe that:
See attached "Findings" for more information.
The Workers' Rights Board recommends that:
(a) One Brylane Distribution Center worker, who will be celebrating her 30th year of work for Brylane in September, stated that she had signed a union authorization card because "their system of raises is just unfair" and "we need a pension plan at Brylane." She also pointed out that Brylane does not seem to appreciate the commitment that workers such as herself have made to the company: "…knowing how difficult times are these days, I am grateful to have a job. But I think Brylane should be grateful to all of the employees who have been there for a long time. We are as much a part of this company as Chip or any of the big bosses are and I think it's time the company recognizes that." [Statement of Becky Shook at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(b) Brylane workers are frustrated not only with pay but also with the manner in which they are treated: "Our company has been treating us like dogs. They don't pay us what we are worth and treat us like we are children or robots who can't think for ourselves. They don't seem to know that we are the ones that get the packages out the door and make all of the money for the company." [Statement of Greta Casey at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(c) Brylane workers have attempted to communicate their desire for fair treatment to company management: "Last December a bunch of us pro-union people put together a letter to Chip Edgington, the Vice President of Operations at Brylane. We went together as a group to let him know that we were fed up with the favoritism and unfair treatment that was going on in the plant. When we walked into his office he didn't want to talk to us. He said I will only talk to you one on one. I said to Chip, ‘You've got to realize that we are one.'" [Statement of Doug Rhoton at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(d) Brylane workers - regardless of where they come from - seek respect and dignity: "When I came from Mexico looking to better our lives, I came to work hard and gain respect and dignity in my work. I have found only a lack of respect and dignity and low wages for the work that we do. It is for this and many more reasons that we ask you to support us in our fight to have a union at Brylane so that we may have respect and dignity and a voice on the job." [Statement of Vicente Robledo read at hearing, February 26, 2002 - translated from Spanish]
(e) Brylane workers have heard unionized workers explain how unionizing can make a difference: "The difference between us and the workers at Brylane is that we have a union, so we have a voice and a say in what goes on at work." [Statement of Christine Nordstrom at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(f) Workers from Chadwick's of Boston, which is owned by the same French firm that owns Brylane, have also observed how poorly the Brylane workers are treated: "When we got here we were shocked to find out how our own company was treating people. The Brylane management has no respect whatsoever for their people! They move them around whenever they feel like it with no concern for seniority or anything. We met people who were under intense pressure to produce but were not even rewarded for their work. Instead of negotiating their wages, the company just gives out whatever they feel like and if the people don't like it they just tell them to hit the road. Some people don't even get raises. Let me tell you it really opened our eyes as to how important it is to have a union to protect you." [Statement of Christine Nordstrom at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(g) A French PPR workers who visited Indiana in November 2001 reported that "….When I came here with four other French union activists last November to find out what is going on in Indiana, we all were shocked and horrified by the way Brylane treats you. The stories we heard underscored for us that there is no productive communication between management and workers at Brylane (such as exists in France), unimaginable working conditions, harassment and intimidation that have no place in the 21st century, and a strong repression of basic and fundamental human rights." [Statement of Fortunée Sellam read at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(a) The workers at Brylane's parent company in France are unionized: "Brylane's parent company - Pinault-Printemps-Redoute - is headquartered in France. It is huge, with annual sales of over $24 billion dollars. Around the world, over 97,000 workers deliver those sales and the profit for PPR. Half of us - or 50,000 - are in France….For the past 22 years, I have been an active union member. I want to emphasize that unions are present in ALL the divisions of PPR here in France." [Statement of Fortunée Sellam read at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(b) The unionized workers at Chadwick's of Boston cannot understand why Brylane is resisting unionization: "It isn't right that we all work for the same company and yet you don't have a union." [Statement of Christine Nordstrom at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(a) According to workers, Brylane representatives have threatened union supporters, and have shown favoritism to individuals who are campaigning against unionization: "When we started organizing our Union with UNITE! the company jumped right on us. When I stood in front of the warehouse passing out leaflets, Brylane security told me that I could be fired for doing that. They made it seem like we had no right to talk about the union at work or pass out our leaflets. Yet at the same time they would let their favorites who don't want the union pass out their stuff while they were on the clock." [Statement of Doug Rhoton at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(b) Brylane management has held captive audience meetings to discourage workers from unionizing: "Brylane had meetings with us where they were telling us that we could lose our benefits, that we would have to go on strike if we wanted a union and all kind of crazy stories. They made it sound like the union were some outsiders when the fact is, we are the union." [Statement of Doug Rhoton at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(c) According to workers, Brylane managers have discriminated against workers who are openly pro-union: "Since the union campaign began, things have changed a lot at work. I used to do a lot of the paperwork for my department but now that has all stopped since I started supporting the union and wearing my union button at work. My manager knew that I wanted to join the union and she told me that if I wanted a promotion I was going to have to be quiet and change my attitude. That's called discrimination." [Statement of Greta Casey at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(d) According to a French employee of PPR who visited Indiana in November 2001, Brylane's parent company, Brylane management has "isolated and abused the workforce here in Indiana." [Statement of Fortunée Sellam read at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(e) One worker at the Plainfield facility reported hearing a unit leader telling other workers to "Kill him [another union supporter], slam him, let's see him drop!" because the other worker supports the union. [Comment by Marsha Messmore at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(a) Brylane has attempted to separate Latino workers from other workers according to one Spanish-speaking worker: "When we began to organize ourselves the company began to separate the Latino workers from the rest of the workers and hold anti-union meetings." [Statement of Vicente Robledo read at hearing, February 26, 2002 - translated from Spanish]
(b) Brylane workers who speak only English have also observed this apparent attempt by management to separate the Spanish-speaking workers from the rest of the workers at both the Indianapolis and the Plainfield facilities. [Comments by Brylane workers at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(c) Workers report that Brylane supervisors have tried to scare non-English speaking Latino workers: "A lot of Hispanic people, they don't speak English. The company is saying, if they sign the [union] cards, they're going to lose their green cards." [Comment by Alexis Ayala, a Brylane employee, at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(d) Brylane managers appear to have made unfair demands of Latino workers: "… there is much injustice against Latinos in Brylane. Before the union drive began in Brylane, my wife was fired for not making production, but the more production she made, the more they demanded of her. This has also happened to many of my coworkers who couldn't make production." [Statement of Vicente Robledo read at hearing, February 26, 2002 - translated from Spanish]
(e) Human rights activists have noted that when immigrant workers are discriminated against for organizing, their coworkers also suffer: "International human rights principles apply to all persons regardless of immigration and citizenship status. In the United States, Human Rights Watch found workers' rights violations with particular characteristics affecting immigrant workers in nearly every economic sector and geographic area…. Immigrant workers are a fast-growing part of the labor force. Many work in industries with low wages, few benefits, unsafe and unhealthy working conditions, and harsh treatment by managers. These workers are urgently in need of the protection that can be gained through freedom of association, yet they are victimized when they exercise the right. Moreover, violations of their rights to organize and bargain collectively affect their coworkers in many places of employment, diminishing everyone's ability to exercise the right to freedom of association." [Unfair Advantage: Workers' Freedom of Association in the United States under International Human Rights Standards, Human Rights Watch, August 2000]
(a) One worker reported continuing problems with a machine which had caused her a serious injury: "I got my arm caught in the bagging machine, and as the safety button was on, I could not release my arm from it, and I had plastic melted in my arm at 350 [Fahrenheit]. I have about a four-inch scar on my arm…. The safety on these machines is just outrageous…. I am not the only one who has been hurt on this machine, and we have complained and complained about it." [Comment by Greta Casey at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(b) One worker who suffered work-related repetitive stress injuries requiring multiple surgeries, and who is still partially disabled, was recently fired: "I came here tonight to tell my story because you will soon learn that out of all the Brylane employees, most suffer from some type of repetitive motion stress injury related to their job. The company will continue to use the workers injured or not, until they can no longer produce at which time they will let them go just like what they did to me. I believe the only way that that will change will be when the workers here have their union." [Statement of Melody Purvis at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(c) There is also a question as to whether or not non-English speaking workers are receiving proper safety training and support: "It depends on which day it is…. A box fell and hit a Latino worker in the eye - there was no one who understood what had happened […it took 15 minutes to find someone to translate]. [Comment by Greta Casey at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(d) Based on a comparison of working conditions at their respective facilities, a unionized worker from Chadwick's of Boston commented that "Things go on in the Brylane facility that would never be allowed in our facilities… Machines breaking down, people getting hurt, it doesn't happen with us…." [Comment by Christine Nordstrom at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(a) The National Labor Relations Act states that "Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title]." [29 U.S.C. §§ 157]
(b) An Indianapolis attorney, who has extensive experience dealing with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), testified that "… the NLRB's procedures allow employers to delay certification of the election's results for months and often for years by filing post-election objections or simply refusing to bargain. Meanwhile, employees become discouraged and some quit in frustration, thereby eventually eroding the union's strength and support. The NLRB's election procedures, though well intentioned when they were implemented in 1935, no longer serve the interests of workers." [Statement of William Groth at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(c) The shortcomings of the labor law enforcement in the United States Act and the NLRB have been noted also by Human Rights Watch: "The reality of NLRA enforcement falls far short of its goals. Many workers who try to form and join trade unions to bargain with their employers are spied on, harassed, pressured, threatened, suspended, fired, deported or otherwise victimized in reprisal for their exercise of the right to freedom of association…. In the United States, labor law enforcement efforts often fail to deter unlawful conduct. When the law is applied, enervating delays and weak remedies invite continued violations." [Unfair Advantage: Workers' Freedom of Association in the United States under International Human Rights Standards, Human Rights Watch, August 2000]
(d) Although labor law enforcement in this country has definite shortcomings, it also offers a possibility of a simple and straightforward means of verifying majority support: "Federal law recognizes…[that] a union may attain the status of exclusive bargaining representative… through the employer's voluntary grant of recognition to a union which has established by way of a card-check or some other procedure that it enjoys the support of a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for collective bargaining." [Statement of William Groth at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(e) The card-check procedure is more likely to reflect what workers really want, and neutral parties can be used to insure that the procedure is fair: "The card-check procedure is a vastly superior procedure for reflecting the true desire of workers than is an NLRB-conducted election. Unlike NLRB elections, which are conducted on the employer's premises under the watchful eye of supervisors and managers, the timing of which is largely controlled by the employer, card-check procedures can be performed within days, with the counting overseen by neutral third parties such as employees of the Indiana Department of Labor, the clergy, or persons employed by private mediation organizations such as the American Arbitration Association. These neutrals can insure that signatures on cards are genuine and resolve disputes over voting eligibility or allegations of misconduct by card solicitors in a far more streamlined and far less legalistic process than that used by the NLRB." [Statement of William Groth at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(f) Other observers have commented on how a card-check recognition procedure can help lay the groundwork for a positive collective bargaining relationship: "NLRB elections too often involve intense, acrimony-filled campaigns marked by heated rhetoric and attacks on the motives of both employers and union advocates. The bitterness of a representation campaign can poison chances of a mutually beneficial bargaining relationship…. [T]he card-check method - with sufficient safeguards to ensure that cards are signed voluntarily - allows a reasoned choice in a less coercive atmosphere." [Unfair Advantage: Workers' Freedom of Association in the United States under International Human Rights Standards, Human Rights Watch, August 2000]
(g) According to a worker at the TJX HomeGoods distribution center in Brownsburg, Indiana, his company took a neutral position and agreed to a card-check procedure that left the decision on unionizing up to the workers: "The company put a notice up on the bulletin board saying that they were neutral about the union and that it would be up to us to join or not to join. Once we had enough cards the union and the company arranged to have a lawyer come in and examine the cards. Once he had counted the cards, we had the union." [Statement of David Reyes at hearing, February 26, 2002]
(h) Brylane has the opportunity to take the high road: "Brylane could, if it wanted, eliminate the delays inherent in the NLRB's election procedures and the inevitable disruption to its operations by one simple, lawful, courageous and principled act - - entering into an agreement to extend voluntary recognition upon proof by way of card-check that UNITE has been designated by a majority of its warehouse employees as their preferred exclusive bargaining representative." [Statement of William Groth at hearing, February 26, 2002]
The Central Indiana Workers' Rights Board is a project of Indianapolis Area Jobs with Justice
| LabourNet Germany | Top ^ |