UNITE files complaint with the OECD, charging Bryland Inc.
and Pinault-Printemps-Redoute with violations of guidelines.
July 2, 2002
Mr. Wesley Scholz,
National Contact Point
Bureau of Economic & Business Affairs
Office of Investment Affairs
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520
RE: Violations of OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
by Brylane Inc. and Pinault-Printemps-Redoute
Dear Mr. Scholz,
We are writing to you in your capacity as National Contact Point
for the United States to advise you of serious violations of
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises by Brylane Inc. (hereinafter
Brylane) and its parent company Pinault-Printemps-Redoute (hereinafter
PPR). Brylane is a specialty catalog retailer with nine catalogs
and e-commerce websites. It markets and distributes retail apparel
and home furnishings under the brand names Chadwick's of Boston,
Lerner, Lane Bryant, Roaman's, Jessica London, King Size, Brylane
Home and Brylane Home Kitchen and has an exclusive licensing
agreement with Sears Shop at Home Services, Inc. Brylane is
headquartered in New York with facilities in Indiana, Massachusetts
and Texas.
PPR is a multinational retailing conglomerate headquartered
in Paris, France with facilities in 55 countries. PPR subsidiaries
include: Gucci, Conforma and Enzemata in Italy; Guilbert, Boucheron
and Rexel in the United Kingdom; Redcats, FNAC and Printemps
in France; Ellos and Enjoy in Sweden and many other subsidiaries
functioning throughout OECD member countries.
As we will summarize below, PPR's conduct regarding its treatment
of its employees constitutes a systematic attempt to deny their
employees' rights to freedom of association and to deprive them
of their right to collective bargaining. PPR's subsidiary Brylane
has
refused to respect its employees' request for representation
by the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees,
AFL-CIO, CLC (hereinafter UNITE).
Because of the serious nature of the breaches of OECD Guidelines
by PPR, we respectfully request that your office meet with representatives
from UNITE, the International Textile, Garment & Leather
Workers Federation (ITGWLF) and the Union Network International
(UNI) and the AFL-CIO, as well as raise this issue with representatives
of PPR, for the purpose of achieving a resolution to this dispute
within the context of OECD Guidelines.
An Overview of Brylane and PPR's anti-union campaign
Brylane markets and distributes retail apparel and home
furnishings. Brylane is a subsidiary of the Redcats division
of PPR. Brylane has warehouse operations in Taunton, MA, West
Bridgewater, MA, Indianapolis, IN and Plainfield, IN. These
facilities warehouse inventory, as well as receive and fulfill
purchasing orders from individual consumers. There are approximately
1000 employees at the two Indiana distribution centers and 1000
employees at the Massachusetts distribution centers.
Employees at the two Massachusetts distribution centers distribute
goods under the label Chadwick's of Boston. The Massachusetts
distribution centers are represented by Local 2001, New England
Joint Board, UNITE. The collective bargaining agreement with
employees in Massachusetts is set to expire June 30, 2003.
Employees at the Indiana distribution centers distribute goods
under the labels Chadwick's of Boston, Lerner, Lane Bryant,
Roaman's, Jessica London, King Size, Brylane Home and Brylane
Home Kitchen. They are not protected by a collective bargaining
agreement. In October 2001, workers employed by Brylane in Indiana
initiated an effort to form a union for the purposes of collective
bargaining. These workers have sought the assistance of the
Midwest Regional Joint Board, UNITE.
UNITE represents employees and has constructive labor relations
at several other Indiana employers including the TJ Maxx Distribution
Center in Indianapolis, Indiana, the Homegoods Distribution
Center in Evansville, Indiana and Autoliv in Indianapolis, Indiana.
Since learning of organizing efforts in Indiana, Brylane and
its parent PPR have responded with a campaign of harassment
and intimidation that continues to date. Examples of the company's
tactics in this campaign include:
-
The establishment of Brylane Associates
Against UNITE, (hereinafter BAAU) a company-created, financed
and controlled employee committee
Brylane has provided assistance and preferential treatment
to employees who voice opposition to unionization. Brylane
management has actively created and distributed anti-union
materials from BAAU. Supervisors have been instructed to support
BAAU by copying materials, allowing BAAU members to distribute
the material during work time and by transporting materials
between the Indianapolis and Plainfield distribution centers.
In a sworn affidavit, Shelly Fugate, a former supervisor from
Brylane testified that she was told that, if she supported
the union, she would be fired. Moreover, Ms. Fugate details
how Brylane management retained the services of an outside
management firm that specialized in training supervisors on
how to dissuade employees from joining the union. Ms. Fugate
was instructed to monitor employees attitudes towards unionization
on a daily basis and to relate any financial, marital or other
problems that employees may be having to management. Moreover
she was instructed to support BAAU and to feed employees information
that was negative about unions. She also details how she was
recruited to assist in the dissemination of anti-union literature
to Brylane employees.
-
The pervasive and relentless distribution
of anti-union literature.
Brylane and PPR has sent a flurry of letters, publications
and newsletters to the homes of Brlyane's Indiana employees.
All of the communications contain a strong anti-union message
and are aimed at dissuading employees from joining UNITE.
Letters have come from the management of Brylane in Indianapolis,
as well as from Jacques Brun the VP of Human Resources for
Redcats in Paris, France. The result is that the barrage of
communications has overwhelmed Brylane employees' freedom
of association, and has misrepresented National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB) procedures regarding certification of union representation.
In its October 15th, 2001 letter to its employees, the company
makes clear its opposition to its employees exercising their
right to freedom of association and the practice of collective
bargaining. Brylane states "The Company does not believe
that the UNITE union or any other union is in the best interest
of either the Company or our associates."
In addition, Brylane and PPR have disseminated literature
alleging "union lies" and implying that UNITE is
responsible for over 800 lay-offs at the Massachusetts distribution
centers. Copies of these materials are attached to this correspondence.
-
Regularly subjecting employees to mandatory
anti-union meetings during which many of the aforementioned
statements intended to alarm employees are continuously reiterated.
Company management has required employees to attend meetings
during work-time where the company has presented anti-union
messages. During these meetings, employees are required to
watch anti-union videos, read anti-union literature or listen
to anti-union speeches that contain gross misconceptions about
unions. The union is not afforded a chance to respond. During
these meetings Brylane employees have been shown videos, had
anti-union literature distributed to them and had supervisors
from Massachusetts testify that the union is responsible for
lay-offs at those facilities.
-
Providing explicit instructions as to
how employees may revoke the union card they signed freely
of their own accord thereby denying the exercising of freedom
of association.
Brylane and PPR have provided text by which employees can
cancel or revoke their authorization and recommend it be sent
certified mail. Employees have reported
that company management uses intimidating tactics by distributing
in person information on how to revoke an authorization card
and also indicating they will mail the card for them. The
company has even offered the services of an attorney to assist
employees who wish to revoke their authorization card from
UNITE. A copy of the company's communication in this regard
is also attached.
-
Discriminating against and denying advancement
to employees who voice support for unionization.
Previous to the beginning of the organizing campaign in Indiana,
Greta Casey an employee at the Indianapolis distribution center
routinely assisted with paperwork in the department and was
told that she was "unit leader material" by supervisor
Debbie Davis and Human Resources Director Brenda Holloway.
On February 7, 2002 Ms. Casey asked Tyna Cox, unit leader
for her department if she could help with the paperwork for
the department. Ms. Cox responded that Ms. Casey should be
quiet and quit questioning management on their decisions if
she wanted to do that work. On February 10, 2002, Kathy White,
a unit leader for the department asked Ms. Casey if she could
make copies of some paperwork. Ms. White then changed her
directive and told Ms. Casey that she was not to do any paperwork
as long as she supported the union.
-
Threatening employees who speak out in
favor of unionization.
On December 5, 2001, Doug Rhoton addressed his co-workers
in the Indianapolis, IN distribution center concerning the
union campaign and why he supported UNITE. He spoke for ten
minutes and was enthusiastically received by his co-workers.
While Mr. Rhoton was speaking, Louise Whorley, a unit leader
for Brylane, said to Dorian McDaniel, another supervisor,
within earshot of others that she would like to get a gun
and "shut him (Doug Rhoton) up." A co-worker of
Mr. Rhoton told him that she had heard Ms. Whorley threaten
him during the meeting. Later that same day, Karen Talley,
another co-worker also told Mr. Rhoton that she heard Ms.
Whorley threaten him during the meeting.
That same day, Pat Cross, Director of Human Resources, and
Karen Davis, Human Resources Associate, met with Doug Rhoton
in company offices and told him that they had investigated
the incident and concluded that it was not Louise Whorley
but another unnamed associate who had threatened Mr. Rhoton.
They refused to tell Mr. Rhoton who that assoyciate was or
what action the company was taking. No action was taken against
Ms. Whorley and she continues to work today. The threat against
Mr. Rhoton and the company's inaction in protecting Mr. Rhoton's
safety is particularly chilling considering that on December
6, 2001 in nearby Goshen, Indiana an employee at Nu-Wood Decorative
Millwork went on a shooting rampage, killing one co-worker
and injuring twenty others. More recently, on March 23, 2002
an employee of Bertrand Products in South Bend, Indiana shot
and killed four coworkers.
We believe that this conduct by Brylane and PPR
violates the OECD Guidelines as demonstrated in the following
section. We also believe that Brylane and PPR's actions
violate ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights guaranteeing everyone the right to form and join
trade unions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights adopted by the United States in 1992 as well as numerous
regional human rights instruments. Brylane and PPR's actions also
clearly contravene the Employment and Industrial Relations section
of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.
Brylane and PPR's Violations of the OECD Guidelines
Brylane and PPR's conduct with respect to its Indiana
employees represents a serious breach of the principles stated
in Section IV of the OECD Employment and Industrial Relations
Guidelines. Specifically, the company is in violation of the following
principles:
"Enterprises should, within the framework of applicable law,
regulations and prevailing labor relations and employment practices:
1.a) Respect the right of their employees to be
represented by trade unions and other bona fide organizations
of employees, and engage in constructive negotiations…with
such representatives with a view to reaching agreements on employment
conditions;
4.) Observe standards of employment and industrial relations
not less favorable than those observed by comparable employers
in the host country;
At the time of this submission, Brylane and PPR
continue to threaten and coerce employees attempting to exercise
their right to organize for mutual aid and protection as guaranteed
by national laws and international regulations through the aforementioned
methods.
The OECD Guidelines are designed to promote responsible conduct
by multinational enterprises and to facilitate resolution of disputes
arising from their operations. In June 2000, moreover, the OECD
Ministerial Council agreed that adhering countries shall set up
National Contact Points for, "handling enquiries and for
discussions with the parties concerned on all matters covered
by the Guidelines so that they can contribute to the solution
of problems which may arise in connection, taking due account
of the attached procedural guidance." On this last point
we hope that you will fully use, and in a timely manner, the mechanisms
available to you within the procedural guidance.
Given the serious nature of the violations committed by Brylane
and PPR, we request that your office meet with representatives
of our organizations, and raise the matter with representatives
of Brylane and PPR, in order to facilitate resolution of this
dispute in a manner consistent with the Guidelines. We further
request that this be taken up by the French National Contact Point
to help expedite this matter.
Thank you for your time and prompt attention to
this matter. Please contact Mary Kay Devine at UNITE if you need
additional information or for follow-up. Mary Kay Devine can be
reached at 212-265-7000.
Sincerely,
Bruce Raynor
President
UNITE
cc: The Honorable Colin Powell, U.S. Secretary of
State
Mr. Neil Kearney General Secretary, ITGWLF
Mr. John Sweeney, President, AFL-CIO
Mr. Phillip Jennings, General Secretary, UNI
Mr. John Evans, General Secretary, TUAC-OECD
|
