With 7.4 million vehicles sold and a global turnover of 137 billion euros in 2005, Toyota Motor Corporation is on its way to becoming the world’s leading car manufacturer and already holds the record for the highest profits. But while all is well on the economic front, when it comes to social rights the situation leaves much to be desired. In 2004 the transnational owned 46 production sites in 26 countries outside Japan and employed 264,100 individuals [1]. Reports on the difficulty of working conditions and even of outright violations of human rights in these factories abound. In the Philippines the union TMPCWA [2]has been involved in a long struggle against the company since 2001 when 233 unionists were sacked. In August 2005, after years of national and international mobilization, the company finally agreed to negotiations. Yet six months later its proposals are so disappointing that the union is wondering if it wasn’t simply a ploy to weaken opposition, and is calling for renewed mobilization.

Toyota started its production in the Philippines in 1988, in a southern suburb of the capital Manilla. In 1996 a second factory was set up at Laguna, 40km north of the city. Working conditions were by far means satisfactory and management refused the creation of an independent union.

In 1998 the workers nevertheless created the TMPCWA. In February 1999 this union filed an application for recognition as the only legitimate representative of workers on these two production sites. The company’s vigorous opposition forced the union to appeal to the Secretariat of the Labour and Employment Ministry which in June 2005 ordered a ’certification’ election. Toyota opposed this decision via different procedures, so that the election was not held until 8 March 2000.

A long period of stubbornness

The TMPCWA won the elections with 503 votes against 440. The votes of 105 other individuals were refused because they were managerial staff that the company insisted on including in the elections even though their participation was against the regulations. Toyota nevertheless insisted on counting those votes so that it could challenge the election results.

On 12 May 2000 the mediator from the labour relations bureau decided in favour of the union. Toyota appealed. The validity of the vote was again confirmed by the Labour and Employment Ministry on 19 October 2000. A week later the TMPCWA submitted a collective bargaining proposal to Toyota, which refused all dialogue and renewed its appeal to the Ministry. With little enthusiasm for enforcing the law, the Ministry ordered a hearing for ’clarification’ on 22 February 2001.

From 21 to 23 February the TMPCWA organized peaceful demonstrations outside the Ministry. Toyota responded three weeks later: on 16 March 2001, 227 unionists were sacked and 64 others suspended for a month. Ironically, it was also on 16 March that the Ministry confirmed that the TMPCWA was the only organization representative of the workers.

Faced with these violations of their rights, the workers organized a picket. But after ten days Toyota obtained the intervention of the policy which dispersed the demonstrators violently and confiscated their equipment. The company furthermore laid charges against 25 workers.

Sensitive to the lobbying of multinationals which indicated that they would leave the country if their ’interests’ were threatened, the Labour Ministry ordered the strikers to resume work and referred the issue to the ’National labour relations commission’. The commission ruled in favour of Toyota, considering the February 2001 strikes illegal, and thus endorsed the validity of the militants’ dismissal.

Six years of mobilization

Since then the TMPCWA and its supporters have multiplied their actions to demand the 233 unionists’ reinstatement and recognition of the union. The case was taken to the Supreme Court of the Philippines which ruled on 24 September 2003 that the February 2001 strike was legal. The union also referred the issue to the ILO’s Trade Union Freedom Committee which issued three recommendations - in 2003, 2004 and 2005 - to the Philippine state to ensure that the TMPCWA’s rights were observed.

Toyota nevertheless carried on flouting the Philippine workers’ rights. To get round the union, the company tried to establish the legitimacy of another union created at its instigation. On 16 February 2006 it even organized new elections [3]. Despite its propaganda and intimidation, this ’company’ union won the elections but failed to obtain the required majority.

In August 2005 Toyota agreed to start negotiating but six months later the result was so disappointing that the unionists wondered whether it was not simply a tactic to undermine the opposition. Finally, the sacked workers were offered ’redeployment training’ provided that they signed an agreement ratifying the legitimacy of their dismissal - a condition that is unacceptable for any citizen who has broken no law of their country and is demanding nothing more than respect for their rights.

FURTHER INFORMATION:

Solidarity campaign with Philippine workers.

Protest Toyota Campaign:Japanese unions have helped the TMPCWA to make its struggle known internationally. In January 2006 a new union, the ’ZEN-TO-UNION’, was created to unite all Toyota workers world-wide.

Réseau-Solidarité : In March 2003 Réseau-Solidarity launched its first call on this issue: “Philippines, Dialogue en panne chez Toyota” (Call n° 269).

Toyota Valenciennes: In June 2004 TMPCWA representative Ed Cubelo travelled to Europe. He visited the Toyota Valenciennes site and met French unionists from the CGT who expressed their solidarity with their Philippine colleagues.

IMF: The International Metalworkers’ Federation (IMF) supports the TMPCWA demands. www.imfmetal.org

TMPCWA site: www.tmpcwa.org

WHAT TO DO ?

By letter: copy the standard letter below or use your own wording; you can download it directly by clicking on the attachment at the bottom of this page. Send your letter to the address indicated below, and remember to add your own name, address and signature.

By e-mail: hiroshi.ito@toyota.com.ph (Toyota Manille) with a copy to: katsuaki.watanabe@mail.toyota.co.jp (Toyota Japon) Deadline: as soon as you receive this call and not later than 31 April 2006.

PROTEST LETTER:

Mr. Hiroshi Ito, President of Toyota
Toyota Special Economic Zone
Zip Code 4026
Tagaytay Highway
Sta. Rosa City, LAGUNA
PHILIPPINES

Date :

Dear Sir,

I have been informed by Réseau-Solidarité (10 quai de Richemont - 35000 Rennes, France) of the situation at the Toyota Philippines factories.

In February 2006 you held a new trade union certification election, although you have refused collective bargaining with the Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Workers Association (TMPCWA) and violated trade unionist rights since 1999.

I strongly protest against this attitude and call on you to:
- immediately comply with the decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines and agree to collective bargaining with TMPCWA;
- respect the spirit of the ILO recommendations and accordingly withdraw the dismissal of 233 TMPCWA member employees as well as the criminal charges against 26 TMPCWA officers.

Please inform me about the measures taken to that end.

[1] Cf. the website www.toyota.fr

[2] Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Workers Association

[3] Theoretically banned when a union labour dispute is under way.