2. Review Process

Review of Public Communication CAN 2003 – 1

<< Introduction | Table of Contents | PDF Version | Background >>

Under Article 16(3) of the NAALC, each NAO is to provide for the submission and receipt of public communications on labour law matters arising in the territory of another NAALC country, and is to review such matters in accordance with domestic procedures. The Canadian Guidelines for Filing Public Communications enable any person or organization to file with the Canadian NAO public communications "regarding labour law matters arising in the territory of another party to the Agreement" (paragraph 2.a).

Two submitters, United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS), an American non governmental organization, and the Centro de Apoyo al Trabajador (CAT), a labour rights advocacy group in Mexico, presented this public communication to the Canadian NAO on October 3, 2003. Amendments were added to the original submission on November 5 and 10, 2003, and February 13, 2004. A third petitioner, the Maquila Solidarity Network (MSN), based in Toronto, asked to be added to the Communication on January 29, 2004. The submitters also provided the NAO with additional written information on December 16, 2003, and January 8 and 30, 2004.

The Canadian Guidelines state that the Canadian NAO shall accept a communication for review if it meets the eligibility criteria set out in paragraph 2.b and is submitted in accordance with the procedures in paragraph 3. The guidelines are largely technical and do not focus on the merits of the allegations made, which are addressed in the review itself.

The Canadian NAO accepted Public Communication CAN 2003-1 for review on March 12, 2004. The review was deemed appropriate as the submission raised matters that may constitute a failure on the part of the government of Mexico to comply with its obligations under the NAALC, and included new information not available in previous public communications.

The role of the NAO in reviewing a public communication is to gather information and make recommendations to the Minister of Labour of Canada on whether to engage in Ministerial Consultations under Part IV of the NAALC with respect to issues that were not resolved during the review. The NAO gathered information from a wide range of sources in order to better understand and respond to the issues raised in the Communication. The NAO has compiled a public file on the Communication, which includes documents received from the submitters, interested employers and/or their clients, and the Mexican and U.S. NAOs, transcripts, and teleconference notes.

The steps in the review process were as follows:

• The Canadian NAO met with the submitters on April 1, 2004, to present information on the review process, and discussed the process with them again in a teleconference on April 16, 2004.
• A list of questions was sent to the submitters on April 16, 2004, to which they responded on May 17, 2004.
• The Canadian NAO organized a public meeting on May 28, 2004, in Toronto, Ontario. A general invitation to the public was posted on the Labour Program/Human Resources and Skills Development Canada's website. Letters of invitation were sent to all parties involved with the issues raised in the Communication including the companies mentioned in the submission. The NAO received information from the submitters, from several workers who were personally involved in the events underlying the Communication, and from the Canadian Office of the United Steel Workers of America. In addition, four companies, Levi Strauss & Company, Tommy Hilfiger, Tarrant Apparel Group and PUMA, submitted written statements dated May 21, May 26, June 1 and May 26, 2004, respectively, in response to our invitation.
• Following the public meeting, the submitters provided additional information in response to pending questions, on July 1, 2004. The Canadian NAO also held a conference call with Licenciado Miguel Ruíz, one of the two lawyers representing workers at Tarrant México, on July 9, 2004.
• A series of questions were forwarded to the Mexican NAO on July 30, 2004.
• Letters were also sent, in August 2004, to the representatives of the employers and unions named in the Communication inviting them to respond to allegations concerning their conduct.
• A conference call was held with the Secretary General of the Sindicato Francisco Villa de la Industria Textil y Conexos on August 19, 2004.
• The services of two Mexican legal experts were retained in August 2004 to provide a legal analysis in response to questions related to Mexico's union registration procedures. Their report was submitted on September 2, 2004.
• A response from the Mexican NAO to the questions sent on July 30, 2004, was received on October 22, 2004.

Throughout the review process, the NAO kept its Mexican and U.S. counterparts informed of steps taken and information received. In addition, the NAO informed and sought the advice of the provinces that have signed the Canadian Intergovernmental Agreement regarding the NAALC. The review of the Communication was also discussed at the meeting of the Canadian Minister of Labour's Advisory Committee on International Labour Affairs (ACILA) on March 9, 2004.

<< Introduction | Table of Contents | PDF Version | Background >>