Monday, March 3, 2008

[WAC-Archives] Factsheet NMCW No. 01 2000

Nagkakakaisang Manggagawa ng Chong Won- Independent
(United Workers of Chong Won)

NMCW Factsheet

Updated as of September 15, 2006

Name of factory: Chong Won Fashion, Inc. is a subsidiary of Chong Won Trading Co. Ltd. with address at 2F, Booil Bldg., 27-20 Samsung-Dong, Gangnam-Gu, Seoul, South Korea. CWFI is a 100 percent Korean-owned company established in May 1990 in Cavite Export Processing Zone (CEPZ).

Product information: They produce T-shirts, ladies blouses, polo shirts, pants/jog pants, sleepwear, and other wearing apparel. Their buyer includes GAP, Wal-Mart (No Boundaries, Jordache), Target (Cherokee, Mossimo), American Eagle Outfitters, Mervyn's and White Stag.

Wal-Mart, the biggest retail store in the US, buys products since April 2003 until to date. Each product style, mostly ladies apparel, had a minimum order of 100,000 pieces finish products.

GAP was also the factory's buyer for several years until August 2004. In April 2003, GAP supposedly had huge orders but was cancelled when the factory failed GAP's the production requirement standard. In June and July this year, GAP again withdrew its order for similar grounds.

Name of affected labor union: Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa Chong Won-Independent or United Workers at Chong Won (NMCW-Ind). It has membership of 210 rank-and-file employees.

Type of labor violations: Unfair labor practice/Refusal to bargain; illegal suspension of union officers and members; and discrimination of union officers and members on overtime affecting 210 union members and more than 700 contractual workers

Background of the case:

In May 2000, the labor union Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa Chong Won-Independent (NMCW-Ind.) was created. In August 2001, they filed Petition for Certification Election (PCE). When the election was conducted they lost after the management threatened its workers it would close down should the union wins. In 2002, when the union again re-filed the petition for CE, the company terminated half of the union members and majority of their officers following the illegal closure of the factory's sweater department. The union members held a picket line that lasted for six months to protest the illegal dismissal of their union members and for union busting.

A complaint of union busting/unfair labor practice was filed against management considering that majority of the affected workers are union officers and members. The court ruled in favor of the union when it decided that the company failed to substantiate its claim that the dismissal of the workers was because they are losing money.

In 2003, after the union elected another set of new officers they filed another petition for CE. In August 5, 2004 the long overdue election was held and the union won the election. This, despite several attempts by the management to either oppose the conduct of election or delay it by employing delaying tactics, in particular of questioning authority of the union. It also made several appeals and petition to prevent the election from pursuing despite an existing Department Order (DO) 40-03 by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) prohibiting any appeals for CE. Not only the management's was not satisfied with the DOLE's order, they too made appeals--through their lawyer Omar Francisco--before the Court of Appeals on the same matter.


The union on the other hand, had to file responses and replies and motions one after another to counter the delaying tactics being employed by the management. And to make matters worse for the company management, for the second time, the union held the CE and managed to win by landslide vote. Out of 283 voters, 280 voted in favor of the union and agreed to be represented by them in negotiation for the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

On August 10, 2004, the management once again questioned the result of the election when they filed formal election protest. On November 12, 2004 Med-Arbiter Bactin issued an order denying the election protest of the management and subsequently certified the union as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all regular rank-and-file workers of CWFI.


On December 8, 2004 management appealed this decision to the Office of the Secretary of DOLE but was also denied on April 21, 2005. On March 14, 2005 the respondent-company filed an Urgent Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) (SP CA No. 85328) on the execution of order by the DOLE declaring the union as the SEBR. On May 10, 2005 the Honorable Court of Appeals denied the said Urgent Motion for TRO. On May 12, 2005 management filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the April 21, 2005 decision. Again, the said Motion had been denied on June 27, 2005 decision of the said office

On July 9, 2005 an Entry of Judgment had been issued by the Office of the Secretary (OS-DOLE) declaring the finality of the order certifying the union as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all regular rank-and-file workers of the company.

On July 19, 2005 the company filed another Motion to Lift/Expunge Entry of Judgment at the OS-DOLE. The union, however, filed a Motion to Cite Respondents in Contempt before the OS-DOLE finding the said motion perverted. The said motion had been filed due to the continuous denial of the respondent to collectively negotiate with the union despite several Letters of Intent (LOI's) duly served to the company.

Furthermore, sometime in a later date of July 2005, the company filed another Petition for Certiorari (SP C.A. No. 91710) assailing the resolutions dated April 21, 2005 and June 27, 2005, in which the instant case is still pending for resolution of the Court of Appeals. Likewise, this is the second petition for certiorari filed by the company on the same case of Petition for certification election and certification election of the union.

On August 31, 2005 the Honorable Court of Appeals denied the first petition for certiorari. The company moved for reconsideration of the said order but it was again denied on April 4, 2006. Since April 21, 2005, when the Office of the Secretary affirmed the union as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all regular workers the union had already sent the management a letter of intent (LOI) to start the collective bargaining negotiation.

And since then, eight LOI's from dated April 21, 2005; June 3, 2005; July 5, 2005; August 1, 2005; August 5, 2005; April 18, 2006; May 17, 2006; and June 24, 2006 had already been filed by the union but were refused by the management.

Instead of commencing the negotiation with the union, the management is showing blatant disrespect and disregard of the union member's rights. It already reached to a point they already insulting and verbally abusing the union members. It insists that the union cannot have CBA no matter what they do because it would only file appeals one after the others.

After the union won the election, the management has since implementing stricter company rules and regulations (CRR). It also imposed 15 days suspension to active union officers and members even though they committed violations for first offenses. In some cases, some union officers and active union members have had fabricated company violations.

Also, the management continued on enticing the union's leaders to resign in exchange of payment of their separation pays and threatened them with filing of charges, warnings, suspensions or transfers to other departments if they refused to. In one incident, the union's president, Ressureccion Ravelo, who was originally assigned as sewer had her assignment demoted into trimmer. This also what happens to Monina Eugenio, the union's Public Relations Officer (PRO), who was slapped with successive suspensions before she was finally terminated from her work last August. Others active union officers namely Cynthia Pulido, Board of Director; Edna Monreal, Treasurer; and members Cipriano Catanghal, Myrna Fajardo and Amanda Loyola were likewise often transferred to other line assignment. They too were removed with overtime and usually fist to be considered for vacation without pay.

Also in August 30, the union member started holding picket in front of the company's factory after the company's declared an indefinite vacation--which means the workers would have no work due absence of job contracts. The union has had standing Notice of Strike filed before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB-DOLE). They are on preparation of holding a strike after its members voted to go on strike. The union has since been demanding for the CBA negotiation to begin.

The union has had complaint filed against their management before the NCMB, National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Department of Labor and Employment-Office of the Secretary (DOLE-OS) and against the management's legal counsel, Atty. Omar Francisco, before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

On August 31, at around 4:30pm at least 40 Jantro security guards and policemen attached to the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) violently breaks into and dismantles the worker's picket line and makeshift of the workers. The guards and policemen, were onboard two pick-up trucks. They were armed with clubs, short firearms and had their nameplates covered. At the time, some of the workers were injured when the fought it out. One of the organizers of Solidarity of Cavite Workers (SCW), Marlene Gonzales, was nearly hit by one of the guards while she fought it out with the guards who attempted to confiscate the megaphone and their streamers. Another worker was too yelled at after she took pictures of one of the policemen who assaulted them for not asking permission.

At the time, there were several workers inside the factory's compound. Some of them were trying to get outside the factory to support their embattled co-workers outside but the factory's gate was instead padlocked to prevent them from going out. The Jantro guards at PEZA Police later left taking with them some materials and streamers forcibly taken from the picket line.

After about 15 to 20 minutes, while the workers were trying to set-up again the picket line, around 60 Jantro guards at PEZA police returned onboard pick-up trucks and police mobile. All of them had their nameplates covered, armed with clubs and .45 caliber pistol. This time PEZA Police Chief Sarasua approached the workers in an effort to negotiate with them. Sarasua insisted the picket line the workers had set-up was illegal. Sarasua was quoted as saying: "Ang pagpunta namin dito (piketlayn) ay utos ng nakakataas at kung hindi namin gagawin ay kami ang malilintika .(We have orders from our higher officials to dismantle the picket line. If we won't do it, we'll be in trouble)". The tension flared up when Sarasua ordered his men to break the picket line and seized the worker's belongings.

The workers at the time joined hand to prevent the guards and police from attacking them and breaking into their picket line again. The guards and police once again forced their selves in by pushing and pulling the worker's human barricade until it breaks loose. Some of the workers had to lie on the wooden plank but the guards and police forcibly instead seized them by forcibly taking it that resulted to the injury of some of the workers. Such an action by the police and guards was had obviously violated the implementing guidelines on conduct of picket line that they must positioned themselves 50 meters away from where the picket line is located.

At 5:40pm, the police and guards later distanced themselves from the picket line but the defiant workers remained in their picket line. At 8pm, some of the guards and police positioned themselves at both corners of the streets where the factory is located to prevent vehicles from coming in. Supports for food and financial assistance to the workers on protest usually came from passers by.

Presently, the union members were able to set-up again their makeshift tents. The latest assault and violent dispersal by the police and guards is one of the many instances of harassment by the police and guards towards the workers. Since the picket line was set-up on August 30, they since had been conducting surveillance purposely to harass them.
Prepared by:
Research, Documentation, Information and Publication Program
Workers Assistance Center Inc. (WAC)
To go back, click the link below:

http://www.wacphilippines.com/