VZCZCXRO0085
RR RUEHCD RUEHGA RUEHGD RUEHHA RUEHHO RUEHMC RUEHNG RUEHNL RUEHQU
RUEHRD RUEHRS RUEHTM RUEHVC
DE RUEHME #0324/01 0361806
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 051806Z FEB 08
FM AMEMBASSY MEXICO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0405
RUEHC/DEPT OF LABOR WASHDC
INFO RUCNCAN/ALL CANADIAN POSTS COLLECTIVE
RUEHXC/ALL US CONSULATES IN MEXICO COLLECTIVE
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHDC
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC
RHMFIUU/CDR USSOUTHCOM MIAMI FL
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 MEXICO 000324 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR DRL/AWH AND ILSCR AND WHA/MEX, DOL FOR ILAB 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ELAB ECON ETRD KTEX PGOV PHUM PINR MX
SUBJECT: CONTESTED ELECTION BETWEEN TEXTILE UNIONS WILL 
PROBABLY END IN PYRRHIC VICTORY 
 
REF: 07 MEXICO 5639 
 
 
¶1.  SUMMARY:  In late 2007 the labor authorities in the 
central Mexican state of Puebla organized an election to 
determine which of three competing textile unions would 
represent the workers at the Vaqueros Navarra blue jeans 
factory.  The election followed months of negotiations, 
intense competition and often-credible allegations of threats 
and intimidation from the employer and from the three 
competing textile unions.  Because of allegations of the 
systematic abuse of worker rights, the situation at the 
Vaqueros Navarra plant became the focus of attention of US 
labor unions, of numerous internationally known American 
clothing brands, as well as of NGOs from all three NAFTA 
countries.  The election arranged by the Puebla,s labor 
authorities was held under conditions that were far from 
ideal and completely at odds with a well-organized 
international letter writing campaign.  These factors 
notwithstanding, the election was consistent with standard 
(although often criticized) procedures under Mexican law. 
What was not standard in this case was the presences of a 
team of outside observers composed of representatives of 
Canadian and Mexican NGOs as well as Mission Mexico,s Labor 
Counselor.  Ultimately, the union tacitly supported by the 
American brands won the election.  Sadly, this victory will 
almost certainly be a pyrrhic one since in late December the 
factory &temporarily8 closed and then in mid January 
Vaqueros Navarra,s owners claimed a lack of new orders would 
force them to permanently close the plant.  END SUMMARY. 
 
 
BACKGROUND 
---------- 
 
¶2.  In mid-2007 a pre-existing labor dispute at the Vaqueros 
Navarra blue jeans plant in the southern Mexican state of 
Puebla began to intensify.  Vaqueros Navarra is one of 14 
factories in Puebla owned by the Grupo Navarra, a major 
producer of denim for such US major brands as The GAP, 
Levi,s, American Eagle, Abercombie & Fitch, Tommy Hilifger, 
Land,s End Old Navy and others.  The origin of the dispute 
is a claim by the workers that the company failed to abide by 
the terms of a profit sharing agreement.  In addition to the 
disagreement over profit-sharing, according to Verite, the 
independent non-profit organization which monitors 
international labor rights abuses in off-shore production 
sites, the NGO found credible evidence to indicate that the 
company engaged in forced overtime, pregnancy testing, 
abusive treatment of workers, safety and health violations 
and numerous freedom of association issues. 
 
¶3.  Officially, the workers at the Puebla Vaqueros Navarra 
plant were represented by the CROC (Revolutionary 
Confederation of Workers and Peasants) labor union.  The CROC 
is perhaps Mexico,s third largest federation of labor 
unions.  At the national level, the CROC is a labor 
organization with legitimate accomplishments in gaining and 
protecting worker rights but, like many institutions in 
Mexico and elsewhere, it has its bad elements.  In the case 
of the Vaquero Navarra plant in question it appears the CROC 
all but ignores its responsibility to represent the interests 
of the members and largely left the workers to fend for 
themselves in their dealings with the company. 
 
¶4.  As the labor situation at Vaqueros Navarro deteriorated 
the workers began to look for new union representation and 
apparently settled on the September 19 Union.  On July 10, 
the September 19 union, which is affiliated with the UNT 
(National Workers Union), Mexico,s second largest national 
labor federation, filed with the Puebla state government 
labor authorities to serve as the workers representative.  At 
roughly the same time another union the CROM (the Regional 
Confederation of Mexican Workers), appeared on the scene and 
petitioned the authorities for recognition as the workers 
representative.  The CROM is perhaps Mexico,s fourth largest 
national level labor federation. 
 
 
INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION 
----------------------- 
 
 
MEXICO 00000324  002 OF 004 
 
 
¶5.  The September 19 union has very close ties with the 
Mexico City office of the AFL-CIO and most likely because of 
this the situation at the Vaqueros Navarra plant became the 
focus of considerable international attention.  NGO,s like 
the Maquila Solidarity Network in Canada and CEREAL (Center 
for Reflection 
and Labour Action) in Mexico also took up the cause and 
together organized a sustained letter writing campaign 
directed toward various levels of the state authorities in 
Puebla.  The letters    petitioned for the protection of 
labor rights for workers at Vaqueros Navarro and urged the 
authorities to promptly arrange for a secret ballot election 
at a neutral location so the workers could choose which of 
the three unions they wanted as their representatives.  Most 
of the letters, including those from the offices of the 
American brands mentioned above, tacitly indicated a 
preference for the September 19 union.  The US Department of 
Labor also received numerous inquiries about this case and 
therefore followed it closely. 
 
 
(STATE) GOVERNMENT ACTION 
------------------------- 
 
¶6.  As this case became the focus of international attention 
Mexican federal labor authorities hastily made clear that 
they had no jurisdiction in this matter and that it was up to 
the Puebla state government to deal with the Vaqueros Navarra 
situation. Over the course of a series of visits to Puebla 
Mission Mexico,s Labor counselor had multiple meeting with 
the state,s Secretary of Labor, Jose Antonio Lopez Malo, and 
senior members of his staff on the situation at the Vaqueros 
Navarra plant.  The Puebla labor authorities were extremely 
open and appeared genuinely concerned with quickly reaching a 
negotiated settlement regarding which of the three competing 
unions would represent the workers at Vaqueros Navarra. 
 
¶7.  Notwithstanding the Puebla authorities, obvious desire 
to resolve the union representation question, it quickly 
became clear that they were equally (if not more) concerned 
with scrupulously following the letter of Mexican Federal 
Labor Law regarding the where, when and how of the union 
elections.  For example, as Mexican law does not require 
secret ballots in union elections, and two of the competing 
 
SIPDIS 
unions were strongly against them, the Puebla Secretary of 
Labor stated that he did not have the authority to impose 
this method of voting.  The Secretary and his staff also 
insisted that Mexican law mandated that the election take 
place at the factory with representatives from the company 
and all three competing unions present as the workers casts 
their votes. 
 
¶8.  With regard to selecting union representation, Mexican 
Federal Labor Law allows the workers at any company to change 
unions at any time whenever a majority of those workers 
petition to do so. In theory, this petition process is 
relatively simple. In practice, changing from one union to 
another is a contentious process during which coercive 
methods can and often are used to influence workers, votes. 
Credible accounts of systematic intimation by the company and 
two of the competing unions were presented to Mission 
Mexico,s Labor Counselor by current and recently fired 
Vaqueros Navarra workers during a trip to Puebla organized by 
a representative of the AFL-CIO,s Mexico City. During a 
subsequent visit to Puebla, Post,s Labor Counselor related 
these accounts to the state,s Labor Secretary, Lopez Malo, 
and his staff and received in return their assurances that 
once the election took place arrangements would be made to 
protect the workers and maintain the integrity of the union 
election. 
 
 
THE WORKERS FINALLY VOTE 
------------------------ 
 
¶9.  As a results of negotiations organized by Puebla,s labor 
authorities an agreement was reached to hold an election on 
November 23.  A representative for the September 19 union and 
Secretary Lopez Malo himself contacted Mission Labor 
 
SIPDIS 
Counselor and requested that he serve as a part of a team of 
election observers.  The other members of the team agreed to 
by all three unions were a representative from the Canadian 
 
MEXICO 00000324  003 OF 004 
 
 
based NGO Maquila Solidarity Network and one from the Mexican 
based NGO CEREAL. 
 
¶10.  The election itself was rigidly control by the Local 
Conciliation and Arbitration Board at the Vaqueros Navarra 
plant during normal working hours.  The Board reports to 
Labor Secretary Lopez Malo,s office and he had clearly 
instructed them to be on their best behavior.  His office 
also arranged for a detachment of state police to be present 
outside the factory to maintain order on election day.  The 
election took place at an extremely deliberate pace and the 
workers were required to cast their ballots in front of their 
employers, the three competing unions, numerous Board 
officials and the Team of observers. 
 
¶11.  To the credit of Board and Secretary Lopez Malo, state 
authorities ensured that all workers present who were legally 
entitled to vote, even those who had been recently laid off 
or fired, were allowed to do so.  Mexican law states that 
only those workers actually employed at the start of a labor 
dispute can participate in a union election.  The law states 
that even workers subsequently fired are entitled to vote and 
the Board officials allowed some 20-30 recently fired workers 
to enter the factory and cast their ballots.  This action 
occurred over the objections of the Vaqueros Navarra 
factory,s lawyer and the representatives of the CROM.  The 
final election results were:  September 19 Union ) 263 
votes; CROM ) 178 votes; CROC ) 3 votes. 
 
 
THE ELECTION WAS WON BUT THE BATTLE WAS PROBABLY LOSS 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
 
¶12.  Following the election post,s Labor Counselor met with 
the Board Officials and with some of the 178 workers who 
voted for the CROM.  The Board officials explained that the 
results of the election would not be made official for at 
least a week and probably more.  During that time any party 
in the election would be able to file formal objections 
and/or appeals regarding the election process.  Lawyers for 
both the CROM and the September 19 Union left no doubt that 
they planned to see each other in (Labor) court.  The CROC, 
which had been the official union of record, quietly accepted 
its defeat as gracefully as it could. 
 
¶13.  The legal arguments of the lawyers for the CROM and 
September 19 Union seemed fairly standard and great cause for 
being overly concerned.  What was troubling however were 
Labor Counselor,s conversations with some of the workers who 
voted for the CROM.   These workers repeatedly expressed 
their fears that the winning union would insist that they be 
fired.  They also alleged that in the lead up to the election 
they had be threaten and verbally abused by members of the 
September 19 union.  Labor Counselor encouraged the concerned 
workers and the CROM officials to immediately convey their 
fears and their version of events to the proper authorities. 
In a subsequent conversation with officials of the victorious 
September 19 union and the other members of the observer team 
Labor Counselor shared with them the concerns of the workers 
who voted for the CROM.  The September 19 union categorically 
denied the allegation.  However, the allegations and denials 
were no different than those made by them against the CROM 
and the CROC which were in turn categorically dismissed with 
equal vigor by post,s Labor Counselor specifically asked 
these two unions about the allegations. 
 
¶14.  In mid December Puebla,s labor authorities officially 
declared the September 19 union the winner of the Vaqueros 
Navarra election.  This declaration was followed almost 
immediately thereafter by the mass resignation of the 178 
workers who had voted for the CROM.  These employees claimed 
they feared for their safety now that the September 19 union 
was the legal representative of the Vaqueros Navarra workers. 
 At the same time, the entire Vaquero Navarra factory was 
&temporarily8 closed for what was supposed to be several 
weeks while the company awaited new orders.  When asked about 
this temporary closing by Mission Labor Counselor, the 
Vaquero Navarra factory,s lawyer replied that it was 
standard practice for the denim plant to close for about four 
weeks each year beginning in mid December.  However, when the 
four weeks pasted Vaqueros Navarra,s owners announced that 
no new orders had come in and they would probably be forced 
 
MEXICO 00000324  004 OF 004 
 
 
to permanently close the factory. 
 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶15.  It now seems clear that the September 19 union,s 
electoral triumph at the Vaqueros Navarra factory was a 
pyrrhic victory since it appears a certainty that the company 
will permanently close.  There is no doubt that the September 
19 Union was the preferred choice of the majority of the 
workers but their electoral victory was by no means a 
landside and a large minority of workers preferred to have 
the CROM as their union representative.  In the end the 
Vaqueros Navarra workers divided into two groups that were 
unable to cooperate with each other.  This situation was then 
followed by an announcement by the company,s owners that a 
lack of new orders is forcing them to permanently close the 
factory. 
 
¶16.  It is not entirely clear that this announcement by the 
owners is true since a major US clothing brand contacted 
Mission Labor Counselor directly in December to ask about the 
situation at Vaqueros Navarra.  The US brand did not 
specifically state an intention to send new orders to 
Vaqueros Navarra but clearly it was considering taking such 
an action.  It is certainly possible that no new orders ever 
arrived at the Vaqueros Navarra plant and the company,s 
owners may have had no choice other than to close the 
factory.  However, it is equally possible that they chose 
close the factory and send any new orders to one of their 
other businesses rather than deal with a sharply divided and 
then significantly reduced work force represented by a union 
they knew they could not control. 
 
 
Visit Mexico City's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/mexicocity and the North American 
Partnership Blog at http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/nap / 
GARZA