GOV DENIES LABOR CLAIMS OF EX-OIL WORKERS

C O N F I D E N T I A L CARACAS 002811

SIPDIS


NSC FOR CBARTON

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/12/2014
TAGS: ELAB PGOV PHUM ENRG VE
SUBJECT: GOV DENIES LABOR CLAIMS OF EX-OIL WORKERS

REF: A. CARACAS 1139


B. 03 CARACAS 3200

Classified By: Abelardo A. Arias, Political Counselor,
for Reasons 1.4(b) and (d).

--------------
Summary
--------------


1. (C) Venezuela's Minister of Labor rejected on August 31 a
petition to reinstate 14,000 ex-workers of Petroleos de
Venezuela (PDVSA) fired in the wake of the December 2002 -
January 2003 national strike. Minister of Labor Maria
Cristina Iglesias ruled the dismissals do not meet the legal
definition of "mass firing" under Venezuelan law. In
rejecting the petition, Iglesias said the striking workers
had imposed a disproportionate hardship on Venezuelan society
that outweighed the collective interests of the workers.
Representatives of the fired workers also accused the GOV of
ignoring International Labor Organization (ILO)
recommendations. The GOV argues that the dispute should be
addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than collectively.
Additionally, the GOV remains convinced that the fired
workers were, in fact, engaged in economic sabotage to
overthrow President Hugo Chavez during the strike, an
impediment to any equitable solution. End summary.

--------------
Labor Minister Denies It Was a "Mass Firing"
--------------


2. (U) Minister of Labor Maria Cristina Iglesias ruled August
31 that the 14,000 ex-workers of Petroleos de Venezuela
(PDVSA) fired during the December 2002 - January 2003 strike
were not dismissed in a "mass firing" as spelled out in
Venezuelan labor law. A "mass firing," defined as more than
10 percent of an employer's workforce, must be approved by
the Minister of Labor, who may reverse the dismissals if they
are deemed to be contrary to the "social interest." Although
the PDVSA firing constituted more than 40 percent of the
state-run oil company's workforce, Iglesias concluded that
the strike affected the quality of life of all Venezuelan
society, which the government is obligated to protect.
Minister Iglesias previously issued two similar decisions
encompassing an additional 6,000 employees of PDVSA
subsidiaries Intevep and Pequiven. Iglesias also argued that
the national strike did not comply with the requirements of
the labor code. Iglesias told reporters September 1 the
strike was, in fact, an attempt to overthrow President Hugo
Chavez against the will of Venezuelans.

--------------
Opposition Unions Claim Political Retaliation
--------------


3. (SBU) Venezuela Workers Confederation (CTV) Executive
Secretaries Alfredo Ramos and Pablo Castro criticized the

SIPDIS
decision September 1 as an instrument of political
retaliation. Ramos questioned whether the GOV's offer of
dialogue with the opposition can be considered sincere in
light of the Labor Minister's actions. Castro asserted that
the decision proves the rule of law is lost in Venezuela.
Castro defended the workers' decision to strike, calling it a
legitimate response to a GOV attack on the meritocracy that
ran PDVSA until President Chavez attempted to replace its
board with his sympathizers in 2002. Juan Fernandez, leader
of the organization of the fired workers, Gente de Petroleo,
told poloff September 1 his organization planned to reject
the decision. Fernandez said they would hold a series of
assemblies throughout Venezuela with the fired workers to
coordinate their strategy to resolve the dismissals.

--------------
An "Irreversible" Determination
--------------


4. (C) Iglesias said September 1 her decision was
"irreversible" though she left open the possibility that the
workers could appeal to the Administrative Policy Chamber of
the Supreme Court (TSJ). Carlos Alexis Castillo, Director
General in the Ministry of Labor, told reporters August 31
the workers may still pursue individual claims with local
labor inspectorates, adding that a Caracas-based inspector
had already processed (and denied) 100 individual petitions.
Ivan Gonzalez, head of the human rights office of the
Inter-American Regional Organization of Workers (ORIT),told

Poloff September 1 there is effectively no recourse to the
courts or inspectorates because the GOV controls these
institutions. He added that the TSJ declared the strike
illegal in December 2002, making a GOV settlement unlikely
from a legal perspective. Gonzalez asserted that the
re-incorporation of the fired workers is impossible, and
added that the workers' best hope is to be able to receive
legally mandated severance and pension payments as well as
the balances of their individual savings accounts still held
by PDVSA.

--------------
ILO Treaties, Recommendations Ignored
--------------


5. (C) The Labor Minister's decision flies in the face of
International Labor Organization (ILO) conventions 87 and 98,
according to Edgar Quijano, an ex-PDVSA manager and labor
advisor to UNAPETROL, the union formed by fired oil workers.
Quijano told poloff September 1 the decision also ignores
many ILO recommendations approved by the Governing Body in
June 2004 (ref a). ORIT's Gonzalez said the decision shows
the GOV will not apply ILO recommendations, preferring to
disagree with the international body's conclusions that the
December 2002 - January 2003 strike amounted to a national,
generalized strike. Juan Fernandez said he hoped these
issues would be investigated by the ILO direct contact
mission, which should take place in September or October if
the GOV permits.

--------------
Comment
--------------


6. (C) The Minister's decision got some media attention
because of the peculiar logic that the dismissal of 14,000
employees cannot legally be called a "mass firing." For the
Minister to have decided otherwise, however, would have meant
the immediate re-incorporation of the employees into PDVSA,
which is politically and logistically impossible. The GOV's
revolutionary orthodoxy considers the strike as an attempted
economic coup d'etat by the opposition -- an interpretation
not completely removed from the truth. Unfortunately, the
GOV's unwillingness to reach a collective settlement with the
workers has left them in legal limbo and in financial
distress. The GOV will continue its case-by-case approach of
coaxing a small number of people back to work on its terms
and will probably resist, or impose tight conditions on, the
ILO direct contact mission.
Brownfield


NNNN
2004CARACA02811 - CONFIDENTIAL