VI. THE PERSISTENT FAILURE OF THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE AND COMPLY WITH OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY LAWS WITH RESPECT TO AUTO TRIM AND CUSTOM TRIM/BREED MEXICANA: A LEGAL ANALYSIS

Mexico's STPS, IMSS, and SSA have persistently failed to enforce provisions of the Mexican Constitution, the Federal Labor Law (Ley Federal de Trabajo or "LFT"), the Federal Social Security Law (Ley de Seguro Social or "LSS"), the Federal Health Law (Ley General de Salud or "LGS"), the Official Mexican Health and Safety Norms ("NOM"), and the Federal Regulations on Health, Safety and Environment in the Workplace ("RFSH") with respect to Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana. Mexico's failure to enforce its occupational health and safety laws violates its obligations under the NAALC. See §II(B), supra. The failure by the Mexican government to enforce occupational health and safety laws also violates its obligations under international treaties and declarations, including ILO Conventions 155, 161, and 170, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ("ICESCR"), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, and the Treaty of San Salvador.

As a result of the failure by the STPS, IMSS, and SSA to enforce health and safety laws, many workers and former workers at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana suffer work-related illnesses and accidents, and both plants continue to operate with serious deficiencies, which pose ongoing risks to worker health and safety.

A. STPS Has Persistently Failed to Enforce Occupational Health and Safety Laws and Regulations

The STPS is responsible for enforcing the LFT, which includes significant occupational health and safety requirements intended to promote safe working conditions and minimize the risk of injury and illnesses. In addition, the STPS is responsible for enforcing the RFSH⁽¹²⁴⁾ and NOMS-STPS, legal regulations and standards designed to help implement the LFT.

The LFT, RFSH, and NOMS-STPS establish procedures by which government authorities must ensure compliance with occupational health and safety mandates. These procedures include conducting on-site inspections to determine whether workplaces adhere to Mexico's occupational health and safety laws, and requiring non-compliant workplaces to undertake corrective measures or face legal sanctions. With regard to Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana, the STPS has persistently failed to enforce or itself comply with the provisions set out in the LFT, RFSH, (and prior to enactment of the RFSH, persistently failed to enforce the RGSH), and NOMS.⁽¹²⁵⁾

1. STPS has persistently failed to conduct legally mandated inspections

The LFT contemplates workplace inspections as a principal means by which the STPS can carry out its responsibility of ensuring compliance with Mexico's labor laws. Through inspections, STPS can exercise its power to investigate compliance with health and safety standards, collect evidence regarding compliance or non-compliance, make recommendations or compel corrective measures, and make official findings leading to possible sanctions against an employer. See, e.g., LFT Articles 516, 540-542.⁽¹²⁶⁾ The NAALC similarly emphasizes the importance of on-site government inspections in monitoring and verifying compliance with health and safety laws, and in initiating remedies or sanctions. See NAALC article 3.

LFT articles 512 and 512-D explain that an employer must take corrective measures ordered by labor authorities to comply with Mexico's health and safety laws and regulations. If such modifications are not made, the STPS shall impose monetary sanctions.⁽¹²⁷⁾ Id.

Indicative of the central role given inspections in the enforcement of Mexico's labor laws, the LFT makes it a specific obligation of inspectors to carry out these inspections, both in the course of their normal duties, and in response to complaints originating from a given workplace. LFT Article 542, paragraphs II and III. Failure by an inspector to fulfill the obligations of paragraphs II (periodic inspections of businesses and workplaces) and III (extraordinary inspections in response to complaints) of Article 542 are among the causes made explicit by the LFT for sanctioning an inspector with warnings, suspensions, or ultimate dismissal. See Article 547.⁽¹²⁸⁾ The STPS fails its specific mission under the LFT if inspections are not conducted on a regular basis and in response to specific complaints.

The LFT provides legal norms for the execution of workplace inspections. See Articles 542-544, in conjunction with Articles 509 and 511. Both the spirit and letter of the law require transparency of the inspecting authority, as well as the input and participation of both employers and workers in any inspection. The LFT requires the formation of joint worker-employer health and safety commissions at industrial work sites, and an inspector should logically deal with or recommend the formation of such joint commissions during an inspection. See Article 509. The inspector is obligated to collaborate with the workers and the employer in the diffusion of information about occupational health and safety standards concerning the prevention of workplace illnesses and injuries. Article 511. The law requires inspectors to identify themselves and present their credentials to both workers and employers when making an on-site inspection. Article 542. The law prohibits inspectors from representing or patronizing either workers or employers in a conflict. Article 544. Moreover, the LFT requires an official report or findings to be made following an inspection. The report should be drawn up with the intervention of workers and the employer, and a copy of the report is to be given to the parties involved (workers and employer). Article 542, paragraph IV, Article 511, paragraph II.

In the present case, the STPS has failed to carry out its legal responsibilities for workplace inspections at the AutoTrim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana maquiladoras. This failure amounts to a failure to adequately enforce Mexico's labor laws. The evidence suggests that the STPS has never carried out "periodic" inspections as required by the LFT articles 540-542.⁽¹²⁹⁾

If periodic inspections were ever conducted, they were ineffective and legally deficient, since they were not conducted according to the applicable legal norms. Workers do not recall speaking with or being contacted by STPS inspectors. Former workers at Auto Trim do recall one occasion when plant managers told them that STPS would conduct an inspection the following day. Before the inspection, supervisors told workers to hide glues and solvents. The plant ceased operations for one day. One day later, the plant reopened. Workers do not really know whether an inspection was conducted or why the plant was temporarily closed. However, workers do report that, if STPS did indeed conduct an inspection that day, it did not result in any change or improvement in the workplace. If inspections were conducted, none of the information gathered nor any subsequent reports were made available to the workers,⁽¹³⁰⁾ in violation of LFT articles 511 and 542.

Upon information and belief, STPS has also failed to undertake extraordinary plant inspections as required by LFT article 542, paragraph III. This provision obligates STPS inspectors to carry out extraordinary inspections when a complaint has been filed alleging occupational health and safety violations. Complaints to the STPS were made on May 19, 1998 and April 15, 1999 by workers at AutoTrim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana. These complaints alleged numerous violations of law, and described work-related injuries and illnesses suffered by plant employees. See Appendix I.

Upon information and belief, STPS made no inspection in response to those complaints, nor was any other response given to the workers. See §V(G), supra. See, also Affidavits K, M, and V. Again, even if inspections were made in response to the complaints - and it remains doubtful whether any actually took place - the norms for conducting those inspections were violated by not involving workers and complainants in the inspection and by failing to provide them a copy of any report of findings.⁽¹³¹⁾ This failure to respond adequately to specific workers' complaints represents a willful disregard on the part of the Mexican authorities to enforce the country's labor laws regarding occupational health and safety standards.

2. STPS has persistently failed to issue orders for corrective measures or sanctions

LFT Article 512 and 512D authorize the STPS to issue orders requiring employers to take measures to correct health and safety violations in the workplace. These articles also require the STPS to sanction employers who refuse to comply with such orders. Articles 992, 994-V and 1002, requires the imposition of monetary sanctions. Similarly, LFT article 541, §§V and VI direct the STPS to issue recommendations and orders to correct defects in work installations and work methods which constitute violations of the law, the RFSH, or the NOMS, or pose danger to the health and safety of workers. Article 541 §VI further requires the STPS to order immediate preventive measures in case of imminent danger. RFSH articles provide additional legal basis for the STPS to issue corrective orders. RFSH articles 164-168 specify the monetary sanctions the STPS should impose on employers for violations. LFT article 512D authorizes the STPS to order partial or total closure of non-compliant workplaces.

Numerous violations of Mexico's health and safety laws and regulations have persisted at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana for years. These include the plants' failure to:

1. Report workplace injuries and illnesses;

2. Provide appropriate referral, treatment and compensation for work-related injuries and illnesses;

3. Institute workplace health and safety commissions and programs;

4. Offer information and training about dangers posed by chemicals and the sewing process, and ways to minimize such risks;

5. Implement chemical monitoring;

6. Issue appropriate personal protective equipment;

7. Install and maintain adequate ventilation and exhaust systems;

8. Develop emergency preparedness measures; and

9. Redesign the work process to minimize risks.

The ongoing existence of these violations indicates that the STPS has persistently failed to enforce appropriate corrective measures or impose sanctions, as required by Mexican law. Such persistent failure also violates the NAALC, in particular article 3, which emphasizes the need to initiate timely proceedings to seek appropriate sanctions or remedies for violations of labor law.

3. STPS has persistently failed to enforce laws regarding the reporting of and referral, treatment, and compensation for work-related injuries and illnesses

The STPS shares responsibility with the IMSS for enforcing laws and regulations governing reporting of, referral for, treatment, and payment of appropriate compensation for work-related injuries and illnesses. The STPS has persistently failed to enforce such laws with respect to Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana. This persistent failure also constitutes a violation of the NAALC, in particular articles 1 and 3, and Annex I (10).

LFT article 132 §XVII obligates employers to advise the appropriate authorities of each workplace accident. Article 504 §V requires employers to provide written notification of a workplace accident to the STPS within 72 hours. Notification must include: Name and address of the company; name and address of the worker as well as his or her position and salary; time and place of the accident; name and address of any witnesses to the accident; and place where medical attention was provided. See also RFSH articles 127-128; NOM-021-STPS.

LFT articles 132 §§XVII and XIX, 504 §I, and RFSH article 148 require employers to maintain, at the workplace, medicines and other necessary curative materials (material de curación) to provide first-aid. Under article 487, workers who suffer work-related injuries and illnesses have the right to appropriate medical and surgical intervention, rehabilitation, hospitalization, medicines and treatment, orthopedic devices, and financial indemnization. Article 506 establishes that doctors at workplaces must certify that a worker who suffered a workplace injury or illness is ready to return to work and issue an opinion regarding the degree of disability. LFT articles 476-499 and 513 set out formulations for determining degrees of incapacity and the legally-required compensation for such incapacities.

The STPS's persistent failure to enforce these provisions at AutoTrim and Custom Trim/ Breed Mexicana has resulted in numerous legal violations, and significant harm to plant workers. These include:

• Failure by Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana to report work-related accidents and illnesses to STPS and to IMSS (see, e.g., Affidavits B, L, and Q, Interview O);

• Failure by Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana to stock appropriate medicines and supplies to provide first aid treatment (see e.g., Affidavits B, K, L, and Q);

• Failure by Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana doctors to make referrals to IMSS doctors for examination and treatment (see, e.g., Affidavits B, C, L, Q, and R);

• Failure to properly qualify and value disabilities leading to workers receiving less disability compensation than that which they are legally due or none at all.

⁽¹³²⁾

4. STPS has persistently failed to ensure the existence of properly-functioning workplace health and safety committees and health and safety plans

LFT Article 509 requires workplaces to establish joint health and safety committees composed of an equal number of worker representatives and employer representatives. See also RFSH Articles 123-126; NOM-019-STPS-1993; Acuerdo por el cual se modifica la norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-019-STPS-1993.⁽¹³³⁾ These committees must be created within thirty days after an establishment opens for business or after the RFSH came into effect, and must be registered with the STPS. RFSH art. 125. Health and safety committees are to carry out their duties during work hours. LFT article 510. Duties include investigating and reporting workplace accidents and illnesses, proposing measures by which to prevent risks, ensuring that such measures are enforced, and monitoring compliance with the RFSH and the NOMs. NOM-019-STPS-1993. The health and safety commissions are required to file periodic reports with STPS.

Several former employees reported that safety and health committees were nominally established at Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana and Auto Trim, but failed to comply with their legally-prescribed duties. According to these employees, the committees rarely met, did not adequately (if at all) investigate or report workplace injuries and illnesses, did not monitor the companies' compliance with the NOMS and the RFSH, and had no meaningful opportunity to propose effective preventive measures to management. See, e.g., Affidavits C, L, R, W, and V, Interview E. Other former employees of both plants reported to the submitters that the health and safety committees appeared to be completely non-existent. In addition, workers state that when such committees were established, they were under upper management orders, and reluctant to conduct meaningful inspections or offer substantive recommendations to improve health and safety conditions. See Affidavit L and Interview E. Some workers state that when health and safety reports were prepared to submit to STPS, management had an extra sheet in the back of the document for workers' signatures; and that once workers signed the signature sheet, management modified the report in order to show no risks to workers' health and safety. An Auto Trim worker who participated in the plant's health and safety commission explained that:

Auto Trim's health and safety commission ("comísíon mixta") did not work. It did not monitor the plant's health conditions. The most the commission did was make sure that there was no garbage, that fire extinguishers were there, and that the emergency doors weren't locked.

I offered ideas about how to improve health and safety conditions at the plant that I had learned from workshops organized by independent occupational health and safety experts (not affiliated with Auto Trim). I attended these workshops; for example, I learned about Mexican health and safety NOMs. I told Auto Trim's environmental engineer that I thought that the NOMs contained many rules that should be followed by the plant. I said that the commission should get involved in seeing that the plant complied with the health and safety NOMs.

The engineer told me that the health and safety commission was not supposed to have anything to do with the NOMs. The commission did not educate workers about the NOMs or the legal rights of workers to good health and safety conditions. The commission did not educate workers about the risks they faced at Auto Trim, and did not train workers how to reduce risk. See Interview E.

The worker continued:

I believe that the major goal of Auto Trim's environmental engineer was that each commission member sign the monthly health and safety report that had to be submitted to STPS. The people who wrote the health and safety reports would take care not to mention workers' illnesses, injuries, or symptoms. They would also make promises about improvements that would be made, but they did not follow through with those promises. Sometimes we would tell plant management to take specific corrective measures, but they didn't do anything.

Sometimes we did not agree with what the reports said and did not want to sign. People from the plant's management would visit us individually to have us sign the health and safety reports to file with STPS. If we didn't want to sign, they would pressure us by saying that everybody else had signed, even if that was not true.

Some of us workers tried to convince the Auto Trim managers that we needed good exhaust systems ("extractores") because of the concentration of vapors from glues and solvents. In the beginning we had no extractores at all. After a lot of pressure, we did get some extractores. But, they often did not work at all; in any case, they were never strong enough to dissipate the vapors. The managers said it was impossible to get exhaust systems to get rid of the vapors. Id.

Another worker stated: "A health and safety commission does exist, but it is worthless. I don't want to participate in it - for what? - it doesn't do anything that makes our conditions better." Affidavit W.

The RFSH also requires employers, with the assistance of workplace health and safety commissions, to develop written plant safety and health programs. RFSH articles 130-141. Such programs must include a written description of existing health and safety risks, and the development and implementation of a written training plan, on at least an annual basis, to educate workers about these risks and ways to prevent them. In addition, plants which use chemicals must establish health and safety plans specifically geared to reduce harm from chemicals. RFSH art. 1355. See also LFT 153F, §111, NOM-STPS-05-1993. Worker reports from both Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana indicate that written health and safety plans were either never developed or at least never disseminated widely among the workforce. See Affidavits B and K, Interview E.

The absence of effective health and safety commissions and plans at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana is yet another example of the lack of legally-required oversight, verification, and preventive mechanisms at both plants, and the failure of STPS to enforce Mexican laws designed to maximize compliance with workplace health and safety regulations.

5. STPS's failure to enforce Mexico's occupational health and safety laws has resulted in violations by Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana with respect to the use of chemicals, glues, and solvents, and has caused harm to workers' health and safety

Workers at Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana and Auto Trim suffer symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic substances. See §V(C)(4)(c), supra. These include: chronic skin and eye irritations, dermatitis, rashes, peeling of the hands and nails, sores on and inflammation of the hands, headaches, nausea, dizziness, short-term memory loss and other central nervous system symptoms, fainting, respiratory problems, sore throats, nasal congestion, itching and bloody noses; sores in the mouth and on the tongue, dryness of the throat, and coughing. Miscarriages, stillbirths, and birth defects are uncommonly high. Id.

Mexican law obligates employers to undertake measures to safeguard workers from hazardous effects posed by chemical substances. RFSH articles 2, 13, 64-75, 83-84, 93-94, 99-103, 123-152. NOM-009-STPS-1993, in effect until April 3, 1999, provided that employers must protect workers from the risk of intoxication and irritation by establishing safe and healthy conditions for the handling and storage of toxic and irritating substances. NOM-009-STPS §3.1.F, for example, mandated that employers should substitute less hazardous substances for harmful chemicals to minimize risk. See also ILO Convention 170. NOM-009-STPS §3.1.H similarly required employers to introduce modifications in the work process to reduce risk from contaminants.⁽¹³⁴⁾

NOM-010-STPS directs employers to establish measures to prevent harm to employees from chemicals, and improve conditions in workplaces where chemicals are handled and stored.

Information provided by current and former employees at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana demonstrates that both plants failed to take measures required by Mexican law to reduce harm to workers from toxic and corrosive chemicals. Upon information and belief, neither plant has made serious efforts to substitute safer substances for those used in the production process, and as described below, neither plant has undertaken alternative preventive measures prescribed by law. The Submitters argue that the persistent failure by the STPS to enforce these laws has allowed serious violations to continue at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana which have caused harm to the health and safety of the plants' employees. The persistent failure to enforce these laws also constitutes an abrogation of Mexico's obligations under the NAALC and other international agreements.

a. Failure to inform and train workers about the health risks caused by exposure to those chemicals, the chemicals they use, and violations of workers' "right-to-know"

Mexican law includes provisions which require employers to inform workers generally of work-related risks (see, e.g., RFSH 15 and 135), and train them how to minimize work-related injuries and illnesses. See, e.g., LFT article 132 XV and XVI; LFT articles 153A, 153F, and 153M; NOM-009-STPS-1993 and its successor NOM-005-STPS-1998 § 5.

Mexican law additionally imposes special obligations on employers to inform and train workers in plants where chemicals are used and stored. RFSH article 15 emphasizes the particular importance of informing employees of hazards associated with the use or exposure to chemicals in the workplace, and of training them in procedures to prevent and control these risks. See also NOM-005-STPS-1998 and its predecessor NOM-009-STPS-1993.⁽¹³⁵⁾ RFSH article 55 requires employers to disseminate written information about hazardous materials used in the workplace as part of the health and safety program that employers must develop. See id. RFSH article 62 provides that employers must ensure that hazardous materials are identified by type and by degree of risk, and must communicate to each worker the preventive and corrective measures that must be observed in their handling and storing. NOM-114-STPS mandates that employers inform workers of the identity of particular toxic chemicals used in the workplace and their dangers; this provision includes the chemicals used at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana. Proper labeling of chemicals and dissemination of material data safety sheets to workers are required by RFSH art. 63, NOM-114-STPS, and ILO Convention 170.⁽¹³⁶⁾

Workers at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana typically are not even provided basic information such as the identity of the chemicals used at the plants and their health risks.⁽¹³⁷⁾ In fact, requests by former Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana workers to know the names and components of hazardous materials being used led to reprimands, and in some cases, firing.⁽¹³⁸⁾ Material data safety sheets are not readily made available to workers. Similarly, workers are not generally provided with training in the proper handling of chemicals.⁽¹³⁹⁾

The failure of Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana to provide information about chemicals used and the health risks they pose, and training to permit workers to carry out their duties under optimal health and safety conditions constitute serious breaches of Mexican law. The STPS's persistent failure to enforce the laws has allowed these violations to continue unchecked.

b. Failure to comply with regulations governing temperature and ventilation

The STPS's persistent lack of enforcement has allowed Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana to continue to ignore obligations to provide temperature control, ventilation, and exhaust systems adequate to protect worker health. RFSH articles 93 and 94 require employers to elaborate a health and safety program in workplaces where temperature conditions can adversely affect worker health. RFSH 99 and 100 obligate employers to provide and maintain well-functioning ventilation systems, given specific workplace needs.⁽¹⁴⁰⁾ NOM-016-STPS, in effect through February 12, 2000, similarly required employers to maintain ventilation systems sufficient to reduce risks to worker health and safety posed by exposure to chemicals.⁽¹⁴¹⁾ See also ILO Convention 170, article 13.

Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana have consistently violated these provisions. Employees report that there are no windows in the production areas, that the air conditioning system is either low or off, and that the plants lack proper systems to dissipate or eliminate vapors. The air extractors or aspirator tubes placed near work stations are too weak to aspirate vapors effectively, frequently break down, or do not function at all.⁽¹⁴²⁾

c. Lack of adequate personal protective equipment to safeguard workers from risks caused by chemicals

STPS's persistent lack of enforcement has allowed Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana to continue to breach the duty to provide adequate personal protective equipment in violation of RFSH 101, as well as NOM-009-STPS (effective until April 3, 1999), §§ 3.1.1(E), 3.1.2(D), NOM-010-STPS §10, and NOM-017-STPS-1993 §§ 3.1.A, B, C, and D, and NOM-005-STPS-1998 §5.9, effective until April 3, 1999. These provisions require employers to provide appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce health and safety risks. See also ILO conventions 155, 161, and 170.

At Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana, PPE to reduce harm from exposure to chemicals should include well-made chemical-resistant gloves and aprons, carbon-based masks or personal respirators, and safety goggles. Workers have testified that they either are not provided any personal protective equipment at all, or that the equipment is inadequate.

Workers frequently handle glues and solvents with their bare hands.⁽¹⁴³⁾ Although plant managers sometimes distribute gloves made of cloth or thin rubber or plastic, such gloves do not adequately protect workers from the effects of solvents; the gloves disintegrate when in contact with solvents such as Loctite and Varsol.⁽¹⁴⁴⁾ To provide sufficient protection, gloves must be chemical-resistant. Similarly, the plant should issue chemical-resistant aprons to cover workers' clothing. As added protection, the plants should provide clothing for employees to wear only at work.⁽¹⁴⁵⁾

Carbon-based masks or respirators for each worker should also be provided, because of the contamination caused by the substantial accumulation of toxic vapors and the lack of adequate ventilation and exhaust systems to eliminate them. Although the maquiladoras sometimes provide the workers with dust masks, dust masks offer no protection against toxic vapors. Personal respirators of high-caliber, or two-layered good quality carbon filter masks covering the mouth and nose can reduce inhalation of dangerous vapors. For such devices to be effective, the plants must institute a regular program of training and maintenance. The plants' failure to provide appropriate respirators violates NOM-116-STPS which establishes detailed instructions for employers on the proper use and maintenance of respirators, filters, and masks.

RFSH article 101 and ILO Convention 170, article 13.1.f clearly state that where the employer is unable to maintain appropriate ventilation and exhaust systems for "technical reasons," the employer must provide workers the personal protective equipment necessary to maintain a safe and healthy work environment. Reports from workers at both plants make it clear that proper ventilation and exhaust systems do not exist.⁽¹⁴⁶⁾ Despite the lack of adequate exhaust and ventilation systems, workers are not provided necessary well-functioning personal protective equipment, such as carbon-based masks or respirators.⁽¹⁴⁷⁾

Similarly, workers at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana are not provided adequate protection from eye irritation and injury caused by exposure to chemicals. Hermetic goggles are best suited to protect eyes from toxic vapors. To avoid impeding vision, goggles must be scratch-resistant.

d. Improper storage of chemicals

Workers at both plants report that chemicals, glues, and solvents are often stored on the production floor in open and unmarked or improperly labeled containers, and that rags and mops used by workers to clean up chemical spills are sometimes left in the open.⁽¹⁴⁸⁾ Such practices violated NOM-009-STPS and NOM-010-STPS, and now violate NOM-005-STPS, which require the employer to provide for proper storage, handling and disposal of chemicals, and to minimize exposure of workers to toxic substances. See also RFSH articles 2, 54-75. Hermetically-sealed safety containers to store chemicals and disposing materials used to clean spills should be adopted to comply with regulations mandating safe storage and disposal of chemicals.

e. The plants' failure to implement chemical monitoring and reporting, and medical testing of workers exposed to chemicals

STPS has persistently failed to enforce LFT article 132, §XVI and ILO Convention No. 170, articles 12, 13.2.a, ILO Convention 155, articles 5a,11, 12, 16 and ILO Convention No. 161, article 5, and NOM-005-STPS-1998 §5.17 at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana. These provisions require the prevention of dangerous levels of contamination, and exposure of workers to harmful chemical concentrations in the workplace. One principal means of prevention is to institute environmental monitoring. Mexican law requires employers to monitor contaminants in the workplace and report their findings to the STPS. RFSH article 17, §IV. NOMS-010-STPS and -037 through 099-STPS establish detailed requirements for determining whether permissible levels have been exceeded. As an additional means of preventing worker exposure to dangerous levels of contamination, Mexican law also requires employers to establish medical testing for workers in plants where potentially harmful chemicals are used. See RFSH article 83.

Based on interviews with current and former workers, the Submitters believe that Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana have persistently violated laws which require employers to assess, monitor, and report levels of contaminants in the workplace, and undertake periodic medical testing of workers.

f. Lack of emergency preparedness measures in case of chemical spills or fire

Mexican law requires employers to develop comprehensive health and safety plans, including procedures to follow in the event of workplace emergencies. See, e.g., LFT article 509; RFSH articles 130-141; NOMS-009 and -010-STPS before April 3, 1999, and -005-STPS, effective April 3, 1999. The RFSH and NOMs also contain specific provisions which obligate employers to develop procedures to prevent, provide protection from, and combat fires. RFSH articles 26-28; NOM-002-STPS.

Workers at both Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana have asserted that they have not been informed of any safety or evacuation plan in case of a serious chemical spill. Similarly, workers have not been trained in proper clean-up techniques. In addition, workers have not been informed of any plan to respond to fire. A former worker at Custom Trim described a chemical fire that occurred at a work station. The water-based fire extinguishers provided by Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana did not put out the fire, and actually made it worse. Workers finally put out the fire by smothering it. Although the fire produced additional vapors, there was no evacuation at all, not even a partial evacuation from the particular work area where the fire took place.⁽¹⁴⁹⁾

The failure by Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana to implement plans for emergency situations such as large chemical spills or fire, and educate workers with respect to those plans constitute significant violations of Mexican occupational health and safety laws.

6. STPS's persistent failure to enforce Mexico's occupational health and safety laws has resulted in violations by Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana related to the sewing and trimming processes and has caused harm to workers' general health and safety

The sewing and trimming process at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana was designed with insufficient consideration to the health and safety of workers. Poor job design and failure to adopt measures to minimize harm have caused many workers to suffer painful and often permanently disabling conditions, including musculo-skeletal disorders, Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, and persistent face, neck, wrist, arm, shoulder, and back pain, serious cuts and gashes. The failure of Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana and Auto Trim to provide safer conditions for workers engaged in the sewing and trimming processes violates the following provisions of Mexican law, which STPS has failed to enforce: Article 123 Part A, Sections III, XIV, XV and XVI of the Mexican Constitution; LFT Article 512-D, Fr. XVII and LFT Article 132 Fr. XVII; RFSH, Articles 1, 2, 8, and 15, 17, 101, 102, 135-137, 140, 141, 151; NOM-021-STPS, Section 3.1.1.E and NOM-017-STPS, Section 3.1.A, B, C, and D. See also ILO Conventions 155 and 161.

a. Failure to design jobs to minimize disabilities caused by the sewing, stretching, and trimming processes

Mexican law requires employers to adopt measures to make work processes safer for employees. See generally Mexican Constitution, article 123(a) §XV; LFT article 132 §XVI. The RFSH spells out specific steps employers must take with regard to ergonomic conditions.⁽¹⁵⁰⁾ RFSH article 2, §V provides that the workplace ergonomics be designed to prevent accidents and illnesses. RFSH article 102, entitled "Ergonomics," requires that STPS to help ensure that employers "take into account ergonomic aspects [in the workplace] with the goal of preventing work-related accidents and illnesses." See also NOM-004-STPS (providing that employers establish work systems and use equipment designed to protect employees from workplace risks).

Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana have failed to design a workplace that takes into consideration basic ergonomic principles. The STPS has persistently failed to require the plants to adopt appropriate ergonomic measures to reduce workplace injuries and illnesses. The sewing process at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana includes multiple risk factors which cause or contribute to musculo-skeletal disorders (MSSA) and related injuries.⁽¹⁵¹⁾ These risk factors include force, awkward posture, static posture, repetition, type of motion, and compression. Additional modifying factors exacerbate the effects of the basic risk factors.⁽¹⁵²⁾ At both plants, harmful modifying factors include: intensity, duration, and inadequate recovery time. See detailed discussion in §V(C)(5), supra. The sewing and trimming processes used at both plants also increase the risk that workers will suffer serious cuts and gashes. Id.

In sum, by failing to take reasonable measures to improve ergonomics and, thereby, reduce the risk of injury related to the sewing process, Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana have violated numerous Mexican laws and regulations. The persistent failure of the Mexican government to enforce these laws and regulations constitutes a serious violation of the NAALC.

b. Failure to inform and train workers about dangers related to the sewing process and how to reduce risk

RFSH articles 15 and 135 require employers to inform workers of work-related risks, develop appropriate preventive programs, and train workers to undertake measures to control and prevent occupational hazards. See also RFSH articles 150 and 151 regarding "preventive services for safety and health in the workplace." LFT article 132, §XV obligates employers to provide training to workers. LFT article 153F, §III specifically mandates that employers train workers about preventive and safety measures to avoid work-related injuries.

Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana have violated the LFT and RFSH by failing to inform workers about the ergonomic risks inherent in the sewing process, and failing to train workers about steps that could be taken to minimize such risks. For its part, the STPS has persistently failed to enforce the applicable legal provisions, thereby allowing the plants to continue to violate the law.

As one worker put it:

The only training we got came from our co-workers who showed us how to use the sewing tools... and the solvents... and how to sew the leather onto the gear shift knobs.⁽¹⁵³⁾

The information received by the Submitters indicates that workers at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana were not informed by their employers that the sewing processes currently in place at the plants could cause musculo-skeletal damage and serious cuts and gashes. Nor were they told of alternative ergonomic processes, such as those described in §VI (A)(6)(a), supra, that could be instituted to reduce risk. Similarly, workers were not trained to undertake conditioning, strengthening and stretching exercises which could reduce musculo-skeletal disorders. Workers were also not informed about or provided personal protective equipment that could diminish the risk of musculo-skeletal problems, cuts, and gashes.

B. Persistent Failure by IMSS to Enforce Laws and Regulations Regarding Work Related Injuries and Illnesses

The IMSS is responsible for overseeing employer compliance with Mexico's Ley de Seguro Social or Social Security Law ("LSS"). See LSS arts. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. The LSS also establishes that IMSS is obligated to provide medical attention, hospitalization, prostheses and orthopedic equipment, rehabilitation and appropriate disability benefits to injured or ill workers.⁽¹⁵⁴⁾ In addition, IMSS is authorized by the LSS to conduct investigations and studies of work-related health and safety risks in conjunction with the STPS aimed at establishing health and safety programs for the prevention of work-related accidents and illnesses. See LSS 81. These joint investigations by IMSS and STPS include plant inspections, verification that employers properly report workplace injuries and accidents and permit workers to obtain prompt medical attention, and ensure the existence of training and preventive programs for the reduction of work place injuries.⁽¹⁵⁵⁾ The IMSS has persistently failed to enforce the LSS and its relevant regulations at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana.

1. IMSS has persistently failed to conduct plant inspections and investigations

Article 15 §V of the LSS authorizes the IMSS to conduct workplace inspections, and obligates employers to allow on-site inspections. See also LSS arts. 81, 82, and 83. When a worker requests treatment for a work-related illness or injury, or to be placed on work-related disability, IMSS is required to investigate the workplace conditions which gave rise to the request. See, e.g., RSM art. 24. The IMSS has failed to conduct investigations at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana even though IMSS personnel know that working conditions at the plants pose health and safety risks. A considerable number of workers have sought treatment and disability payments for workplace illnesses or accidents. See affidavits and interviews attached at Appendix II. However, IMSS has failed to follow up with investigations pursuant to RSM art. 24. Workers and former workers of both plants also filed a petition with IMSS requesting workplace inspections.⁽¹⁵⁶⁾

For all these reasons, IMSS was on notice that serious health and safety risks existed at both plants, and, by law, should have conducted plant investigations and inspections. Had IMSS done so, the Mexican government could have then insisted that the plants comply with Mexican occupational health and safety laws, and undertaken appropriate enforcement measures. Despite the knowledge that workplace accidents and illnesses repeatedly occurred at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana and the legal duty to investigate and inspect, IMSS persistently failed to conduct investigations and inspection at the plants.

2. IMSS has persistently failed to enforce laws requiring employers to report promptly and accurately work-related injuries and illnesses, and to authorize workers to receive necessary medical attention

a. IMSS failed to enforce laws requiring employees to report work-related injuries and illnesses to IMSS

Article 51 of the LSS obligates employers to notify IMSS of every work-related accident or injury. Although IMSS is required to assure compliance with the LSS, IMSS has persistently failed to require Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana to report work-related injuries and illnesses to IMSS.

Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana have repeatedly failed to notify IMSS of work related injuries and, in some cases, appear to have concealed them purposely in violation of LSS article 52.⁽¹⁵⁷⁾ Employers are required to inform IMSS within 24 hours that a worker has suffered or been exposed to an occupational health and safety risk, as defined by RSM Art. 13.I.⁽¹⁵⁸⁾ In addition, LSS article 52 establishes that employers who conceal workers' work accidents shall be subjected to sanctions. See also LSS art. 304; Reglamento para la imposicion de Multas por Infracción a las Disposiciones de la Ley del Seguro Social y sus Reglamentos (Regulations for the Imposition of Fines for Violation of the Social Security Rules and its Regulations)[hereinafter "Regulations for the Imposition of Fines"], art. 6 §XII. IMSS has known or reasonably should have known that AutoTrim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana were failing to make required reports for several reasons. First, workers themselves often reported work-related accidents and illnesses to IMSS that the plants had failed to report. Second, on at least one occasion, the IMSS was formally notified in writing about the underreporting, as well as the refusal of Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana to fill out MT-1 accident reports for submission to IMSS.⁽¹⁵⁹⁾

Despite IMSS's knowledge of under-reporting by Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana, IMSS has persistently failed to enforce Mexican laws requiring employers to report occupational injuries and illnesses to IMSS. IMSS also failed to investigate workers' complaints about Auto Trim and Custom Trim underreporting, as required by art. 10 of the Regulations for the Imposition of Fines.

b. IMSS failed to enforce laws requiring employers to respect workers' rights to receive medical attention and appropriate disability payments

The plants' frequent failure to report workplace injuries and illnesses in turn interferes with the right of workers to receive medical attention and disability compensation from IMSS as established by LSS Arts. 56-67. In order for workers to receive IMSS benefits, such as treatment and compensation for work-related injuries and illnesses, an employer must report the accident or illness to IMSS and fill out the appropriate forms (MT-1 accident report forms). The workers must then present these forms to IMSS to get medical attention and qualify for disability benefits.⁽¹⁶⁰⁾ Supervisors at both Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana often declined to sign MT-1 forms in instances of work-related injuries and illnesses, making it difficult for workers to seek treatment and disability payments. See, e.g., Affidavits B, L, V, and Interview D. On other occasions when workers had to take temporary sick leave because they were too ill or injured to work, company personnel would designate the reason for the leave as general or non-work-related, even when the evidence strongly indicated that the disability was work-related.⁽¹⁶¹⁾ This meant workers would receive lower temporary disability payments than mandated by LSS article 58 §I and LSS article 98.⁽¹⁶²⁾

It is typical practice at both plants that a worker who is ill or injured reports his or her illness or injury to the floor supervisor. The supervisor then decides whether the worker should see the company nurse. If the worker is permitted to see the nurse, and the nurse believes that further medical attention is warranted, she must ask permission from the floor supervisor or the company doctor to make an appointment with an IMSS doctor. If an appointment is allowed, the nurse then calls IMSS to schedule an appointment. However, IMSS will typically see workers only at specific times, usually during the workday. Appointments can be hard to get, and would often require workers to take time off from work. Workers often are unable to go to these appointments, because they fear being fired if they miss work. Thus, they are frequently unable to obtain necessary medical treatment.⁽¹⁶³⁾ Sometimes supervisors refused to authorize referrals for treatment altogether, and instead instructed workers to sit in the infirmary or the cafeteria, or return to work without being referred for medical attention.

3. IMSS personnel themselves persistently failed to properly diagnose and treat work-related illnesses and injuries, and to properly valorize compensation due to workers for their on-going work-related disabilities

a. Failure by IMSS personnel to provide proper diagnosis and treatment

LSS Article 2 states that the main objective of the IMSS is to "guarantee the right to health." One way to guarantee this right is by providing necessary medical intervention. Yet, IMSS and its medical personnel persistently fail to provide necessary diagnosis and treatment to workers employed by Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana.

IMSS doctors are required to diagnose accurately and treat work-related illnesses and injuries. LSS art. 24. IMSS is responsible for its doctors' actions or omissions. RSM article 6 states that IMSS will share responsibility in all cases with doctors and other IMSS personnel with respect to the diagnoses and treatment given to a patient. A review of worker testimony and IMSS records demonstrates that when workers employed by Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana were permitted to see IMSS doctors, the IMSS diagnoses were often misleading, incomplete, or plain wrong, and treatment, if provided at all, was frequently inadequate. Furthermore, there is also evidence that IMSS doctors, together with plant managers from both maquiladoras, purposely denied proper medical treatment and disability benefits to workers.⁽¹⁶⁴⁾

IMSS doctors have often failed to accurately diagnose disabilities as being work-related despite significant evidence. One former Auto Trim worker reported suffering from terrible pain in her wrists and arms from the prolonged and continuous repetitive movements while sewing leather covers onto steering wheels. She stated in her affidavit:

Even when I finally got to go see the doctors at the social security, they would sometimes treat me badly and tell me to quit my job. They would also say I was faking my pain as an excuse not to work. I was frequently told the same thing, "you have nothing," or "you have a general illness" (enfermedad general) or "it's all in your head, it's psychological." See Interview O.

A former Custom Trim worker explained:

Even if the Custom Trim doctor would fill out the MT-1 forms to go to the Seguro, the doctors at the Seguro would mistreat us. They would tell us that we did not have anything or that we had a "general illness" and that was all, but they never told us what this general illness was. See Affidavit B.

As noted earlier, if a worker is diagnosed with a "general illness" and must take time off from work to recuperate, compensation is only 60% of the worker's salary during the recuperation period.⁽¹⁶⁵⁾ By contrast, a worker who is diagnosed with work-related illness or injury and must take time off from work to recuperate is entitled to 100% of his or her salary during the recuperation period.⁽¹⁶⁶⁾

Another frequent kind of failure by IMSS doctors to properly diagnose workers at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana is to minimize the severity of symptoms. A worker, for example, may be diagnosed with "tendonitis of the left forearm," a temporary condition, even when the evidence suggests a more chronic problem. Minimizing a worker's condition means not only that any disability benefits paid to the worker will be lower, but that any treatment prescribed will be insufficient. Workers who required treatment for chronic or recurring disabilities instead were often prescribed treatments appropriate only for short-term illnesses and injuries. A former worker at Auto Trim described, for example, that she went to IMSS several times for medical treatment for severe pain and a swollen arm. The only treatment she received was Naproxen, and she was told that she had nothing wrong with her. Her family physician finally referred her to another doctor, who determined that she was on the verge of losing function and mobility in her arm. He sent her back to IMSS with a request that she be placed on disability and provided urgent medical treatment to prevent permanent dysfunction. Only then did a specialist at IMSS see her and place her on disability for 28 days. See Affidavit R.

Other times the failure by IMSS doctors to prescribe proper treatment for plant workers aggravates disabilities. The following account illustrates this problem:

They gave me massages in my shoulder and neck. The therapy also consisted in placing my arm in hot water and then in cold water. They would put a hot compress on my neck and shoulder. I would place my arm in hot wax and then in a plastic bag, wrapping my arm in a towel. They also prescribed me medicine but it was very strong and I would get very sleepy and dizzy and I would lose my appetite. But the pain would continue, the pain got even worse than before. See Interview H.

b. IMSS's failure to valorize properly and to compensate appropriately workers disabled because of work-related illnesses and injuries

LSS article 55 characterizes work-related injuries and disabilities as producing either (1) temporary disability; (2) partial permanent disability; (3) total permanent disability; or (4) death. Articles 2 and 58 of the LSS establish the authority of the IMSS to assess the amount of disability compensation to be paid a disabled worker and to guarantee that adequate payment is made. LFT Article 480 provides that:

Total permanent incapacity is the loss of the means or abilities of a person which makes it impossible for the person to perform any work for the rest of his or her life.⁽¹⁶⁷⁾

A total permanent incapacity will be determined by IMSS doctors based on the "physico-functional state" of the worker, plus medical, technical and social information from union and company representatives. See RSM art. 25 and LFT art. 514.

Article 482 of the LFT requires that, in determining the degree of incapacity of a worker, future consequences of work-related illnesses and injuries must be taken into consideration. Article 492 of the LFT explains that if a work-related illness or injury produces a partial permanent incapacity, the disabled worker shall receive indemnization equal to the percentage established by the "Assessment Table of Incapacities" set out in LFT article 514. This percentage is based on the total amount that would have to be paid if the permanent incapacity were total. In calculating the payment, the following factors must be considered: the worker's age; the importance of the disability; the aptitude of the worker "to perform remunerative activities, similar to his or her profession or position;" and, whether the employer has made efforts for the worker to obtain professional re-education. LFT article 492 (emphasis added).⁽¹⁶⁸⁾ Jurisprudence establishes that the question of whether a work-related illness or injury has caused the absolute loss of a worker's ability to perform his profession is a technical and scientific question that requires an expert assessment.⁽¹⁶⁹⁾

IMSS doctors routinely accord the lowest valorizations possible to permanently disabled workers from Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana. IMSS routinely fail to consider the full range of factors required by LFT art. 492: the age of the worker; the nature of the disability; the worker's ability to perform similar remunerative activities; and, whether the employer made any efforts to re-train the worker for other suitable jobs. Indeed, none of the IMSS assessments reviewed by the Submitters reflect that any of these factors had been taken into account. See Appendix I.

Pursuant to the Total Permanent Disability Valorization Table established in LFT article 514, each part of the human body is assigned a specific percentage or percentage range of the worker's salary in determining the worker's disability pension. When a percentage range is provided, factors to be considered in determining the appropriate percentage include the degree of the disability and age of the individual. IMSS doctors regularly opt to assign lower valorizations even when the facts suggest that a higher percentage would be appropriate. According to Affiant T, for example, she was given a 10% total permanent disability. An August 11, 1995 report from Dr. Luevano, her rehabilitation doctor, stated that she experienced pain in several different parts of her body: her right shoulder, wrist and fingers. See also Affidavit T's accident report, dated February 28, 1995. Her final disability pension of 10%, issued on November 23, 1995, acknowledges a total permanent disability on the right side of her body. Yet, Affiant T continued to suffer serious pain and motion difficulty in several parts of the right side of her body. She therefore should have been awarded a higher disability payment according to the Permanent Disability Valorization Table which assigns a percentage value to each part of the body. It follows that each disabled body part should be valorized separately, and the disability payment should reflect the cumulative percentage of the different disabilities. Based on Dr. Luevano's diagnosis, Affiant T should have received payments at least based on disabilities of her wrist, shoulder and fingers. In her case, that would have meant paying her between 10-30% of her salary for her shoulder, 10-15% for her wrist, and depending on which fingers were deemed disabled, an average of 3-4% per finger. Even assuming the low end of each percentage range, Affiant T should have received at least 35% rather than the 10% she was given. Indeed, Affiant T apparently wrote to the IMSS Technical Council (Consejo Técnico del IMSS) in Tamaulipas requesting that her 10% total permanent disability pension, which amounts to 47.82 pesos a month (or US$5.04), be increased to 30%. Her request was denied.⁽¹⁷⁰⁾

IMSS doctors also regularly neglected to recognize both ergonomic and chemical-related disabilities in arriving at a determination of how much compensation a worker should receive. None of the IMSS records reviewed by the Submitters show that workplace illnesses related to exposure to toxic substances were ever considered by IMSS in calculating the amount of disability paid to even workers whose symptoms were clearly related to toxics.⁽¹⁷¹⁾

In other cases, worker disabilities were labeled as total and permanent by IMSS doctors, and pursuant to LSS art. 58 §II, should have therefore been valorized at 70% for a total permanent disability, yet the disabilities were valorized at 40% or even 10 or 15%. Although Mexican law permits workers to appeal IMSS valorizations to the CAB (LFT art. 493), and to solicit a revision if disabilities become worse, in practice, appeals and requests for revisions by Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana workers are rare. Interviews with current and former employees of both plants suggest several reasons for this, including:

1. IMSS's failure to inform workers of their right to appeal or seek revision, and to explain and facilitate the process;

2. workers' concerns - sometimes actively fostered by IMSS personnel - that an appeal or revision would result in a lowered valorization;

3. workers' fears of retaliation or blacklisting for filing an appeal or request for revision; and

4. affirmative discouragement by IMSS personnel.

4. IMSS has persistently failed to promote or implement training and prevention programs

LSS articles 81 and 82 and RSM article 18 authorizes IMSS to provide and promote programs aimed at preventing work-related hazards. LSS article 81 and RSM article 26 explain that IMSS, in collaboration with STPS, along with other federal entities shall create programs for the prevention of work accidents and injuries. LSS article 82 authorizes IMSS to conduct investigations to determine the workplace health and safety risks for the establishment of prevention programs by using a company's accident rate index.

LSS article 83 further outlines the duties of an employer to cooperate with IMSS in the prevention of work hazards by (1) facilitating studies and investigations; (2) providing data and reports for the compilations of statistics concerning work hazards; and (3) collaborating within the company to adopt and circulate standards for prevention of work hazards. In addition, RSM article 26 require IMSS through its Health in the Workplace Department (Area de Salud en el Trabajo) to provide information, services, training, and technical support for prevention measures either individually or collectively to the general public to prevent occupational health risks in the workplace.

IMSS has failed to meet its obligations under the LSS and its regulations to verify the existence of or itself establish training and prevention programs, even though IMSS clearly knew that workers at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana suffered a high number of occupational injuries and illnesses. IMSS failed to enforce these laws even in the face of a petition for inspection and complaint filed at its regional offices in Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas on April 15, 1999. See Appendix I. This petition alleged that Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana failed to provide adequate training, and take preventive measures necessary to reduce the risk of workplace injuries and illnesses. The petition also alleged that as a result of Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana's persistent failure in establishing preventive health and safety programs, workers suffered from musculo-skeletal disorders, and a range of symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals. The IMSS has further neglected to conduct studies, as required by LSS article 82, to reduce health and safety risks in Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana, and determine if the maquiladoras have implemented appropriate health and safety programs.

5. IMSS has persistently failed to impose sanctions on Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana and on IMSS staff for violations

LSS Article 304 gives IMSS the authority to impose sanctions against companies who have not complied with laws governing payment of quotas to IMSS. The amount a company must pay depends on its rate of reported work-related injuries and illnesses. Under LSS article 305, a company is subject to sanctions if it does not make the required payments or gives false information to reduce the amount of its payments to IMSS. Article 52 explains that sanctions will be imposed upon any owner who conceals a work accident or falsely reports the injury as not work-related. Failure to report illnesses and injuries by CustomTrim/Breed Mexicana and AutoTrim violates LFT article 504 §VI, which states that notification should be given to STPS within 72 hours of the accident. RSM article 21 stipulates that the employer must inform IMSS of a work-related accident or illness within 24 hours of its occurrence. Article 37 of the LSS, which states that companies that do not report work injuries to IMSS are financially responsible for compensating injured workers, is also violated by Custom Trim/Breed Mexican and Auto Trim.

Upon information and belief, IMSS has failed to impose sanctions on Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana for lost revenues caused by the companies' payment of lower quotas due to on-going under-reporting. Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana and AutoTrim often failed to report work-related illnesses and injuries, or caused the submission of misleading and inaccurate data. As explained in §VI(B)(2), supra, IMSS knew or reasonably should have known that the plants failed to report all occupational illnesses and injuries. Yet, IMSS failed to impose sanctions against Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana for underreporting, and based on such underreporting, the companies' likely underpayment of quotas to IMSS.

In addition, LSS article 303 establishes that sanctions shall be imposed on employees of the IMSS and its representatives for failure to carry out their duties professionally, ethically, and with excellence and quality, when providing services to individuals. Under art. 303, failure by IMSS personnel to adequately fulfill these duties will be sanctioned according to rules established by the Ley Federal de Responsibilidad de los Servidores Publicos (Federal Law on the Responsibility of Public Servants). Upon information and belief, sanctions have not been assessed against IMSS personnel who failed to properly report, diagnose, treat, or valorize work-related injuries and illnesses suffered by employees of Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana.

C. Persistent Failure by the SSA to Enforce Health and Safety Laws and Regulations at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana

Mexico's Secretaria de Salud (Secretary of Health or "SSA") has persistently failed to enforce occupational health and safety laws at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana, specifically, SSA has failed to: 1) carry out verifications and inspections to determine whether the plants comply with the law; 2) monitor the use of toxic substances at the plants; and, 3) implement appropriate sanctions for non-compliance. Such failure violates both the letter and the spirit of the NAALC and numerous international treaties and agreements.

1. Applicable law

a. Federal Constitution of the United Mexican States

Article 4 of the Mexican Constitution states that every person has a right to the protection of health. This includes the right to protection from health risks in the workplace. In addition, article 123 of the Constitution, the original source of authority for Mexico's labor laws, refers specifically to occupational health and safety laws.

b. Ley Orgánica de la Administración Pública Federal (LOAPF)

Article 39 §XVII of the Ley Organica de la Administracion Publica Federal (the Organic Law of Federal Public Administration) mandates the SSA to implement measures to promote the conservation and protection of health and life of workers.

c. Ley General de Salud (LGS) and its norms

The LGS regulates the right to health contemplated in article 4 of the Mexican Constitution, and affirms its federal character. See LGS art. 1. Article 3 §XIV establishes that the LGS applies to occupational health. The provisions of the LGS are "of social interest and public order," and therefore cannot be waived under any circumstances. LGS art. 1. The LGS also sets out the goals of the right to health. Goals relevant to the instant case include: 1) physical and mental well-being to allow the full exercise of each person's potential; 2) prolongation and improvement of the quality of human life; 3) protection and expansion of values that contribute to the creation, enjoyment, and the conservation of health conditions which facilitate social development. See LGS art. 2 §§I, II, III, IV, and VII.

Articles 132 and 133 mandate the SSA to issue and enforce NOMs regarding the prevention of work illness, accidents, and injuries. Of particular importance to this submission, is NOM-047-SSA1-1993, which establishes the worker's maximum permissible limits of exposure to organic solvents including toluene and benzene. Toluene and benzene comprise components of substances used at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana including Hallmark 7158 (Toluene 7%-13%; Loctite 76820 xmns; Toluene 3%-10%; Lokweld 110; Toluene 15%-40%) and Varsol (Benzene; the manufacturer does not provide a specific percentage of each component).⁽¹⁷²⁾ Additionally, NOM-047-SSAI-1993 mandates that all the establishments in which toluene and benzene are used must monitor the degree of exposure of the workers to such organic solvents. It also requires employers to remove workers from the workplace in order to conduct a medical evaluation in case the biological monitoring exceeds maximum permissible limits. See NOM-047-SSA-1993 §6.2. NOM-047-SSA-1. It further establishes maximum levels of concentration of chemicals in workers' urine as well as the procedures to monitor workers' exposure to organic solvents such as conducting medical evaluations every 12 months and monitoring of chemical exposure on workers' urine after work shifts. See id at 7.2.1 and 7.2.2.

In addition, NOM-056-SSA1-1993 establishes sanitary requirements for protective gear for workers. It also requires the employer to train workers in the use of protective gear. See id at 8. The Submitters believe that if protective gear is provided at all to workers at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana, they are not trained in the proper use of the gear. Moreover, NOM-048-SSA1-1993 establishes the method of evaluation of health risk caused by toxic substances. It mandates employers who use toxic substances to periodically document monitoring of health effects. This monitoring may be weekly, biweekly, semestral, or annual depending on the investigated toxic substance and its health effect according to the applicable NOM. See NOM-047-SAA1-1993 (which establishes periodical monitoring in cases where Toluene and benzene are involved). It also states that the result of the monitoring obtained by at least seven urine samples under normal conditions of production throughout a year for 8 hour shifts above the maximum permissible limits constitutes a superior risk. See id §7. Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana have failed to monitor the maximum limits of exposure to benzene and Toluene. Consequently, the SSA has also failed to enforce the compliance of the above NOMs.

i. The jurisdiction and power of the SSA to enforce the LGS and its norms

The SSA is authorized to monitor and enforce the LGS norms issued pursuant to the LGS and related regulations. See also Reglamento Interior de la Secretaría de Salud (RISS) art. 1 and LOAPF art. 39. LGS art. 13 §A establishes that the SSA has jurisdiction over occupational health. Articles 128 and 129 provide that all activities related to work shall conform to the LGS, regulations, and norms issued by the SSA. Article 128 clarifies that the LGS regulates any establishment⁽¹⁷³⁾ covered by art. 123(A) of the Mexican Constitution. Article 123(A) of the Mexican Constitution applies to every workplace in the private sector of the economy. Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana are establishments regulated by art. 123(A) of the Mexican Constitution.

In addition, Article 120 of the LGS empowers the SSA to: establish criteria for the use of substances, machinery, and the like, aimed at reducing work-related injury; determine the maximum limits of exposure to pollutants, and coordinate and perform studies of toxicology; and, exercise with other entities and states, sanitary control at the establishments where occupational activities are performed, and to ensure compliance with applicable health regulations. Article 130 directs the SSA, along with other authorities, to promote, develop, and publish multidisciplinary research geared toward the prevention of illnesses and injuries at work. It also mandates that the SSA carry out studies on ergonomics for the same purpose. Similarly, arts. 131 and 132 obligate the SSA to carry out programs aimed at preventing accidents and work illnesses at work places. Article 133 mandates the SSA to enforce NOMs regarding the prevention of work illness, accidents, and injuries. See RISS art. 1. The SSA is authorized to enforce NOMs issued pursuant to LGS.

ii. SSA responsibility for sanitary control

Article 194 of the LGS defines Sanitary Control (Control Sanitario) as the actions of training, monitoring, education, verification, and when necessary, the imposition of corrective measures and sanctions. It further states that the exercise of sanitary control shall be applicable to the use of toxic substances. LGS art. 278 §IV defines the term "Toxic Substances" as elements or compound elements, or the chemical mixture of both that when inhaled, ingested, or in contact with the skin or tissue causes adverse immediate or long-term effects to the human organism, permanent or temporary, including functional injuries, genetic alterations, or death. It also states that the SSA shall determine through the issuance of a list the substances that are subject to sanitary control. This list is published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación. These substances include: Acetone, Benzene, Toluene, and Alcohol Metanol,⁽¹⁷⁴⁾ all of which are used at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana. Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana therefore use toxic substances subject to sanitary control. Article 279 empowers the SSA to establish the classification and characteristics of different products, including toxic substances. It further mandates the SSA to issue NOMs to establish conditions for transport and storage of toxic substances.

iii. SSA responsibility for sanitary authorizations

LGS arts. 368 and 369 explain that "Sanitary Authorization" is the administrative act through which the SSA permits a public or private person to conduct activity related to human health. Article 371 clarifies that sanitary authorizations are to be issued if the requirements of the LGS and related regulations are met. Authorizations may take the form of licenses, permits, registration, or sanitary control cards, depending on the particular kind of establishment involved. Id. Article 298 establishes that the importation of toxic substances require sanitary authorization. Upon information and belief, the SSA has granted sanitary authorizations to Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana. However, given the current and past working and safety conditions at the plants, such authorizations should have not been granted at all or should be suspended until the plants are in compliance with the law.

iv. SSA responsibility for sanitary oversight

LGS Title XVII mandates the SSA to oversee compliance with the LGS and regulations promulgated pursuant to the LGS. The SSA shall carry out this obligation for sanitary oversight through several methods of monitoring: verification visits (inspections), sampling, and biological testing. See LGS arts. 396, 397. 398, 399, 400, 401, 401 Bis-I, and 401 Bis-2, §I. Articles regulate the procedures for verification visits, sampling, and testing. In addition, LGS art. 299 requires the SSA to control and monitor the activities in places where imported toxic substances are used.⁽¹⁷⁵⁾ La Ley de Precursores y Productos Químicos Esenciales (LPPQE) similarly establishes reporting requirements for establishments that import substances. See, e.g., LPPQE arts. 2 § I; 3 § VI; 7 § II, II, 11, 12, 14 §I. The SSA must review reports in order to further compliance with the LGS in establishments where these toxic substances are used. See LGS article 299; RISS article 22 § I.

(a) Verification visits. The SSA has the power to carry out administrative visits at the establishments where the LGS applies without prior notice. LGS art. 399. Verification visits are to be conducted at regular intervals. The SSA is also supposed to undertake verification visits upon petition by employees or any interested party. See, e.g., Mexican Const., art. 8.⁽¹⁷⁶⁾

Verification visits are a primary means by which the SSA can monitor employer compliance with sanitary requirements prescribed by the LGS and related regulations and NOMs. Compliance with sanitary requirements relevant to Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana which can best be assessed through verification visits include the employer's obligation to properly label toxic substances (LGS Article 281); provide adequate health and safety information, training, education, and hazard prevention programs (NOM-053-SSAI-1993); and perform blood tests to determine exposure to toxic substances (NOM-047-SSAI-1993; NOM-048-SSAI-1993); and, provide employees with protective gear (NOM-056-SSAI-1993). Without on-site verification visits, it is impossible for SSA to have any idea of whether Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana are adhering to these obligations.

(b) Sampling. With regard to sampling, the SSA is required to take samples of chemicals to ensure employers comply with health and safety regulations. LGS articles 299, 396 §I, and 401-Bis Employers who use toxic substances such as Toluene and Benzene are required to monitor the worker's degree of exposure to chemical substances. NOM-047-SSA1-1993 and NOM-048-SSA1-1993. In order to determine whether or not the employers are complying with health and safety regulations the SSA must ensure that the substances used at the establishments are in fact the regulated substances; therefore, sampling is the only way the SSA can ensure compliance with the law. LGS article 401-Bis sets out the procedure for the collection of samples. This article also gives the SSA the power to collect samples. See id.

Under NOM-047-SSAI-1993, the employers must also conduct monitoring of certain toxic substances in the workplace, including Benzene, Toluene, and Xylene - all substances used by workers at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana to ensure and adhere to the maximum limits of toxic substances that are safely permissible in the workplace.

(c) Biological Testing. NOM-048-SSA1-1993 requires employers to monitor whether the maximum permissible limits of worker exposure to toxic substances have been reached. It also establishes the procedure through which this monitoring must be carried out. See NOM-0048-SSA1-1993.

v. Sanitary safety measures

Article 404 VII contemplates the suspension of workplace activities as a sanitary safety measure. Articles 411 and 412 establish that the temporary suspension of work activities is proper when continuing the activity endangers human health. Work activities may be resumed when the unsafe or unhealthy conditions are corrected. See LGS article 412.

vi. Administrative sanctions

Article 416 of the LGS establishes that violations of the LGS shall be sanctioned by the SSA. Administrative sanctions may include warnings, fines, temporary or definite closing, and arrests for up to 36 hours. LGS art. 417. Articles 419, 420, and 421 classify types of violations, and establish the amounts of fines. Article 421 further mandates a fine up to ten thousand times the minimum wage if an establishment violates art. 281; art. 281 mandates establishments to label containers of toxic substances. In addition, LGS art. 425 § II, IV, VII mandates the closure of a workplace when danger to health at the workplace is posed by persistent violations of the LGS and related regulations.

d. Reglamento Interior de la Secretaria de Salud (RISS)

The RISS delegates the powers and duties of the SSA "Direcciones" to the different administrative units of the SSA. The RISS mandates the Direccion de Salud Ambiental (Division of Environmental Health) of the SSA to determine the maximum permissible exposure of the workers to toxic substances; issue norms and criteria for occupational health; exercise sanitary control and oversee the establishments where toxic substances are used; exercise the sanitary control and oversight and issue or revoke sanitary authorizations regarding the process, exportation, importation of toxic substances; impose and apply safety measures and sanctions; promote communication of occupational risk; identify and evaluate the risk for human health in places where toxic substances are used; and carry out verification visits to ensure that the conditions under which such authorizations were issued still exist. RISS art. 22.

2. Persistent failure by the SSA to carry out verification visits

Upon information and belief, the SSA has persistently failed to carry out regular verification visits at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana, although it is required to do so as part of its sanitary control duties. Under LGS Title XVII, the SSA's Direccion de Salud Ambiental is specifically required to carry out these visits. See also RISS 22.

Upon information and belief, the SSA failed to conduct regular verification visits at the plants. The LGS mandates that verification visits shall be carried out periodically to ensure compliance with the LGS and related regulations. However, workers at both plants state that they have never been aware of any type of inspection conducted at Auto Trim or Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana, with the possible exception of one unconfirmed at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana in August of 1998. The working conditions at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana also evidence the persistent failure by the SSA to carry out regular verification visits.

In addition, upon information and belief, after a written petition alleging violations of the LGS at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana requesting a verification visit was submitted to the SSA on April 4, 1999, an extraordinary verification was not undertaken. The SSA failed to respond to the petition properly. It stated that Auto Trim currently participated in a self-execution program, and that the SSA had no power to carry out verification visits at the plant. See SSA response dated April 16, 1999, attached at Appendix I. A self-execution program, however, cannot vitiate the right of workers to request an exceptional inspection when they believe that ongoing health and safety violations are occurring. Such a result would violate the very character of the LGS, legislation recognized as pertaining to "the public order and social interest." LGS art. 1. It would also violate the Mexican Constitution's right to protection of health. Mexican Constitution art. 4.

The SSA response also indicated that a verification visit would be carried out at Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana on May 13, 1999. However, upon receipt of the petition, the Direccion de Salud in the state of Tamaulipis requested instructions from the SSA in Mexico City to proceed with the verification visit. The communication requesting directions to proceed with the verification visit was apparently received by the SSA Direccion de Salud Ambiental in Mexico City on May 31, 1999. See Appendix I. It would appear, therefore, that the verification did not occur on the date the Direccion de Salud mandated it because the Direccion de Salud in the state of Tamaulipas had on May 31 requested instructions as to how to proceed with the verification clearly after the date the actual verification was scheduled. Thus, Secretaria de Salud Tamaulipas was waiting for instructions from SSA in Mexico City. Since Mexico City received that request as May 31, the verification did not take place on May 13. It is not clear whether the verification took place at all.

Verification visits by the SSA would have demonstrated that Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana have not complied with their obligations under the LGS. Information received by the Submitters overwhelmingly demonstrates that workers at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana work in unhealthy conditions and are not provided with information, training, or adequate preventive measures and equipment to reduce workplace health and safety risks. The SSA has persistently failed to enforce the LGS and related regulations and norms at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana.

3. The SSA persistently fails to sample the levels of toxic substances or require its inspectors to sample at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana

As part of its sanitary control duties, the SSA is obligated to monitor the level and concentration of toxic substances used in the workplace. See LGS art. 299, NOM-047- SSA1-1993, NOM-048-SSA1-1993. Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana use toxic substances as part of the manufacturing process. These include: Sicomet 5019, Hallmark 7158, Loctite 76820 xnms, 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane, Varsol, and Lokweld 110 which contain Acetone, Toluene, and Benzene, alcohol methanol, and xylene. The SSA, thus is or should have been, aware of the use of such substances at the plants, without proper ventilation and personal protective equipment, and that worker health was being compromised. See NOM-056-SSA1-1993. Workers at both plants state that they are not aware of any sampling procedure carried out at the plants.

Illnesses and accidents linked to the use of toxic substances at these maquiladoras could have been prevented had the SSA carried out its obligation to sample levels of toxic substances. Employees and former employees of both plants submitted written petition to SSA complaining of illnesses resulting from workplace exposure to toxic substances.

4. The SSA has persistently failed to enforce NOMs that direct Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana to conduct biological monitoring of workers to determine the employers' compliance with maximum permissible exposure to toxic substances

The SSA has persistently failed to enforce NOM-047-SAA1-1993 and NOM-048-SSA1-1993 which mandate that at any establishment where toxic substances are used, employers must conduct biological monitoring to determine chemical concentration in workers' urine. This monitoring is aimed at preventing work illness related to the use and exposure of toxic substances such as Benzene, Toluene, acetone, alcohol methanol, and xylene. See id. This monitoring must be conducted periodically to assure the workers are protected from work illnesses related to the use of these substances. In particular, the SSA has recognized that the use of Toluene and Benzene must be carefully monitored because its use under improper circumstances can cause brain damage and other severe illnesses and injuries. See NOM-0047-SSA1-1993 and NOM-048-SSA1-1993.

The lack of enforcement of these NOMs by the SSA has resulted in serious violations of the law. Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana have persistently failed to carry out their obligation to monitor worker exposure to toxic substances. Petitioners contend that there is no periodic testing of workers to determine maximum levels of exposure to toxic substances as mandated by NOM-047-SSA1-1993 and NOM-048-SSA1-1993.⁽¹⁷⁷⁾ The lack of enforcement of these regulations has resulted in serious harm to worker health.

5. SSA's persistent failure to implement safety measures and administrative sanctions at Custom Trim and Auto Trim/Breed Mexicana

Upon information and belief, the SSA has persistently failed to impose and implement safety measures and administrative sanctions against Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana authorized by the LGS, despite the plants' flagrant disregard for the LGS and its related regulations and norms. Plant violations include: careless and uncontrolled use of toxic substances, failure to inform workers about the hazards of the substances they use and how to reduce health risks, failure to conduct air and biological monitoring, and allowing levels of exposure to toxic substances to be sufficiently high that workers regularly sustain illnesses. Violations also include serious safety and ergonomic flaws inherent in the sewing and trimming processes used a both plants. The SSA's failure to impose legally-authorized sanctions, such as temporary or permanent closure, sanitary measures, and fines, against Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana has resulted in grave damage to the health of former and current employees of both plants and their families.

VII. RELIEF REQUESTED OF THE U.S. NAO

Petitioners request that the U.S. NAO undertake the following actions:

1. To investigate and examine the serious health and safety violations at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana, and the persistent pattern of failure by the Mexican government to enforce Mexican laws designed to improve workplace health and safety conditions.

2. To request the U.S. Secretary of Labor to consult with her Mexican counterpart to secure the expeditious remedy of the health and safety violations in both plants through bilateral ministerial consultations between both the U.S. NAO and the Mexican NAO pursuant to NAALC articles 22 and 27.

3. To call for a public hearing in San Antonio or Brownsville, Texas making the necessary arrangements for visas and simultaneous translators for witnesses.

4. To convene an inspection and fact-finding commission of health and safety experts from all NAALC member states to thoroughly evaluate and assess the serious allegations raised in this complaint.

5. To report and make public the conclusions of the fact-finding commission with the appropriate recommendations as per NAALC article 21.2.b.

6. To hold hearings whereby workers or their designated representatives, Mexican government officials from the STPS, IMSS, and SSA, plant managers, and independent health and safety experts from the NAALC member states will testify to determine the full scale of the violations of labor, health and safety laws at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana, and the extent of the negligence and lack of enforcement by the Mexican government of Mexico's occupational health and safety laws, regulations, and norms, the NAALC, and international treaties to which Mexico is a party.

7. To compel the Mexican government to abide by Mexican occupational health and safety laws, regulations; and norms, and the principles of the NAALC ; relevant ILO Conventions, and international human rights law.

8. To determine the required fines and penalties for each health and safety violation at Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana according to the conclusions of the fact-finding commission.

9. To establish an inspection commission to verify and oversee that Auto Trim and Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana comply with health and safety regulations, and assume responsibility for work-related accidents and illnesses.

10. Should these violations remain uncorrected 30 days after the commission's recommendations have been made public, to request the convening of an Evaluation Committee of Experts (ECE), as per NAALC article 23 for the enforcement of Mexico's health and safety regulations. After receipt of the ECE report, and if the recommendations for corrective actions have not been implemented within 30 days, to request the U.S. for ministerial consultations with regard to the continued pattern of failure by the Mexican government to enforce its labor laws and health and safety regulations at Custom Trim/Breed Mexicana and Auto Trim as per NAALC article 28.

11. Finally, if the matter has not been successfully resolved by the aforementioned ministerial consultations, that the U.S. NAO request the Council to constitute an arbitral panel in order to determine the appropriate actions to be taken in view of the continued failure by the Mexican government to enforce its labor laws and health and safety regulations, including pursuant to Annex 39 the assessment of monetary sanctions.

Respectfully submitted,

Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras
Martha A. Ojeda, Executive Director
530 Bandera Road
San Antonio, Texas 78228
(210) 732-8957

University of Idaho College of Law
Legal Aid Clinic
Monica Schurtman
Associate Professor of Law and Supervising Attorney
P.O. Box 442322
Moscow, Idaho 83844-2322
(208) 885-6110

Pastoral Juvenil Obrera
Manuel Mondragón Gallegos, Coordinator
P.O. Box 187
Brownsville, Texas 78522
(528) 816-0156

Caminos
c/o CJM
530 Bandera Road
San Antonio, Texas 78228
(210) 732-8957

FUTURO
c/o P.O. Box 3068
Brownsville, Texas 78523
(528) 847-0290

El Centro de Investigación Laboral y Asesoría Sindical, Asocíación (CILAS)
Hector de la Cueva, General Coordinator
Calle Tabasco 262-402
Colonia Roma, C.P. 06700
Delegación Cuauhtémoc, Mexico, D.F.
52 07 41 47

Centro de Trabajadores y Comunidades (CETRAC)
Guadalupe Carrillo G.
Calle Maclovio Herrera 3717
Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico
(528) 713-0950

Campo Obrero
Norma Guillermina Solís Torres
Quinta Mayor #222
Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, Mexico
(52) 16 25 76 16

International Union of United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW)
Lida Orta Anés, Ph.D.
8000 E. Jefferson
Detroit, Michigan 48214
(313) 926-5563

United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE)
Robin Alexander, Director of International Labor Affairs
UE One Gateway Center, Suite 1400
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
(412) 471-8919

AFL-CIO
Tim Beaty, Agent
Ignacio Mariscal No. 45, Oficina 302
Colonia Revolucion, Delegacion Cuahtemoc
Mexico City, Mexico 06030
(525) 591-1366

Columbia University School of Law
Catherine Powell, Executive Director
Human Rights Clinic
435 West 116th Street
New York, New York 10027
(212) 854-5705

Committee of Former International Human Rights Clinic Students
Alfonso Otero, Marisol Pérez, and Carlos López
San Antonio, Texas

Cross Border Network for Justice and Solidarity
Judy Ancel
P.O. Box 45759
Kansas City, Missouri 64171
(913) 677-2158

Moviemiento Ciudadano por la Democracia
Saúl Olmos
Tamaulipas #66, Cd. Condesa CP 06140
Mexico, D.F.
(52) 11 69 19

Maquiladora Health and Safety Support Network
Garrett Brown
P.O. Box 124
Berkeley, California 94701-0124
(510) 558-1014

Global Exchange
Dan La Botz
2017 Mission Street, #303
San Francisco, California
(415) 255-7296

Our Lady of Victory Missionary Sisters
Sr. Mary Ellen Descourouez, OLVM
Victory Noll
P.O. Box 109
Huntington, IN 46750-0109
(219) 356-0628

Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility Global Corporate Accountability Program
Rev. David M. Schilling
475 Riverside Drive, Room 550
New York, New York
(202) 870-2928

Casa de la Mujer - Grupo Factor X, A.C.
Carmen Valadez Pérez
Junipero Serra 14364-1, Fracc. Reynoso
Tijuana, Baja California
(6) 622 4217

New York State Labor-Religion Coalition
Maureen Casey, International Project Coord.
159 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12205
(518) 272-8275

Maquila Solidarity Network (MSN) (Canada)
Bob Jeffcott, Policy Analyst
606 Shaw Street
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6G 3L6
(416) 532-8584

Northwest Coalition for Responsible Investment
Judy Byron, Contact Person
150 Twelfth Avenue, #3
Seattle, Washington 98122
(206) 223-1138

Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers
Joseph P. LeMar, TM
P.O. Box 305
Maryknoll, New York 10545-0505
(914) 941-7590

Portfolio Advisory Board (PAB)
Adrian Dominican Sisters
Sr. Annette M. Sinagra, OP
1257 E. Siena Heights Drive
Adrian, Michigan 49221-1793
(517) 266-3522