.: Enlace :: REPORT ON SITESABES ELECTION :.

The independent union, SITESABES, lost the election. The vote was 571 to 374 with 237 ballots challenged by SITESABES because the workers had been hired after the date the election petition was filed—the legal cut off date under Mexican law. The election took place in four major cities and SITESABES won a majority in two, but lost in the two larger cities where there was a major presence both of SABES (the employer) and STESABES (the incumbent union).

This defeat was not surprising under the circumstances: the long delay between the time the petition was filed and the actual election; the discharge of 25 leaders and activists; and some serious procedural deficiencies in the election process.

Yet the fact that this election took place by secret ballot, that turnout approached 80%, that there was no physical violence, that the voting took place in private and that the vote count occurred with great care and transparency are to be celebrated.

It is our hope that these accomplishments will not be marred by retaliation against those leaders and activists of SITESABES who are still employed by SABES, and that the labor board will take the further important step of developing a procedural manual to prevent problems in future elections.

This was truly a historic moment; we hope that it signals a positive direction for future Mexican elections.

BACKGROUND
SITESABES is an independent union of adult education workers which, with the assistance of the Frente Auténtico del Trabajo (FAT), has been fighting to gain the right to represent adult education workers in high schools and universities throughout the state of Guanajuato. These workers are employed by a state-funded program called SABES.

The program was an innovative effort by then-governor Vicente Fox, designed to stem the flow of migration from Guanajuato by providing education to people who often fell through the cracks in the educational system because they live in extremely rural areas, or left school to search for work in other parts of Mexico or the U.S. However, the teachers were hired on short-term contracts with no benefits, and were told that they had to recruit their students and build their own schools. Given the lack of job security and benefits, the teachers decided to organize. In Mexico, a union must have a registration (registro) in order to legally represent workers. SITESABES filed to obtain its registro in August of 2002 and its petition was granted in January of 2003.

The following August, SITESABES filed its petition with the local labor board, requesting an election in order to determine that it represented a majority of the workers and was legally entitled to administer the contract which had previously been signed with STESABES, a statewide union with a sweetheart contract with SABES. At that time, SABES employed about 1000 teachers, of whom approximately two thirds were members of SITESABES.

The legal process became extremely complicated when SABES intervened to demand that the registro be voided. During this period, SABES also engaged in practices designed to intimidate workers and repress the movement, firing 25 of the leaders of the independent union, SITESABES. Individual cases were filed on behalf of these workers, virtually all of which are still pending. One notable exception: the case of Veronica Raigosa, resulted not only in an order of reinstatement, but also in a determination that the SABES teachers were employees, and were entitled to receive benefits including health care. Ms. Raigosa was immediately fired a second time.

In April 2005 the teachers received word that their lawyers had won an impressive legal victory, confirming their right to their registro and paving the way for an election. SITESABES called on the labor board to ask for an election by secret ballot, with independent observers, that was free from violence, and asked their supporters to email and fax letters to the president of the labor board containing these demands.

Meanwhile, the prior president of the labor board had been replaced by a new president, Lic. Libia Gómez Padilla, who took the union’s requests seriously, and on May 3, 2005 ordered that an election would be held by secret ballot.

The UE, New York State Labor-Religion Coalition, NYSUT, Enlace, and the Solidarity Center in Mexico City had worked closely together in coordinating public information about the SITESABES struggle, and at the request of SITESABES and the FAT, rapidly pulled together a delegation of international observers.

THE INTERNATIONAL DELEGATION OF OBSERVERS
On May 30 the delegation of nine international observers began its work. Our team consisted of:
Eric Duncan, American Federation of Teachers (AFL-CIO)
Deborah Schwartz, CBLOC
Mary Mendez, Enlace
Maureen Casey, New York State Labor-Religion Coalition
Linda Vila Passione, New York State United Teachers
Richard Neira, New York State United Teachers
Ben Davis, Solidarity Center, AFL-CIO
Ben Cokelet, Solidarity Center, AFL-CIO
Robin Alexander, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE)

When we arrived in Leon we were briefed by representatives of SITESABES and the FAT, and advised that they still did not have the list of voters who had been employed on the cut-off date on August 13, 2003.

We then participated in three activities. The first was a press conference in which we were introduced to the press and expressed both our appreciation that the labor board had ordered a secret ballot election and our concern that the employee list provided by SABES contained workers hired up until the present – adding many hundreds of workers hired after what should have been the cut-off date of August 13, 2003, when the petition was filed.

That evening, we also had the opportunity to meet with Lic. Libia Gómez Padilla, the president of the labor board. We were accompanied by several members of SITESABES, by Benedicto Martínez and Eladio Abundis Guadian of the FAT, and by Angeles López García, an attorney representing a human rights organization based in Leon. We expressed our appreciation both for Lic. Gómez’ decision ordering a secret ballot election and permitting our presence. She reviewed the process that would take place the following day, and told us that her office had worked closely with the Federal Electoral Commission in designing the election equipment and procedures that would be followed. We also expressed our concern about the voting list and about maintaining the anonymity of workers who would be challenged. She was extremely gracious, provided us with her cell phone number in the event there were problems the following day, and agreed that her office would provide SITESABES with the correct list.

After leaving her office we joined a meeting of the FAT and SITESABES to discuss final logistics. We were divided into four teams composed of an attorney and the representative of SITESABES who were to be the two official observers for the union and two (or in one case three) international observers. There was also an extended discussion with the lawyers to determine how to handle objections. It was clear that the absence of an accurate list had created an extremely difficult situation, although activists from the different regions had done their best to distinguish between groups of voters. In the end, it was not until close to mid-night that SITESABES received the August 2003 list along with the list that would be used the following day – a list which purportedly included all employees from both the 2003 and 2005 lists.

On the day of the election we rose early so that our teams could get to the voting places before they opened. Voting occurred in four cities: Leon, Irapuato, Guanajuato and Celaya. In no case was there physical intimidation or violence, and in all cases workers were permitted to vote in private voting booths and the final tally was done in a manner that was free from any suggestion of foul play.

The voting took place at SABES schools in all four areas. Balloting was scheduled to start at 10:00 but generally did not start on time. Although in Irapuato it began at approximately 10:10 a.m., in Leon, Guanajuato and Celaya voting did not start until around 11:30. Eric Duncan, observed: “The polling station opened at least an hour late. As far as I could tell, all the materials and equipment seemed to be already on site, so the late start was never adequately explained, to the observers. Since the entire operation was held outdoors, the late start meant that 100-150 early arrivals had to wait in the hot sun much longer than necessary. Despite the wait and the heat, I didn’t observe many people leaving.”

The process was coordinated by three or four representatives from the state labor board in each location. The president of the labor board traveled to three of the four sites during the course of the day.

In all cases, the challenges were discussed prior to the beginning of the voting. Maureen Casey described the process in Guanajuato: “The lawyer for SITESABES went over the list of challenged names—there were 44—individually with the lawyers from SABES, STESABES and the labor board representatives. Everyone checked the objections on their lists. Then, during the voting process, when a person’s name was called who had been challenged at the beginning of the day, the union’s lawyer stated again that this was a challenged ballot, the person voted and a labor board rep met her/him at the ballot box with an envelope for the ballot.”

As each voter filed into the room, she/he gave identification to the labor board rep who read it aloud, checked it on her list as everyone else checked theirs, and the person then voted.

Secrecy was assured by setting up a voting booth: essentially a folding table with hard plastic sides over which was placed opaque plastic that people stepped behind to mark their ballots. The folded ballots were then placed in a box with transparent sides and voters had their thumbs “inked” and their credentials returned to them. Where voters had been challenged, they were given envelopes in which to place their ballot prior to insertion in the ballot box.

There were numerous observers. In three locations, at the table along with the Mexican labor authorities were two representatives of SABES, the incumbent union and SITESABES. However, in Irapuato, there was inadequate space, so the lawyer for SITESABES was relegated to a separate school desk. In addition to the official representatives, the director of SABES was permitted to remain in the room along with five additional representatives of STESABES and the notary. Moreover, for an initial period, two additional representatives of STESABES stood at the door, controlling the flow of workers coming in to vote. In Leon, SABES argued that alternates should be permitted in the room. In striking contrast to what was permitted in Irapuato, this argument was rejected by the labor board representatives and the additional representatives of SABES were told that they would not be permitted to remain in the room during the election, although they were permitted to stay outside the window.

There was also varied treatment of the international observers. In Guanajuato, the international observers were permitted in the room where the voting took place; in Irapuato one of the two were permitted inside the room. In Leon the international observers were initially told that they could come into the room whenever they wished, then told they would need to remain outside of the room, and finally were instructed to leave not only the room, but the school premises, because SABES had objected that it was private property and did not wish them to remain. In Celaya, the outdoor area next to the parking lot of the “distance-learning” university was the site for the voting. The international observers were permitted access to the premises, although required to stand at a distance no closer than twenty to thirty feet. Lawyers from both unions were allowed to sit closer—at the table next to the ballot box. At one point during the morning, an objection was raised to the observers’ presence there on “private property;” but the election official in charge stood her ground and quickly dismissed this objection by reminding all parties that the presence of the observers had been authorized by agreement in advance

Outside the voting room were various representatives from Mexican human rights organizations and other independent unions, as well as additional representatives of SABES and of both unions. Notaries hired by SABES were also present in all locations, as were occasional members of the press.

The turn out for voting was very high: There were 1169 votes cast out of 1397 eligible voters, or 83.7%. Maureen Casey, one of the observers in Guanajuato noted: “I observed that by 10:00 (when voting was to have started) that more than 100 people were lined up and ready. These folks stood in the hot sun until 11:15 when the voting actually started....and some for up to three hours as the line moved slowly along. By 11:15 the line was more than 200 people long. I watched in amazement as people organized the line in curves back and forth; there was no complaining, pushing, etc. People chatted and the scene in Guanajuato was peaceful and generally cordial.”

In Irapuato, Richard Neira noted: “The workers assembled peacefully outside in a line that at times reached 100 people. I did not observe anyone approaching them or menacing them in any way. I did not observe any electioneering save various stick on logos or shirts with embroidered logos from both unions. All the participants seemed at ease and relaxed, there wasn’t any noticeable tension”

In Celaya, Eric Duncan observed: “There were no campaign materials seen inside the voting area. SITESABES handed out flyers at the entrance. Several large banners that SITESABES had hung in the street (clearly outside the voting area) were asked to be taken down by the head of the labor board; she also forced the opposition to remove a sign it had hung on the outside fence promising a free eyeglass clinic for its members.”

The role of the police varied somewhat from place to place. In Leon, the police appeared to behave in a totally appropriate manner. Similarly, Duncan noted, “Six well-armed soldiers arrived in Celaya. They were professional and low-key (to the point of not being noticed), and quietly enforced a 5-yard cordon around the ballot box.

In Irapuato the situation was quite different. Mary Mendez observed: “Throughout the entire day wherever I went the police were right by my side: they followed me, sat near me and watched what I was doing and saying. Neira also commented: “The police present seemed very interested in who I was and one of them asked me for my name and the spelling of it, and also my affiliation all of which he wrote down. I was interviewed twice by two different newspapers during the course of the day. The first time was just before noon while I was standing by the entrance to the parking lot. While this was taking place two police officers approached and listened to the interview.
The second time was later in the afternoon while standing just outside the room where the vote was being held, once the reporter asked me for my name and affiliation another officer began writing down the information.”

The reconciliation process to account for all ballots issued was performed with great care - an exact record was kept of the numbers of ballots received, issued, used, spoiled, nullified, and unused. Bundling, packaging, and sealing completed ballots for transport to election headquarters in Leon was all done with great care in all four locations. The only unfortunate aspect was that in two of the locations the international observers were not permitted to view the process.

Maureen Casey, one of the observers who was able to fulfill her function, described the impact she felt upon observing the vote count:

“I have voted dozens of times in elections in the US but had never experienced the actual number crunching process before watching the vote count in Guanajuato. I was one of at least ten observers in a semi-circle where the counting took place. Beside me were representatives of SABES, the Notary hired by SABES, representatives of STESABES, SITESABES members and the SITESABES lawyer, and the two other international observers. Behind us, outside the school and crowded into the windows were voters and union members. Voices were hushed or even silent as we watched.

“The ballot box stuffed with papers was lifted onto a table and upended so that two labor board members could scoop out the piles of ballots. These were then partially unfolded but not read and smoothed into piles for counting. The stacks of ballots were counted twice to be sure that the number matched the number of ballots distributed during the day. The sealed envelopes of the challenged ballots were also counted and put aside.

“Then each ballot was opened and placed in a pile: FAT or STESABES. We were all close enough to see the markings and to note that no attempt was made to hide or change the marks. One ballot was marked over both union symbols and it was held up so that we could all clearly see it; it was then put aside as nullified.

“When all was done and the numbers had been checked again to make sure they tallied with the number of ballots given out, the ballots were placed in large, clearly marked manila envelopes. There was an envelope for SITESABES votes, for STESABES votes, for the nullified ballot, and for unused ballots. Each envelope was sealed with tape and the official representatives of each party signed over the seal. These sealed and signed envelopes were then placed in a carrying box which was, in turn, sealed.

“There was a gravity and seriousness about all of the proceedings that I found extraordinarily moving and fully transparent. It truly was a ritual of democracy. There was no banter, no chatter; instead there was clear, almost reverent attention paid to each detail.
The entire process took about 90 minutes. What I witnessed in Guanajuato impressed me and filled me with a sort of awed pride in a democratic process that clearly mattered to everyone: observers, voters, government officials and both unions.”

PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS
The most serious problems were related to matters which occurred prior to the election itself.

· The list of eligible voters included people who had been hired by SABES after the independent union filed its petition on August 13, 2003. Article 931 section IV of the Federal Labor Law establishes that in elections to determine which union controls the collective bargaining agreement (recuentos), the votes of workers hired after the date on which the election was requested shall not be counted. Although the labor board had originally instructed the employer to prepare a list of employees as of August 13, 2003, SABES presented a list which included workers hired through the present. SITESABES and the FAT challenged this decision, and attempted to get the 2003 list. However, it was not until close to mid-night on the night preceding the election that SITESABES obtained both the 2003 list as well as a “merged” list from 2003 and 2005 which was the official list used during the election. Those employees hired after the cut-off date were allowed to vote subject to challenge. However, the 2005 list was clearly improper, and there was inadequate time for SITESABES to analyze the correct list, and it was impossible to use the list to contact those with voting rights.

There were also a number of cases where voters did not appear on the list at the place they went to vote and were sent elsewhere. In at least one case, after traveling to a second site, an employee was told that he would not be permitted to vote subject to challenge and that he would subsequently be advised by the labor board whether he would be permitted to vote at all. His name had appeared on an earlier list, and he believed that he was not permitted to vote because his brother was a fired union leader. Whether due to an impropriety or a mistake, this is the sort of problem that chills participation and could easily have been corrected had lists been available in advance. .

· The ballot used the logos of STESABES and the FAT, NOT SITESABES. This undoubtedly worked to the disadvantage of SITESABES because all their campaign literature included their own logo, and the FAT had been the recipient of a major smear campaign prior to the election. .

· Conduct of the election process varied widely from site to site. There were also several different orders of the labor board covering some, but not all of the election details, as well as various oral representations.

As noted above, in Irapuato, as many as seven additional representatives of SABES and STESABES were permitted in the room during the election, and for an initial period STESABES actually regulated the flow of voters into the room.

In Guanajuato international observers were permitted to fulfill their responsibilities without interference, as they were permitted in the voting room both during the election and vote count. However, in Leon, international observers were forced to leave not only the voting room but the premises for the critical hours at the beginning of the election. Although they were subsequently permitted to remain outside the voting room, they were unable to hear what was said.
During this period, a notary hired by SABES and an observer from a national human rights organization were permitted to remain on the premises, but outside the room, as were various representatives of both unions and SABES.

An activist from SITESABES later told one of the observers, Deborah Schwartz, that while the two observers were off the premises people from STESABES were spreading rumors that there were no more ballots and that the workers standing in line should just go home and that another rumor that circulated through the line at that time was that it could later be determined how people voted from the number from the ballot. However, since both of the Leon observers were off the premises at that time, it was not possible to observe this directly, interview workers, or bring it to the attention of the labor board representatives so that they could clarify these issues for those people standing in line.

In Irapuato, one international observer was permitted in the voting area, while the other was not; in Celaya, voting occurred outside, and the international observers were kept at a distance. In summary, the international observers were not always permitted to observe the counting of the ballots at a distance that would have permitted the detection of improprieties.

· The order and organization of the table used by board representatives and observers also varied. In Leon, for example, the representatives of the labor board were the farthest from the door and closest to the ballot box, with representatives of SABES seated close to the door. They took advantage of this position to greet voters as they entered, chat with them and shake their hands as they left.
On one occasion, what appeared to be two workers entered with a question, asked the SABES representatives who were the closest to the door, and they responded after checking their lists. In other locations, because of the set-up, this sort of activity did not occur..

In Irapuato, it was representatives of STESABES who engaged in conversation with the voters in the room and for an initial period actually determined who could enter the premises. In other locations, because of the set-up, this sort of activity did not occur.

We would note that there was a major presence by SABES personal in Leon, which may have negatively impacted the labor authorities, who were inappropriately deferential, appearing to cede their authority in several respects, which were not seen in other locations. Had the election taken place on neutral ground, this would likely have been avoided. Similarly, improprieties in Irapuato might well have been avoided had the election taken place on neutral ground.

· In all places both unions and SABES had a number of people present during the election and there was electioneering going on as people stood in line, although the nature varied greatly from place to place. In Guanajuato, representatives from the incumbent union and the SABES spent the day talking with workers waiting to vote. SITESABES activists began also to talk with voters. In Leon, STESABES representatives were seen talking to workers in line. SABES representatives were also observed talking with voters who were waiting and showing some of them a list indicating which workers had voted. When a SITESABES activist asked a SABES official why he was keeping track of those who voted, he told her that workers who did not vote would not be paid for that day’s work. In Guanajuato, workers had received their pay checks, but were told that funds would not be available until after the election. In some locations there were signs and banners for both sides as well.

· In Leon, the number of the challenged ballot of each observer was announced out loud by a representative of the labor board. As the name of each voter was also announced out loud, this permitted the association of the name and ballot number of those voters, and as the ballots were numbered sequentially, all in voice range could keep a list associating the names and numbers of the ballots. It was apparent from outside the voting room that one of the STESABES representatives was writing down the numbers of the ballots and one of the rumors which went through the line of voters was that it would be possible to ascertain the way each individual voted. Since the number was not on the ballot, this would not have been possible except in the case of the challenged ballots. However, even the appearance of impropriety could easily have been avoided if the numbers had not been announced and if observers had been instructed they were not permitted to record the numbers associated with the ballots for any reason. Since the challenged ballots were not counted, it is unclear how that would have been handled.

· There was also some inconsistency in tallying the vote. In Leon, the door was closed and process to tally the vote began six minutes early (although it should be noted that no additional voters showed up during this period). International observers were not permitted inside, and their view of the table where the vote count took place was blocked by observers from STESABES.

In contrast, in Guanajuato the obeservers were invited to stand near the table where they could see and hear everything that took place.

Duncan noted that in Celaya, “After 6:00 p.m., the ballots were taken indoors for counting. Both international observers (and two security guards) were allowed to closely observe the vote count. The mechanism chosen to count the votes (with a single verbal reading of each individual ballot paper) was highly transparent.”

In Irapuato, the vote tally began at 6:00 p.m. and there was some agitation on both sides. It seemed that the SITESABES attorney wanted to lodge a formal, individual objection for each of the approximately 35 votes that were being contested. The officials from the opposing union protested that it would take many hours to do so. The labor officials seemed to be in agreement as well. It was agreed, under protest by the attorney for SITESABES, that the one objection would serve for all votes being contested and later to be verified by name and the ballot number.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) The labor board should ensure that the ballot, a single voting list containing all relevant information, and the appropriate IMSS and INFONAVIT lists are made available to all parties at the same time, sufficiently in advance that all problems can be adequately addressed and corrected.

2) The labor board should ensure consistency regarding the conduct of elections. It was clear that many matters had been anticipated and thoughtfully addressed (for example the matter of voting booths, transparency regarding the ballots, the ballot box, and vote count, the number and credentials of observers from the employer and unions, and process for identifying voters, including the type of credentials to be accepted).

However, many others practices varied from place to place (the location, order and organization of
the table used by board representatives and observers; the location and role of international
observers; the obvious lack of clear and enforceable rules regarding electioneering on the premises
where the election took place; appropriate interaction with voters in voting areas and on line; and
what propaganda is appropriate during the election, including t-shirts, stickers, banners and fliers).
A manual addressing these issues and a comprehensive training for the labor board representatives
and police would undoubtedly resolve most, if not all of these problems.

3) The election should be conducted in a neutral location.

4) There should be a single document containing the terms under which the election is to be conducted and it should be available to all parties sufficiently in advance that all problems can be adequately addressed and corrected.

5) Objections should be handled in a manner that ensures both the actual and perceived privacy of the voter.

6) International observers should be permitted in a location where they may adequately see and hear all that transpires during the course of the election in order to maintain complete transparency.

CONCLUSION
This was a complex election involving four sites, which took place by secret ballot vote. Turnout approached 80%, there was no physical intimidation or violence, voting took place in private and the vote count occurred with total transparency.

Despite the late start, the election itself was well organized and showed a high level of commitment and enthusiasm by election officials, representatives of both unions, and voters alike. Particular credit should go to the President of the labor board and the teams of election officials—younger men and women—who are apparently assigned by the state on an as-needed basis to cover all types of elections. Their professionalism was impressive. Unfortunately, in Leon this was marred to some degree by the eviction of the international observers and the set-up of the voting table, and in Irapuato by permitting up to seven additional representatives of SABES and STESABES in the room where voting occurred, and for an initial period permitting STEABES to control the flow of voters into the room. What appeared to be undue influence by the employer and incumbent union could easily be corrected by holding elections on neutral ground, the organization of the voting table, and more strictly regulating interaction with voters.

In addition, as outlined above, some serious deficiencies existed particularly with respect to the provision of voting lists and the appearance of the ballot, and various aspects of the election were handled differently in the four locations. While it is not surprising that such irregularities occurred in the first election of this type, all of these items could be effectively dealt with by the creation of uniform guidelines or a manual covering election procedures.

We also have one final concern: Workers who are still employed by SABES and could clearly be identified as SITESABES supporters may face reprisals, and it remains to be seen whether workers are pressured or coerced to join STESABES. It is important to note that Mexican labor law permits more than one union in a specific work place. With close to 400 votes in its favor, SITESABES will need to decide whether and how it can continue to function. We hope that the labor board will promptly and effectively address any allegations of intimidation or retaliation that may arise, and that it will also rapidly resolve the individual cases of the 25 teachers fired for their organizing activities which are currently pending.

Report submitted by:

Eric Duncan, American federation of Teachers (AFL-CIO)
Deborah Schwartz, CBLOC
Mary Mendez, Enlace
Maureen Casey, New York State Labor-Religion Coalition
Linda Vila Passione, New York State United Teachers
Richard Neira, New York State United Teachers
Ben Davis, Solidarity Center, AFL-CIO
Ben Cokelet, Solidarity Center, AFL-CIO
Robin Alexander, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE)


Español \| Newsletter \| Calendar \| e-Action Alerts \| Links \| Donate
About Us : Sobre Nosotros Reports : Reportes History : Historia Coaches : Consejeros Members : Miembros Board : Mesa Directiva Staff : Personal Donate Trainings : Entrenamientos Testimonials : Testimonios Current Trainings : Entrenamientos Actuales Individualized Series : Serie Individualizada Coaches : Consejeros Supervisors : Supervisores News : Noticias Campaigns : Luchas Action Alerts : Alertas de Acción Seafood Workers Justice : Justicia para Trabajadores de Mariscos Previous Campaigns : Luchas Anterioras Sara Lee SABES SERPAPROSA - Brink's Pung Kook Convention : Convención Music : Música Credits : Créditos Inspiration : Inspiración Orders : Pedidos Press : Prensa Songs : Canciones Publications : Publicaciones Events : Eventos Contact : Contacto Home : Principal Enlace 320 SW Stark #427 Portland, OR 97204 Ph (503) 295-6466 1247 W. 7th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Ph (213) 673-2224 Fax (213) 624-7280 Support Enlace and buy great apparel NOT made in sweatshops! A portion of your sales goes directly to Enlace.	REPORT ON SITESABES ELECTION Download the full report as a Word document by clicking here On May 30 - 31st, a team of nine international observers participated in the first secret ballot election ever ordered by a labor board in Mexico. The decision by Lic. Libia Gomez Padilla, the president of the Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje in Leon, Guanajuato, to hold an election by secret ballot was unprecedented and a major step forward. The general practice in Mexican labor board elections is that workers are required to express their choice out loud in front of the labor authorities and representatives of the employer and competing unions. This is obviously an extremely intimidating and often risky proposition, as workers are subjected to psychological and often physical violence. The independent union, SITESABES, lost the election. The vote was 571 to 374 with 237 ballots challenged by SITESABES because the workers had been hired after the date the election petition was filed—the legal cut off date under Mexican law. The election took place in four major cities and SITESABES won a majority in two, but lost in the two larger cities where there was a major presence both of SABES (the employer) and STESABES (the incumbent union). This defeat was not surprising under the circumstances: the long delay between the time the petition was filed and the actual election; the discharge of 25 leaders and activists; and some serious procedural deficiencies in the election process. Yet the fact that this election took place by secret ballot, that turnout approached 80%, that there was no physical violence, that the voting took place in private and that the vote count occurred with great care and transparency are to be celebrated. It is our hope that these accomplishments will not be marred by retaliation against those leaders and activists of SITESABES who are still employed by SABES, and that the labor board will take the further important step of developing a procedural manual to prevent problems in future elections. This was truly a historic moment; we hope that it signals a positive direction for future Mexican elections. BACKGROUND SITESABES is an independent union of adult education workers which, with the assistance of the Frente Auténtico del Trabajo (FAT), has been fighting to gain the right to represent adult education workers in high schools and universities throughout the state of Guanajuato. These workers are employed by a state-funded program called SABES. The program was an innovative effort by then-governor Vicente Fox, designed to stem the flow of migration from Guanajuato by providing education to people who often fell through the cracks in the educational system because they live in extremely rural areas, or left school to search for work in other parts of Mexico or the U.S. However, the teachers were hired on short-term contracts with no benefits, and were told that they had to recruit their students and build their own schools. Given the lack of job security and benefits, the teachers decided to organize. In Mexico, a union must have a registration (registro) in order to legally represent workers. SITESABES filed to obtain its registro in August of 2002 and its petition was granted in January of 2003. The following August, SITESABES filed its petition with the local labor board, requesting an election in order to determine that it represented a majority of the workers and was legally entitled to administer the contract which had previously been signed with STESABES, a statewide union with a sweetheart contract with SABES. At that time, SABES employed about 1000 teachers, of whom approximately two thirds were members of SITESABES. The legal process became extremely complicated when SABES intervened to demand that the registro be voided. During this period, SABES also engaged in practices designed to intimidate workers and repress the movement, firing 25 of the leaders of the independent union, SITESABES. Individual cases were filed on behalf of these workers, virtually all of which are still pending. One notable exception: the case of Veronica Raigosa, resulted not only in an order of reinstatement, but also in a determination that the SABES teachers were employees, and were entitled to receive benefits including health care. Ms. Raigosa was immediately fired a second time. In April 2005 the teachers received word that their lawyers had won an impressive legal victory, confirming their right to their registro and paving the way for an election. SITESABES called on the labor board to ask for an election by secret ballot, with independent observers, that was free from violence, and asked their supporters to email and fax letters to the president of the labor board containing these demands. Meanwhile, the prior president of the labor board had been replaced by a new president, Lic. Libia Gómez Padilla, who took the union’s requests seriously, and on May 3, 2005 ordered that an election would be held by secret ballot. The UE, New York State Labor-Religion Coalition, NYSUT, Enlace, and the Solidarity Center in Mexico City had worked closely together in coordinating public information about the SITESABES struggle, and at the request of SITESABES and the FAT, rapidly pulled together a delegation of international observers. THE INTERNATIONAL DELEGATION OF OBSERVERS On May 30 the delegation of nine international observers began its work. Our team consisted of: Eric Duncan, American Federation of Teachers (AFL-CIO) Deborah Schwartz, CBLOC Mary Mendez, Enlace Maureen Casey, New York State Labor-Religion Coalition Linda Vila Passione, New York State United Teachers Richard Neira, New York State United Teachers Ben Davis, Solidarity Center, AFL-CIO Ben Cokelet, Solidarity Center, AFL-CIO Robin Alexander, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) When we arrived in Leon we were briefed by representatives of SITESABES and the FAT, and advised that they still did not have the list of voters who had been employed on the cut-off date on August 13, 2003. We then participated in three activities. The first was a press conference in which we were introduced to the press and expressed both our appreciation that the labor board had ordered a secret ballot election and our concern that the employee list provided by SABES contained workers hired up until the present – adding many hundreds of workers hired after what should have been the cut-off date of August 13, 2003, when the petition was filed. That evening, we also had the opportunity to meet with Lic. Libia Gómez Padilla, the president of the labor board. We were accompanied by several members of SITESABES, by Benedicto Martínez and Eladio Abundis Guadian of the FAT, and by Angeles López García, an attorney representing a human rights organization based in Leon. We expressed our appreciation both for Lic. Gómez’ decision ordering a secret ballot election and permitting our presence. She reviewed the process that would take place the following day, and told us that her office had worked closely with the Federal Electoral Commission in designing the election equipment and procedures that would be followed. We also expressed our concern about the voting list and about maintaining the anonymity of workers who would be challenged. She was extremely gracious, provided us with her cell phone number in the event there were problems the following day, and agreed that her office would provide SITESABES with the correct list. After leaving her office we joined a meeting of the FAT and SITESABES to discuss final logistics. We were divided into four teams composed of an attorney and the representative of SITESABES who were to be the two official observers for the union and two (or in one case three) international observers. There was also an extended discussion with the lawyers to determine how to handle objections. It was clear that the absence of an accurate list had created an extremely difficult situation, although activists from the different regions had done their best to distinguish between groups of voters. In the end, it was not until close to mid-night that SITESABES received the August 2003 list along with the list that would be used the following day – a list which purportedly included all employees from both the 2003 and 2005 lists. On the day of the election we rose early so that our teams could get to the voting places before they opened. Voting occurred in four cities: Leon, Irapuato, Guanajuato and Celaya. In no case was there physical intimidation or violence, and in all cases workers were permitted to vote in private voting booths and the final tally was done in a manner that was free from any suggestion of foul play. The voting took place at SABES schools in all four areas. Balloting was scheduled to start at 10:00 but generally did not start on time. Although in Irapuato it began at approximately 10:10 a.m., in Leon, Guanajuato and Celaya voting did not start until around 11:30. Eric Duncan, observed: “The polling station opened at least an hour late. As far as I could tell, all the materials and equipment seemed to be already on site, so the late start was never adequately explained, to the observers. Since the entire operation was held outdoors, the late start meant that 100-150 early arrivals had to wait in the hot sun much longer than necessary. Despite the wait and the heat, I didn’t observe many people leaving.” The process was coordinated by three or four representatives from the state labor board in each location. The president of the labor board traveled to three of the four sites during the course of the day. In all cases, the challenges were discussed prior to the beginning of the voting. Maureen Casey described the process in Guanajuato: “The lawyer for SITESABES went over the list of challenged names—there were 44—individually with the lawyers from SABES, STESABES and the labor board representatives. Everyone checked the objections on their lists. Then, during the voting process, when a person’s name was called who had been challenged at the beginning of the day, the union’s lawyer stated again that this was a challenged ballot, the person voted and a labor board rep met her/him at the ballot box with an envelope for the ballot.” As each voter filed into the room, she/he gave identification to the labor board rep who read it aloud, checked it on her list as everyone else checked theirs, and the person then voted. Secrecy was assured by setting up a voting booth: essentially a folding table with hard plastic sides over which was placed opaque plastic that people stepped behind to mark their ballots. The folded ballots were then placed in a box with transparent sides and voters had their thumbs “inked” and their credentials returned to them. Where voters had been challenged, they were given envelopes in which to place their ballot prior to insertion in the ballot box. There were numerous observers. In three locations, at the table along with the Mexican labor authorities were two representatives of SABES, the incumbent union and SITESABES. However, in Irapuato, there was inadequate space, so the lawyer for SITESABES was relegated to a separate school desk. In addition to the official representatives, the director of SABES was permitted to remain in the room along with five additional representatives of STESABES and the notary. Moreover, for an initial period, two additional representatives of STESABES stood at the door, controlling the flow of workers coming in to vote. In Leon, SABES argued that alternates should be permitted in the room. In striking contrast to what was permitted in Irapuato, this argument was rejected by the labor board representatives and the additional representatives of SABES were told that they would not be permitted to remain in the room during the election, although they were permitted to stay outside the window. There was also varied treatment of the international observers. In Guanajuato, the international observers were permitted in the room where the voting took place; in Irapuato one of the two were permitted inside the room. In Leon the international observers were initially told that they could come into the room whenever they wished, then told they would need to remain outside of the room, and finally were instructed to leave not only the room, but the school premises, because SABES had objected that it was private property and did not wish them to remain. In Celaya, the outdoor area next to the parking lot of the “distance-learning” university was the site for the voting. The international observers were permitted access to the premises, although required to stand at a distance no closer than twenty to thirty feet. Lawyers from both unions were allowed to sit closer—at the table next to the ballot box. At one point during the morning, an objection was raised to the observers’ presence there on “private property;” but the election official in charge stood her ground and quickly dismissed this objection by reminding all parties that the presence of the observers had been authorized by agreement in advance Outside the voting room were various representatives from Mexican human rights organizations and other independent unions, as well as additional representatives of SABES and of both unions. Notaries hired by SABES were also present in all locations, as were occasional members of the press. The turn out for voting was very high: There were 1169 votes cast out of 1397 eligible voters, or 83.7%. Maureen Casey, one of the observers in Guanajuato noted: “I observed that by 10:00 (when voting was to have started) that more than 100 people were lined up and ready. These folks stood in the hot sun until 11:15 when the voting actually started....and some for up to three hours as the line moved slowly along. By 11:15 the line was more than 200 people long. I watched in amazement as people organized the line in curves back and forth; there was no complaining, pushing, etc. People chatted and the scene in Guanajuato was peaceful and generally cordial.” In Irapuato, Richard Neira noted: “The workers assembled peacefully outside in a line that at times reached 100 people. I did not observe anyone approaching them or menacing them in any way. I did not observe any electioneering save various stick on logos or shirts with embroidered logos from both unions. All the participants seemed at ease and relaxed, there wasn’t any noticeable tension” In Celaya, Eric Duncan observed: “There were no campaign materials seen inside the voting area. SITESABES handed out flyers at the entrance. Several large banners that SITESABES had hung in the street (clearly outside the voting area) were asked to be taken down by the head of the labor board; she also forced the opposition to remove a sign it had hung on the outside fence promising a free eyeglass clinic for its members.” The role of the police varied somewhat from place to place. In Leon, the police appeared to behave in a totally appropriate manner. Similarly, Duncan noted, “Six well-armed soldiers arrived in Celaya. They were professional and low-key (to the point of not being noticed), and quietly enforced a 5-yard cordon around the ballot box. In Irapuato the situation was quite different. Mary Mendez observed: “Throughout the entire day wherever I went the police were right by my side: they followed me, sat near me and watched what I was doing and saying. Neira also commented: “The police present seemed very interested in who I was and one of them asked me for my name and the spelling of it, and also my affiliation all of which he wrote down. I was interviewed twice by two different newspapers during the course of the day. The first time was just before noon while I was standing by the entrance to the parking lot. While this was taking place two police officers approached and listened to the interview. The second time was later in the afternoon while standing just outside the room where the vote was being held, once the reporter asked me for my name and affiliation another officer began writing down the information.” The reconciliation process to account for all ballots issued was performed with great care - an exact record was kept of the numbers of ballots received, issued, used, spoiled, nullified, and unused. Bundling, packaging, and sealing completed ballots for transport to election headquarters in Leon was all done with great care in all four locations. The only unfortunate aspect was that in two of the locations the international observers were not permitted to view the process. Maureen Casey, one of the observers who was able to fulfill her function, described the impact she felt upon observing the vote count: “I have voted dozens of times in elections in the US but had never experienced the actual number crunching process before watching the vote count in Guanajuato. I was one of at least ten observers in a semi-circle where the counting took place. Beside me were representatives of SABES, the Notary hired by SABES, representatives of STESABES, SITESABES members and the SITESABES lawyer, and the two other international observers. Behind us, outside the school and crowded into the windows were voters and union members. Voices were hushed or even silent as we watched. “The ballot box stuffed with papers was lifted onto a table and upended so that two labor board members could scoop out the piles of ballots. These were then partially unfolded but not read and smoothed into piles for counting. The stacks of ballots were counted twice to be sure that the number matched the number of ballots distributed during the day. The sealed envelopes of the challenged ballots were also counted and put aside. “Then each ballot was opened and placed in a pile: FAT or STESABES. We were all close enough to see the markings and to note that no attempt was made to hide or change the marks. One ballot was marked over both union symbols and it was held up so that we could all clearly see it; it was then put aside as nullified. “When all was done and the numbers had been checked again to make sure they tallied with the number of ballots given out, the ballots were placed in large, clearly marked manila envelopes. There was an envelope for SITESABES votes, for STESABES votes, for the nullified ballot, and for unused ballots. Each envelope was sealed with tape and the official representatives of each party signed over the seal. These sealed and signed envelopes were then placed in a carrying box which was, in turn, sealed. “There was a gravity and seriousness about all of the proceedings that I found extraordinarily moving and fully transparent. It truly was a ritual of democracy. There was no banter, no chatter; instead there was clear, almost reverent attention paid to each detail. The entire process took about 90 minutes. What I witnessed in Guanajuato impressed me and filled me with a sort of awed pride in a democratic process that clearly mattered to everyone: observers, voters, government officials and both unions.” PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS The most serious problems were related to matters which occurred prior to the election itself. · The list of eligible voters included people who had been hired by SABES after the independent union filed its petition on August 13, 2003. Article 931 section IV of the Federal Labor Law establishes that in elections to determine which union controls the collective bargaining agreement (recuentos), the votes of workers hired after the date on which the election was requested shall not be counted. Although the labor board had originally instructed the employer to prepare a list of employees as of August 13, 2003, SABES presented a list which included workers hired through the present. SITESABES and the FAT challenged this decision, and attempted to get the 2003 list. However, it was not until close to mid-night on the night preceding the election that SITESABES obtained both the 2003 list as well as a “merged” list from 2003 and 2005 which was the official list used during the election. Those employees hired after the cut-off date were allowed to vote subject to challenge. However, the 2005 list was clearly improper, and there was inadequate time for SITESABES to analyze the correct list, and it was impossible to use the list to contact those with voting rights. There were also a number of cases where voters did not appear on the list at the place they went to vote and were sent elsewhere. In at least one case, after traveling to a second site, an employee was told that he would not be permitted to vote subject to challenge and that he would subsequently be advised by the labor board whether he would be permitted to vote at all. His name had appeared on an earlier list, and he believed that he was not permitted to vote because his brother was a fired union leader. Whether due to an impropriety or a mistake, this is the sort of problem that chills participation and could easily have been corrected had lists been available in advance. . · The ballot used the logos of STESABES and the FAT, NOT SITESABES. This undoubtedly worked to the disadvantage of SITESABES because all their campaign literature included their own logo, and the FAT had been the recipient of a major smear campaign prior to the election. . · Conduct of the election process varied widely from site to site. There were also several different orders of the labor board covering some, but not all of the election details, as well as various oral representations. As noted above, in Irapuato, as many as seven additional representatives of SABES and STESABES were permitted in the room during the election, and for an initial period STESABES actually regulated the flow of voters into the room. In Guanajuato international observers were permitted to fulfill their responsibilities without interference, as they were permitted in the voting room both during the election and vote count. However, in Leon, international observers were forced to leave not only the voting room but the premises for the critical hours at the beginning of the election. Although they were subsequently permitted to remain outside the voting room, they were unable to hear what was said. During this period, a notary hired by SABES and an observer from a national human rights organization were permitted to remain on the premises, but outside the room, as were various representatives of both unions and SABES. An activist from SITESABES later told one of the observers, Deborah Schwartz, that while the two observers were off the premises people from STESABES were spreading rumors that there were no more ballots and that the workers standing in line should just go home and that another rumor that circulated through the line at that time was that it could later be determined how people voted from the number from the ballot. However, since both of the Leon observers were off the premises at that time, it was not possible to observe this directly, interview workers, or bring it to the attention of the labor board representatives so that they could clarify these issues for those people standing in line. In Irapuato, one international observer was permitted in the voting area, while the other was not; in Celaya, voting occurred outside, and the international observers were kept at a distance. In summary, the international observers were not always permitted to observe the counting of the ballots at a distance that would have permitted the detection of improprieties. · The order and organization of the table used by board representatives and observers also varied. In Leon, for example, the representatives of the labor board were the farthest from the door and closest to the ballot box, with representatives of SABES seated close to the door. They took advantage of this position to greet voters as they entered, chat with them and shake their hands as they left. On one occasion, what appeared to be two workers entered with a question, asked the SABES representatives who were the closest to the door, and they responded after checking their lists. In other locations, because of the set-up, this sort of activity did not occur.. In Irapuato, it was representatives of STESABES who engaged in conversation with the voters in the room and for an initial period actually determined who could enter the premises. In other locations, because of the set-up, this sort of activity did not occur. We would note that there was a major presence by SABES personal in Leon, which may have negatively impacted the labor authorities, who were inappropriately deferential, appearing to cede their authority in several respects, which were not seen in other locations. Had the election taken place on neutral ground, this would likely have been avoided. Similarly, improprieties in Irapuato might well have been avoided had the election taken place on neutral ground. · In all places both unions and SABES had a number of people present during the election and there was electioneering going on as people stood in line, although the nature varied greatly from place to place. In Guanajuato, representatives from the incumbent union and the SABES spent the day talking with workers waiting to vote. SITESABES activists began also to talk with voters. In Leon, STESABES representatives were seen talking to workers in line. SABES representatives were also observed talking with voters who were waiting and showing some of them a list indicating which workers had voted. When a SITESABES activist asked a SABES official why he was keeping track of those who voted, he told her that workers who did not vote would not be paid for that day’s work. In Guanajuato, workers had received their pay checks, but were told that funds would not be available until after the election. In some locations there were signs and banners for both sides as well. · In Leon, the number of the challenged ballot of each observer was announced out loud by a representative of the labor board. As the name of each voter was also announced out loud, this permitted the association of the name and ballot number of those voters, and as the ballots were numbered sequentially, all in voice range could keep a list associating the names and numbers of the ballots. It was apparent from outside the voting room that one of the STESABES representatives was writing down the numbers of the ballots and one of the rumors which went through the line of voters was that it would be possible to ascertain the way each individual voted. Since the number was not on the ballot, this would not have been possible except in the case of the challenged ballots. However, even the appearance of impropriety could easily have been avoided if the numbers had not been announced and if observers had been instructed they were not permitted to record the numbers associated with the ballots for any reason. Since the challenged ballots were not counted, it is unclear how that would have been handled. · There was also some inconsistency in tallying the vote. In Leon, the door was closed and process to tally the vote began six minutes early (although it should be noted that no additional voters showed up during this period). International observers were not permitted inside, and their view of the table where the vote count took place was blocked by observers from STESABES. In contrast, in Guanajuato the obeservers were invited to stand near the table where they could see and hear everything that took place. Duncan noted that in Celaya, “After 6:00 p.m., the ballots were taken indoors for counting. Both international observers (and two security guards) were allowed to closely observe the vote count. The mechanism chosen to count the votes (with a single verbal reading of each individual ballot paper) was highly transparent.” In Irapuato, the vote tally began at 6:00 p.m. and there was some agitation on both sides. It seemed that the SITESABES attorney wanted to lodge a formal, individual objection for each of the approximately 35 votes that were being contested. The officials from the opposing union protested that it would take many hours to do so. The labor officials seemed to be in agreement as well. It was agreed, under protest by the attorney for SITESABES, that the one objection would serve for all votes being contested and later to be verified by name and the ballot number. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) The labor board should ensure that the ballot, a single voting list containing all relevant information, and the appropriate IMSS and INFONAVIT lists are made available to all parties at the same time, sufficiently in advance that all problems can be adequately addressed and corrected. 2) The labor board should ensure consistency regarding the conduct of elections. It was clear that many matters had been anticipated and thoughtfully addressed (for example the matter of voting booths, transparency regarding the ballots, the ballot box, and vote count, the number and credentials of observers from the employer and unions, and process for identifying voters, including the type of credentials to be accepted). However, many others practices varied from place to place (the location, order and organization of the table used by board representatives and observers; the location and role of international observers; the obvious lack of clear and enforceable rules regarding electioneering on the premises where the election took place; appropriate interaction with voters in voting areas and on line; and what propaganda is appropriate during the election, including t-shirts, stickers, banners and fliers). A manual addressing these issues and a comprehensive training for the labor board representatives and police would undoubtedly resolve most, if not all of these problems. 3) The election should be conducted in a neutral location. 4) There should be a single document containing the terms under which the election is to be conducted and it should be available to all parties sufficiently in advance that all problems can be adequately addressed and corrected. 5) Objections should be handled in a manner that ensures both the actual and perceived privacy of the voter. 6) International observers should be permitted in a location where they may adequately see and hear all that transpires during the course of the election in order to maintain complete transparency. CONCLUSION This was a complex election involving four sites, which took place by secret ballot vote. Turnout approached 80%, there was no physical intimidation or violence, voting took place in private and the vote count occurred with total transparency. Despite the late start, the election itself was well organized and showed a high level of commitment and enthusiasm by election officials, representatives of both unions, and voters alike. Particular credit should go to the President of the labor board and the teams of election officials—younger men and women—who are apparently assigned by the state on an as-needed basis to cover all types of elections. Their professionalism was impressive. Unfortunately, in Leon this was marred to some degree by the eviction of the international observers and the set-up of the voting table, and in Irapuato by permitting up to seven additional representatives of SABES and STESABES in the room where voting occurred, and for an initial period permitting STEABES to control the flow of voters into the room. What appeared to be undue influence by the employer and incumbent union could easily be corrected by holding elections on neutral ground, the organization of the voting table, and more strictly regulating interaction with voters. In addition, as outlined above, some serious deficiencies existed particularly with respect to the provision of voting lists and the appearance of the ballot, and various aspects of the election were handled differently in the four locations. While it is not surprising that such irregularities occurred in the first election of this type, all of these items could be effectively dealt with by the creation of uniform guidelines or a manual covering election procedures. We also have one final concern: Workers who are still employed by SABES and could clearly be identified as SITESABES supporters may face reprisals, and it remains to be seen whether workers are pressured or coerced to join STESABES. It is important to note that Mexican labor law permits more than one union in a specific work place. With close to 400 votes in its favor, SITESABES will need to decide whether and how it can continue to function. We hope that the labor board will promptly and effectively address any allegations of intimidation or retaliation that may arise, and that it will also rapidly resolve the individual cases of the 25 teachers fired for their organizing activities which are currently pending. Report submitted by: Eric Duncan, American federation of Teachers (AFL-CIO) Deborah Schwartz, CBLOC Mary Mendez, Enlace Maureen Casey, New York State Labor-Religion Coalition Linda Vila Passione, New York State United Teachers Richard Neira, New York State United Teachers Ben Davis, Solidarity Center, AFL-CIO Ben Cokelet, Solidarity Center, AFL-CIO Robin Alexander, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE)
© 1998 - 2008 Enlace \| site by NetRaising