US embassy cable - 04CARACAS2811

C O N F I D E N T I A L  CARACAS 002811 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
NSC FOR CBARTON 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/12/2014 
TAGS: ELAB, PGOV, PHUM, ENRG, VE 
SUBJECT: GOV DENIES LABOR CLAIMS OF EX-OIL WORKERS 
 
REF: A. CARACAS 1139 
 
     B. 03 CARACAS 3200 
 
Classified By: Abelardo A. Arias, Political Counselor, 
for Reasons 1.4(b) and (d). 
 
------- 
Summary 
------- 
 
1. (C) Venezuela's Minister of Labor rejected on August 31 a 
petition to reinstate 14,000 ex-workers of Petroleos de 
Venezuela (PDVSA) fired in the wake of the December 2002 - 
January 2003 national strike.  Minister of Labor Maria 
Cristina Iglesias ruled the dismissals do not meet the legal 
definition of "mass firing" under Venezuelan law.  In 
rejecting the petition, Iglesias said the striking workers 
had imposed a disproportionate hardship on Venezuelan society 
that outweighed the collective interests of the workers. 
Representatives of the fired workers also accused the GOV of 
ignoring International Labor Organization (ILO) 
recommendations.  The GOV argues that the dispute should be 
addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than collectively. 
Additionally, the GOV remains convinced that the fired 
workers were, in fact, engaged in economic sabotage to 
overthrow President Hugo Chavez during the strike, an 
impediment to any equitable solution.  End summary. 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
Labor Minister Denies It Was a "Mass Firing" 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
2. (U) Minister of Labor Maria Cristina Iglesias ruled August 
31 that the 14,000 ex-workers of Petroleos de Venezuela 
(PDVSA) fired during the December 2002 - January 2003 strike 
were not dismissed in a "mass firing" as spelled out in 
Venezuelan labor law.  A "mass firing," defined as more than 
10 percent of an employer's workforce, must be approved by 
the Minister of Labor, who may reverse the dismissals if they 
are deemed to be contrary to the "social interest."  Although 
the PDVSA firing constituted more than 40 percent of the 
state-run oil company's workforce, Iglesias concluded that 
the strike affected the quality of life of all Venezuelan 
society, which the government is obligated to protect. 
Minister Iglesias previously issued two similar decisions 
encompassing an additional 6,000 employees of PDVSA 
subsidiaries Intevep and Pequiven.  Iglesias also argued that 
the national strike did not comply with the requirements of 
the labor code.  Iglesias told reporters September 1 the 
strike was, in fact, an attempt to overthrow President Hugo 
Chavez against the will of Venezuelans. 
 
--------------------------------------------- 
Opposition Unions Claim Political Retaliation 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
3. (SBU) Venezuela Workers Confederation (CTV) Executive 
Secretaries Alfredo Ramos and Pablo Castro criticized the 
 
SIPDIS 
decision September 1 as an instrument of political 
retaliation.  Ramos questioned whether the GOV's offer of 
dialogue with the opposition can be considered sincere in 
light of the Labor Minister's actions.  Castro asserted that 
the decision proves the rule of law is lost in Venezuela. 
Castro defended the workers' decision to strike, calling it a 
legitimate response to a GOV attack on the meritocracy that 
ran PDVSA until President Chavez attempted to replace its 
board with his sympathizers in 2002.  Juan Fernandez, leader 
of the organization of the fired workers, Gente de Petroleo, 
told poloff September 1 his organization planned to reject 
the decision.  Fernandez said they would hold a series of 
assemblies throughout Venezuela with the fired workers to 
coordinate their strategy to resolve the dismissals. 
 
------------------------------- 
An "Irreversible" Determination 
------------------------------- 
 
4. (C) Iglesias said September 1 her decision was 
"irreversible" though she left open the possibility that the 
workers could appeal to the Administrative Policy Chamber of 
the Supreme Court (TSJ).  Carlos Alexis Castillo, Director 
General in the Ministry of Labor, told reporters August 31 
the workers may still pursue individual claims with local 
labor inspectorates, adding that a Caracas-based inspector 
had already processed (and denied) 100 individual petitions. 
Ivan Gonzalez, head of the human rights office of the 
Inter-American Regional Organization of Workers (ORIT), told 
 
Poloff September 1 there is effectively no recourse to the 
courts or inspectorates because the GOV controls these 
institutions.  He added that the TSJ declared the strike 
illegal in December 2002, making a GOV settlement unlikely 
from a legal perspective.  Gonzalez asserted that the 
re-incorporation of the fired workers is impossible, and 
added that the workers' best hope is to be able to receive 
legally mandated severance and pension payments as well as 
the balances of their individual savings accounts still held 
by PDVSA. 
 
------------------------------------- 
ILO Treaties, Recommendations Ignored 
------------------------------------- 
 
5. (C) The Labor Minister's decision flies in the face of 
International Labor Organization (ILO) conventions 87 and 98, 
according to Edgar Quijano, an ex-PDVSA manager and labor 
advisor to UNAPETROL, the union formed by fired oil workers. 
Quijano told poloff September 1 the decision also ignores 
many ILO recommendations approved by the Governing Body in 
June 2004 (ref a).  ORIT's Gonzalez said the decision shows 
the GOV will not apply ILO recommendations, preferring to 
disagree with the international body's conclusions that the 
December 2002 - January 2003 strike amounted to a national, 
generalized strike.  Juan Fernandez said he hoped these 
issues would be investigated by the ILO direct contact 
mission, which should take place in September or October if 
the GOV permits. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
6. (C) The Minister's decision got some media attention 
because of the peculiar logic that the dismissal of 14,000 
employees cannot legally be called a "mass firing."  For the 
Minister to have decided otherwise, however, would have meant 
the immediate re-incorporation of the employees into PDVSA, 
which is politically and logistically impossible.  The GOV's 
revolutionary orthodoxy considers the strike as an attempted 
economic coup d'etat by the opposition -- an interpretation 
not completely removed from the truth.  Unfortunately, the 
GOV's unwillingness to reach a collective settlement with the 
workers has left them in legal limbo and in financial 
distress.  The GOV will continue its case-by-case approach of 
coaxing a small number of people back to work on its terms 
and will probably resist, or impose tight conditions on, the 
ILO direct contact mission. 
Brownfield 
 
 
NNNN 
      2004CARACA02811 - CONFIDENTIAL