Coca-Cola Works with Death Squads in Colombia

COLOMBIA REPORT
Information Network of the Americas
PO Box 20314
New York, NY 10009
E-mail: comments@colombiareport.org
Web: http://www.colombiareport.org
- Monday, 23 July 2001 -
____________________________________________________________________
COCA COLA ACCUSED OF USING DEATH SQUADS TO TARGET UNION LEADERS
___________________________________________________________________
by Garry M. Leech
http://www.colombiareport.org/colombia73.htm

A lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Florida accuses the Coca Cola
Company, its Colombian subsidiary and business affiliates of using
paramilitary death squads to murder, torture, kidnap and threaten union
leaders at the multinational soft drink manufacturer's Colombian bottling
plants. The suit was filed on July 20 by the United Steelworkers of America
and the International Labor Rights Fund on behalf of SINALTRAINAL, the
Colombian union that represents workers at Coca Cola's Colombian bottling
plants; the estate of a murdered union leader; and five other unionists who
worked for Coca Cola and were threatened, kidnapped or tortured by
paramilitaries.

Colombia has long been the most dangerous country in the world for trade
unionists with almost 4,000 murdered in the past 15 years. Last year saw
128 labor leaders assassinated. Most of the killings have been attributed
to right-wing paramilitaries belonging to the United Self-Defense Forces of
Colombia (AUC), who view union organizers as subversives and, therefore,
"legitimate" targets in their dirty war against Colombia's guerrilla
insurgents. Three out of every five trade unionists killed in the world are
Colombian. The most recent killing of a union leader at one of Coca Cola's
Colombian bottling plants was June 21 when Oscar Dario Soto Polo was gunned
down.

Needless to say, companies in Colombia benefit from the reduced
effectiveness of union organizing that results from the intimidation of
workers by paramilitaries. But the complaint filed against Coca Cola last
week claims that the company does more than just benefit from paramilitary
violence: it claims the company orchestrates it.

According to Terry Collingsworth of the Washington DC-based International
Labor Rights Fund and co-counsel for the plaintiffs, "There is no question
that Coke knew about, and benefits from, the systematic repression of trade
union rights at its bottling plants in Colombia, and this case will make
the company accountable." The plaintiffs are seeking compensation and an
end to the human rights abuses committed against Coca Cola's employees and
union members.

The suit claims that Coca Cola controls all aspects of business conducted
by its Colombian subsidiary Coca Cola Colombia, as well as the operations
of Panamerican Beverages, its Colombian subsidiary Panamco, and Bebidas y
Alimentos. According to the complaint, Panamco and Bebidas y Alimentos
exist solely for the purpose of bottling and distributing Coca Cola
products in Colombia. Both are Florida-based companies with 'bottling
agreements' requiring them to abide by Coca Cola's code of conduct
regarding their operations and labor relations.

The plaintiffs are claiming U.S. jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Claims
Act, which allows non-U.S. citizens to file suit against Americans for
violations of international law. Regarding the role of the United Steel
Workers in the suit, union President Leo Gerard says, "We are filing this
case to show our solidarity with the embattled trade unions of Colombia."
The position taken by the union stands in sharp contrast to AFL-CIO
policies during the 1980's that openly supported President Reagan's
military funding of Central American governments involved in the violent
repression of union activities.

Among the suit's many claims is a 1996 incident in which Ariosto Milan
Mosquera, plant manager at Bebidas y Alimentos' bottling facility in
Carepa, Colombia, made public pronouncements that "he had given an order to
the paramilitaries to carry out the task of destroying the union." Union
members claim that Mosquera often socialized with paramilitary fighters and
even provided them with Coca Cola products for their fiestas. Shortly after
Mosquera's pronouncement, local members of SINALTRAINAL began
receiving threats from the paramilitaries.

On September 27, 1996, SINALTRAINAL sent a letter to the Colombian
headquarters of both Bebidas y Alimentos and Coca Cola Colombia informing
them of Mosquera's threats against the union and requesting that they
intervene to prevent further human rights abuses against employees and
union leaders.

Two and a half months later, on the morning of December 5, 1996, Bebidas y
Alimentos employee and local SINALTRAINAL executive board member Isidro
Segundo Gil was killed by paramilitaries inside the Carepa bottling plant.
The remaining union board members were also threatened with death if they
did not leave town. And then, on December 7, the paramilitaries entered the
plant and told employees they had three choices: resign from the union,
leave Carepa, or be killed. The suit claims the workers were then led into
the manager's office to sign union resignation forms prepared by the
company. The union had been successfully busted.

When asked about his company's use of paramilitaries to kill and intimidate
union members, Bebidas y Alimentos owner Richard Kirby, who is also a
defendant in the case, said, "You don't use them, they use you. Nobody
tells the paramilitaries what to do." He also claims that the facts
regarding the murder of Isidro Gil have been distorted: "One day the
paramilitaries showed up at the plant. They shut the plant down, put
everyone against the wall, and started shooting. Now its been turned around
so that it's our fault."

But the targeting of labor leaders was not limited to the Carepa plant.
According to the complaint, union officials at several other Coca Cola
bottling plants were also being threatened and harassed. In 1996, at
Panamco's Bucaramanga plant, local members of SINALTRAINAL went on a
120-hour strike to protest the company's elimination of employee medical
insurance.

After the strike ended, the suit claims, "the chief of security for the
Bucaramanga plant, Jose Alejo Aponte, told authorities that he found a bomb
in the plant." He then accused five members of the local SINALTRAINAL
executive board of planting the bomb. The five union leaders, three of whom
are plaintiffs in this case, were then imprisoned for six months based on
charges brought by, according to official documents, "COCA COLA
EMBOTELLADORA SANTANDER."

The union leaders were released six months later when, according to the
suit, the regional prosecutor "concluded not only that the Plaintiffs had
nothing to do with placing a bomb in the plant as charged, but that there
in fact was never a bomb in the plant as the company had claimed."

When asked about abuses committed against union leaders at its Colombian
bottling plants, Rafael Fernandez, a spokesman at Coca Cola's headquarters
in Atlanta, denied any wrongdoing regarding human rights violations in
Colombia or anywhere else. He also said, "Coca Cola has a strict code of
conduct that all its subsidiaries and businesses that work with Coca Cola
products have to adhere to." But according to Collingsworth, "Their 'code
of conduct' shows that they are legally responsible. These companies come
up with these codes and then don't enforce them."

The suit also claims that local management at Panamco's Barrancabermeja
plant "have openly sided with the paramilitaries in the civil war which is
intensely manifested in Barrancabermeja." It goes on to claim that Panamco
Colombia has publicly accused SINALTRAINAL members of being guerrillas.
Given the volatile situation in Barrancabermeja, home to the most intense
urban warfare in Colombia, such an accusation is tantamount to a death
sentence.

The president of the local SINALTRAINAL union in Barrancabermeja, Juan
Carlos Galvis, says he received phone calls from paramilitaries threatening
him with death if he didn't stop his union work and quit his job at Coca
Cola. The suit claims that paramilitary threats also appeared on the walls
inside the plant, including one in June 2000 that stated, "Get Out Galvis

From Coca Cola, Signed AUC."

According to Fernandez, "Coca Cola Colombia has very special security
measures for all its employees and the employees of its bottling plants in
Colombia." But the company's failure to respond to the SINALTRAINAL letter,
written more than two months before the murder of Isidro Segundo Gil, and
the ongoing intimidation and harassment of labor leaders raises serious
questions regarding Coca Cola's commitment to protecting its workers,
especially those involved in union activities.