OECD Guidelines complaint by International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation (ITGLWF) relating to GP Garments in Sri Lanka 
 

Other materials about this issue (concerns raised by ITGLWF and a response by GP Garments) are available at:

http://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/264638/link_page_view 
 

Ref LC COR 1512

June 13 2005

Mme Collette Vanstraelen

Point de Contact National pour l’OCDE

Directeur général honoraire – Président

Ministère des affaires économiques

Administration des relations économiques

Rue Général Leman 60

1040 Bruxelles

E-mail : colette.vanstraelen@mineco.fgov.be

Fax : 02.514.03.89

Dear Ms. Vanstraelen,

I am writing to you in your capacity as OECD National Contact Point to raise with you a case of violation of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises by a Belgian-owned company, and to ask you to make full and timely use of the mechanisms available to you within OECD procedures to contribute to a solution to this matter.

The International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation (ITGLWF) is a Global Union Federation bringing together 220 affiliated unions in 110 countries. We are raising this matter on behalf of our affiliate, the Free Trade Zone and General Services Workers’ Union of Sri Lanka.

The case concerns the behaviour of GP Garments in the Biyagama Free Trade Zone in Sri Lanka, a company whose actions are in breach of the Sections III (Disclosure) and Sections IV (Employment and Industrial Relations) of the OECD Guidelines.

GP Garments is a significant foreign undertaking which is controlled by a Board of Directors based in Belgium. However, precisely because of the company’s failure to uphold the standards contained in section III of the Guidelines regarding disclosure of corporate information, all we are able to give you is the name of the Chairman of the Board and his e-mail address. The Chairman of GP Garments is a Belgian citizen, Geert Derere, and is e-mail address is 'geert@texsale.com'. Mr. Derere is also known to be the CEO of Dress-Confect, located at 23 Vullaerstaat, 8730 Oedelem, Beernem, Belgium, although GP Garments claims it is not owned by Dress-Confect.

I. BACKGROUND

The problems began in January, when Mr. Derere and one of his senior staff members, Stefan Van Ende told the union representing workers at the plant, which at the time was the Progress Union, that they would be reorganising the factory in order to enhance productivity. Of course, productivity is an issue of concern to workers as well as employers, given that both have a stake in ensuring that the company is internationally competitive and thus able to provide decent, stable employment. Accordingly, the union indicated its willingness to engage in such discussions and to contribute to finding solutions [see Annex I].

In early 2005, instead of embarking on a process of social dialogue with the workforce and their union as the best means of securing cooperation, local management immediately engaged in bribes and intimidation. Some workers were demoted in the process of re-organisation. Management was shifted from the Biyagama factory to the other GP-owned factory in Seethawaka.

In a letter dated May 25 (see Annex IX), Mr Van Ende, Director of GP Garments, made a series of allegations regarding the need for the reorganisation. He claims that because of the ‘thuggish’ and ‘uncooperative’ behaviour of the workers and their union, the company resembled a ‘chicken shed’ by early 2005. These allegations are false. We have responded to the allegations in detail in our response to GP Garments on June 8 (see Annex X).

On February 21, the Chairman of the company, Mr. Geert Derere, sent a letter to each employee. This letter contained a series of unfounded and very general allegations about workers’ behaviour, including the fact that workers were supposedly bathing and sleeping on factory time, and selling jewellery and clothing to other workers during working hours. Mr Van Ende repeated some of these allegations in his letter to us on May 25, and we have rebutted them in detail (see Annex X). It is worth noting that had these accusations been correct (which they are not), the proper way to deal with them would have been to address the problems with the workers concerned. Instead, the company sent out letters to each and every worker. This seems to indicate either very serious deficiencies on the part of management, or that management was trying to put undue pressure on the workers.

Management refused to address union demands for improvements in wages and working conditions, and instead threatened to close the company if it could not impose changes unilaterally. It then labelled as ‘terrorism’ the union’s warning that it would raise the problems with the international buyers unless a satisfactory solution could be found to the problems at the workplace.

When the General Secretary of the Progress Union refused to meet with management on his own as this was contrary to his union’s policy (a policy aimed at protecting trade union leaders from false allegations of bribe-taking), the recently-appointed local manager, Saman Wijesundara, said that no meeting would take place until the union –a legally-recognised organisation- had provided him with a copy of its Constitution and this had been translated.

The union agreed to provide a copy of its Constitution, and requested that the company provide a copy of its articles of association and the memorandum of association. The company did not do so.

The union opposed the nomination of Mr. Wijesundara because of reports of worker rights abuses at the Seethawaka plant (belonging to the same company) where he is also HR manager. At around this same time, Mr. Wijesundara also told the union that the company had set aside 10 million Rupees (100,000$) to put an end to the union.

Again, in his letter dated May 25 (Annex IX), Mr. Van Ende makes a series of unfounded allegations regarding the behaviour of the union during this conflict. These allegations are rebutted in detail our letter of June 8 (Annex X).

In February 25, the company posted the following notice: “The canteen is there for the employees to take their meals during the times they have been legally allowed to do so by the employer, according to the law it is prohibited to use this canteen for any other purpose or and external purposes. The management has come to know that a certain group of workers are planning to make use this canteen to hold a meeting or a trade union conference by enticing the majority of the workers. We here by state that if such an incident occur the management will not approve it, therefore, the management kindly request the workers to refrain from such action. If an attempt is made to hold such meeting or conference without heeding this warning, we here by inform that it would become necessary to take legal action against the workers engage in such enticement".

Naturally the union objected to the posting of such a notice, and the union President confronted Mr. Wijesundara about it when he next came to the factory on March 3. He responded that there was nothing he could do and in future there would be more problems. A heated argument broke out between the branch president and Mr. Wijesundara. It was tea break and there were around a a hundred workers surrounding them. One worker then picked up a piece of conduit pipe that was lying on the floor, and touched it to the wires, in order to make the dust fly and thus disperse the workers, an incident which the company then wrongly labelled as an act of ‘sabotage’.

As tensions escalated, the union leaders and officials were subjected to threats and intimidation. The President of the branch union, Upul Jayashantha, received a threatening telephone call, and made a complaint to the police implicating Mr. Wijesundara.

When Mr Wijesundara found out, he called the union President and said he not done such an ugly thing and that he would be coming to the factory to see him. About fifteen minutes after Mr Wijesundara arrived on March 23, Special Forces officers arrived at the factory.

According to GP Garments, the officers of the Special Forces officers said they had been deployed by Her Excellency the President of Sri Lanka to clean up and eliminate the underworld which had become a threat to the State and civil society. Following up on information provided by an employee regarding the hiding place of this ‘underworld kingpin’, had come to the factory to question the suspect, union organiser, Kirithiraja.

The Special Forces questioned Kirithiraja, threatened that he could go to jail for life, and photographed him.

If it were true that the Special Forces officers were pursuing their own investigation, such behaviour would represent a breach of civil and trade union rights on the part of the government.

However, there are indications that the Special Forces were called in by the company. Indeed, when the branch President then went to the Special Task Force unit to talk to the officer concerned, the officer told him, indirectly, that they came because they had received a complaint about trade union activities. Moreover, the timing of their arrival also seems somewhat suspicious.

Later that evening, thugs went to the home of the union branch President.

The union demanded protection from threats and intimidation and police interference in trade union affairs. When management refused, the workers held a work stoppage on March 24 in protest.

One of the allegations made by GP Garments in its letter of May 25 is that during the work stoppage, the union leaders and their supporters ‘manhandled’ some the other workers. Mr.

Van Ende accused the branch President of beating up a woman worker.

The workers have denied these allegations. According to the union, when the workers began to agitate inside the factory during the work stoppage, the non-union workers ran to the office. One worker may have fallen over at that point, but the union supporters certainly did not assault anybody. The branch President was in fact not even in the factory at the time. Nor did management make a formal complaint, which surely should have happened if a worker had been beaten up.

The company then closed the factory from 25 to 27 March, claiming it was ‘reorganising’. Workers wages were left unpaid. The company also took disciplinary action against thirteen workers, including President, Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Organiser and three other organisers of the branch union.

The workers picketed outside the factory gates and protested outside the factory offices of the Board of Investment.

During this period, the ITGLWF made repeated approaches to the labour authorities and to the company. On March 30, we received an e-mail from a certain Duminda Senanayake, objecting to the statement on our website on GP Garments. In his e-mail (see Annex II) Mr. Senanayake said: ‘the so called union members are a bunch of dis-behaved thugs. I can show you footage of our secret cameras in GP garments, how they behaved. Innocent workers are threatened, assaulted and harassed. You are mis-informed. As a reputed organisation, Please look in to the facts before you open your mouth.”

When we wrote back to Mr. Senanayake asking on whose behalf he was writing to us, he claimed to be a freelance journalist. He went on to outline in some detail his view that the company was one of the best in the zone, and the union leaders were thugs (see Annex II).

In view of Mr. Senanayake’s claim regarding secret cameras (‘I can show you footage of our secret cameras’) as well as the details he provides in support of management and against the union, it is highly improbable that he is, as he claims, a freelance journalist. It would appear instead that he is either in the employ of the company or that he is part of the police special forces, which would then indicate complicity between management and the police.

From April 4 onwards, the company started taking back selected groups of workers.

On April 6, following the intervention of an official of the Ministry of Industries, an agreement was reached allowing for the payment of outstanding wages and bonuses, a return to work on April 18, a lifting of the suspension against the thirteen workers who had been banned from returning to work following the March 24 stoppage, and an inquiry regarding the company’s allegations against them.

In his letter dated May 25, Mr. Van Ende claims that the official in question was a Public Relations Officer who threatened Mr Wijesundara with violence unless he reinstated the thirteen workers. The company claims that this same official phoned Mr Derere, impersonating the Secretary of the Ministry of Industries and telling him to re-open the factory. Surprisingly, GP Garments appeared to accept such threats and lies without making any official complaint.

By the time the workers returned to work on April 18, their wages and bonuses still remained unpaid. Frustrated by the contempt shown by management and its repeated failure to keep its promises, the workers occupied the factory. On April 23, the company sent vehicles to remove items from the factory. The union leaders and some fifty other workers prevented the vehicles from entering. Two managers, Serge Watte and Stefan Van Ende, who had arrived on site, had to remain on site for several hours from leaving because the doors had been locked.

In a communication to us, Mr. Derere claimed the Progress Union ‘instructed its members to wrongfully confine the company managers’, behaviour it says should not be condoned ‘especially when the labour laws of Sri Lanka permit workers and trade unions to utilise the machinery available to ventilate their grievances’.

In his letter dated May 25, Mr. Van Ende claims that himself and another Belgian manager were ‘held hostage’ and threatened that they would not be allowed to leave until the union’s demands were met. They say they feared for their lives.

While it was true that the two were not able to leave because the doors had been barricaded, the union denies that they were ‘hostages’. Nor did the police take any action either then or later, as they surely would have done in a hostage-taking situation.

We have also pointed to Mr. Derere that where dialogue breaks down and management fails to honour its promises, situations such as factory occupations sometimes happen. We also pointed out that it is difficult for problems to be resolved through normal industrial relations if unions are not even allowed access to the FTZ in which their members are employed, as is the case in Sri Lanka. Therefore, not only did the Progress Union not ‘instruct’ its members to occupy the factory, it was in fact prevented access to the zone in order to resolve the situation.

The sit-in ended a couple of days later following a meeting between management, the Commissioner of Labour and the union with an agreement to pay the outstanding wages. At that meeting, the company claimed that the ITGLWF had funded the strike - yet another false allegation.

At a discussion before the Commissioner General of Labour with the company, the union and BOI on April 26, GP Garments requested to remove raw and half finished materials related to French army order to the Seethawakea factory. The company then requested from the BOI the authorisation to also remove 120 machinery to Seethawaka factory. As a sign of good will, the union was prepared to accept this, as long as the removal was temporary and was accompanied by a series of measures designed to ensure a resolution of the dispute.

However, when the parties met again at the BOI head office on April 28, management claimed that the agreement reached on April 26 had been to remove all the materials, not just those related to the French army order. Both the BOI and the union pointed out that that was not what had been previously agreed.

While the labour authorities were engaged in trying to resolve the dispute (see below), the company went ahead and sent out letters of termination to the workers.

The three-page letter of termination (see Annex IV) lists thirteen points as grounds for the dismissal of the union leaders. The allegations can perhaps be summarised as follows: The union leaders, along with some 480 workers, disrupted the production process in the factory, ignored orders given by management, forcibly detained two foreign managers for a long period against their will, resorted to ‘thuggery, immorality and barbarism’ and to ‘acts of terrorism’, used ‘indecent and obscene language’, conducted a ‘gherao’ ie a noisy protest in the factory. They obstructed the gate and prevented police officers from freeing the two who were inside, and acted to destroy and sabotage the aim and objective of the government of Sri Lanka and the Board of Investment which are to attract foreign investors.

The three-page letter is very repetitive and the charges are totally unsubstantiated. The letter includes references to the fact that the workers prevented police officers from carrying out their duties and have attempted to sabotage the aims of the government of Sri Lanka and the BOI. It is of course not up to the company to act on behalf of the police, the BOI and the government. In his response to the company, the Union President Upul Jayasantha denied the charges [see Annex V].

To dismiss workers for taking strike action is a breach of the right to strike. I would like to point out that various types of strike action, such as an occupation of the workplace, are recognised by the ILO as legitimate actions provided they are conducted in a peaceful manner. The company contends that the strike was not peaceful, but the workers deny this allegation, and have not been given the chance to defend themselves on this charge.

THE CURRENT SITUATION

At the April 26 meeting with the Commissioner of Labour, the company had indicated that they wanted to go ahead with their re-organisation. The Commissioner suggested paying the workers 50% of their wages during the period the factory was closed for re-organisation, and then to take all the workers back. Stefen Van Ende indicated he was going to Belgium for a Board meeting, and would advise the Commissioner of the Board’s response to his suggestion upon his return.

On April 29, as mentioned above, Mr. Van Ende breached this agreement and sent out letters of termination to the workers without even given them a opportunity to defend themselves.  
 
I understand Mr Van Ende is back in Sri Lanka. Without following up with the Commission of Labour as agreed, he has informed the Board of Investment that he will reopen the factory next week with 100 workers, including non-union members and newly-recruited workers. Some 480 workers whose services have been terminated will not be re-employed.

To this end, the company sent a cheque to the labour authorities to the cover the gratuities of the terminated workers. The Commissioner of Labour has returned the cheque to the company, urging the company to instead settle the dispute.

VIOLATION OF SECTION III: DISCLOSURE

OECD Guidelines on Disclosure

Section III of the OECD Guidelines say:

Enterprises should ensure that timely, regular, reliable and relevant information is disclosed regarding their activities, structure, financial situation and performance.

1) This information should be disclosed for the enterprise as a whole and, where appropriate, along business lines or geographic areas. Disclosure policies of enterprises should be tailored to the nature, size and location of the enterprise, with due regard taken of costs, business confidentiality and other competitive concerns.

2) Enterprises should apply high quality standards for disclosure, accounting, and audit. Enterprises are also encouraged to apply high quality standards for nonfinancial information including environmental and social reporting where they exist. The standards or policies under which both financial and non-financial information are compiled and published should be reported.

3) Enterprises should disclose basic information showing their name, location, and structure, the name, address and telephone number of the parent enterprise and its main affiliates, its percentage ownership, direct and indirect in these affiliates, including shareholdings between them.

4) Enterprises should also disclose material information on:

a) The financial and operating results of the company.

b) Company objectives.

c) Major share ownership and voting right.

d) Members of the board and key executives, and their remuneration.

e) Material foreseeable risk factors.

f) Material issues regarding employees and other stakeholders.

g) Governance structures and policies.

5) Enterprises are encouraged to communicate additional information that could include:

a) Value statements or statements of business conduct intended for public disclosure including information on the social, ethical and environmental policies of the enterprise and other codes of conduct to which the company subscribes. In addition, the date of adoption, the countries and entities to which such statements apply and its performance in relation to these statements may be communicated.

b) Information on systems for managing risks and complying with laws, and on statements or codes of business conduct.

c) Information on relationships with employees and other stakeholders.

Failure of GP Garments to disclose information on structures and activities

The Guidelines highlight how important it is for workers and their unions to be fully aware of the ownership and decision-making structures of the companies that employ them.

We are dealing here with a substantial venture involving two companies in Sri Lanka, which include the French army as one of their clients. The head company has invested three million dollars in the Biyagama plant alone, and in all the company employs over 1,500 workers. The Biyagama plant includes the French army among its clients. And yet all we know about the foreign ownership is the name of the Chairman and his e-mail address.

What we do know is that ‘the Board’ decides the future of the company. For instance, in an e-mail dated March 18 from Group Director Stephan Van Ende to the General Secretary of the Progress Union, Leon Joseph [See Annex VI], Mr. Van Ende stated that the union’s letter had been properly discussed ‘during a meeting of directors’, and that as a result of this meeting he had been instructed to reply that the Human Resources manager had been given another six months to restore discipline and increase productivity.

In the letter from dated May 2 from GP Garments Chairman Geert Derere and Group Director Stephan Van Ende to the Chairman of the Board of Investment (see Annex III), they say: ‘our Directors abroad have instructed us not to engage in any further discussions relating to any industrial disputes’.

So, while it is clear that the plant is run by ‘foreign directors’ on ‘The Board’, the composition and accountability of the Board in question remains a mystery.

Throughout this dispute, repeated e-mails to Mr. Derere, who as Chairman of GP Garments is the only contact information we have, did not elicit any kind of meaningful response. The first response we received in any kind of detail to our concerns was the letter we received from Stefan Van Ende on May 25. It is significant that until then, the most detailed statement on management’s position had come from Duminda Senanayake, who when asked on whose behalf he was acting, improbably claimed to be a freelance journalist.

The ITGLWF has attempted to clarify the company’s foreign ownership in order to engage in discussions with a view to resolving the problems.

Sri Lanka’s Registrar of Companies indicates that two of the Directors of GP Garments are President and Vice President of Derere Industries. In 1993 their address was listed as 73 Vullaertstraat, Beernem, Belgium. In 2005, the address was listed as 23 Vullaertstaat.

However, a number of Internet sites indicate that Dress-Confect is located at 73 Vullaertstraat (not 23 Vullaertstraat, as indicated in the Registrar), which now houses both Derere Industries and Fortex NB Belgium. Derere Industries, Fortex, Dress-Confect and GP Garments are all engaged in designing and producing occupational garments.

We phoned Derere Industries and were told that Geert Derere is CEO of Dress-Confect, located at 23 Vullaertstraat.

We then wrote to Derere Industries, requesting clarification. On May 18 we received a response from Fortex (see Annex VII) indicating that Geert Derere and his brother Paul Derere sold Derere Industries in March 2000 to Industry Kapital, a pension fund of Scandinavian origin. Soon after the share sale agreement, the company name of Derere Industries changed to Fortex Belgium NV. The CEO of Fortex confirms that neither Geert Derere nor Paul Derere are involved in Fortex in any way.

We also wrote to Geert Derere asking him to clarify the company ownership. On May 18 he responded [see Annex VIII], claiming that GP Garments is not a subsidiary of Dress Confect, but rather, the manufacturer has a client-supplier relationship with Dress-Confect. However, in our earlier correspondence with Mr. Derere, addressed to him at CEO of Dress-Confect, he did not deny his direct involvement with the company.

In summary, in spite of our attempts to find information about the Belgian ownership of the company, all we have been able to determine is that:

- GP Garments is a 100% foreign-owned undertaking representing a significant investment. The company is managed by a Board of Directors based in Belgium.

- The Chairman of GP Garments is Geert Derere, who is also CEO of Dress-Confect. However, GP Garments claims it is not owned by Dress-Confect. It should be noted that although we addressed repeated letters about GP Garments to Mr. Derere in his capacity as both Chairman of GP Garments and CEO of Dress-Confect, he never denied that a relationship existed between the two companies.

- Dress-Confect is listed in various pages on the Internet as sharing an address with Derere Industries/Fortex (all three companies produce occupational clothing). However, Derere Industries/Fortex have assured us they have no legal attachments with Dress-Confect (theirs is a client-supplier relationship) and that neither Geert nor Paul Derere are involved in any way with Derere Industries/Fortex.

We therefore conclude that the company has violated the above mentioned clauses of the OECD Guidelines, and this in spite of requests from both the union locally and from the ITGLWF internationally that it disclose the pertinent information. The company’s failure to reveal its ownership and structures has made it impossible for our affiliate and for the ITGLWF to engage in meaningful discussions with the company with a view to resolving this situation.

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION IV EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

OECD Guidelines on Disclosure

Section IV of the OECD Guidelines say that Multinational Enterprises should:

- 1a) Respect the right of their employees to be represented by trade unions and other bona fide representatives of employees, and engage in constructive negotiations, either individually or through employers’ associations, with such representatives with a view to reaching agreements on employment conditions;

- 2a) Provide facilities to employee representatives as may be necessary to assist in the development of effective collective agreements.

- 2b) Provide information to employee representatives which is needed for meaningful negotiations on conditions of employment.

- 2c) Promote consultation and co-operation between employers and employees and their representatives on matters of mutual concern.

- 2d) Provide information to employees and their representatives which enables them to obtain a true and fair view of the performance of the entity or, where appropriate, the enterprise as a whole.

- 6) In considering changes in their operations which would have major effects upon the livelihood of their employees, in particular in the case of the closure of an entity involving collective lay-offs or dismissals, provide reasonable notice of such changes to representatives of their employees, and, where appropriate, to the relevant governmental authorities, and co-operate with the employee representatives and appropriate governmental authorities so as to mitigate to the maximum extent practicable adverse effects. In light of the specific circumstances of each case, it would be appropriate if management were able to give such notice prior to the final decision being taken. Other means may also be employed to provide meaningful co-operation to mitigate the effects of such decisions.

- 7) In the context of bona fide negotiations with representatives of employees on conditions of employment, or while employees are exercising a right to organise, not threaten to transfer the whole or part of an operating unit from the country concerned nor transfer employees from the enterprises’ component entities in other countries in order to influence unfairly those negotiations or to hinder the exercise of a right to organise.

- 8) Enable authorised representatives of their employees to negotiate on collective bargaining or labour-management relations issues and allow the parties to consult on matters of mutual concern with representatives of management who are authorised to take decisions on these matters.

Failure of GP Garments to disclose information on structures and activities

As outlined in the background information provided, GP Garments has violated the above-mentioned clauses of the OECD Guidelines. Specifically, the company has:

- Failed to consult in good faith negotiations with the workers and their representatives regarding a proposed restructuring of the company.

- Threatened to close the factory unless the company could unilaterally impose its restructuring plan.

- Failed to provide information that would provide a fair view of the performance of the entity.

- Failed to allow the union to consult on labour-management relations with representatives of management who are authorised to take decisions on these matters.

- Failed to respect the right of their employees to be represented by trade unions. In particular, the company:

- Posted an anti-notice in the factory which would influence workers’ decision to join the union.

- Threatened that it had set aside a 100,000$ fund to destroy the union.

- Refused to meet with a legally-recognised union until the union provided a copy of its Constitution and these had been translated.

- Either allowed Special Forces officers to come into the factory to harass and intimidate a union organiser in breach of civil or trade union rights, or was actively involved in calling in the police.

- Appears to have sent thugs to the home of the branch union President to threaten and intimidate him.

- Took sanctions action against workers in retaliation for a legitimate work stoppage in protest at calling in police to threaten and intimidate workers.

- Repeatedly broke the agreements made with the union, the BOI, and the government of Sri Lanka.

- In breach of the right of freedom of association, unfairly terminated 480 workers for having occupied the factory in protest at the company’s failure to pay wages and bonuses and its attitude of threats and intimidation, without giving those workers the chance to defend themselves.

- Is now planning to re-open the factory with only non-union workers and new recruits, but without re-employing 480 workers whose services were terminated on account of their trade union activities.

CONCLUSION

The situation at GP Garments is critical. The company is planning to shortly re-open with non-union workers and new recruits, without re-instating the 480 workers who were terminated in breach of the right of freedom of association.

I would therefore be grateful if you could facilitate an urgent meeting between ourselves, representatives of our affiliate in Sri Lanka and the Belgian ownership of GP Garments in order to help settle this matter.

Yours sincerely, 
 

NEIL KEARNEY

General Secretary

cc: ABVV, Centrale Générale

FGTB, CSC, CGSLB

ANNEXES

Annex I: E-mails exchanged between GP Garments and Progress Union, Jan-Mar 2005

Annex II: Exchange of e-mail with Duminda Senanayake

Annex III: Letter from GP Garments to BOI

Annex IV: Letter of termination from GP Garments

Annex V: Response to GP Garments letter of termination

Annex VI: E-mail form Stefan Van Ende to Progress Union dated March 18

Annex VII: Copy of a fax received from Dirk Holvoet, CEO Fortex Belgium NV

Annex VIII: Response from Stefan Van Ende to ITGLWF dated May 18

Annex IX: Response from Stefan Van Ende to ITGLWF dated May 25

Annex X: Letter from ITGLWF to Stefan Van Ende dated June 8

-------

ITGLWF

8 rue Joseph Stevens

1000 Brussels

Belgium

Tel: 32/2/5122606

Fax: 32/2/511.0904

E-mail: office@itglwf.org

Internet: www.itglwf.org