Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page



APPENDIX F: CORPORATIONS AND THEIR REPORTED PRACTICES

Required Urine Samples for Pregnancy Testing from Female Applicants·

In Ciudad Juárez, the following eleven factories: Zenco de Chihuahua (Glenview, Illinois-based Zenith Electronics Corp.), Sensus de México (Union Town, Pennsylvania-based Sensus Technologies Inc.), Bell Eléctricos (Orange, Connecticut-based Hubbell Inc.), NPC International (Louisville, Kentucky-based National Processing Co.), Favesa (Southfield, Michigan-based Lear Corp.), RCA Componentes (Boulogne, France-based Thomson Corporate Worldwide), Ansell Perry de México (Melbourne, Australia-based Pacific Dunlop Group), Berg Electric Intermex Manufactura (El Paso, Texas-based Intermex), Siemens Sistemas Automotrices (Munich, Germany-based Siemens AG), Vestiduras Fronterizas (Detroit, Michigan-based General Motors),28 and Promédicos de Juárez (Mexican factory now closed. Was owned by McGaw Park, Illinois-based Allegiance Health Care).

· In Tijuana, the following twelve factories: Douglas Furniture de México (Redondo Beach, California-based Douglas Furniture of California), Tijuana Industrial Arcos (San Ysidro, California-based Industrial Arcos), ComAir Rotron de México (San Ysidro, CA-based ComAir Rotron Inc.), Tijuana Samsung Electro-Mecánico (Seoul, South Korea-based Samsung Group), saft Componentes Técnicos (Romainville, France-based saft), BerthaMex (San Diego, California-based North American Communication), Sanyo Batteries (Osaka, Japan-based Sanyo Electric Corp.), Tagit de México (Los Angeles, California-based Tagit Inc.), Matsushita-Panasonic de Baja California (Osaka, Japan-based Matsushita Electric Corp. ), Plásticos BajaCal (Exeter, New Hampshire-based Tyco International), Levimex de Baja California (Little Neck, New York-based Leviton Manufacturing Co.), and Unisolar (Troy, Michigan-based United Solar Systems Co.).
.
· In Reynosa, the following three factories: P.C.M. de México (Rockwell, Texas-based Precision Cable Manufacturing), Controles de Reynosa (Milwaukee, Wisconsin-based Johnson Controls), and Shin Etsu (Union City, California-based Shin Etsu Polymer America).

Examined Women Applicants’ Abdomen to Determine whether Pregnant·

In Ciudad Juárez: Favesa (Southfield, Michigan-based Lear Corp.).

· In Tijuana: ComAir Rotron de México (San Ysidro, California-based ComAir Rotron Inc.).

· In Río Bravo: Fabrica Duro (Ludlow, Kentucky-based Duro Bag Inc.).

Factories also required women job applicants to answer questions about pregnancy status on application forms, during interviews with maquiladora personnel, during interviews with medical personnel, or sign forms indicating that they were not pregnant.

Required Women Job Applicants to Answer Questions About Pregnancy Status on Application Forms

· In Ciudad Juárez: Industrial Hase (parent company unknown).

· In Tijuana, the following ten factories: Maquiladora California (San Diego, California-based Alpha Southwest), Silviana (parent company unknown), Tijuana Industrial Arcos (San Ysidro, California-based Industrial Arcos), Grupo Verde (now closed), Tijuana Samsung Electro-Mecánico (Seoul, South Korea-based Samsung Group.), Sanyo Batteries (Osaka, Japan-based Sanyo Electric Corp.), Matsushita Electric Corp. (Osaka, Japan-based Matsushita Electric Corp.), Levimex de Baja California (Little Neck, New York-based Leviton Manufacturing Co.), Unisolar (Troy, Michigan-based United Solar Systems Co.), and Industrias Ynos (Los Angeles, California-based Esselte Pemvaflex Co.).

Required Women Job Applicants to Answer Questions about Pregnancy Status during
Interviews with Maquiladora Personnel

· In Ciudad Juárez: Howe de México (Victoria, Australia-based Howe & Co.).

· In Tijuana, the following nine factories: Silviana (parent company unknown), Grupo Verde (now closed), Ensambles Hyson (San Diego, California-based Rainbird), Tijuana Samsung Electro-Mecánico (Seoul, South Korea-based Samsung Group), Marcos Calidad (San Diego, California-based American Frame Manufacturing Co.), Sanyo Batteries (Osaka, Japan-based Sanyo Electric Corp.), Tagit de México (Los Angeles, California-based Tagit Inc.), Confecciones Paolas (San Ysidro, California-based Confecciones Paolas), and Industrias Ynos (Los Angeles, California-based Esselte Pemvaflex Co.).

Required Women Job Applicants to Sign Forms Indicating that they were not Pregnant· In Tijuana, the following three factories: Maquiladora California (San Diego, California-based Alpha Southwest), Silviana (parent company unknown), and Tijuana Industrial Arcos (San Ysidro, California-based Industrial Arcos).

Applicants Had to Answer Questions during Medical Exam about Pregnancy Status·

In Tijuana, the following two factories: Microeléctrica de Tijuana (San Diego, California-based Vertek International Custom House) and Plásticos BajaCal (Exeter, New Hampshire-based Tyco International.

· In Reynosa: Industrias Valino (Harlingen, Texas-based Magnolia International).

· In Río Bravo: Costuras de Río Bravo (Edcouch, Texas-based St. Mary’s Sewing).

During Personnel Interview, Applicants were Warned not to Become Pregnant·

In Reynosa: Zenith (Glenview, Illinois-based Zenith Corp.).

We found evidence of post-hire pregnancy-based sex discrimination in the form of questioning women workers about their pregnancy status, obliging them to undergo urine analysis to determine pregnancy as a condition for maintaining their jobs, obliging them to show their used sanitary napkins as proof of continued menstruation and non-pregnant status, or reports of harassment of pregnant workers:

Maquiladora Personnel Required Women Workers to Undergo Post-Hire Urine Analysis
to Determine Pregnancy

· In Ciudad Juárez: Howe de México (Victoria, Australia-based Howe & Co.) and NPC International (Louisville, Kentucky-based National Processing Company).

· In Tijuana: Panasonic Batteries (Osaka-Japan-based Matsushita Electric Corp.) and Industrias Ynos (Los Angeles, California-based Esselte Pemvaflex Co.)

Maquiladora Personnel Required Female Workers to Undergo Inspection of Sanitary Napkins
as Proof of Nonpregnancy in order to Retain Work ·

In Ciudad Juárez, the following four factories: Río Bravo Eléctricos (Detroit, Michigan-based General Motors),29 NPC International (Louisville, Kentucky-based National Processing Company), Favesa (Southfield, Michigan-based Lear Corp.), and Siemens Sistemas Automotrices (Munich, Germany-based Siemens AG).

Maquiladora Personnel Threatened to Refuse to Pay Maternity Leave Wages·

In Ciudad Juárez: Industrial Hase (parent company unknown).

Maquiladora Personnel Required Women Workers to Return on a Periodic Basis to Sign a Form
Indicating that they were Menstruating and not Pregnant· In Ciudad Juárez: Siemens Sistemas Automotrices (Munich, Germany-based Siemens AG).
Medical or Other Maquiladora Personnel Asked Women Workers Whether They Were Pregnant· In Tijuana, the following three factories: Panasonic Battery (Osaka, Japan-based Matsushita Electric Corp.), Plásticos BajaCal (Exeter, New Hampshire-based Tyco International), and Industrial Ynos (Los Angeles, California-based Esselte Pemvaflex Co.).

Fired Worker for Protesting the Conditions in which Pregnant Women Worked· In Tijuana: Industrias María de Tijuana (Klamath Falls, Oregon-based Jeld-Wen Inc.).

Publicly Upbraided Women Workers for Becoming Pregnant·

In Ciudad Juárez: Siemens Sistemas Automotrices (Munich, Germany-based Siemens AG) and NPC International (Louisville, Kentucky-based National Processing Co.).

· In Reynosa, the following factory: Delnosa (Detroit, Michigan-based General Motors).

Publicly Upbraided Pregnant Women Workers for Producing Less·

In Ciudad Juárez: Siemens Sistemas Automotrices (Munich, Germany-based Siemens AG) and NPC International (Louisville, Kentucky-based National Processing Co.).

Publicly Upbraided Worker for Becoming Pregnant and Refused to Let
Pregnant Worker Take Appropriate Bathroom Break· In Reynosa: Delnosa (Detroit, Michigan-based General Motors).

Discrimination Reported in the u.s. nao Hearing:
Women testified about preemployment or on-the-job pregnancy-based sex discrimination in the following seven factories during the u.s. nao hearing in Brownsville, Texas, on November 19, 1997:

Hiring-Process Discrimination:

In Reynosa: Delnosa (Detroit, Michigan-based General Motors): hiring-process pregnancy testing through urine samples30 and Panasonic (Osaka, Japan-based Matsushita Electric Corp.): required women applicants to answer question about pregnancy status on application.

In Matamoros: Controlam (Cleveland, Ohio-based Eaton Corp.): female applicant was not hired after her pregnancy exam came back positive.

On-The-Job Pregnancy Testing:

In Reynosa: Landis & Staefa (was previously operated as Landis & Gyr, owned by Zug, Switzerland-based Landis & Staefa AG): lectured newly hired women workers on the undesirability of pregnant workers; once infirmary opened, tested all previously-hired women for pregnancy; Lintel (ownership unknown): woman worker had to sign form saying that if she became pregnant during first three months of employment she would not be offered a permanent contract; Manufacturas Ilimitadas (ownership unknown): Woman worker forced to resign when she became pregnant.

In Matamoros: Sunbeam-Oster (Del Ray Beach, Florida-based Sunbeam-Oster): woman worker’s contract was not renewed when managers discovered she was pregnant.

Among the fifty factories from which we interviewed women workers, we were unable to document the use of pregnancy status as a condition for employment in just one: Industrial Hase/a.k.a. Nuevo Hase (Waukegan, Illinois-based Cherry Electrical Product) in Ciudad Juárez.

28 General Motors has publicly declared that it unilaterally decided to stop inquiring about and refusing to hire women applicants based on their pregnancy status. General Motors’ new policy was to be in full effect on March 1, 1997. The worker for the case that accompanies this reference started working at this General Motors-owned facility before implementation of the new policy.

29 In a March 1, 1997 letter to Human Rights Watch, General Motors committed to stop testing or inquiring about female applicants’ pregnancy status and denying them employment on those grounds. The General Motors worker with whom Human Rights Watch spoke who had to show her used sanitary napkin to verify her pregnancy status testified that this incident occurred before March 1, 1997.

30 This woman worker began working at the General Motors-owned factory before General Motors announced its plan to stop testing women job applicants for pregnancy and denying them work on that basis.

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page