This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-15-160 
entitled 'Free Trade Agreements: U.S. Partners Are Addressing Labor 
Commitments, but More Monitoring and Enforcement Are Needed' which was 
released on November 13, 2014. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

November 2014: 

Free Trade Agreements: 

U.S. Partners Are Addressing Labor Commitments, but More Monitoring 
and Enforcement Are Needed: 

GAO-15-160: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-15-160, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The United States has signed 14 FTAs, liberalizing U.S. trade with 20 
countries. These FTAs include provisions regarding fundamental labor 
rights in the partner countries. USTR and DOL, supported by State, are 
responsible for monitoring and assisting FTA partners' implementation 
of these provisions. 

GAO was asked to assess the status of implementation of FTA labor 
provisions in partner countries. GAO examined (1) steps that selected 
partner countries have taken, and U.S. assistance they have received, 
to implement these provisions and other labor initiatives and the 
reported results of such steps; (2) submissions regarding possible 
violations of FTA labor provisions that DOL has accepted and any 
problems related to the submission process; and (3) the extent to 
which U.S. agencies monitor and enforce implementation of FTA labor 
provisions and report results to Congress. GAO selected CAFTA-DR and 
the FTAs with Colombia, Oman, and Peru as representative of the range 
of FTAs with labor provisions, among other reasons. GAO reviewed 
documentation related to each FTA and interviewed U.S., partner 
government, and other officials in five of the partner countries. 

What GAO Found: 

Partner countries of free trade agreements (FTA) that GAO selected-—
the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade 
Agreement (CAFTA-DR) and the FTAs with Colombia, Oman, and Peru-—have 
taken steps to implement labor provisions and other initiatives to 
strengthen labor rights. For example, U.S. and foreign officials said 
that El Salvador and Guatemala—-both partners to CAFTA-DR-—as well as 
Colombia, Oman, and Peru have acted to change labor laws, and Colombia 
and Guatemala have acted to address violence against union members. 
Since 2001, U.S. agencies have provided $275 million in labor-related 
technical assistance and capacity-building activities for FTA 
partners, including $222 million for the four FTAs GAO reviewed. 
However, U.S. agencies reported, and GAO found, persistent challenges 
to labor rights, such as limited enforcement capacity, the use of 
subcontracting to avoid direct employment, and, in Colombia and 
Guatemala, violence against union leaders. 

Since 2008, the Department of Labor (DOL) has accepted five formal 
complaints-—known as submissions—-about possible violations of FTA 
labor provisions and has resolved one, regarding Peru (see figure). 
However, for each submission, DOL has exceeded by an average of almost 
9 months its 6-month time frame for investigating FTA-related labor 
submissions and issuing public reports, showing the time frame to be 
unrealistic. Also, union representatives and other stakeholders GAO 
interviewed in partner countries often did not understand the 
submission process, possibly limiting the number of submissions filed. 
Further, stakeholders expressed concerns that delays in resolving the 
submissions, resulting in part from DOL's exceeding its review time 
frames, may have contributed to the persistence of conditions that 
affect workers and are allegedly inconsistent with the FTAs. 

Five Labor Submissions Accepted by DOL Regarding Free Trade Agreements: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table] 

FTA: Bahrain; 
Year accepted: 2011; 
Alleged violations: Violation of right to freedom of association, 
discrimination; 
Status: Open. 

FTA: Dominican Republic; 
Year accepted: 2012; 
Alleged violations: Human trafficking, forced labor, retaliatory 
firing of workers for union activities; 
Status: Open. 

FTA: Guatemala; 
Year accepted: 2008; 
Alleged violations: Violation of right to freedom of association, 
violation of rights to organize and bargain collectively, unacceptable 
work conditions; 
Status: Open. 

FTA: Honduras; 
Year accepted: 2012; 
Alleged violations: Violation of right to freedom of association, 
violations of rights to organize and bargain collectively, child labor; 
Status: Open. 

FTA: Peru; 
Year accepted: 2011; 
Alleged violations: Failure to comply with labor laws related to 
collective bargaining; 
Status: Closed as resolved (2012). 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Labor (DOL) information. 
GAO-15-160. 

[End of figure] 

2009, GAO found weaknesses in the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative's (USTR) and DOL's monitoring and enforcement of FTA 
labor provisions. In the same year, the agencies pledged to adopt a 
more proactive, interagency approach. GAO's current review found that 
although the agencies have taken several steps since 2009 to 
strengthen their monitoring and enforcement of FTA labor provisions, 
they lack a strategic approach to systematically assess whether 
partner countries' conditions and practices are inconsistent with 
labor provisions in the FTAs. Despite some proactive steps, they 
generally rely on labor submissions to begin identifying, 
investigating, and initiating steps to address possible 
inconsistencies with FTA labor provisions. According to agency 
officials, resource limitations have prevented more proactive 
monitoring of all FTA labor provisions. As a result, USTR and DOL 
systematically monitor and enforce compliance with FTA labor 
provisions for only a few priority countries. USTR's annual report to 
Congress about trade agreement programs provides limited details of 
the results of the agencies' monitoring and enforcement of compliance 
with FTA labor provisions. 

What GAO Recommends: 

DOL should reevaluate its submission review time frame and better 
inform stakeholders about the submission process. USTR and DOL should 
establish a coordinated strategic approach to monitoring and 
enforcement labor provisions. USTR's annual report to Congress should 
include more information of USTR's and DOL's monitoring and 
enforcement efforts. The agencies generally agreed with the 
recommendations but disagreed with some findings, including the 
finding that they lack a systematic approach to monitor and enforce 
labor provisions in all FTAs. GAO stands by its findings. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-160]. For more 
information, contact Kimberly Gianopoulos at (202) 512-8612 or 
gianopoulosk@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Selected Countries Have Taken Steps, with U.S. Assistance, to Address 
FTA Labor Commitments and Other Labor Initiatives but Have Limited 
Enforcement Capacity: 

One of Five Labor Submissions Has Been Resolved, but Reporting 
Deadlines and Limited Public Awareness of the Process Present Problems: 

U.S. Agencies Provide Limited Monitoring, Enforcement, and Reporting 
on FTA Labor Provisions: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Reported Violence against Trade Unionists in Colombia and 
Guatemala: 

Appendix III: U.S. Monitoring of Implementation of Other Labor 
Initiatives: 

Appendix IV: Status of Labor Submissions: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Labor-Related Technical Assistance Administered by U.S. 
Agencies under Selected Free Trade Agreements (FTA) and All Other FTAs: 

Figure 2: U.S. DOL Labor Submission Process: 

Figure 3: Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Labor Submissions Accepted by DOL 
as of July 2014: 

Figure 4: Murders of Unionists in Colombia, 2003-2013: 

Figure 5: Timeline and Status of Labor Submission Regarding Bahrain: 

Figure 6: Timeline and Status of Labor Submission Regarding the 
Dominican Republic: 

Figure 7: Timeline and Status of Labor Submission Regarding Guatemala: 

Figure 8: Timeline and Status of Labor Submission Regarding Honduras: 

Figure 9: Timeline and Status of Labor Submission Regarding Peru: 

Abbreviations: 

AFL-CIO: American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
Organizations: 

CAFTA-DR: Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade 
Agreement: 

CICIG: International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala: 

DOL: Department of Labor: 

DPPS: División de Protección de Personas y Seguridad: 

DRL: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor: 

ENS: Escuela Nacional Sindical: 

FTA: free trade agreement: 

ILO: International Labour Organization: 

INL: Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement: 

NAFTA: North American Free Trade Agreement: 

NGO: nongovernmental organization: 

SENA: Servicio Nacional de Aprendizaje: 

SINAUT: National Union of Tax Administration Workers: 

SUNAUT: National Superintendency of Tax Administration: 

TPSC: Trade Policy Staff Committee: 

UNP: Unidad Nacional de Protección: 

USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development: 

USTR: Office of the U.S. Trade Representative: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

November 6, 2014: 

The Honorable George Miller: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Education and the Workforce: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Sander M. Levin: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Ways and Means: 
House of Representatives: 

As global economic competition has intensified, concerns in the United 
States that competitors' labor practices may disadvantage U.S. workers 
and producers have become acute. Recent U.S. free trade agreements 
(FTA) contain a provision requiring partner countries to commit to 
respect internationally accepted core labor rights, such as freedom of 
association and the right to bargain collectively.[Footnote 1] FTAs 
phase out barriers to trade with particular countries or groups of 
countries and contain rules and other commitments to improve access 
for services and investment. FTAs represent a major component of U.S. 
trade policy, as the United States has signed 14 FTAs with 20 
countries covering, according to the Department of Commerce, more than 
35 percent of all U.S. imports--$2.3 trillion in 2013.[Footnote 2] The 
status of the implementation of FTA labor provisions is of particular 
relevance, as the United States is negotiating the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership--a trade agreement with 11 Pacific Rim countries, in which 
the administration is seeking to negotiate high-standard labor 
provisions. The effective implementation of labor provisions is also 
relevant as Congress considers renewal of the President's lapsed Trade 
Promotion Authority, most recently in effect from 2002 through 2007. 
[Footnote 3] 

In 2009, we reported significant challenges connected with the 
enforcement of labor provisions in four FTAs.[Footnote 4] We also 
reported that the U.S. agencies responsible for the monitoring and 
implementation of labor provisions in the FTAs in many cases engaged 
in only minimal oversight and assistance with FTA partner countries to 
address these challenges. We recommended that the Department of Labor 
(DOL), in consultation with other agencies, initiate regular contact 
with all FTA partners' ministries of labor to review implementation of 
FTA labor provisions and to develop ongoing priorities and plans for 
technical cooperation on labor matters. We also recommended that the 
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), in cooperation with 
other agencies, prepare updated plans to implement, enforce, monitor, 
and report on compliance with and progress under the FTAs' labor 
provisions and that these plans should reflect ongoing trade 
developments, be provided to Congress, and be summarized in USTR's 
annual trade agreements report. In 2012, both agencies were taking 
actions to address the recommendations.[Footnote 5] 

As the main U.S. point of contact for all FTAs, USTR has general 
oversight responsibility for commitments in FTAs. DOL is responsible 
for monitoring partner countries' labor conditions and compliance with 
FTA labor provisions, addressing complaints regarding violations of 
these provisions, and providing technical assistance. The Department 
of State (State) supports USTR and DOL in discharging their 
responsibilities and also monitors labor conditions in each partner 
country. In some instances, the U.S. Agency for International 
Development (USAID) supports partner countries in implementing FTA 
labor obligations and initiatives by administering technical 
assistance projects, carried out by USAID's implementing partners. In 
2009, USTR announced that it would take steps jointly with DOL and 
State to improve interagency cooperation; proactively monitor the 
implementation of labor provisions; and address identified problem 
areas, including foreign practices that would constitute violations of 
FTA requirements. Furthermore, the President's 2014 Trade Policy 
Agenda indicates that the administration will focus on implementation 
of the numerous agreements into which the United States has entered 
and that the United States will work with key trading partners around 
the world to address specific labor issues. 

You asked us to assess the current status of the implementation of FTA 
labor provisions as well as the United States' and trade partner 
countries' responses to related challenges, such as reported violence 
against unionists in some partner countries. This report examines the 
following (see appendix I for a detailed description of our scope and 
methodology): 

1) steps that selected partner countries have taken, and U.S. 
assistance they have received, to implement FTA labor provisions and 
other labor initiatives and the reported results of such steps; 

2) complaints--known as submissions--about possible violations of FTA 
labor provisions that DOL has accepted and any problems related to the 
submission process; and: 

3) the extent to which USTR, DOL, and State monitor and enforce 
partner countries' implementation of FTA labor provisions and report 
results to Congress. 

In addition, appendix II describes reported violence against labor 
unionists in selected FTA partner countries as well as steps that the 
countries have taken to address such occurrences. Appendix III 
describes U.S. agencies' efforts to monitor implementation of other 
labor initiatives. 

For our review, we selected four FTAs--the Dominican Republic-Central 
America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), the United 
States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (Colombia FTA), the United 
States-Oman Free Trade Agreement (Oman FTA), and the United States-
Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (Peru FTA). We also visited five 
partner countries--El Salvador and Guatemala, both of which are CAFTA-
DR partners; Colombia; Oman; and Peru. We selected these FTAs and 
countries in part because of the extent of known labor issues in each 
country; because of the timing of the FTAs' entry into force; and to 
reflect regional dispersion across Central America, South America, and 
the Middle East.[Footnote 6] In addition, we selected the Colombia and 
Peru FTAs in part because the labor chapters in those agreements 
contain provisions reflecting labor language as delineated in the May 
10, 2007, Bipartisan Trade Agreement on Trade Policy, popularly known 
as the May 10th Agreement.[Footnote 7] However, the results of our 
review of these selected FTAs and partner countries cannot be 
generalized to all FTAs and partner countries. 

To address our objectives, we reviewed relevant documents, including 
the labor chapters of the four selected FTAs; labor submissions 
received by DOL; labor rights reports and trade agreement reports 
compiled by U.S. agencies, international organizations, and FTA 
stakeholders; and documents pertaining to U.S. monitoring and 
enforcement plans. In addition, we reviewed documentation related to 
labor conditions in partner countries that we obtained from partner 
country governments as well as from business associations, labor 
unions, the International Labour Organization (ILO), and nonprofit 
organizations. We interviewed representatives of these organizations; 
relevant foreign government officials; and U.S. agency officials in 
Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Oman, and Peru during fieldwork in 
those countries. We also interviewed U.S. agency representatives in 
Washington, D.C., and Geneva, Switzerland.[Footnote 8] We collected 
data on U.S. funding for labor assistance programs in FTA partner 
countries from 2001 to 2013 and on reported violence against unionists 
in Colombia--the only selected FTA partner country with such data--and 
we assessed these data's reliability by interviewing agency officials 
knowledgeable about the data sources and by tracing the data to source 
documents. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for 
the purposes of describing U.S. assistance for implementation of labor 
provisions in FTA partner countries and describing general trends in 
reported violence against unionists in Colombia. (See appendix I for 
further details of our scope and methodology.) 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2013 to November 2014 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

FTA Labor Provisions and Other Initiatives to Address Labor Concerns: 

The current and prior administrations have expressed concerns that 
poor labor standards in FTA partner countries may affect workers in 
the United States and other parts of the world, incentivizing a global 
"race to the bottom" that unfairly distorts global markets and 
prevents U.S. businesses and workers from competing on a level playing 
field. According to DOL, to address such concerns, each FTA signed in 
the past decade, including those we selected, contains a "labor 
chapter" that differs in detail across the FTAs but generally includes 
labor provisions, establishes points of contact for labor matters, and 
provides a recourse mechanism for matters arising from the labor 
provisions.[Footnote 9] The provisions in the labor chapters of the 
four FTAs that took effect most recently generally reflect the trade 
policy template created by the May 10th Agreement.[Footnote 10] 

* In FTAs that entered into force from January 2004 through January 
2009, including CAFTA-DR and the Oman FTA, the labor chapter contains 
a provision that a party shall not fail to effectively enforce its 
labor laws, through a sustained or recurring course of action or 
inaction, in a manner affecting trade between the parties.[Footnote 
11] Under CAFTA-DR and the Oman FTA, matters related to this 
obligation are the only matters under the respective labor chapters 
for which parties can seek recourse through dispute settlement that 
may result in possible fines and sanctions.[Footnote 12] These FTAs 
also contain a provision whereby parties commit to "strive to ensure" 
that the labor rights enumerated in the respective labor chapter are 
protected by their laws; however, matters arising under this provision 
do not have recourse through the dispute settlement chapter of the 
respective FTA.[Footnote 13] 

* In FTAs that entered into force after January 2009, including the 
Colombia and Peru FTAs,[Footnote 14] the labor chapter includes 
language echoing the May 10th Agreement that obligates each partner to 
adopt and maintain in its statutes, regulations, and practices certain 
fundamental labor rights as stated by the ILO.[Footnote 15] Although 
the text of the respective FTAs' labor chapters varies, this language 
generally relates to, for example, the rights to freedom of 
association and collective bargaining and the elimination of 
compulsory or forced labor. The labor chapters of these FTAs also 
obligate the parties not to fail to effectively enforce these labor 
laws in a manner affecting trade between the parties. Pursuant to the 
labor chapters of these FTAs, if consultations fail, the parties can 
seek to resolve matters arising under the labor chapters by pursuing 
recourse through the respective FTAs' dispute settlement chapters, 
which may result in possible fines and sanctions.[Footnote 16] 

In addition, other labor initiatives--one known as the White Paper 
[Footnote 17] and the other titled Colombian Action Plan Related to 
Labor Rights (Labor Action Plan)[Footnote 18]--were developed in the 
context of CAFTA-DR and the Colombia FTA, respectively.[Footnote 19] 

* White Paper. Before Congress enacted implementing legislation for 
CAFTA-DR,[Footnote 20] a group of vice ministers responsible for trade 
and labor in the partner countries developed the White Paper to 
address labor concerns in Central America and the Dominican Republic. 
The White Paper detailed six areas of focus and included 
recommendations to enhance the implementation and enforcement of labor 
standards and to strengthen the region's labor institutions.[Footnote 
21] According to DOL, the U.S. government did not participate in 
preparing or negotiating the White Paper's recommendations. The ILO 
Verification Project, funded by DOL, was created to monitor 
implementation of the White Paper commitments and released 
verification reports every 6 months between 2007 and 2010. 

* Labor Action Plan. Colombia and the United States agreed in 2011 to 
the Labor Action Plan, in furtherance of Colombia's commitment to 
protect internationally recognized labor rights, prevent violence 
against labor leaders, and prosecute the perpetrators of such 
violence. The plan listed nine issue areas to strengthen labor rights 
that Colombia was required to address before the FTA could receive 
congressional approval.[Footnote 22] USTR and DOL are jointly 
responsible for monitoring Colombia's ongoing progress in fulfilling 
these requirements. 

U.S. Agencies' Responsibilities Related to Monitoring Implementation 
of FTA Labor Provisions: 

USTR, DOL, and State have key responsibilities related to monitoring 
partner countries' implementation of FTA labor provisions. These roles 
involve both discrete and shared responsibilities that require both 
formal and informal coordination. USAID has provided funding for 
cooperative projects to improve labor capacity. 

* USTR. The U.S. Trade Representative is the President's principal 
adviser and spokesperson on trade and has lead responsibility for 
negotiating trade agreements, including FTAs, as well as for 
developing and coordinating U.S. trade policy and issuing policy 
guidance related to international trade functions. USTR is responsible 
to the President and Congress for administering the trade agreements 
program, including periodic reporting to Congress as required. 
[Footnote 23] USTR is also responsible for coordinating the 
administration's activities to create a fair, open, and predictable 
trading environment by identifying, monitoring, enforcing, and 
resolving the full range of international trade issues. According to 
USTR, this includes asserting U.S. rights; vigorously monitoring and 
enforcing bilateral and other agreements; and promoting U.S. 
interests, including labor interests, under FTAs. 

* DOL. DOL's Bureau of International Labor Affairs is responsible for 
monitoring implementation of FTA labor provisions for all FTAs. The 
bureau's Office of Trade and Labor Affairs is designated as the point 
of contact for implementation of the labor provisions of the FTAs as 
well as for the labor cooperation mechanisms. Before congressional 
approval and implementation of an FTA, DOL's responsibilities include 
preparing reports for Congress, in consultation with USTR and State, 
about the partner country's labor rights protections and child labor 
laws and the FTA's potential effect on employment in the United 
States. After an FTA enters into force, DOL's responsibilities include 
receiving, reviewing, and acting on any public complaint submitted 
about the partner's compliance with FTA labor obligations 
(submissions).[Footnote 24] Both before and after an FTA is 
implemented, DOL is responsible for assisting the partner country as 
needed--for example, planning, developing, and pursuing cooperative 
projects related to labor matters--to strengthen the partner country's 
capacity to promote respect for core labor standards. 

* State. State is responsible for supporting USTR and DOL in 
implementing and monitoring FTAs. State's Bureau of Democracy, Human 
Rights, and Labor (DRL) coordinates State's in-country labor officers, 
who are tasked with carrying out regular monitoring and reporting and 
day-to-day interaction with foreign governments regarding labor 
matters. State annually produces Country Reports on Human Rights 
Practices, which includes information about countries' labor 
practices. In addition, State participates with USTR and DOL in the 
USTR-led interagency team that negotiates FTA labor provisions, 
contributes critical input to the research and analysis of reports 
produced by DOL, and provides technical assistance funding to 
strengthen some countries' labor capacity. Because USTR and DOL do not 
maintain a presence in other countries, they often rely on State for 
outreach, monitoring, and reporting activities related to FTA labor 
provisions. 

* USAID. USAID administers technical assistance programs to address 
labor-related matters. USAID administers trade-capacity-building 
programs globally in both FTA and non-FTA partner countries. In 
addition, during the FTA negotiations, USAID provides USTR input on 
draft FTA text as well as input on possible trade-capacity-building 
programs to address labor-related issues. 

Selected Countries Have Taken Steps, with U.S. Assistance, to Address 
FTA Labor Commitments and Other Labor Initiatives but Have Limited 
Enforcement Capacity: 

Each of the FTA partner countries that we selected for our review has 
taken steps to strengthen labor rights pursuant to its FTA with the 
United States, and some of these countries have also implemented other 
labor initiatives outside the FTA framework. The U.S. government has 
provided some technical assistance to help FTA partner countries meet 
their labor commitments. However, stakeholders reported that 
limitations in partner countries' capacity to enforce labor laws cause 
gaps in labor protections to persist. 

Selected Countries Have Taken Steps to Implement FTA Labor Commitments 
and Other Labor Initiatives, Including Strengthening Labor 
Institutions: 

CAFTA-DR: El Salvador and Guatemala: 

El Salvador and Guatemala, the CAFTA-DR countries we selected for our 
review, have both taken steps to implement labor initiatives 
responding to their FTA commitments and areas of focus identified in 
the White Paper. According to the ILO, and as reported by DOL, these 
countries have addressed these areas of focus by implementing changes 
to improve labor protections, such as increasing the number of labor 
inspectors and increasing the number of judges and courts that hear 
labor cases. 

El Salvador. According to DOL and ILO verification reports, El 
Salvador increased its Ministry of Labor's enforcement budget by about 
120 percent from 2005 to 2010, leading to an increase in the number of 
labor inspectors during the same period as well as increases in both 
the number of inspections conducted and the number of fines imposed on 
employers.[Footnote 25] Ministry of Labor officials reported that with 
the increase in size and budget, which resulted from the White Paper 
recommendations, the ministry is now able to accommodate workers' 
requests for workplace inspections and labor inspectors can issue 
fines for violations not addressed by employers.[Footnote 26] In 
addition, according to officials from the Supreme Court in El 
Salvador, the labor courts have created a comprehensive statistical 
system to track labor issues identified in the White Paper, and unions 
have successfully advocated for legislation that, if passed, would 
speed labor case reviews and allow plaintiffs to participate more 
actively. 

Guatemala. Guatemala has taken some steps to address labor conditions 
in accordance with commitments outlined in an Enforcement Plan that 
the United States and Guatemala agreed to in 2013 as a result of 
negotiations to resolve a labor case initiated through a labor 
submission to DOL.[Footnote 27] The actions that the plan calls for 
include, among others, increasing the budget for labor law enforcement 
at the Ministry of Labor and verifying employer compliance with court 
orders.[Footnote 28] Officials from the Ministry of Labor reported 
improvements in labor rights implementation in response to the 
Enforcement Plan. For example, the number of labor inspections rose 
from about 5,000 nationwide in 2011 to about 36,800 nationwide in 
2013. Also, according to ministry officials, the ministry now conducts 
labor inspections regularly, rather than in response to complaints, 
and has increased its legal education requirements for labor 
inspectors, to further fulfill its Enforcement Plan commitments. 

Colombia: 

According to USTR, Colombia has taken steps to implement labor 
protection commitments outlined in the Labor Action Plan, such as 
reforming the criminal code to establish criminal penalties for 
employers that undermine the right to organize and bargain 
collectively, enacting legal provisions and regulations prohibiting 
the use of temporary service agencies to circumvent labor rights, and 
reforming the criminal justice system. USTR and DOL have reported that 
the Colombian government took concrete steps and made meaningful 
progress under the Labor Action Plan, which fulfilled the condition 
for advancing the FTA to Congress and resulted in the FTA's entering 
into force in May 2012. The government's steps included securing 
legislation to establish a separate labor ministry and expanding its 
labor inspectorate by hiring additional inspectors. Additionally, USTR 
and the Colombian Ministry of Labor reported that the government 
enacted a series of laws and ministerial decrees that expanded labor 
protections as a result of the Labor Action Plan. According to USTR 
and the Colombian Ministry of Labor, these laws and decrees include, 
for example, legislation to establish criminal penalties, including 
imprisonment, for employers that undermined the right to organize and 
bargain collectively as well as new provisions and regulations to 
prohibit and sanction with significant fines the misuse of 
cooperatives[Footnote 29] and other employment relationships that 
undermine workers' rights.[Footnote 30] 

Oman: 

Oman has taken steps to implement labor protections that have allowed 
for unionization and collective bargaining. Officials from Oman's 
Ministry of Manpower--the ministry responsible for labor affairs--
reported that Oman's interest in entering into a free trade agreement 
with the United States helped lead to the introduction of labor 
reforms, including the establishment of unions. According to USTR, in 
order to meet its commitments made in connection with the FTA, Oman 
has enacted a number of labor law reforms including, among others, a 
royal decree in 2006 that established the right to organize labor 
unions, allowed for collective bargaining, prohibited the dismissal of 
workers for union activity, guaranteed the right to strike, and 
guaranteed unions the right to practice their activities freely and 
without interference from outside parties. According to union and 
Ministry of Manpower officials we met with in Oman, the General 
Federation of Trade Unions held its first election in 2010 and served 
as the starting point for the union movement in Oman. The federation 
serves as an umbrella organization representing workers from various 
sectors and, according to union officials, represents about 200 
company-level unions and one sector-level union, established in 2013 
in the oil and gas sector. 

Peru: 

According to USTR, Peru committed to steps to implement labor 
protection commitments in the context of FTA negotiations with the 
United States. During our fieldwork, officials at Peru's Ministry of 
Labor told us that Peru recently established a new labor inspection 
regime and that the ministry has focused on improving inspections in 
the workplace. For example, in 2013, according to Ministry of Labor 
officials, the ministry took action to centralize authority for labor 
inspections and help ensure that inspectors are applying the same 
criteria across the country. Ministry of Labor officials also reported 
that the ministry took steps to improve labor inspections by 
modernizing its information systems to allow for digital record 
keeping, with technical assistance provided by USAID. According to 
USAID, as a result of these programs, the time required to adjudicate 
labor cases has decreased from 2 years to 6 months. Additionally, 
according to a 2007 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways 
and Means report, in order to bring Peruvian labor laws into alignment 
with the obligations under the FTA, the government of Peru took steps 
to change Peru's legal framework governing temporary employment 
contracts, subcontracting and outsourcing contracts, the right of 
workers to strike, recourses against unit-union discrimination, and 
workers' right to organize. Ministry of Labor officials reported that 
the ministry has progressively increased the number of labor 
inspectors, in connection with the commitments Peru made during the 
FTA negotiation, to double its labor inspectorate. As of September 
2013, the ministry reported having about 400 labor inspectors on staff 
nationally. 

U.S. Agencies Have Provided Technical Assistance to Help FTA Partner 
Countries Meet Labor Commitments, with Largest Amounts for CAFTA-DR: 

From fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2013, the U.S. government 
provided a combined total of about $275 million in labor-related 
assistance for all FTA partner countries.[Footnote 31] All CAFTA-DR 
countries, Colombia, and Peru received a combined total of about $222 
million in labor-related technical assistance and capacity-building 
activities since the passage of implementing legislation for these 
FTAs. In contrast, the U.S. government provided about $53 million in 
labor-related assistance for all other FTA partner countries during 
the periods since those FTAs were implemented.[Footnote 32] 

Figure 1 shows the labor-related technical assistance that U.S. 
agencies provided under CAFTA-DR and the Colombia, Oman, and Peru FTAs 
during the periods beginning, respectively, with the year that 
Congress passed the FTA's implementing legislation and ending in 2013. 
Figure 1 also shows labor-related technical assistance that U.S. 
agencies provided from 2001 through 2013 under all other FTAs that 
entered into force in or after 2001. 

Figure 1: Labor-Related Technical Assistance Administered by U.S. 
Agencies under Selected Free Trade Agreements (FTA) and All Other FTAs: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

FTA partner country: CAFTA-DR (2005-2013); 
State: $75.2 million; 
USAID: $32.8 million; 
DOL: $62.3 million; 
Total: $170.4 million. 

FTA partner country: Colombia (2011-2013); 
State: $23.4 million; 
USAID: $0; 
DOL: $0.5 million; 
Total: $23.9 million. 

FTA partner country: Oman (2007-2013); 
State: $0.01 million; 
USAID: $0; 
DOL: $0; 
Total: $0. 

FTA partner country: Peru (2001-2013); 
State: $19.1 million; 
USAID: $8.4 million; 
DOL: $0; 
Total: $27.5 million. 

FTA partner country: All other FTA Countries (2001-2013); 
State: $27.6 million; 
USAID: $18.9 million; 
DOL: $6.7 million; 
Total: $53.1 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOL, State, and USAID data. GAO-15-160. 

CAFTA-DR: Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade 
Agreement; 
DOL: Department of Labor; 
State: Department of State; 
USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development. 

Notes: Time periods for the data shown for CAFTA-DR and the Colombia, 
Oman, and Peru FTAs each begin with the year that the respective FTA's 
implementing legislation was passed by Congress, before the FTA 
entered into force. Data for "All other FTAs" exclude the only FTAs 
that entered into force before 2001--the U.S.-Israel Free Trade 
Agreement (1985) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (1994). 

[End of figure] 

Totals for projects that DOL administered under CAFTA-DR include 
projects that Congress funded through appropriations to DOL for 
technical assistance to reduce child labor as well as projects that 
State's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs funded through transfers 
to DOL from State's Economic Support Fund and Development Assistance 
account. 

Data shown exclude funding that DOL provided for a regional labor-
related technical assistance project in Oman and Bahrain in 2006. 
According to DOL officials, data showing country-specific funding for 
regional projects are not available. 

Data shown for Colombia include $500,000 that State provided for 
promotion of labor rights. 

CAFTA-DR: 

CAFTA-DR's six partner countries have received the largest amounts of 
U.S. assistance for labor-related projects undertaken pursuant to the 
FTA or independent of the FTA. From 2005, when the CAFTA-DR 
implementing legislation was passed by Congress, through 2013, the 
U.S. government provided about $170 million for such projects. 
According to DOL, this amount included funding appropriated by 
Congress to fund labor-capacity-building activities as well as funds 
appropriated to DOL for child labor technical assistance projects to 
assist these partner countries in addressing labor-related priorities 
outlined in the White Paper.[Footnote 33] According to DOL officials, 
DOL, State, and USAID established an interagency group to develop FTA 
labor-related projects in consultation with USTR and CAFTA-DR partner 
governments and to allocate funding among these projects, with funds 
transferred from State. DOL reported that from 2005 to 2013, these 
three U.S. agencies administered more than 20 technical assistance 
projects in support of the White Paper's priority issue areas. 

Colombia: 

U.S. technical assistance for labor-related projects in Colombia 
totaled about $24 million from 2011, when the Colombia FTA 
implementing legislation was enacted, through 2013. U.S. agencies 
provided $9 million of that amount for projects to combat child labor 
and about $13 million to address workers' rights. DOL has also 
provided in-kind resources, sending a staff person with labor 
expertise to support the Colombian government in taking initial steps 
to implement the Labor Action Plan. The United States is currently 
funding multiple labor-related projects in Colombia, including State's 
award of about $500,000 to the ILO for the promotion of core labor 
rights and DOL's award of about $7.8 million for the ILO office in 
Colombia. 

Oman: 

Oman has not received U.S. technical assistance specifically for labor-
related projects since the FTA was enacted. According to State, the 
United States is not involved in any labor-capacity-building or labor-
related assistance programs in Oman because of the Omani government's 
reluctance to accept foreign assistance. However, officials at Oman's 
Ministry of Manpower told us that the United States has provided 
information and advice on supporting unions and the role of unions in 
the economy and has expressed support of ongoing labor reforms, 
including the establishment of unions. 

Peru: 

U.S technical assistance for labor-related projects in Peru totaled 
about $27.5 million from 2007, when the Peru FTA implementing 
legislation was enacted, through 2013. Of that amount, $13 million was 
dedicated to combat child labor, with the remainder dedicated to labor-
capacity-building and education projects. USAID officials stated that, 
for example, the agency expended $3.3 million over a 3-year period to 
target labor issues. Of this amount, $2.7 million was granted to the 
Solidarity Center, a labor nongovernmental organization (NGO) 
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and Congress of 
Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), to strengthen union negotiation 
capacity, and $600,000 was granted to an implementing partner--Nathan 
Associates--for improving information systems, providing training for 
labor inspectors, and training judges on the implementation of labor 
laws. 

Stakeholders Reported Limited Enforcement Capacity and Gaps in Labor 
Rights in Selected Partner Countries: 

CAFTA-DR: El Salvador and Guatemala: 

El Salvador. Stakeholders we met with during our fieldwork in El 
Salvador identified concerns related to the enforcement of labor 
rights. Further, State and DOL reports show that workers are often 
unable to benefit from the legal rights afforded in the labor laws. 
For example, according to NGO officials, although labor courts have 
improved their ability to process cases, court decisions are often not 
enforced. U.S. officials stated that the Ministry of Labor's increases 
in its budget and number of labor inspectors have not improved the 
labor inspectorate's effectiveness. According to Ministry of Labor 
officials, although the ministry's labor inspectors can fine employers 
for labor law violations, the ministry does not collect the fines and 
workers must petition the labor courts to enforce the penalties. 
Moreover, according to an ILO official, although the government of El 
Salvador has greatly reduced the amount of time that the courts take 
to accept a case, resolution of most labor disputes still takes 2 to 4 
years. Officials from the Supreme Court in El Salvador told us that 
about 51 percent of labor court sentences are not enforced, primarily 
because the plaintiffs do not have the funds required to continue the 
claims. Union and NGO officials we met with in El Salvador emphasized 
their concerns over enforcement, stating that because of the length of 
time the courts take to adjudicate labor cases, workers often take 
buyouts from the company and drop the cases. State's 2013 Human Rights 
Report echoes these concerns. For example, the report states that in 
2013, the government of El Salvador did not always effectively enforce 
the laws on freedom of association and the right to collective 
bargaining, and that legal remedies and penalties are ineffective. 

Guatemala. According to stakeholders we met with during our fieldwork 
in Guatemala, as well as State reports, concerns related to the 
enforcement and application of labor rights persist. According to 
USTR, Guatemala has taken steps to address labor reforms outlined in 
the Enforcement Plan, but additional steps are needed, including 
passing legislation providing for an expedited process to sanction 
employers that violate labor laws and implementing a mechanism to 
ensure payments to workers in cases where enterprises have closed. 
[Footnote 34] Additionally, according to USTR, Guatemala will need to 
demonstrate that the legal reforms it has undertaken and still needs 
to undertake are being implemented effectively and are leading to 
positive changes.[Footnote 35] Union representatives reported concerns 
related to freedom of association--specifically, that union leaders 
have been offered monetary compensation to resign from their jobs and 
to influence other workers against joining the union. Union officials 
we met with also noted that workers have been terminated for their 
union affiliation or for not disbanding unions. State's 2013 Human 
Rights Report echoed these concerns, stating that the government of 
Guatemala did not effectively enforce legislation on freedom of 
association, collective bargaining, or antiunion discrimination. 
Further, according to this report, as a result of inadequate 
allocation of budget resources and inefficient legal and 
administrative processes, the relevant government institutions did not 
effectively investigate, prosecute, and punish employers who violated 
freedom of association and collective bargaining laws, and the 
institutions did not reinstate workers illegally dismissed for 
engaging in union activities.[Footnote 36] 

Colombia: 

Stakeholders we met with in Colombia identified concerns related to 
the enforcement of labor rights and not benefiting from rights 
afforded in the labor laws. According to USTR, the government of 
Colombia has made meaningful progress under the Labor Action Plan, but 
work remains to build on this progress and address remaining and new 
challenges. 

* According to USTR, the collection of fines for labor violations 
remains problematic. USTR and DOL have reported that although 
Colombia's national training and apprenticeship system, Servicio 
Nacional de Aprendizaje (SENA), is responsible for collecting fines 
for labor violations, until recently SENA has been barred from 
collecting fines from companies that filed a judicial appeal.[Footnote 
37] According to a joint USTR-DOL statement, as of April 2014, SENA 
was authorized to hold monetary payment as collateral payment from 
businesses, pending the outcome of the judicial appeal of their fines, 
but had not yet begun to exercise this authority. Additionally, 
although the Ministry of Labor increased the number of inspectors, 
labor unions and NGOs reported that this action has not resulted in 
more effective inspections or improved working conditions. 

* USTR has reported that new forms of abusive contracting remain 
problematic to the protection of labor rights in Colombia. For 
example, according to USTR, although the number of illegal 
cooperatives has dropped, many employers have shifted to various forms 
of subcontracting, including entities known as simplified stock 
companies, to avoid direct employment relationships.[Footnote 38] ILO, 
NGO, and labor union officials we met with described this form of 
subcontracting as a legal loophole that is used to undermine workers' 
rights. According to union officials, a law passed by the Colombian 
government in 2013 prohibiting the misuse of cooperatives was also 
intended to increase formalized employment and encourage companies to 
hire workers directly instead of as temporary labor. 

State's 2013 Human Rights Report noted that the Colombian government 
generally enforced applicable labor laws and took steps to increase 
the enforcement of freedom-of-association laws. However, the report 
identified weaknesses in labor protections in Colombia, echoing 
concerns expressed to us by labor union and NGO representatives, 
related to labor inspections, collecting fines for labor violations, 
and employers' use of outsourcing contracts.[Footnote 39] 

Oman: 

Ministry of Manpower and union officials we met with in Oman reported 
that collective bargaining and freedom of association are allowed by 
law and largely respected. However, State has raised concerns about 
the enforcement of labor law among Oman's foreign worker population. 
State's 2013 Human Rights Report notes that Oman's Ministry of 
Manpower effectively enforces the labor law as it applies to Omani 
citizens but has not effectively enforced regulations related to 
working conditions and hours for foreign workers. 

Peru: 

Despite steps that the government of Peru has taken to address labor 
conditions, union and NGO officials we met with reported that 
enforcement of labor laws remains weak and labor conditions have not 
improved in certain respects. According to State, Peru's labor laws 
place a 5-year limit on the continuous renewal of short-term labor 
contracts not leading to permanent employment in most sectors of the 
economy. However, State's 2013 Human Rights Report notes that a sector-
specific law covering nontraditional export sectors such as apparel 
exempts employers from this 5-year limit and allows them to hire 
workers through indefinite series of short-term contracts. Union 
officials we met during our fieldwork also reported poor labor 
conditions in Peru's nontraditional export sectors, which these 
officials described as not affording the same labor rights as other 
sectors in the economy.[Footnote 40] More generally, according to NGO 
officials, Peru's large informal sector makes it difficult for the 
government to enforce labor rights, because informal companies, which 
are not registered with the government and therefore are not subject 
to labor inspections, typically do not follow labor laws. 

State's 2013 Human Rights Report also identifies continuing labor 
concerns in Peru's nontraditional export sectors, such as the effect 
of the use of temporary service contracts and subcontracting on 
workers' freedom of association. State's report also notes that in 
2013, penalties for violations of freedom of association and 
collective bargaining were rarely enforced, the judicial process was 
prolonged, and employers were seldom penalized for dismissing workers 
involved in trade union activities. In addition, union officials whom 
we met with stated that Peru's agricultural law allows for workers to 
be paid less than the legal minimum wage and to be continuously hired 
on temporary contracts for 2-to 3-month periods. These officials 
stated that this limits workers' ability to collectively bargain and 
exercise freedom of association, because of fear that if they join a 
union, their contracts will not be renewed. 

One of Five Labor Submissions Has Been Resolved, but Reporting 
Deadlines and Limited Public Awareness of the Process Present Problems: 

DOL has accepted five of six labor submissions--that is, formal 
complaints alleging that FTA labor provisions had been violated--that 
it has received since 2008[Footnote 41] and has closed one submission 
as resolved. However, DOL did not meet its original deadlines for 
reviewing and reporting on any of the submissions, exceeding the 
established 6-month submission review time frame by an average of 
about nine months and possibly delaying resolution of the submissions. 
Stakeholders whom we interviewed in the selected five partner 
countries generally expressed a lack of awareness or understanding of 
DOL's submission process, which may have limited the number of 
submissions filed. Moreover, stakeholders we interviewed expressed 
concerns about delays in resolving labor concerns detailed in the 
submissions for Guatemala and Honduras. 

DOL Announced Its Process for Receiving and Evaluating Submissions in 
2006: 

According to DOL, FTA labor provisions establish official processes 
for receiving submissions from interested organizations that believe a 
trading partner is not fulfilling its labor commitments. In the United 
States, DOL generally receives and reviews submissions made under the 
labor chapters of each trade agreement. DOL issued procedural 
guidelines pertaining to this function via publication of a Federal 
Register notice in 2006.[Footnote 42] The guidelines contain deadlines 
and substantive criteria for acceptance and investigation of 
submissions. For example, DOL shall determine whether to accept a 
submission within 60 days and is to consider, among other things, 
whether it contains statements that, if substantiated, would 
constitute a failure by the other party to comply with its commitments 
under an FTA. If DOL determines that the circumstances require, the 60-
day timeframe can be extended. According to DOL, its decision to 
review a public submission does not indicate any determination as to 
the validity or accuracy of the allegations contained in the 
submission; the submission's merit is addressed in the public report 
that follows DOL's review and analysis. DOL officials noted that 
although DOL has responsibility for investigating submissions, USTR, 
DOL, and State work together to engage diplomatically to address 
concerns. 

Figure 2 illustrates DOL's submission process, including the 
established time frames for accepting and reviewing submissions. 

Figure 2: U.S. DOL Labor Submission Process: 

[Refer to PDF for image: process illustration] 

Department of Labor (DOL) receives a submission (via e-mail, hand 
delivery, mail, or facsimile transmission) and notifies the submitter 
and the FTA partner country that is the subject of the submission. 

DOL determines within 60 days whether to accept the submission for 
review, after examining the submission and any supporting 
documentation to ensure that the submission meets criteria specified 
in the Federal Register. 

If DOL accepts the submission for review, DOL promptly notifies the 
submitter, the FTA partner country, and other appropriate persons and 
publishes a Federal Register notice of its determination, a statement 
of why the review is warranted, and the terms of the review; 
* If DOL declines to accept the submission, DOL promptly notifies the 
submitter in writing, giving the reasons for declining. 

DOL reviews the submission and supporting documents and publishes a 
Federal Register notice inviting interested parties to submit any 
additional or supplemental information. 

Unless DOL determines that circumstances require an extension of its 
review period, DOL issues a public report within 180 days, summarizing 
its proceedings and presenting any findings and recommendations, 
including any recommendation that the United States request 
consultations with the FTA partner country; 
* DOL and USTR may jointly request consultations, the first step in 
dispute settlement. If consultations do not resolve the issues raised 
in DOL's report, the agencies may request a meeting of the FTA's free 
trade commission.[A] 

Source: GAO analysis of 71 Fed. Reg. 76691. GAO-15-160. 

Legend: FTA = free trade agreement, USTR = Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative. 

[A] DOL may extend the timeframe if it determines that circumstances 
require such an extension. 

[B] The free trade commission established for each FTA is the primary 
forum for bilateral dialogue about the FTA's implementation. 

[End of figure] 

DOL Has Closed One of Five Labor Submissions Accepted since 2008: 

Since 2008, DOL has accepted labor submissions filed under the 
Bahrain, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, and Peru FTAs and 
has closed the Peru FTA submission.[Footnote 43] The submissions for 
Bahrain, the Dominican Republic, and Guatemala--accepted in 2011, 
2012, and 2008, respectively--remain open while the U.S. government 
engages with the governments to address the concerns that the 
submissions raised. The submission for Honduras, accepted in 2012, 
remains open while DOL reviews its allegations. Figure 3 presents 
information about the five submissions (see appendix III for further 
details). 

Figure 3: Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Labor Submissions Accepted by DOL 
as of July 2014: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table] 

FTA: Bahrain; 
Year accepted: 2011; 
Alleged violations: Violation of right to freedom of association, 
discrimination; 
Status: Open; 
Notes: U.S. government held second-round consultations with Bahraini 
government on June 22-23, 2014. 

FTA: Dominican Republic; 
Year accepted: 2012; 
Alleged violations: Human trafficking, forced labor, retaliatory 
firing of workers for union activities; 
Status: Open; 
Notes: U.S. government is engaging with Dominican Republic government. 

FTA: Guatemala; 
Year accepted: 2008; 
Alleged violations: Violation of right to freedom of association, 
violation of rights to organize and bargain collectively, unacceptable 
work conditions; 
Status: Open; 
Notes: U.S. and Guatemalan governments signed an Enforcement Plan in 
April 2013, addressing concerns raised in the submission. U.S. 
government granted Guatemalan government a 4-month extension in April 
2014 to continue implementing the plan and granted a further 4-week 
extension in August 2014. U.S. government determined in September 2014 
to proceed with dispute settlement, because Guatemala had not met the 
Enforcement Plan's terms. 

FTA: Honduras; 
Year accepted: 2012; 
Alleged violations: Violation of right to freedom of association, 
violations of rights to organize and bargain collectively, child labor; 
Status: Open; 
Notes: U.S. government engagement is pending DOL's submission reviews. 

FTA: Peru; 
Year accepted: 2011; 
Alleged violations: Failure to comply with labor laws related to 
collective bargaining; 
Status: Closed as resolved (2012). 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Labor (DOL) information. 
GAO-15-160. 

Notes: DOL has also accepted other labor submissions under the North 
American Agreement on Labor Cooperation, which we did not examine. 

Alleged violations shown for the Bahrain, Dominican Republic, 
Guatemala, and Honduras submissions are examples of those detailed in 
the submissions. 

[End of figure] 

DOL Did Not Meet 6-Month Time Frame for Any Submission, Showing the 
Time Frame to Be Unrealistic: 

Although DOL accepted most of the submissions it received within the 
60-day time frame established by its guidelines, it did not complete 
its reviews of the submission within the established 180-day time 
frame.[Footnote 44] A DOL official we met with indicated that DOL 
cannot complete within the 180-day time frame the types of 
comprehensive investigations and reports it has been providing. 

For each of the submissions, DOL determined at the end of the original 
180-day review time frame to extend the review period and reported its 
findings and recommendations an average of 262 days after the original 
time frame had ended. According to USTR and DOL, before DOL publishes 
its review of a submission, both agencies engage informally with the 
relevant partner country to explore ways to address the concerns 
raised in the submission. However, USTR and DOL do not request formal 
consultations with a partner country to address DOL's recommendations 
until DOL has issued its report. As a result, extensions of DOL's 
review time frame may delay resolution of the submission. 

* Bahrain. DOL received the Bahrain submission on April 21, 2011, and 
accepted it on June 10, 2011, or 50 days later. In December 2011, DOL 
extended the submission review period to consider and review 
additional information received from the government of Bahrain and 
Bahraini workers, amendments made to the Bahraini Trade Union Law, and 
labor-related developments in international forums. DOL issued its 
report on December 20, 2012, 559 days after accepting the submission. 

* Dominican Republic. DOL received the Dominican Republic submission 
on December 22, 2011, and accepted it on February 22, 2012, or 62 days 
later. In August 2012, DOL extended the review time frame to consider 
public comments about the submission as well as information gathered 
by a Bureau of International Labor Affairs delegation during a visit 
to the Dominican Republic. DOL issued its report on September 27, 
2013, 583 days after accepting the submission. 

* Guatemala. DOL received the Guatemala submission on April 23, 2008, 
and accepted it on June 12, 2008, or 50 days later. DOL issued its 
report on January 16, 2009, 218 days after accepting the Guatemala 
submission. 

* Honduras. DOL received the submission on March 26, 2012, and 
accepted it on May 14, 2012, or 49 days later. On November 2, 2012, 5 
days before DOL's 180-day reporting deadline, DOL extended its review 
because of the scope of the submission, the scope of the alleged labor 
law violations, and the large amounts of information received from the 
Honduran government and stakeholders. As of September 2014, DOL 
officials were continuing to review documentation of the allegations 
and prepare their report. DOL officials were unable to estimate when 
they would issue a public report. 

* Peru. DOL received the submission for Peru on December 29, 2010, and 
accepted it on July 19, 2011, or 202 days later. On January 20, 2012, 
185 days after accepting the submission, DOL concluded that 
circumstances required an extension of time for a thorough and 
detailed review of the Peru submission. DOL issued its report for the 
Peru submission on August 30, 2012, 408 days after accepting it. 

Although DOL has periodically reviewed and updated the submission 
process since establishing it in 1994, DOL officials told us that they 
have not reviewed or adjusted the submission review time frame to 
reflect the time it takes DOL to issue its reports after accepting the 
submissions. DOL's extensions of each submission review period since 
2008 have shown this time frame to be unrealistic. Federal standards 
for internal control call on agency management to monitor and assess 
the effectiveness and efficiency of their operations over time and to 
promptly resolve any deficiencies.[Footnote 45] 

Interviewed Stakeholders Generally Did Not Understand the Labor 
Submission Process, and U.S. Agencies Have Made Minimal Efforts to 
Explain It: 

Our interviews with union and other nongovernmental stakeholders in 
the selected partner countries suggested that little or no awareness 
and understanding of the FTA labor submission process may have 
affected the number of submissions filed. Union representatives we 
interviewed in our five case study countries--Colombia, El Salvador, 
Guatemala, Oman, and Peru--were generally either unaware of DOL's 
labor submission process or considered it difficult to understand and 
use. For example, a union representative in Colombia stated that the 
union would have filed a submission if the representative had known 
about the process. In another example, representatives of one of the 
larger El Salvador unions--GMIES, an NGO that monitors the actions of 
the Salvadorian government--stated that it was difficult for a 
"typical worker" to file a submission with DOL and that the 
information required for the submission is generally difficult, if not 
impossible, to obtain and document. A small number of union 
representatives who were aware of the process attributed their 
knowledge to information received from AFL-CIO or their country's 
Solidarity Center.[Footnote 46] For instance, in Guatemala, a 
representative of a union that had signed the current Guatemala 
submission stated that without the help of the Solidarity Center, the 
union would have been unable to locate submission instructions and 
file the submission. 

Moreover, although the government officials we interviewed in the five 
countries knew of the labor submission process, only in El Salvador 
did these officials express an understanding of how DOL evaluates a 
submission and conducts its fact-finding investigations. For example, 
the Guatemalan Ministry of Labor officials we interviewed could not 
provide information about how the process works or describe the 
criteria DOL uses to evaluate a submission's merits. The Ministry of 
Manpower officials whom we interviewed in Oman did not understand the 
purpose of the submission process or how submissions could be filed. 

In addition, U.S. agencies have made minimal efforts to publicize the 
process for nongovernment stakeholders, who are most likely to file 
submissions. Federal standards for internal control pertaining to 
information and communication call for agencies to have relevant, 
reliable, and timely communications relating to internal as well as 
external events, to ensure control of their operations.[Footnote 47] 
According to DOL officials, DOL relies exclusively on its website and 
its 2006 Federal Register notice to inform the public about the 
process.[Footnote 48] Moreover, U.S. officials whom we interviewed in 
the countries we visited indicated that they do not advertise the 
existence of the submission process. Without additional efforts to 
inform nongovernment stakeholders in FTA partner countries about the 
DOL labor submission process, U.S. agencies are limited in their 
ability to use the submission process as a means of holding FTA 
partners accountable for fulfilling their labor commitments. 

Some Stakeholders Expressed Concern about Delays in Resolving Labor 
Submissions: 

Several stakeholders we spoke with expressed concerns about delays in 
U.S. agencies' efforts to resolve the matters raised in the Guatemala 
and Honduras submissions. Because of the complexity of these matters, 
resolving them has proven difficult and time-consuming, according to 
USTR. Moreover, according to USTR, no process or time frames for U.S. 
agencies' efforts to engage diplomatically with FTA partners to 
resolve labor matters related to DOL submission reports are outlined 
in any active FTA that had entered into force or in U.S. implementing 
guidance. 

According to USTR and DOL, they engage with FTA partners through 
informal and formal communication to resolve any FTA concerns. For 
example, according to a USTR official, USTR has informally engaged 
with FTA partners--through labor affairs council discussions, 
telephone conversations, and e-mail exchanges--for an average of 6 
months regarding concerns raised in a submission before requesting 
formal consultations with the partner government.[Footnote 49] If an 
FTA partner does not address USTR's and DOL's labor concerns or is 
unwilling to informally engage, USTR and DOL may request formal 
consultations under the FTA's labor chapter. USTR officials stated 
that an FTA partner's willingness to engage determines in part how 
quickly potential labor violations are addressed. According to USTR 
officials, some FTA partners are willing to engage informally to 
resolve labor violations, while other partners engage only after USTR 
and DOL have jointly requested formal consultations under the FTA's 
labor chapter. 

Examples of stakeholders' concerns include the following. 

* AFL-CIO representatives in Washington, D.C., who were involved with 
the Honduras and Guatemala submissions expressed appreciation of DOL's 
care in investigating cases and were eager to provide requisite 
evidence. However, they expressed disappointment that both cases have 
taken longer than they anticipated, stating that justice delayed can 
mean justice denied when workers' livelihoods are at stake. 

* A union representative in Guatemala expressed disappointment that 6 
years after the submission was filed, it had not been resolved. He 
also said that the steps outlined in the enforcement plan were mainly 
administrative and did not address all complaints detailed in the 
submission. As a result, according to the union representative, the 
conditions of workers identified in the submission have not improved. 

* Four government officials from CAFTA-DR partner countries whom we 
interviewed in Washington, D.C., described DOL's submission process as 
lacking fairness and transparency. According to these representatives, 
DOL does not give partner governments clear information about next 
steps or access to evidence supporting the submissions and deprives 
the countries of the opportunity to respond to allegations presented 
by any member of the public.[Footnote 50] The CAFTA-DR representatives 
added that in their opinion, DOL conducts the submission process in an 
adversarial manner and that the process therefore does not function as 
a mechanism for addressing concerns on a cooperative basis. The 
representatives noted that this, in turn, can delay or complicate 
resolution of problems. 

U.S. Agencies Provide Limited Monitoring, Enforcement, and Reporting 
on FTA Labor Provisions: 

Since 2009, USTR and DOL, with State's assistance, have taken steps 
intended to strengthen monitoring and enforcement of FTA partners' 
compliance with FTA labor provisions, but their monitoring and 
enforcement remain limited.[Footnote 51] After USTR announced in July 
2009 that the agencies would take a more proactive, interagency 
approach to monitoring and enforcing FTA labor provisions, USTR and 
DOL developed mechanisms to track labor conditions and practices in 
priority trade partner countries. They also took some proactive 
monitoring steps with several FTA partners. However, although they 
jointly address labor submissions and work together to engage with 
partner countries regarding labor concerns, USTR and DOL have not 
established a coordinated strategic approach to systematically assess 
and address other possible inconsistencies with the FTA labor 
provisions, such as concerns that DOL identifies in internal 
management reports. The lack of such an approach may be inconsistent 
with USTR's 2009 announcement as well as with best practices for 
interagency collaboration. Agency officials cited limited funding and 
staffing as constraints on their ability to monitor and enforce FTA 
labor provisions. USTR's, DOL's, and State's annual reports to 
Congress provide information about labor conditions in partner 
countries. However, reflecting in part USTR's and DOL's limited 
monitoring and enforcement of FTA labor provisions, the reports 
generally do not detail concerns about the implementation of FTA labor 
provisions by partner countries that have not been the subject of 
labor submissions. 

USTR and DOL Pledged in 2009 to Strengthen Monitoring and Enforcement 
of FTA Labor Provisions: 

In 2009, USTR made a public statement pledging to address weaknesses 
in monitoring and enforcement of FTA labor provisions such as those we 
identified in our July 2009 report.[Footnote 52] In its statement, 
USTR--which has principal responsibility for monitoring and enforcing 
statutory trade agreements--publicly announced its intention to adopt 
a proactive, interagency approach to monitoring and enforcing FTA 
labor provisions in cooperation with DOL and State.[Footnote 53] 
According to USTR's announcement, for example, the agencies would no 
longer enforce labor obligations only in response to complaints, would 
hold trading partners to their obligations on labor standards, and 
would work in close partnership to immediately identify and 
investigate labor violations. In addition, USTR's July 2009 
announcement stated that the agencies would deploy resources more 
effectively to identify and solve problems at the source and would 
jointly engage with governments of countries that violate the rules, 
to quickly restore workers' rights, assist partner countries to find a 
way to fix identified labor problems, and pursue legal remedies when 
other options are closed. 

A broad range of activities underpins federal monitoring and 
enforcement efforts. For the purposes of this report, "monitoring" 
refers to federal activities that are undertaken to identify instances 
where foreign laws, regulations, and practices may be inconsistent 
with trade agreement provisions; "enforcement" refers to actions taken 
by USTR to secure foreign compliance with trade agreements, which can 
include initiating dispute settlement procedures that certain trade 
agreements provide.[Footnote 54] When agencies identify possible 
inconsistencies with FTA provisions, agencies take a variety of 
actions to encourage and obtain foreign compliance with trade 
agreements. As we previously reported, according to records and staff 
at USTR and other agencies, monitoring and enforcement of trade 
agreements typically involves several key steps: identifying 
compliance problems, setting priorities, gathering and analyzing 
information, developing and implementing responses, taking actions to 
enforce agreements, and coordinating with other agencies.[Footnote 55] 
Systematic implementation of these key steps is necessary to ensure 
that the agencies effectively and efficiently accomplish their 
objective and help ensure that management's directives are carried out. 

In our July 2009 report, we found that U.S. agencies had not 
proactively monitored FTA partners' compliance with labor commitments 
and did not consider that they were required to do so.[Footnote 56] 
Moreover, U.S. interaction with partners regarding labor issues after 
FTAs entered into force had been limited, usually in part because of 
the low priority attached to this function. Further, we found that 
U.S. agencies generally gave attention to problematic labor situations 
in certain FTA partners' export sectors only after media exposure of 
the situations. 

USTR and DOL Track Partner Countries' Labor Conditions but Do Not 
Systematically Monitor and Enforce Compliance with FTA Labor 
Provisions: 

Since July 2009, USTR and DOL have taken steps intended to strengthen 
monitoring and enforcement of FTA partners' compliance with FTA labor 
provisions.[Footnote 57] USTR staff indicated that an important 
component of USTR's and DOL's work occurs between an FTA's 
finalization and its entry into force. For example, for the Colombia 
FTA, the agencies worked with the Colombian government to establish 
the Labor Action Plan, outlining steps that the government was 
required to take before the FTA could receive congressional approval. 
(See appendix III for information about the agencies' efforts to 
monitor Colombia's implementation of the Labor Action Plan).[Footnote 
58] In addition, DOL and other U.S. agencies have supported 
cooperative activities to assist the countries to be better positioned 
to meet their labor commitments after FTAs have entered into force. 
[Footnote 59] In general, after FTAs have entered into force, USTR and 
DOL have engaged in discussions with partner countries, gathering 
information about labor conditions in the countries and responding to 
FTA labor concerns. In doing so, the agencies have addressed some of 
the typical key elements of monitoring and enforcement that we 
previously identified, such as gathering and analyzing information and 
setting priorities. However, the agencies' approach for countries 
other than Jordan, Panama, and, to some extent, Colombia and Peru 
generally does not incorporate other key elements, such as identifying 
compliance problems, developing and implementing responses, and taking 
enforcement actions. 

USTR: 

In October 2012, USTR established the Trade Policy Staff Committee 
(TPSC) Subcommittee on Labor Monitoring and Enforcement to focus on 
monitoring and enforcing labor provisions in partner countries, with 
members from various agencies, including DOL and State.[Footnote 60] 
USTR charged the subcommittee with monitoring and enforcing labor 
issues in 20 FTA partner countries as well as 146 countries that 
participate in U.S. trade preference programs. According to a USTR 
document, the subcommittee participates in efforts to enforce labor 
obligations, such as through submission reviews, consultation, and 
dispute settlement under FTAs.[Footnote 61] However, according to DOL 
and State staff who have participated in the Subcommittee on Labor 
Monitoring and Enforcement, the subcommittee's meetings generally 
serve as an information-sharing mechanism rather than a monitoring and 
enforcement mechanism.[Footnote 62] State participants described the 
subcommittee as an interagency process for reviewing and discussing 
labor conditions and assessing risks in trade partner countries, 
including FTA and trade preference program partners. State added that 
although this process does not entail a regular, detailed review of 
each FTA partner country's compliance with labor obligations, it 
facilitates discussion of concerns and development of next steps to 
address these concerns based on input from each agency. A USTR 
official stated that when the subcommittee met in October 2012 and 
February 2013, it decided that an emphasis on overseeing labor 
conditions in parts of Africa and Haiti was needed and that monitoring 
of FTA labor provisions' implementation would be based mainly on 
addressing DOL labor submissions. USTR officials noted that 
information sharing is a key part of its process to assess labor 
conditions in FTA partner countries relative to their commitments and 
to identify matters that are appropriate for further action. 

According to a USTR official, work by the subcommittee and ad hoc 
interagency country teams has led to increased actions and engagement 
in countries such as Jordan, Panama, Peru, and Morocco, where, 
according to USTR, it has conducted, or expects to conduct, high-level 
labor meetings and monitoring trips in 2014. Further, according to 
USTR officials, USTR has used input from the subcommittee to develop a 
matrix to more comprehensively track monitoring activities and 
technical capacity-building assistance across FTA partner countries. 
USTR officials indicated that this tool has served as a point of 
departure for soliciting the subcommittee's input on priorities and 
coordination of future activities. In addition, according to USTR 
officials, USTR regularly coordinates and communicates with other 
agencies, industry, labor unions, the ILO and other external 
stakeholders to identify possible inconsistencies with the labor 
provisions of trade agreements. 

USTR officials said that the agencies routinely address labor issues 
identified in the subcommittee or by other stakeholders through 
bilateral consultations and formally established FTA mechanisms, such 
as the labor affairs councils established by most FTAs and the FTA 
free trade commissions, which are the main forums for bilateral 
dialogue about FTA implementation for each FTA. USTR has publicly 
reported on such meetings, as we recommended in 2009. However, the 
labor affairs councils for most FTAs have in most cases met only once 
and in two cases have not met at all since the FTAs entered into 
force.[Footnote 63] Moreover, the FTA free trade commissions' 
discussions reportedly do not address labor issues in depth. For 
example, officials from the Ministry of Labor in Peru indicated that 
in the last free trade commission meeting they attended, labor issues 
were not substantively addressed; instead members of the commission 
agreed that a meeting on the topic could be held later in the year. 

USTR officials stated that monitoring and enforcement covers a large 
spectrum of activities and that in some cases USTR has taken steps to 
resolve issues in countries where submissions have not been filed. For 
example, according to USTR officials, USTR and DOL negotiated an 
implementation plan in 2012 to address concerns regarding foreign 
workers in Jordan's garment sector and have continued to monitor 
Jordan's implementation of its FTA labor commitments. USTR officials 
also cited as examples of proactive monitoring and enforcement USTR's 
engagement with Colombia regarding the Action Plan, cooperation with 
Panama in passing administrative and legal changes to address labor 
concerns as part of the FTA ratification process in 2011, and 
discussions with Peru regarding commitments that the government made 
in 2007 to improve respect of labor rights for temporary and 
subcontracted workers. 

Our analysis shows that in Jordan and Panama, USTR's and DOL's 
activities have addressed the typical key elements of monitoring and 
enforcement. Regarding Jordan, USTR documents indicate that USTR and 
DOL have addressed all key elements of monitoring and enforcement, 
such as by putting in place a concrete plan to fix an identified 
problem and taking steps to assure that the plan is implemented. 
Regarding Panama, USTR documents show that the agencies took steps to 
assure that Panama met its commitments both before and after the FTA 
entered into effect in 2012 and have been pursuing steps, such as 
holding several recent meetings, that may help in resolving 
outstanding concerns about implementation of FTA labor provisions. 

However, while USTR's and DOL's reported monitoring activities in 
Colombia and Peru can assist the countries to be better positioned to 
meet their FTA labor commitments and help to better inform USTR of 
labor concerns in these countries, the evidence that we examined does 
not demonstrate systematic implementation of the typical key elements 
for monitoring and enforcement of labor provisions. 

* Colombia. Documentation that USTR and DOL provided, as well as 
evidence that we gathered in Colombia and in interviews with agency 
officials, indicates that the agencies took several of the key steps 
of monitoring and enforcement. For example, a report that USTR and DOL 
jointly prepared in 2014 showed that the agencies have been gathering 
and analyzing information, setting priorities, assessing 
implementation, and identifying compliance problems. However, we did 
not see evidence that a current plan is in place to address the 
outstanding concerns that USTR and DOL have identified. 

* Peru. Documentation that USTR and DOL provided demonstrates a 
systematic approach to some, but not all, of the monitoring and 
enforcement steps that we identified. Specifically, both agencies have 
engaged to some extent with Peru regarding labor matters in the 5 
years since the Peru FTA went into effect. The agencies' documentation 
shows that at least some of their efforts to gather and analyze 
information regarding Peru relate to verifying the government's 
implementation and enforcement of previous reforms, such as reforms of 
its labor inspection regime and of its legal framework for temporary 
employment and subcontracting. USTR and DOL documents also show that 
the agencies have identified several possible compliance concerns and 
have engaged with the government by scheduling meetings and asking 
questions. However, we did not see evidence of a plan to resolve 
outstanding U.S. concerns. Further, in July 2014, Peru announced that 
it had enacted legal changes that rolled back previously implemented 
improvements in its labor laws in areas such as health and safety 
protection for workers, to improve the business climate and attract 
investment. 

DOL: 

To strengthen its monitoring and enforcement of FTA labor provisions, 
in 2012, DOL established the Monitoring and Enforcement of Trade 
Agreements Division within the Bureau of International Labor Affairs' 
Office of Trade and Labor Affairs.[Footnote 64] The division's 
objectives are to ensure that partner governments (1) effectively 
enforce their labor laws and implement policies that protect worker 
rights; (2) understand their commitments under the FTA labor chapters; 
and (3) revise or adopt laws, regulations, and policies consistent 
with international labor standards. The division mainly monitors 
implementation of FTA labor provisions through its review of FTA labor 
submissions and through the use of internal documents called 
management reports, according to DOL officials.[Footnote 65] However, 
DOL uses management reports to identify labor concerns rather than to 
fully assess consistency with FTA labor provisions. 

* FTA labor submissions. DOL's review of the five FTA labor 
submissions--for Bahrain, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, 
and Peru--that it has accepted since 2008 have led to recommendations 
in three of its submission reports that the partners address alleged 
violations of FTA labor provisions.[Footnote 66] According to USTR 
officials, labor submissions are a central component of the FTAs' 
framework for monitoring and enforcement of labor obligations and USTR 
and DOL invest extensive time and resources in addressing submissions. 
For the Bahrain and Guatemala submissions, DOL, with USTR, formally 
requested labor consultations under the FTAs' labor chapters to 
address the concerns raised in the submissions. In Guatemala's case, 
after consultations failed to address the concerns, the U.S. 
government invoked dispute settlement proceedings; during these 
proceedings, the two governments negotiated the Enforcement Plan, 
outlining steps that Guatemala agreed to take. (See appendix III for a 
discussion of DOL's monitoring of Guatemala's implementation of the 
Enforcement Plan.) 

* Internal management reports. In 2012, according to DOL staff, DOL 
began consistently monitoring FTA-related labor issues in 13 FTA 
partner countries. The management reports provide, among other 
information, a synopsis of labor conditions in partner countries based 
on sources such as State, ILO, the International Trade Union 
Confederation, local stakeholders, and the press. The reports include 
updated contact information for each partner and identify labor 
conditions or practices--for example, related to freedom of 
association and collective bargaining--that may be inconsistent with 
the FTA labor provisions. They also outline steps that DOL staff 
propose to take to address any identified concerns, subject to 
approval and resource availability. According to DOL officials, DOL 
uses the management reports to identify labor concerns, rather than 
potential FTA violations for enforcement purposes, and to facilitate 
engagement on technical assistance projects with FTA partner 
countries. DOL officials noted that claiming and proving a violation 
of FTA labor provisions would be very costly and legally complicated. 
The officials explained that when a management report identifies labor 
concerns, DOL may request formal or informal consultations with the 
partner country's ministry of labor to discuss these concerns and will 
attempt to cooperatively address them. The officials also noted that a 
persistent condition may result in a submission from a stakeholder. 

USTR and DOL Lack a Coordinated Strategic Approach to Address 
Identified Labor Issues: 

USTR and DOL work together on an ad hoc basis to address labor 
concerns identified in submissions and to engage with partner 
countries regarding labor matters. However, the agencies have not 
developed a coordinated strategic approach to systematically assess 
and address other possible inconsistencies with FTA labor provisions, 
such as the issues that DOL's management reports identify, in other 
partner countries. This lack of a joint approach may be inconsistent 
with USTR's 2009 statement that the agencies would work in close 
partnership to immediately identify and investigate labor violations. 

Further, while the agencies take steps such as gathering facts from 
credible and reliable sources and prioritizing their monitoring of the 
partner countries, they have not jointly operationalized other key 
steps that we previously identified as typical for monitoring and 
enforcement of trade agreements. For example, although DOL's 
management reports are its primary means, other than submissions, of 
monitoring and identifying issues that may be inconsistent with FTA 
labor provisions, the agencies have not established a coordinated 
strategic approach to identify and carry out steps necessary to 
address issues identified in the reports. According to DOL, the 
management reports are available to USTR and State and the three 
agencies routinely discuss the reports' contents. USTR confirmed that 
DOL shares information from the reports with the Subcommittee on Labor 
Monitoring and Enforcement for discussion and consideration. However, 
USTR officials noted that USTR regards the management reports as one 
of multiple information sources that it considers before deciding to 
engage with a country about a labor concern, rather than as an 
indicator of a need to engage with the country. USTR officials also 
noted that USTR views the management reports as a new internal DOL 
tool and is assessing how best to use these reports in the interagency 
process. 

Moreover, USTR, DOL, and State have differing perspectives on how to 
monitor and enforce FTA labor provisions, according to agency 
officials. According to a USTR official, each agency approaches 
monitoring and enforcement in relation to its mission, and as a 
result, some of the 13 countries that DOL has identified internally as 
priorities differ from countries that USTR has identified as 
priorities in the context of the FTAs. The USTR official stated that 
USTR must assess whether a labor issue constitutes a breach of 
obligations set forth in the relevant FTA before it pursues dispute 
settlement, whereas DOL and State--as observers of labor conditions 
and human rights, respectively--approach labor issues more strictly as 
labor rights concerns. According to a State official, USTR prefers to 
address identified partner countries' labor issues without the intent 
to invoke the FTA. 

Our prior work identifying best practices for interagency 
collaboration has shown that agencies can enhance and sustain their 
collaborative efforts by engaging in eight practices.[Footnote 67] For 
example, to achieve a common outcome, collaborating agencies need to, 
among other things, not only define and articulate the outcome but 
also establish strategies that work in concert with their partners' or 
are joint in nature. Such strategies help in aligning the partner 
agencies' activities, core processes, and resources to accomplish the 
common outcome. 

U.S. Agencies Focus Limited Monitoring and Enforcement Resources on a 
Few Priority Countries: 

Agency officials cited limited staffing and resources as constraints 
on their ability to proactively monitor and enforce implementation of 
FTA labor provisions as the number of FTAs increases, leading the 
agencies to focus most of their efforts in a few priority countries. 
The agencies described enforcement activities as particularly resource 
intensive. DOL officials told us that because they had to focus much 
of their available resources on enforcing the Colombia Labor Action 
Plan and the Guatemala Enforcement Plan, their ability to monitor and 
enforce FTA partners' compliance with their FTAs' labor provisions in 
the last year was limited. Given the staffing and resource constraints 
that USTR, DOL, and State officials cited, effective interagency 
collaboration--including joint strategies that assist in aligning 
partner agencies' activities, core processes, and resources to more 
effectively accomplish the common outcome--is essential to maximize 
the agencies' ability to monitor and enforce compliance with these 
provisions.[Footnote 68] 

USTR. Staffing and funding constraints have, at times, limited the 
office's engagement with FTA partner countries regarding labor 
matters, according to USTR officials. Notably, according to the 
officials, recent sequestration-related cuts at USTR sharply limited 
travel. The officials told us that USTR's Office of Labor Affairs has 
four staff members--an Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Labor, 
two Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representatives for Labor, and the 
Director for Labor Affairs--whose responsibilities include, among 
others, negotiating labor provisions in new agreements such as the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership, overseeing labor matters for 20 FTA partner 
countries and 120 trade preference countries, and engaging with 
countries to address labor complaints. According to USTR officials, 
although the Office of Labor Affairs staff has doubled from two to 
four since 2008, the number of trade partner countries for which they 
are responsible has increased from 14 to 20. USTR staff stated that 
because so few staff are available, they cannot engage with partner 
countries regarding every labor issue identified and must address such 
issues in cooperation with other agencies. USTR staff also noted that 
they depend on DOL and State for day-to-day monitoring of labor 
conditions in partner countries. 

DOL. Resource constraints limit DOL's ability to monitor 
implementation of FTA labor provisions except in partner countries 
that DOL has identified as priorities, such as countries cited in 
labor submissions, according to DOL officials. DOL reported that in 
fiscal years 2013 and 2014, the Monitoring and Enforcement of Trade 
Agreements Division had five to eight full-time staff, with primary 
responsibilities that include monitoring labor conditions in 20 FTA 
partners and addressing and following up on labor submissions--for 
example, assessing implementation of submission report recommendations 
and engaging in consultations with the FTA partner. DOL officials 
stated that over the past year, the division's staff spent 80 percent 
of their work hours monitoring implementation of the Guatemala 
Enforcement Plan; following up on activities initiated under the 
Colombia Labor Action Plan; and addressing labor submissions for 
Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Bahrain, and Mexico.[Footnote 69] 
The employees' remaining work hours were available to monitor and 
engage with the other 14 FTA partner countries. DOL officials 
expressed concern that challenges related to resource limitations will 
grow as the number of FTAs increases. For example, according to DOL 
and State officials, Vietnam is among the countries participating in 
the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations with a poor record of 
protecting labor rights. 

State. State has limited resources available to support USTR's and 
DOL's monitoring of FTA labor provisions, according to State 
officials. State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) 
coordinates State's in-country labor officers or labor reporting 
officers, who carry out regular monitoring and reporting and day-to-
day interaction with foreign governments on labor matters. However, 
these staff are not responsible for monitoring implementation of labor 
provisions in the FTAs. State informs USTR and DOL about labor 
concerns identified in FTA partner countries, through reporting cables 
and other means, and supports them in investigating labor submissions 
and addressing related recommendations. DRL has seven staff at State's 
headquarters in Washington, D.C., one of whom focuses on trade-related 
issues, who are supported by labor affairs officers and labor 
reporting officers at the embassies in each of the 20 FTA partner 
countries.[Footnote 70] State officials explained that each of these 
labor affairs officers and labor reporting officers has other 
responsibilities. Overall, the amount of time that these officers 
dedicated to labor issues varied from 5 percent (in Australia) to 75 
percent (in Mexico). 

U.S. Agencies' Annual Reports Address FTA Partners' Labor Conditions 
to an Extent: 

USTR, DOL, and State provide required annual reports to Congress that 
contain some information about labor conditions in FTA partner 
countries. However, the annual reports generally do not detail 
concerns about the implementation of FTA labor provisions by partner 
countries that have not been the subject of labor submissions, in part 
reflecting the agencies' limited monitoring and enforcement of the 
provisions.[Footnote 71] USTR has statutory responsibility to report 
to Congress about trade agreement programs on an annual basis. 
According to DOL and State, they do not have such a responsibility, 
although some of their required reports include related information. 

USTR. Each year, USTR provides Congress with the current Trade Policy 
Agenda for the current year, as well as the Annual Report of the 
President of the United States on the Trade Agreement Programs. The 
agenda and the annual report include information about trade policy 
priorities and actions taken to implement FTAs. For example, the 2014 
agenda indicates, among other things, that USTR will seek to ensure 
that trade partners meet their obligations related to labor rights, 
will focus on implementation of FTAs, and will work with key partner 
countries to address specific labor issues. The 2013 annual report 
describes, among other things, the status of the labor submissions 
regarding Bahrain, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, and Honduras and 
USTR's efforts to address the concerns that the submissions identify; 
in some cases, possible inconsistencies with the FTA may be discussed. 
However, the annual report generally does not detail concerns about 
the implementation of FTA labor provisions by partner countries that 
have not been the subject of labor submissions, reflecting in part 
USTR's and DOL's limited monitoring and enforcement of these 
provisions. Including appropriate information resulting from more 
extensive monitoring and enforcement could help inform Congress and 
other U.S. stakeholders about the extent to which trade partners are 
fulfilling their FTA labor commitments. 

DOL. DOL is required to report to Congress every 2 years regarding 
labor issues related to CAFTA-DR but is not required to report on the 
implementation of labor provisions in other FTAs. For CAFTA-DR, DOL is 
required to submit a biennial report to Congress on the progress made 
by the CAFTA-DR partner countries in implementing the labor chapter 
provisions and labor cooperation and capacity-building activities. 
[Footnote 72] DOL's 2011 report on CAFTA-DR summarizes the progress 
made by each CAFTA-DR partner country in implementing these provisions 
and activities, although the report generally does not detail concerns 
about the implementation of CAFTA-DR labor provisions. 

State. Every year, State provides Congress with the annual Country 
Reports on Human Rights Practices, which covers all countries 
receiving assistance and all United Nations member states, including 
all U.S. FTA partners. Each of the country reports includes a section 
on labor issues, covering topics such as internationally recognized 
individual, civil, political, and worker rights, as set forth in the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international 
agreements. In addition, most of the country reports for FTA partner 
countries that we reviewed include information about unfavorable 
conditions faced by workers and any challenges to the partner 
countries' implementation of their labor laws. The reports generally 
do not--and, according to State, are not intended to--detail concerns 
about the implementation of FTA labor provisions. 

Conclusions: 

The United States' recent FTAs have served as means of securing 
commitments from trade partners to uphold and protect internationally 
recognized labor rights. Although the FTA partners we selected for our 
review have made some progress, with U.S. assistance, in implementing 
their FTA labor commitments, enforcement weaknesses and problematic 
labor conditions persist. In addition, nongovernment stakeholders we 
interviewed in partner countries had little or no awareness of the 
labor submission process that DOL established to allow such 
stakeholders to register concerns about FTA partners' labor practices. 
Further, DOL's extensions of its 6-month submission review time frame 
by an average of nine months per submission has shown the time frame 
to be unrealistic. Moreover, U.S. agencies' work with the partners to 
resolve these concerns has in some cases been very time consuming. For 
example, 6 years after DOL received the Guatemala labor submission, 
the submission remains open, and according to U.S. agencies, Guatemala 
has not fully addressed the weaknesses in its labor law enforcement or 
the resulting hardships on workers. 

Further, although USTR and DOL jointly pledged in 2009 to adopt a more 
assertive, interagency approach to monitoring and enforcing FTA labor 
provisions, in practice the agencies systematically investigate 
possible inconsistencies with these provisions primarily in response 
to labor submissions. In addition, despite ongoing interaction between 
USTR and DOL--for example, in addressing submissions--they have not 
developed a strategic approach to jointly set priorities and 
coordinate efforts to respond to labor concerns such as those 
identified in the DOL management reports. Without such strategic 
coordination, and given constraints on resources, both agencies have 
focused their monitoring and enforcement activities, apart from 
addressing labor submissions, on a few priority countries. As a 
result, consistency with FTA labor provisions in most partner 
countries is generally not monitored and enforced systematically. 
Moreover, USTR may be limited in its ability to report to Congress 
regarding concerns about FTA partners' implementation of their 
respective FTA labor commitments. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To improve the capacity of the U.S. government to monitor and enforce 
FTA partners' compliance with mutually agreed FTA labor provisions, we 
are making four recommendations to the U.S. Trade Representative and 
the Secretary of Labor. 

* We recommend that DOL reevaluate and adjust, if necessary, its FTA 
labor submission review time frame to ensure that it more accurately 
reflects the time required to thoroughly investigate and to report on 
most labor submissions. 

* We recommend that DOL take steps to better inform stakeholders in 
FTA partner countries about its FTA labor submission process. 

* We recommend that USTR and DOL, in cooperation with State, establish 
a coordinated strategic approach to monitoring and enforcing FTA labor 
provisions, to ensure that they systematically assess the consistency 
of priority FTA partner countries' laws, regulations, and practices 
with trade agreement labor provisions and address any identified 
concerns. 

* We recommend that USTR ensure that the Annual Report of the 
President of the United States on the Trade Agreement Programs, which 
USTR provides each year to Congress, includes results of USTR's and 
DOL's efforts to proactively monitor partner countries' compliance 
with FTA labor provisions. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of our report to USTR, DOL, State, and USAID. USTR 
and DOL provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendixes 
V and VI, respectively. USTR, DOL, and State also provided extensive 
technical comments, which we incorporated or addressed as appropriate. 
USAID did not provide comments. 

In their written comments, USTR and DOL expressed general agreement 
with our recommendations. USTR wrote that it embraced the 
recommendation to improve coordination with the Departments of Labor 
and State, to identify and address areas of concern, and to ensure 
that its reporting to Congress effectively reflects the results of 
these efforts. DOL committed to reevaluate its internal submission 
review process, in consultation with USTR and State, to determine 
whether internal adjustments may be necessary. DOL also said that it 
will evaluate additional available actions to expand its ability to 
inform stakeholders in FTA partner countries about the FTA labor 
submission process. Finally, DOL said that it will evaluate additional 
options to increase its proactive monitoring and enforcement of labor 
provisions in FTAs and its coordination with USTR and State on such 
issues. 

Nevertheless, USTR and DOL took issue with our findings that the 
agencies do not systematically monitor and enforce labor provisions 
for all FTA partners and lack a coordinated strategic approach to 
monitoring and enforcement. Although we made some adjustments in 
response to new information that USTR and DOL provided with their 
comments, we maintain that, in general, the two agencies have not 
systematically implemented all key elements of monitoring and 
enforcement with regard to FTA labor provisions. (See appendix V for 
our full response to USTR's written comments and descriptions of our 
adjustments to the report in response.) We acknowledge that USTR, DOL, 
and State generally collaborate in engaging with partner countries on 
labor issues and in addressing submissions. However, the evidence that 
we reviewed, such as agendas for interagency meetings and our 
interviews with USTR and DOL staff, did not show that the agencies 
have developed a coordinated, strategic approach to systematically 
address possible inconsistencies with FTA labor provisions in most 
partner countries that have not been the subject of labor submissions. 
For example, we did not see evidence of a coordinated approach to 
address issues such as those identified by USTR in the partner 
countries it designates as high risk or that DOL identifies in its 
management reports. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the content 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the U.S. 
Trade Representative, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of State, 
and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at 
no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov. Contact points 
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix VII. 

Signed by: 

Kimberly Gianopoulos: 
Acting Director, International Affairs & Trade: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This report examines (1) steps that selected partner countries have 
taken, and U.S. assistance they have received, to implement free trade 
agreement (FTA) labor provisions and other labor initiatives and the 
reported results of such steps; (2) complaints--known as submissions--
about possible violations of FTA labor provisions that DOL has 
accepted and any problems related to the submission process; and (3) 
the extent to which the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 
(USTR), Department of Labor (DOL), and Department of State (State) 
monitor and enforce partner countries' implementation of FTA labor 
provisions and report results to Congress. In addition, appendix II 
describes reported violence against labor unionists in selected FTA 
partner countries as well as steps that the countries have taken to 
address such occurrences. Appendix III describes U.S. agencies' 
efforts to monitor implementation of other labor initiatives. Appendix 
IV describes the status of labor submissions received by the 
Department of Labor. 

We chose to concentrate our review on four FTAs and five partners to 
these FTAs, so that we could examine the unique set of circumstances 
for FTA partner countries with some specificity. The FTAs and partner 
countries on which we chose to focus--the Dominican Republic-Central 
America-United States (CAFTA-DR), among whose six partner countries we 
selected El Salvador and Guatemala; the Colombia FTA; the Oman FTA; 
and the Peru FTA--are FTAs that contain labor provisions and countries 
with regional dispersion across Central America, South America, and 
the Middle East. We also selected CAFTA-DR because of the CAFTA-DR 
White Paper labor initiatives, and we selected El Salvador and 
Guatemala among CAFTA-DR countries because of the extent of U.S. 
assistance for labor programs and, in Guatemala's case, the FTA-
related Enforcement Plan. In addition, we selected the Colombia FTA 
because of the Labor Action Plan, and we chose the Colombia and Peru 
FTAs because they contain language echoing the Bipartisan Trade 
Agreement of May 10, 2007, popularly known as the May 10th Agreement. 
However, the results of our review of these selected FTAs and partner 
countries cannot be generalized to all FTAs and partner countries. 

In gathering information for each of our objectives, we engaged in 
three types of activities: 

* We obtained information and perspectives from U.S. government, 
foreign government, nongovernmental organization (NGO), labor union, 
and private sector officials; stakeholders such as umbrella business 
associations; and experts. 

* We obtained information and analysis from legal and secondary 
literature sources. 

* We obtained information through visits to partner countries. 

During our visits to Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Oman, and Peru, 
we met with U.S. officials; foreign government officials responsible 
for the implementation of labor provisions of the FTAs and other labor 
initiatives; umbrella business groups, such as chambers of commerce; 
officials of international organizations such as the International 
Labour Organization (ILO), trade unions, NGOs, and other subject 
matter experts. Additionally, we visited Costa Rica to meet with ILO 
officials in their Central America regional office, in San Jose. The 
views expressed by these officials and organizations cannot be 
generalized to all officials or organizations knowledgeable about 
labor provisions in the selected FTAs. 

Objective 1: Examine Steps That Selected Partner Countries Have Taken, 
and U.S. Assistance They Have Received, to Implement FTA Labor 
Provisions and Other Labor Initiatives and the Reported Results of 
Such Steps: 

To examine the steps that the selected FTA partner countries have 
taken to implement labor protection commitments under the respective 
agreements and other labor initiatives in the context of the 
respective FTAs, as well as the reported results of these steps, we 
obtained, reviewed, and analyzed documents from a variety of sources, 
including the four selected FTAs and their associated labor annexes as 
well as the CAFTA-DR White Paper and the Colombia Labor Action Plan. 
For this analysis, we included steps taken by partner countries, 
beginning with FTA negotiations for each FTA through May 2014. We also 
reviewed congressionally mandated reports, such as State's Country 
Reports on Human Rights Practices (Human Rights Reports), of which the 
2013 reports were the latest available; USTR's annual trade agenda and 
trade report; and DOL's biennial Progress in Implementing Chapter 16 
(Labor) and Capacity Building under the Dominican Republic-Central 
America-United States Free Trade Agreement. In addition, we reviewed 
reports submitted to Congress in conjunction with FTA implementing 
legislation, such as DOL's Labor Rights Reports for each of our 
selected FTAs. 

Additionally, we interviewed officials from DOL's International Labor 
Affairs Bureau and the Office of Trade and Labor Affairs; USTR's Labor 
Affairs office; and State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and 
Labor. We also interviewed State desk officers responsible for 
selected partner countries and labor, political, and economic officers 
at U.S. embassies. In each of the selected countries, except Colombia, 
we interviewed officials from the relevant ministries, including the 
ministry of labor. (Colombia's Ministry of Labor chose to provide 
written responses to our questions.) We did not independently identify 
or evaluate FTA partner countries' enforcement or compliance with laws 
and procedures but rather relied on evidence obtained from U.S. and 
partner government as well as stakeholder sources. Because of the 
ILO's role in interpreting, assessing, and improving signatories' 
compliance with ILO Conventions and Fundamental Principles, we 
conducted a series of meetings at the ILO in Geneva as well as with 
umbrella organizations participating in the ILO's tripartite 
(government-business-labor) governance structure. 

To examine U.S. funding for labor-related assistance projects, we 
collected data on such funding obligations--from the date when 
Congress passed the respective FTA implementing legislation through 
2013--from relevant officials at State, DOL, and USAID and publicly 
available data on trade-related labor assistance from USAID's Trade 
Capacity Building Database. We assessed the reliability of the data by 
(1) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data sources 
and (2) tracing the data to source documents. We determined that the 
data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of describing U.S. 
assistance for labor provisions in FTA countries. 

In addition, to identify any changes in levels of reported violence 
against workers exercising labor rights in the selected countries and 
the partner governments' responses (see appendix II), we obtained, 
reviewed, and analyzed documents from USTR, DOL, and State, such as 
State's Human Rights Reports and DOL's Labor Rights Reports. During 
our fieldwork in each selected country, we interviewed U.S. and 
foreign government officials, labor unions, and NGOs to learn of any 
violence against unionists. Of the countries we selected for review, 
violence against unionists was reported only in Colombia and 
Guatemala. During our fieldwork in Colombia, we interviewed and 
obtained information from entities responsible for collecting and 
reporting data on violence against unionists, including the Colombian 
Prosecutor General's office; ENS (Escuela Nacional Sindical)--a labor 
rights NGO--and State's Human Rights and Labor officers at the U.S. 
embassy in Bogota. We assessed the reliability of ENS's and the 
Colombian Prosecutor General's data by (1) interviewing officials from 
each entity about their criteria and data collection methodology for 
determining whether a victim's union activity was a motive in the 
killing and (2) interviewing State's Human Rights and Labor officers, 
who report ENS and Colombia's Prosecutor General's data in the annual 
Human Rights Report for Colombia. We determined the data to be 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of describing reported violence 
against unionists in Colombia. In Guatemala, we interviewed, and 
obtained information from, the Guatemalan Prosecutor General's Office, 
which is responsible for prosecuting crimes against unionists, and the 
Guatemalan Ministry of the Interior, which investigates crimes against 
unionists at the direction of the Prosecutor General's Office. Because 
Guatemala did not collect data on violence against unionists, we did 
not review such data on homicide rates over time. We also interviewed 
State's political officer responsible for labor affairs at its embassy 
in Guatemala City, labor unions, and NGO officials. We reviewed ILO 
reports and discussed steps by Colombia and Guatemala to address 
violence with ILO officials. Our analysis was based on reputable 
secondary sources. We did not make any independent determination 
regarding the merit of any evidence of violence against unionists. 

Objective 2: Examine Submissions about Possible Violations of FTA 
Labor Provisions That DOL Has Accepted and Any Problems Related to the 
Submission Process: 

To examine labor submissions that have been filed under FTA agreements 
and any problems related to the submission process, we obtained, 
reviewed, and analyzed documents, including each labor submission 
filed with DOL. We interviewed officials from DOL's Office of Trade 
and Labor Affairs--the office responsible for investigating and 
reporting on submissions--as well as USTR and State officials who 
review DOL's reports and are involved in following up with FTA partner 
countries, if needed. During our fieldwork, we interviewed union and 
NGO representatives involved in filing submissions, as well as 
relevant government ministries, including the Ministries of Labor in 
Peru and Guatemala. 

Objective 3: Examine the Extent to Which USTR, DOL, and State Monitor 
and Enforce Partner Countries' Implementation of FTA Labor Provisions 
and Report Results to Congress: 

To examine the extent to which USTR, DOL, and State monitor and 
enforce implementation of FTA labor provisions and associated 
commitments (see appendix III) and report results to Congress, we 
requested, reviewed, and analyzed documents from each agency. These 
documents included strategic plans and documents reflecting monitoring 
activities, such as DOL's management reports for 13 selected FTA 
partner countries, State cables, and USTR monitoring documents. In 
addition, we interviewed selected members of the USTR-chaired Trade 
Policy Staff Committee and its subcommittee on FTA labor monitoring 
and enforcement. To examine the resources that USTR, DOL, and State 
dedicate to monitoring labor provisions in FTAs, we obtained and 
analyzed data on staffing and other resources such as travel. We 
interviewed officials from DOL's International Labor Affairs Bureau 
and its Office of Trade and Labor Affairs; USTR; and State's Bureau of 
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, as well as State's in-country 
labor, labor reporting, political, and economic officers at U.S. 
embassies during our fieldwork. In addition, during our fieldwork, we 
interviewed officials from the partner countries' various ministries, 
including the ministries of labor, as well as representatives from 
labor unions and NGO officials implementing programs funded by U.S. 
agencies. To determine whether USTR, DOL, and State report the results 
of their monitoring activities to Congress, we reviewed and analyzed 
the agencies' reports, such as USTR's Trade Policy Agenda and Annual 
Report (2009 to 2013), DOL Annual Performance Reports (2010 to 2013), 
and State's Human Rights Reports (2009 to 2013). 

We conducted this performance audit work from May 2013 to November 
2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Reported Violence against Trade Unionists in Colombia and 
Guatemala: 

Colombia: 

Violence and Threats of Violence against Unionists, Undermining 
Freedom of Association, Have Been Reported in Colombia: 

U.S. and Colombian officials and representatives of unions, 
nongovernmental organizations (NGO), and private sector groups we met 
with reported that violence against unionists continues to exist in 
Colombia, which union leaders and NGOs reported undermines workers' 
ability to freely associate because of the fear that their union 
activities may lead them to become victims of violence.[Footnote 73] 
NGO officials in Colombia reported that although murders of unionists 
are a serious concern, threats of violence against union members also 
create a significant deterrent to workers organizing, with one NGO 
official noting a greater impact in rural areas than in major cities. 
According to this NGO official, authorities are less likely to have 
the capacity to investigate and respond to threats made in rural 
areas, with the result that victims flee the area or disengage from 
labor activities. 

Data collected by the NGO Escuela Nacional Sindical (ENS) and the 
Colombia Prosecutor General's Office, as reported in the U.S. 
Department of State's Human Rights Reports, show that murders of trade 
unionists have generally decreased over the past decade, although 
homicides continue to occur (see figure 4).[Footnote 74] For example, 
according to DOL, as of July 2014 ENS had recorded 35 murders in 2013, 
compared with 102 murders of union members and labor activists in 
2003. This trend continued in the period since the Labor Action Plan--
which contains specific commitments to address labor violence--was 
announced in 2011. Labor union officials acknowledged the number of 
homicides has decreased, but they noted that violence continues to 
exist. 

Figure 4: Murders of Unionists in Colombia, 2003-2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Number of murders: 

Year: 2003; 
Escuela Nacional Sindical (ENS): 102; 
Government of Colombia: 101. 

Year: 2004; 
Escuela Nacional Sindical (ENS): 94; 
Government of Colombia: 89. 

Year: 2005; 
Escuela Nacional Sindical (ENS): 72; 
Government of Colombia: 40. 

Year: 2006; 
Escuela Nacional Sindical (ENS): 76; 
Government of Colombia: 60. 

Year: 2007; 
Escuela Nacional Sindical (ENS): 39; 
Government of Colombia: 26. 

Year: 2008; 
Escuela Nacional Sindical (ENS): 49; 
Government of Colombia: 39. 

Year: 2009; 
Escuela Nacional Sindical (ENS): 47; 
Government of Colombia: 28. 

Year: 2010; 
Escuela Nacional Sindical (ENS): 51; 
Government of Colombia: 34. 

Year: 2011; 
Escuela Nacional Sindical (ENS): 29; 
Government of Colombia: 20. 

Year: 2012; 
Escuela Nacional Sindical (ENS): 30; 
Government of Colombia: 24. 

Year: 2013; 
Escuela Nacional Sindical (ENS): 26; 
Government of Colombia: 24. 

Source: GAO analysis of ENS and government of Colombia data, as 
reported by Department of State and Congressional Research 
Service. GAO-15-160. 

[End of figure] 

Further, according to ENS, as a result of the Labor Action Plan, ENS 
and the Prosecutor General's Office have developed a collaborative 
relationship, with the Prosecutor General's Office consulting with ENS 
on cases involving murders or threats that may be linked to the 
victims' union activities. 

Government officials and labor groups we met with in Colombia all 
reported that threats of violence against unionists have been 
increasing. However, ENS is the only source of such threat data, and 
its reports do not show a clear pattern over the past decade.[Footnote 
75] ENS's data represent only reported threats; threats of violence 
against unionists may go unreported. 

Colombia Has Taken Agreed Steps to Prevent and Investigate Violence 
against Trade Unionists, but Unions Report That Violence Persists: 

The government of Colombia committed to a number of reforms related to 
labor violence in April 2011 in the Labor Action Plan. Such 
commitments included broadening the scope of the government of 
Colombia's protection program, Unidad Nacional de Protección (UNP), to 
include labor activists, union members, and people engaging in efforts 
to form a union, increasing the budget for the additional resources 
necessary to support the expansion of the protection program, 
eliminating the backlog of protection applications awaiting risk 
assessments, completing future risk assessments within a 30-day period 
(as described below), and reforming the Colombian interagency 
committee that reviews risk assessments. In addition, Colombia 
committed to criminal justice reforms in the Labor Action Plan, which 
included: 

* assigning 95 additional full-time judicial police investigators to 
support the investigations of criminal cases involving union members 
and activists; 

* analyzing closed cases of union member homicides to determine 
patterns relating to targets, criminal methods, and any evidence of 
motives; 

* identifying budgetary needs for training investigators and 
prosecutors on issues related to labor cases; and: 

* instructing investigators to determine whether a homicide victim was 
an active or retired union member, or was actively engaged in union 
formation and organization, during the initial phase of the 
investigation. 

According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and 
the Department of Labor (DOL), in accordance with Colombia's Labor 
Action Plan commitments, the Colombian government has implemented 
changes to a number of institutions and programs. For example, union 
members, in addition to union leaders, are now included in the UNP's 
jurisdiction. As of April 2014, the UNP protects more than 670 
unionists, with about 24 percent of its budget dedicated to the 
protection of unionists and labor activists. 

Additionally, USTR has reported that the Colombian government reformed 
the risk assessment process at the UNP and eliminated the backlog of 
hundreds of applicants to the protection program. During our fieldwork 
in Colombia, UNP officials described changes to the risk assessment 
process. For example, when an application is received, instead of a 
single individual investigating the case, as occurred before the 
process's reform, a committee now conducts interviews and fieldwork to 
investigate the nature of the threat and determine a risk score. The 
case is then forwarded to another committee, comprising 
representatives from organized labor, other vulnerable populations, 
and government agencies, that determines the risk level in each case 
as ordinary, extraordinary, or extreme. UNP officials reported that, 
based on the outcome of the risk assessment, protection measures 
ranging from providing a cell phone to providing an armored car and 
armed bodyguards are taken. State's 2013 Human Rights Report notes 
that between January 1 and October 31, 2013, the UNP conducted 565 
risk assessments of union leaders or members. Of those, the UNP 
classified 203, about 36 percent, as having an extraordinary threat or 
extreme threat and provided the leaders or members with protection 
measures. According to UNP officials, prior to the Labor Action Plan-
related reforms, about 10 to 15 percent of risk applicants were 
determined to be under extraordinary or extreme risk. Additionally, 
according to State, approximately one-half of the unionists enrolled 
in the program were provided with "hard" protection measures that 
included a bodyguard. 

According to USTR, Colombia increased the budget of its Prosecutor 
General's Office, in part to investigate and prosecute cases involving 
union members or labor activists as victims. Further, USTR has 
reported that the Prosecutor General's Office has issued a mandate 
that assigned over 20 prosecutors exclusively to crimes against union 
members and labor activists. In addition, the National Police have 
assigned an additional 100 full-time judicial police investigators to 
support the prosecutors in investigating cases involving union members 
and labor activists. To implement the Labor Action Plan commitments to 
identify and effectively prosecute intellectual authors of labor 
homicides, the Prosecutor General's Office created a context and 
analysis directorate tasked with investigating the patterns and 
context of similar cases, including labor homicides. Officials from 
this unit we met with during our fieldwork in Colombia described the 
unit as taking an integrated approach to analyzing cases across the 
spectrum of human rights crimes to determine common themes and 
perpetrators. 

Despite the actions Colombia has taken to reduce violence against 
union members and labor activists, Colombian union and NGO officials, 
as well as USTR officials, report that violence and impunity remain 
problems. Union members we met with during our fieldwork in Colombia 
reported the existence of a high impunity rate for violent crimes 
against unionists. According to DOL, of the 100 unionist murders that 
have occurred since 2011, Colombia's Prosecutor General's Office has 
obtained only one conviction. Union officials we met with acknowledged 
that the government of Colombia has taken positive steps to address 
violence, that the number of labor-related homicides has decreased, 
and that reforms have been implemented at the UNP. However, they also 
reported they are concerned for their safety because of their union 
activities. Additionally, union officials voiced the concern that risk 
was not being assessed at the UNP in a way that accurately captured 
the dangers union leaders and members face. UNP officials we met 
acknowledged that two union leaders who were receiving "light" 
protection were murdered and another union leader was murdered while 
he awaited the UNP's risk assessment. 

U.S. Government Has Provided Assistance to Colombia to Address 
Violence, Including Violence against Unionists: 

In support of reducing violence in Colombia, including violence 
against unionists, U.S. agencies have funded multiple assistance 
projects. According to U.S. Agency for International Development 
(USAID) officials, from 2001 to 2010, the agency provided about $11.6 
million in funding through its Human Rights fund to establish and 
support Colombia's UNP. The UNP, which is under the Colombian Ministry 
of Interior, received between 10 and 18 percent of its total annual 
budget from USAID funding from 2001 to 2005 (ranging from about 
$916,000 in 2001 to about $2.5 million in 2005). According to USAID, 
its assistance for the UNP has steadily decreased as budget support 
from the government of Colombia and the effectiveness of the UNP have 
increased. For example, from 2011 to 2014, USAID provided 
approximately $150,000 per year in assistance to the UNP. 

In support of Colombia's Labor Action Plan commitment to seek 
cooperation, advice, and technical assistance of the International 
Labour Organization (ILO), DOL is currently funding a 5-year (2011 to 
2016), $7.82 million technical cooperation project implemented by the 
ILO. The objectives of this project include strengthening the 
institutional capacity of the Colombian government to enhance 
protection measures for trade union leaders, members, activists, and 
organizers and combating impunity for perpetrators of violence against 
them. Under this project, the ILO is training Colombian prosecutors, 
investigators, and judges on labor rights and investigating crimes 
against union leaders and labor activists. In addition, Colombia's 
Prosecutor General's Office officials reported that the office has 
received assistance from the U.S. Department of Justice on broad 
criminal justice reforms, including transitioning from an 
inquisitorial to an accusatory legal system. USTR reports that State 
has funded, and the Department of Justice has implemented, assistance 
to train investigators and prosecutors throughout Colombia in best 
practices for crime scene investigation, including forensic evidence 
handling, investigating threats, and prosecutorial management of cases 
for trial. The Department of Justice's and State's programs are aimed 
at broader criminal justice reform; however, Colombia's Prosecutor 
General's Office reported to us that the reforms apply to 
investigating and prosecuting violence against unionists. 

Guatemala: 

Instances of Violence and Threats of Violence against Trade Unionists 
Have Been Reported in Guatemala: 

U.S. and Guatemalan government officials and ILO and union 
representatives reported that violence against unionists exists in 
Guatemala; however, the extent of the problem is unclear because 
disaggregated statistics on violence against unionists are not 
collected. Nevertheless, a union collected information on 63 cases in 
which union leaders or members were killed from 2007 through 2013. The 
unions alleged that the motive for these murders was related to the 
victims' union activities and that the government of Guatemala has not 
done enough to investigate and resolve the cases. In addition, ILO 
officials stated that they have detailed extremely serious and 
systematic violations of the right to freedom of association in 
Guatemala, including murder. 

A 2012 ILO complaint against the Guatemalan government cited 63 
murders of trade unionists and called for the establishment of an ILO 
commission of inquiry.[Footnote 76] Guatemalan officials confirmed 
that violence against trade unionists exists but reported that many of 
the cases cited in the ILO complaint were the result of general, 
extensive violence and crime in the country rather than violence 
directed against trade unionists. According to Ministry of the 
Interior officials, the ministry's initial investigation of the 63 
murder cases was unable to identify any link between the perpetrators' 
motives and the victims' union activity. Furthermore, as part of a 
cooperative agreement with the Guatemalan Attorney General's Office, 
the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) 
began a review of the 58 cases cited in the ILO complaint to ensure 
the adequacy of the investigations.[Footnote 77] According to DOL, as 
of June 2014, CICIG had completed its review of 56 cases and concluded 
that 6 of the cases indicated a possible link to union activity. 

In addition, unions reported other violent acts, such as threats, 
bribes, and intimidation against union members. According to union 
representatives we interviewed, threats of violence begin with 
harassing phone calls to a union leader or member. The union 
representative stated that if the phone calls do not get the desired 
results, the harassment is escalated to include physical intimidation 
and threats of kidnapping. If the physical intimidation fails, then 
kidnapping or murder occurs. 

Guatemala Has Taken Steps to Prevent and Investigate Violence against 
Unionists in Response to ILO Review: 

To address the complaint filed by the unions, the ILO initiated the 
process to establish commissions of inquiry. To avoid the 
establishment of the commission, the government of Guatemala signed a 
memorandum of understanding in March of 2013, committing to take 
specific steps to address the issues in the complaint and establishing 
a plan called the Road Map that outlined the actions needed. In 
response, the ILO decided to postpone the establishment of the 
Commission of Inquiry and has been working with Guatemala to implement 
the Road Map. 

According to information that the government of Guatemala provided to 
the ILO, as of March of 2014, steps that the government had taken to 
address violence against unionists included: 

* a cooperative agreement signed with the International CICIG to 
support the Public Prosecutor's Office in analyzing cases of violence 
against trade unionists; 

* the transfer of 20 trained investigators to the Attorney General's 
Office and the creation of the new post of assistant prosecutor in the 
special unit investigating crimes against trade unionists; 

* improvement in the time periods for trial and convictions, including 
those for some of the 58 murders reported to the ILO; and: 

* submission by the Ministry of the Interior, in the context of 
analyzing assaults on trade unionists, of a draft protocol for 
implementing immediate and preventive security measures for trade 
union leaders, unionized workers, and workers from trade unions in the 
process of being established. 

Following are descriptions of some of the Guatemalan government's 
ongoing efforts to address violence against trade unionists. 

Cooperative agreement with CICIG. According to a March 2014 ILO 
report, the Guatemalan Attorney General's Office signed a cooperative 
agreement with CICIG on September 24, 2013.[Footnote 78] As part of 
the agreement, the Attorney General's Office established a 
coordination mechanism with CICIG for the analysis of specific cases 
of violence against trade union members. CICIG agreed to support the 
Attorney General's Office in the analysis of specific cases of 
violence against union members, providing recommendations to 
strengthen the investigation of those cases. Under the new 
coordination mechanism, the 58 murder cases cited in the ILO complaint 
were transferred to CICIG to continue the investigation process. In 
addition, the Attorney General agreed to cooperate with CICIG in the 
analysis of crime trends based on landmark cases of attacks and 
violence against union members known to the different units and 
offices of the Public Prosecutor's Office. 

Additional trained investigators. The Ministry of the Interior and the 
Attorney General's Office established interinstitutional links for 
cooperation to strengthen the investigations and criminal prosecution. 
Through this mechanism, the Ministry of the Interior transferred 20 
trained investigators to the Attorney General's Office, with the 
effort to provide additional support to investigate cases of violence 
against unionists. 

Timely trials and convictions. The government of Guatemala has worked 
to improve the length of time it takes to bring perpetrators of crimes 
to trial and issue convictions. In regard to the 58 murder cases cited 
in the ILO complaint, the Attorney General's Office provided an update 
of the status of the 28 cases that have been brought to court and 
reported that extinction of criminal liability has been applied in 4 
cases, arrest warrants have been issued in 13 cases, rulings have been 
handed down in 6 cases, and 5 cases are pending trial.[Footnote 79] 

Strengthening analysis of attacks against human rights defenders. The 
Attorney General's Office restructured and strengthened the unit that 
analyzes attacks against human rights defenders, a category that 
includes unionists. As part of this process, representatives of 
unionized workers will meet regularly to study trends in attacks 
against human rights defenders and draw up recommendations for 
investigations by the Attorney General Office to assist both criminal 
investigations and the conviction of the perpetrators. An adequately 
staffed office will be created to carry out the relevant 
investigations. 

The government of Guatemala reported several other steps it intends to 
initiate or has initiated to address the issues in the ILO complaint. 
For example, according to the ILO's March 2014 report, the Ministry of 
Labor and Social Welfare proposed amendments to the Labor Code and 
other relevant laws, incorporating the amendments proposed by the ILO 
supervisory bodies.[Footnote 80] The ILO's report stated that 
legislative reforms have also been proposed by the Ministry of Labor 
to enable the general labor inspectorate to fulfill its mandate to 
ensure the effective application of labor legislation. On the basis of 
the progress demonstrated in addressing points in the Road Map 
reported by the government of Guatemala, the ILO decided in March 2014 
to again postpone the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry and 
reevaluate progress in November of 2014. 

U.S. Government Has Provided Assistance to Guatemala for Law 
Enforcement Reform and to Address Violence, Including Violence against 
Unionists: 

The United States has provided some funding through State's Bureau of 
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) to assist Guatemalan 
authorities to provide better protection to unionists. INL provided 
Guatemala $2 million dollars in assistance for fiscal years 2012 
through 2016 to implement reform and capacity-building projects. The 
goal of the INL funding is to increase the investigative capabilities 
of law enforcement officers within the Ministry of the Interior. Part 
of the funding focuses on defenders of human rights, including 
addressing violence against trade unions. Assistance provided by INL 
has ranged from the provision of equipment to technical training and 
exchanges. For example, INL provided the Ministry of the Interior's 
recently established security division, División de Protección de 
Personas y Seguridad (DPPS), with filing cabinets to organize files on 
union leaders for which it was providing protection. INL officials 
stated that DPPS lacked a tracking system and had rooms stacked with 
disorganized files and, as a result, could not accurately track the 
number of people receiving protection. According to INL officials, as 
of December 2013, DPPS was providing protection for about 1,000 union 
leaders and members. INL officials also stated that they had discussed 
the possibility of creating a risk analysis unit in DPPS, similar to 
Colombia's UNP. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: U.S. Monitoring of Implementation of Other Labor 
Initiatives: 

In addition to being responsible for monitoring partner countries' 
implementation of free trade agreement (FTA) labor provisions, U.S. 
agencies are responsible for monitoring the implementation of labor 
initiatives such as the White Paper[Footnote 81] and the Labor Action 
Plan,[Footnote 82] which were developed in the context of, 
respectively, the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States 
Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) and the United States-Colombia Trade 
Promotion Agreement (Colombia FTA).[Footnote 83] U.S. agencies are 
also responsible for monitoring Guatemala's Labor Enforcement Plan, 
developed in response to a CAFTA-DR labor submission to the Department 
of Labor (DOL).[Footnote 84] 

CAFTA-DR White Paper: 

To discharge its responsibility for monitoring implementation of the 
CAFTA-DR White Paper projects, in 2007 DOL provided a $10 million 
grant to the International Labour Organization's (ILO) Verification 
Project.[Footnote 85] The Verification Project prepared reports every 
6 months from 2005 through 2010 regarding the implementation of the 
White Paper projects. The Verification Project and most White Paper 
projects concluded in 2012. 

The ILO Verification Project tracked spending and implementation of 
every White Paper project, requiring grant recipients to submit 
periodic reports to ILO for the biannual report. ILO staff provided 
the reports to DOL, which used the reports to ensure transparency and 
progress of the U.S.-funded projects. Entities implementing White 
Paper projects included, among others, the U.S. Agency for 
International Development (USAID), partner countries' ministries of 
labor and labor courts, and nongovernmental organizations. According 
to ILO staff, although the Verification Project did not measure the 
impact of the projects on labor conditions, the reports reflected 
improvements of government institutions and other entities and 
demonstrated the benefit of addressing some issues faced by workers. 
ILO officials noted that, besides providing accountability for the 
expenditure of funds and tracking the progress of projects, the 
Verification Project led to improvements in data gathering and 
reporting capabilities of the ministries of labor. 

Colombia Labor Action Plan: 

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), in cooperation 
with DOL and the Department of State (State), is responsible for 
monitoring the implementation of the Colombia Labor Action Plan, most 
of which Colombia was required to implement by 2012. The plan listed 
steps to improve labor conditions, mutually agreed on by the U.S. and 
Colombian governments, that the Colombian government agreed to take 
before the President of the United States would put the FTA forward 
for congressional consideration. The conditions that the Labor Action 
Plan addressed included violence against Colombian labor union 
members, inadequate efforts to bring to justice perpetrators of crimes 
against labor union members, and insufficient protection of workers' 
rights in Colombia. According to USTR staff, the plan continues to 
serve as a framework for cooperation with Colombia. The plan includes 
regular meetings between officials from both countries to monitor and 
implement the plan through 2013, and both governments announced an 
extension of these meetings through at least 2014. 

On April 2012, USTR announced that the Colombian government had taken 
important steps to fulfill the Labor Action Plan and that the FTA 
would go into effect. USTR officials did not provide records or 
documentation of these steps, stating that they did not request such 
records because the website for the Presidency of Colombia supplied 
documentation of all actions taken. On reviewing some of the 
documentation on the website, we found that the documents were not 
structured so as to readily provide information about steps that the 
Colombian government had taken to meet its Labor Action Plan 
commitments. In written responses to our questions, Colombia's 
Ministry of Labor indicated that the government had met all Labor 
Action Plan commitments, and the ministry provided examples of the 
government's actions to meet these commitments. 

USTR officials reported that USTR, DOL, and State had engaged 
extensively with the Colombian Ministry of Labor and other government 
institutions in Colombia to discuss and confirm Colombia's progress in 
implementing each element of the Labor Action Plan. According to USTR, 
as of August 2014, USTR and DOL staff had made seven visits to 
Colombia since the FTA entered into force to address these issues. 
USTR fact sheets and a USTR and DOL report from April 2014 provided 
information about Colombia's accomplishments under the Labor Action 
Plan--for example, the report detailed the number of labor inspectors 
hired, the number of special prosecutors and investigators hired, and 
the number of convictions in cases of violence against labor leaders--
as well as remaining challenges. In addition, according to DOL, a DOL 
staff member, detailed to the U.S. embassy in Bogota from 2011 to 2012 
to oversee implementation of the Action Plan, met during that period 
with Colombian government officials, nongovernmental organizations, 
union representatives, and other stakeholders to discuss the Labor 
Action Plan's implementation, among other topics. 

Guatemala Enforcement Plan: 

USTR, in cooperation with DOL and State, is responsible for monitoring 
implementation of the Guatemala Enforcement Plan, agreed to by the 
U.S. and Guatemalan governments in April 2013, to address concerns 
identified in a labor submission filed under CAFTA-DR. USTR provided 
us with internal documents that it had used to track Guatemala's 
progress in taking the steps required by the plan. For example, USTR 
provided a matrix tracking the status of legal instruments required 
under the Enforcement Plan; USTR also provided quarterly progress 
reports submitted by the Guatemalan Ministry of Labor, identifying 
steps that the ministry had taken to address commitments in the 
Enforcement Plan. USTR officials said that since 2009, USTR and DOL 
had directly engaged with Guatemala on the labor case through 17 
trips, including 7 trips that involved staff at the Assistant 
Secretary level or higher. In addition, officials at the Guatemalan 
Ministry of Labor told us that they had interacted extensively with 
DOL and USTR, including through multiple video-teleconferences, 
meetings in person, and correspondence, to update them on progress in 
implementing the Enforcement Plan. 

In April 2014, USTR told us that although it recognized steps that 
Guatemala had taken under the Enforcement Plan, it had not seen 
sufficient progress to close the case. USTR officials stated that if 
the Guatemalan government did not take the steps delineated in the 
plan by the specified dates, USTR might decide to pursue arbitration. 
In September 2014, USTR announced that the U.S. government was 
pursuing dispute settlement proceedings against Guatemala because it 
had not met the terms of the Enforcement Plan. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Status of Labor Submissions: 

The following provides details about the status of the five labor 
submissions that the Department of Labor (DOL) has accepted since 
2008.[Footnote 86] 

Bahrain: 

In June 2011, DOL accepted a labor submission regarding Bahrain, 50 
days after receipt. The submission remains open, with consultations 
ongoing. The submission, received from the American Federation of 
Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) with a 
statement from the General Federation of Bahrain Trade Unions, alleged 
that Bahrain had violated free trade agreement (FTA) labor provisions 
regarding the right of association, particularly nondiscrimination 
against trade unionists. In December 2012, DOL issued a public report 
that found that the government of Bahrain's actions appeared 
inconsistent with its commitments under the labor chapter. 
Specifically, the report found that trade unionists and leaders were 
targeted for dismissal, and in some cases prosecuted, in part for 
their role in organizing and participating in a general strike and 
that the dismissals reflected discrimination based in part on 
political opinion and activities. The report also found sectarian 
discrimination against Shia workers. The Department of Labor's (DOL) 
report outlined nine recommendations focused on legal and 
administrative changes to Bahraini labor law for the U.S. government 
to pursue during consultations with Bahrain and also recommended that 
the parties develop a plan of action. 

On May 6, 2013, more than 4 months after DOL issued its report, the 
U.S. government formally requested cooperative labor consultations 
with the government of Bahrain in a joint letter from the Acting 
Secretary of Labor and the Acting U.S. Trade Representative. 
Consultations began when an interagency delegation met with the 
government of Bahrain in Manama, Bahrain, on July 15 and 16, 2013. 
However, according to DOL, the first round of consultations did not 
resolve all issues DOL had identified, and consultations were ongoing 
as of September 2014. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 
(USTR) attempted to schedule second-round consultations but agreed to 
a request from Bahrain to delay them. The United States and Bahrain 
held a second round of consultations on June 22 and 23, 2014, 
according to DOL. During the consultations, the two parties used the 
recommendations in the DOL report as a basis for jointly developing an 
action plan, which includes concrete steps for the government of 
Bahrain to address the concerns that the report raises. USTR officials 
noted that the allegations raised in the submission are subject to 
resolution through the consultation procedures but are not subject to 
dispute settlement.[Footnote 87] 

Figure 5 shows the timeline and status of the Bahrain labor submission. 

Figure 5: Timeline and Status of Labor Submission Regarding Bahrain: 

[Refer to PDF for image: timeline] 

Bahrain: 

04/11: DOL receives submission. 

06/11: DOL accepts submission for review. 

12/12: DOL issues public report, recommending that U.S. government 
request formal consultations. 

05/13: USTR requests formal consultations with Bahrain. 

07/13: First round of consultations is held. 

06/14: Second round of consultations is held. 

08/14: Submission remains open while U.S. government engages in 
consultations with Bahrain. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Labor information. GAO-15-160. 

DOL: U.S. Department of Labor. 

[End of figure] 

Dominican Republic: 

In February 2012, DOL accepted a labor submission regarding the 
Dominican Republic, 62 days after receipt. The submission remains open 
and unresolved while DOL monitors the Dominican Republic's progress in 
addressing concerns that the submission raises. The submission, 
submitted by a private individual, alleged the failure of the 
Dominican Republic's government to enforce its labor laws in the sugar 
sector as required under the Dominican Republic-Central America-United 
States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR). The submission alleged nine 
violations, ranging from human trafficking and forced labor to 
retaliatory firing of workers for affiliation with, or attempts to 
organize, labor groups or unions. In September 2013, DOL issued a 
public report that found evidence of apparent and potential violations 
of the Dominican Republic's labor laws pertaining to the sugar sector. 
DOL's report also identified significant concerns about procedural and 
methodological shortcomings in the inspection process that undermine 
the government's capacity to effectively identify labor violations. In 
addition, the report cited concerns regarding freedom of association, 
the right to organize, and collective bargaining. DOL's report offered 
11 recommendations to the government of the Dominican Republic to 
address the report's findings and improve enforcement of Dominican 
labor laws in the sugar sector and stated that DOL would reassess the 
situation in 6 and 12 months after the report's publication. The 
recommendations range from administrative changes to help the 
government of the Dominican Republic improve its enforcement of 
Dominican labor laws to outreach suggestions for better informing 
sugar sector workers about their labor rights. 

In April 2014, DOL issued its 6-month assessment, noting that the 
Dominican Republic's Ministry of Labor had committed to measures that, 
if instituted, would begin to address some of the recommendations in 
DOL's public report. DOL's assessment also noted that the government 
of the Dominican Republic had not yet indicated plans or taken actions 
to address most of the public report's recommendations. 

Figure 6 shows the timeline and status of the Dominican Republic labor 
submission. 

Figure 6: Timeline and Status of Labor Submission Regarding the 
Dominican Republic: 

[Refer to PDF for image: timeline] 

Dominican Republic: 

12/11: DOL receives submission. 

02/12: DOL accepts submission for review. 

06/12: DOL requests public comments and publishes request in Federal 
Register. 

09/13: DOL issues public report with recommendations and gives the 
Dominican Republic 6 months to address the recommendations. 

09/14: Submission remains open while U.S. government engages with 
Dominican Republic to address the recommendations. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Labor information. GAO-15-160. 

DOL: U.S. Department of Labor. 

[End of figure] 

Guatemala: 

In June 2008, DOL accepted a submission regarding Guatemala, 50 days 
after receipt. The submission remains open and unresolved and is 
currently in arbitration. The submission, from the AFL-CIO and six 
Guatemalan worker organizations, alleged that Guatemala had violated 
its obligation under CAFTA-DR to effectively enforce its labor laws 
regarding freedom of association, the rights to organize and bargain 
collectively, and acceptable conditions of work. In January 2009, DOL 
issued a public report that found significant weaknesses in 
Guatemala's labor law enforcement. The report outlined 10 
recommendations for the government of Guatemala, including 
administrative and technical changes, to address the issues raised in 
the submission. The report also recommended that DOL reassess 
Guatemala's progress in implementing the recommendations within 6 
months after the publication of DOL's report to determine whether 
further action is warranted. 

USTR and DOL engaged with the Guatemalan government in an effort to 
address DOL's recommendations for systemic improvements in the 
enforcement of labor laws in Guatemala. In July 2010, after 
Guatemala's actions proved insufficient to address the concerns raised 
in the report, USTR and DOL jointly requested cooperative labor 
consultations with Guatemala under the CAFTA-DR Labor Chapter. The 
consultations failed to resolve the matter, and on May 16, 2011, USTR 
requested a meeting of the CAFTA-DR's free trade commission pursuant 
to the agreement's Dispute Settlement Chapter. The commission met in 
June 2011 but did not resolve the dispute, and in August 2011, the 
United States requested the establishment of an arbitral panel. After 
the panel was constituted in November 2012, the parties agreed to 
suspend it to allow for additional negotiation. In April 2013, the 
parties reached agreement on a comprehensive 18-point Enforcement Plan 
with concrete benchmarks and timelines for implementation. The plan 
extended the arbitration panel's suspension for 6 months, with the 
possibility of an additional 6-month extension based on Guatemala's 
progress in implementing the plan. In October 2013, 6 months after the 
signing of the Enforcement Plan, USTR, in consultation with DOL, 
determined that Guatemala had taken sufficient steps to enact the 
legal instruments called for under the plan. USTR and DOL granted the 
6-month extension, noting that significant work remained to ensure the 
full implementation of the Enforcement Plan. 

In April 2014, USTR, in consultation with DOL, granted Guatemala a 4-
month extension to continue its implementation of the Enforcement Plan 
but retains the right to reactivate the arbitration panel at any point 
during this period. In September 2014, the United States reactivated 
the panel after determining that Guatemala had not met the terms of 
the Enforcement Plan and that concerns over the enforcement of 
Guatemala's labor laws had not been resolved. 

Figure 7 shows the timeline and status of the Guatemala labor 
submission. 

Figure 7: Timeline and Status of Labor Submission Regarding Guatemala: 

[Refer to PDF for image: timeline] 

Guatemala: 

04/08: DOL receives submission. 

06/08: DOL accepts submission for review. 

01/09: DOL issues report without recommending consultations. 

06/09: DOL reassesses and concludes Guatemala has made insufficient 
progress. 

07/10: USTR requests formal consultations with Guatemala. 

08/11: Consultations fail; USTR requests arbitration panel. 

11/12: Arbitration panel is constituted. 

04/13: Arbitration panel suspended in lieu of an Enforcement Plan. 

10/13: Enforcement Plan deadline for adoption of recommendations. 

04/14: USTR grants Guatemala 4-month extension. 

09/14: U.S. government reconvenes arbitration panel. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Labor information. GAO-15-160. 

DOL: U.S. Department of Labor; 
USTR: Office of the U.S. Trade Representative; 
CAFTA-DR = United States-Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade 
Agreement. 

[End of figure] 

Honduras: 

In May 2012, DOL accepted a submission regarding Honduras, 49 days 
after receipt. The submission remains open and unresolved, pending 
publication of DOL's report. The submission, from the AFL-CIO and 26 
Honduran organizations, alleged that the government of Honduras had 
violated its obligation under CAFTA-DR to enforce its labor laws 
relating to freedom of association; the right to organize; child 
labor; the right to bargain collectively; and the right to acceptable 
conditions of work in the Honduran apparel and auto manufacturing, 
agriculture, and port sectors. According to DOL officials, DOL has 
received over 1,200 documents in Spanish and visited Honduras four 
times to meet with stakeholders, reflecting the breadth of the 
allegations and detailed information reviewed and analyzed. As of May 
2014, DOL was continuing to review documentation of the allegations 
and, according to DOL officials, is preparing its report. 

Figure 8 shows the timeline and status of the Honduras labor 
submission. 

Figure 8: Timeline and Status of Labor Submission Regarding Honduras: 

[Refer to PDF for image: timeline] 

Honduras: 

03/12: DOL receives submission. 

05/12: DOL accepts submission for review. 

11/12: DOL extends the period of review for submission. 

09/14: Submission remains open while DOL collects and analyzes 
information related to the submission. DOL is unable to estimate when 
it will issue public report. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Labor information. GAO-15-160. 

DOL = U.S. Department of Labor. 

[End of figure] 

Peru: 

In July 2011, DOL accepted a submission regarding Peru, 202 days after 
receipt, which DOL closed as resolved in August 2012. The submission, 
from the Peruvian National Union of Tax Administration Workers 
(SINAUT), alleged that Peru's National Superintendency of Tax 
Administration (SUNAT), an executive branch agency of the Peruvian 
government that oversees both customs and tax administration, had 
failed to comply with Peru's labor laws as they relate to collective 
bargaining, in violation of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion 
Agreement. In August 2012, DOL issued a public report finding that 
although the Ministry of Labor and Promotion of Employment appeared to 
have fulfilled its duties during the collective bargaining processes 
at issue, SUNAT had failed to comply with certain elements of the 
Peruvian Collective Bargaining Law, including deadlines for launching 
negotiations. Further, with regard to all other issues raised in the 
submission, DOL determined that important legal ambiguity during the 
period at issue prevented a finding that SUNAT had failed to comply 
with the law or that the government of Peru had failed to comply with, 
or enforce, its own labor laws during that time. DOL's report did not 
recommend formal consultations between the U.S. government and the 
Peruvian government. According to DOL, because the government of Peru 
had taken important steps to address some of the issues raised in the 
submission, including issuing legal instruments to help clarify legal 
ambiguity and facilitate collective bargaining, DOL did not believe 
that formal consultations were needed to continue positive engagement 
and progress on these matters. As a result, DOL closed the submission 
as resolved in August 2012. 

In September 2011, according to DOL, while it was reviewing the 
submission, the government of Peru issued two executive orders that 
clarified the parties' collective bargaining duties in this and 
similar cases. DOL's report on the submission explained that on March 
29, 2012, after applying the recent executive orders, an arbitral 
panel reached a decision favorable to SINAUT that contained both 
economic and noneconomic awards for the union. Moreover, DOL reported 
that the government of Peru appealed the ruling, contending that the 
ruling reflects a misapplication and misinterpretation of the Public 
Sector Budget Law. According to the DOL report, on appeal, the 
Peruvian labor courts overturned the economic elements of the arbitral 
award, based on a ruling that those elements conflicted with Peru's 
Public Sector Budget Law, but sustained the noneconomic elements of 
the award. 

Figure 9 shoes the timeline and status of the Peru labor submission. 

Figure 9: Timeline and Status of Labor Submission Regarding Peru: 

[Refer to PDF for image: timeline] 

Peru: 

12/10: DOL receives submission. 

07/11: DOL accepts submission for review. 

01/12: DOL extends submission review period. 

08/12: DOL issues public report without recommendations, concluding 
Peru has independently taken sufficient steps, and closes submission. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Labor information. GAO-15-160. 

DOL = U.S. Department of Labor; 
USTR = Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative: 

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the 
end of this appendix. 

Executive Office of The President: 
Office of The United States Trade Representative: 
Washington, D.C. 20508: 

September 16, 2014: 

Mr. Loren Yager: 
Managing Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Yager: 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft of the 
Government Accountability Office's (GAO) report, Free Trade 
Agreements: u.s. Partners are Addressing Labor Commitments, but More 
Monitoring and Enforcement are Needed (Report) and the recognition
that U.S. trade agreements have resulted in improved labor laws and 
working conditions in trading partner countries. This has been, in 
great part, a direct result of proactive and coordinated efforts by 
USTR, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and other U.S. agencies,
working together with congressional and other stakeholders and 
international partners, such as the International Labor Organization 
(ILO). 

The Obama Administration has made unprecedented efforts to maximize 
the use of the tools available in our free trade agreements (FTAs) to 
address labor concerns in trading partner countries. GAO has 
recognized many of these efforts in its past reporting on enforcement of
labor provisions of our FTAs. For example, in 2012, GAO conducted an 
assessment of how USTR and DOL had implemented recommendations in an 
earlier report entitled International Trade: Four FTAs GAO Reviewed 
Resulted in Commercial Benefits, but Challenges on Labor and 
Environment Remain. That assessment covered many of the same issues as 
in this report as well as an overlapping period of time (from 2009 to 
2012). In the 2012 assessment, GAO reported that it had "seen steady 
progress" in USTR and DOL's efforts to implement, enforce, monitor, 
and report on compliance with and progress under the FTA's labor 
provisions. GAO also found that, "Labor and USTR have intensively 
engaged current FTA partners .... This has involved monitoring and 
assessing their current labor laws and practices, as well as engaging
with them directly on how our existing agreements have worked in 
practice." 

In the course of this investigation, we too have surveyed our 
monitoring and enforcement efforts in recent years and have gained 
important insights that will inform our efforts to continue to
strengthen our monitoring and enforcement efforts. In that vein, we 
embrace the GAO's recommendations to improve our coordination with the 
Departments of Labor and State to identifY and address areas of 
concern and to ensure that our reporting to Congress effectively
reflects the results of these efforts. 

However, in our review of GAO's draft report, we have also found a 
number of important areas in which the GAO's reporting on agencies' 
activities is factually incorrect and at odds with GAO's own earlier 
assessments. We have identified specifically the areas of inaccuracy,
supplied a large volume of documents to GAO to support revision of the 
report, and made our staff available for technical assistance. 
Unfortunately, in many cases, GAO has disregarded the submitted 
information without explanation and has declined our most recent 
offers to meet. We would welcome the opportunity to engage further 
with GAO to ensure that its final report is factually accurate. [See 
comment 1] 

Systematic Monitoring and Enforcement: 

Contrary to the unsupported assertion of the draft report, USTR and 
DOL engage in monitoring and enforcement activities in each of the FTA 
countries. These activities are tailored to the unique circumstances 
of each country, taking into account such factors as the nature of the 
labor situation in the country, priorities of stakeholders, engagement 
opportunities, and the level of cooperation we have from governmental 
and non-governmental actors on the ground. The GAO draft suggests a 
five-element framework for monitoring and enforcement: (l) gathering 
facts from credible and reliable sources, (2) identifying compliance 
problems, (3) setting priorities, (4) developing and implementing 
responses, and (5) taking enforcement actions. That is precisely what 
we and DOL do. [See comment 2] 

Monitoring and enforcement of FTA labor provisions covers a large 
spectrum of activities. For example, we work with U.S. Embassies to 
monitor conditions on the ground--such as what local unions and 
workers are reporting, what the country's labor ministry (or 
equivalent) has been concerned about or the kinds of issues that are 
being raised with local authorities by stakeholders. As evidence, the 
U.S. Department of State provided GAO with a large number of cables 
documenting this kind of monitoring. USTR and DOL routinely receive 
and analyze information such as this - as well as information directly 
from local and U.S. stakeholders (both workers and businesses), and 
international partners such as the ILO - about labor conditions on
the ground. [See comment 3] 

In an additional proactive step, DOL has funded the placement of labor 
officers in certain U.S. Embassies to collect and assess facts and 
support the implementation of our efforts to address concerns. DOL has 
placed such officers in Colombia and Bangladesh, and is looking to 
expand to other countries with which the United States has 
particularly close engagement on labor issues. All of the information 
gathered through labor and other embassy officials, stakeholders,
and international partners is important to our systematic assessment 
of the labor conditions on the ground and whether there are any 
problem issues that may raise concerns under our FTAs. Where such 
problems come to our attention, whether through informal or formal 
(e.g., a labor submission) means, we deploy a range of tools to seek 
to resolve the concerns. Almost always, however, we start with 
informal engagement such as informal dialogue and consultations, often
through the channels established under the FTA, with our trading 
partner country. In many cases, such as Jordan and Peru, such 
engagement has helped us determine and implement strategies for 
addressing the concerns. Where the use of such informal tools is 
insufficient, however, we also look to the use of dispute settlement 
under the FTA to seek to address the concerns. In every case, however, 
whether with informal or formal engagement, our goal remains exactly 
the same - to seek to address the concern that we have identified. 

Our monitoring and enforcement activities are concentrated in certain 
countries. These countries include those with respect to which we have 
received formal labor submissions filed by stakeholders (Bahrain, the 
Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico) as well as a
number of other countries in which we have concerns or potential 
concerns, but have received no formal labor submission. Colombia, 
Jordan, Panama and Peru[Footnote 1] are just four examples that are 
detailed in the submissions that we have provided to GAO over the last 
year, and are discussed in summary below (based on those submissions): 
[See comment 4] 

Colombia: USTR and DOL worked closely with Congressional stakeholders 
and the Government of Colombia before the United States-Colombia FTA 
was sent to Congress to identify and catalog concerns relating to the 
FTA labor obligations, including the core obligation of adopting and 
maintaining fundfu'11entallabor rights. We worked cooperatively to put 
together an Action Plan that identified concrete steps that Colombia 
could take to address the concerns. Colombia took key actions to 
implement the Action Plan before the Colombia FTA was submitted to 
Congress for a vote, and took further steps after passage and 
implementation. [See comment 5] 

The work with Colombia did not end with ratification of the FTA, as 
GAO suggests in the draft report. For example, from 2011 to 2012, 
subsequent to the ratification of the FTA, a DOL officer was detailed 
to the U.S. embassy in Bogota to oversee implementation of the Action 
Plan during the first year of operation of the FTA and Action Plan. 
USTR and DOL have also made seven visits to Colombia (four jointly and 
three by DOL) since the FTA entered into force in May 2012 to assess 
conditions on the ground and address implementation-related issues. In
addition, Colombian officials have made numerous trips to the United 
States to meet with USTR, DOL and State Department officials on 
matters relating to implementation and to consult with Members of the 
U.S. Congress who have historically had, and continue to have, a 
strong interest in monitoring implementation of the U.S.-Colombia FTA, 
including members of the Congressional Monitoring Group on Labor 
Rights in Colombia (CMG). USTR and DOL have also had extensive 
engagement with the CMG and work closely with that group and with
organizations like the Solidarity Center and with the ILO on issues of 
concern in Colombia. [See comment 6] 

The GAO draft report details much of the work that USTR and DOL are 
doing on labor monitoring and enforcement in Colombia in an annex, but 
does not recognize this work as evidence of USTR and DOL's 
"systematic" work on labor monitoring and enforcement. GAO 
counterintuitively suggests that USTR and DOL efforts in Colombia are 
"unique to the U.S.Colombia FTA" and therefore not appropriate for GAO 
to consider in its analysis on labor monitoring and enforcement. GAO 
also suggests that our level of cooperation with Colombia "is not 
present in any of the other FTAs." In fact, there are numerous other 
PTA countries with
which USTR and DOL have had extensive engagement on labor concerns and 
with which we have had (or are developing) implementation strategies 
and plans similar to the Colombia Action Plan, including Jordan, 
Bahrain, and Panama. 

The specific level and type of engagement on labor issues in each of 
our PTA partner countries is tailored to the unique situation and 
needs in each country. There have been fewer labor issues raised with 
respect to Canada, Australia, Singapore, and Chile, for example, than 
with respect to Colombia. It is not surprising, therefore, that we 
have more extensive engagement with Colombia than with Canada. We 
disagree with GAO's assumption that tailored, country-specific
approaches to labor monitoring and enforcement should be excluded from 
GAO's evaluation of our monitoring and enforcement efforts. [See 
comment 7] 

Peru: In the lead-up to Congressional consideration of the Peru PTA, 
Peru made a number of reforms to its labor laws and practices to bring 
itself into compliance with the commitments it had undertaken in the 
PTA. After ratification, USTR and DOL have systematically monitored
Peru's implementation of its FTA commitments - including, importantly, 
commitments relating to the labor rights of temporary and 
subcontracted workers. Since January 2009, when the Peru FTA went into 
force, USTR and DOL have taken three trips, and held several video and 
phone conferences with Peruvian officials to monitor these issues, as 
well as countless informal contacts through calls and emails and day-
to-day monitoring in conjunction with U.S. Embassy officials on the 
ground. 

More recently, in August 2014, USTR traveled to Peru to meet with 
labor officials and stakeholders on recent reforms to Peru's labor 
code regarding Occupational Safety and Health and fines for labor 
violations, which have raised concerns from labor stakeholders in the 
United States and Peru. USTR and DOL will hold a Labor Affairs Council 
meeting and open public session in Peru in October 2014, to follow up 
on the previous commitments as well as the new labor reforms. 

USTR and DOL have provided GAO with a large number of documents 
demonstrating the engagement with Peru to assess conditions on ground, 
monitor implementation of the changes made in 2007 to come into 
compliance with the PTA, and examine more recent changes. GAO argues 
that it has chosen not to evaluate this evidence because "in Colombia, 
Panama, and Peru, USTR has engaged with the country to ensure that it 
fulfills commitments to take certain steps in anticipation of the 
FTA's ratification, rather than to address specific issues related to
compliance with PTA labor provisions." This is simply incorrect and 
reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of the tools that we have 
used through trade agreements to improve labor conditions on ground. 
[See comment 8] 

First, the steps Colombia, Panama, and Peru took in anticipation of 
the ratification of each country's FTA were steps "to address specific 
issues related to compliance with PTA labor provisions." This is an 
ordinary part of any FTA process -- before an FTA goes into effect, an
FTA partner must bring its laws and practices into compliance with the 
obligations under an FTA In some cases, these steps are taken after 
ratification and before entry into force of an FTA But in the case of 
the labor chapters of Colombia, Panama and Peru, Congressional
stakeholders asked that most of the steps be taken before, and as a 
condition to, sending the FTAs to Congress for a vote. This fact is 
clear from the extensive documentation publicly available regarding 
each FTAs passage. For example, the Ways and Means Committee report
for the Peru FTA (issued at the time of Congressional consideration) 
notes that: 

Peru has already been bringing its laws, regulations, and practices 
into compliance with internationally-recognized labor standards. Most 
recently, in August 2007, Peruvian President Alan Garcia anllOlL11ced 
his commitment to change Peru's legal framework in a number of key 
areas to implement obligations under the FTA President Garcia has 
since followed through on his commitment by implementing changes to 
the legal framework governing: (1) temporary employment contracts;
(2) subcontracting/outsourcing contracts; (3) the right of workers to 
strike; (4) recourse against anti-union discrimination; and (5) 
workers' right to organize. The Committee applauds the changes made by 
the Peruvian government. The Committee believes that, with these and 
other recent changes, and the commitments and mechanisms under the 
FTA, Peru has in place a framework to ensure compliance with basic 
international labor standards.[Footnote 2] 

Second, as evidenced in the large number of documents supplied to GAO 
over the past year and as detailed in summary form here, USTR and DOL 
monitoring and enforcement efforts in Colombia, Peru and Panama - as 
well as other FTA countries - have extended long past ratification. 
Indeed, as discussed above, a USTR delegation has just returned from 
Peru having engaged that country's government on certain recent labor 
law reforms and USTR/DOL will be holding a Labor Affairs Council 
meeting next month to engage further with Peruvian counterparts on 
these and other labor issues. Congress considered the Peru FTA seven 
years ago, in 2007. 

Panama: Working together with key Congressional Members, USTR and DOL 
pressed Panama to enact a series of administrative and legal changes 
to address labor concerns as part of the FTA ratification process in 
2011. As with Peru, these steps were needed to address issues relating 
to compliance with the FTA labor obligations. As a 2012 report by the 
Congressional Research Service explains, a variety of labor issues, 
including issues relating to Panama's enforcement of ILO fundamental 
rights, "were cited by Members of Congress as needing to be addressed 
before the FT A could be considered.[Footnote 3] 

In response to efforts by USTR and DOL, Panama issued decrees and 
reformed labor laws, including to improve labor protections for 
subcontracted and temporary workers, and to remove restrictions to 
collective bargaining and strikes in Export Processing Zones. As Ways 
and Means Trade Subcommittee Ranking Member Levin stated in April 
2011, "despite our active efforts in discussions with the previous 
Panamanian Government to fully meet [internationally recognized
labor] standards - as spelled out in the May 10 agreement - they did 
not do so .... The Obama Administration has now worked with the new 
Panamanian Administration to take the necessary steps before asking 
action by Congress." 

Since entry into force of the FTA in 2012, USTR and DOL have actively 
monitored the implementation of Panama's labor commitments through two 
trips and multiple video and phone conferences, including a meeting of 
the Labor Affairs Council in January 2014 - in addition to informal 
contacts through calls and emails and day-to-day monitoring in 
conjunction with U.S. Embassy officials on the ground. In addition, 
the United States~Panama Free Trade Commission under the FTA met in 
May 2014, and discussed Panama's labor commitments and progress since 
entry into force. Since then, the U.S. Ambassador to Panama met with 
the Labor Minister in July 2014 and discussed potential technical 
assistance to support implementation of the labor commitments. USTR 
and DOL are currently discussing potential assistance to train labor 
inspectors in Panama on labor conditions, child labor, and minimum 
wage compliance, and exploring a monitoring trip to Panama for late 
2014. 

Jordan: In January 2013, more than 11 years after the entry into force 
of the Jordan FTA, concerns regarding foreign workers in Jordan's 
garment sector led USTR and DOL to negotiate and sign an 
Implementation Plan with the Government of Jordan. USTR and DOL have 
been monitoring the implementation of the plan since then, including 
through a monitoring trip in June 2014, which included site visits to 
several factories and worker dormitories. The plan includes specific 
measures by the Government of Jordan to address union rights for foreign
workers, workplace discrimination including sexual harassment and 
living conditions in worker dormitories. In addition, the U.S. 
Department of Labor signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the 
Government of Jordan in December 2013 to develop a Labor Cooperation 
mechanism that establishes priorities for cooperative activities on 
labor matters. As part of this cooperation, DOL is funding the ILO 
Better Work program that monitors and reports publicly on worker
rights and working conditions in more than 90 percent of factories 
with foreign workers in Jordan. 

USTR and DOL also traveled to Jordan in June 2014 to engage directly 
with Jordanian senior officials on the Implementation Plan and the 
MOU, including by convening the FTA Labor Subcommittee. The 
Subcommittee held in-depth discussions on several topics related to FTA
labor commitments, including: (1) activities to strengthen 
institutional capacity and labor law enforcement and compliance; (2) 
child labor and the protection of vulnerable populations; and
(3) protections against gender discrimination and sexual harassment in 
the workplace, occupational safety and health, and the promotion of 
tripartite social dialogue. The Subcommittee meeting also included a 
public session and roundtable discussion with stakeholders from 
Jordan's worker organizations, businesses, international buyers and 
other interested parties, to foster direct dialogue with civil society 
and a broader participatory process. 

These examples - and the numerous others that USTR and DOL have 
detailed for GAO and for which USTR and DOL have provided supporting 
documentation - demonstrate USTR and DOL's extensive monitoring and 
enforcement of FTA labor provisions. This docUmentation contradicts 
the assertions in GAO's draft report about a lack of systematic 
efforts to address labor concerns in partner countries. 

Labor Submissions: The GAO draft report incorrectly states that USTR 
and DOL restrict their monitoring and enforcement activities largely 
to FTA countries about which stakeholders have submitted a formal 
labor submission. As detailed in submissions to GAO over the past year,
USTR and DOL have engaged in systematic monitoring and enforcement 
efforts in other countries for which there have not been formal labor 
submissions such as Colombia, Peru, Panama and Jordan. 

Moreover, GAO fails to acknowledge that the labor submission process 
is a central component of the framework in our FTAs for systematic 
monitoring and enforcement of labor obligations. In fact, Labor and 
Environment are the only FTA chapters that allow for a formal process to
consider stakeholder submissions. Congress and numerous stakeholders 
view the submission process as a critically important element in our 
FTAs. And stakeholders often invest significant resources in putting 
together submissions, such as the AFL-CIO submissions relating to
Guatemala and Honduras. By design, these submissions are an important 
factor in how we prioritize engagement efforts and resources. [See 
comment 9] 

While submissions may help alert USTR and DOL to specific problems and 
to signal that these are priority issues for stakeholders, there is 
extensive engagement required of USTR and DOL to assess the facts and 
make our own determinations of whether there are problems of 
noncompliance and how best to address those problems. Some submissions 
provide extensive information on labor issues in the subject country, 
while other submissions provide only sUll1illary information and/or 
allegations. In either case, we do not rely on what is presented in a
submission alone to identify problems, decide how to proceed, and take 
appropriate actions. In the cases of Bahrain and the Dominican 
Republic under CAFTA-DR, for example, USTR and DOL undertook extensive 
additional work to obtain, analyze and verify the allegations found in
the summary documents provided by the submitters. Even in the case of 
Guatemala, for which was a detailed submission with several documented 
cases was provided in 2008, USTR and DOL have undertaken an 
unprecedented fact-finding process in the years since, and have gathered
extensive additional information to put together formal pleadings. To 
be precise, since 2009, USTR and DOL have directly engaged with 
Guatemala on the labor case through 17 trips, of which seven were at 
the Assistant Secretary level or above. In addition, there have been 
more than two dozen interagency video and conference calls with 
Guatemala to engage on the submission and enforcement plan. [See 
comment 10] 

Interagency Coordination: The GAO draft Report also states that there 
is no "systematic approach" among agencies for labor monitoring and 
enforcement. This assertion, once again, is not supported by the 
facts. USTR coordinates and monitors compliance with FTA labor 
provisions with DOL and other agencies in many ways, including through 
the TPSC Subcommittee on Labor Monitoring and Enforcement, ad hoc 
interagency groups for each FTA partner country with labor concerns, 
regular engagement with labor stakeholders through the Labor Advisory 
Committee, as well as in extensive briefings with Congress, and 
through regular day-to-day contacts such as emails, phone calls and 
meetings. The agencies regularly use all of the channels described 
above to discuss and coordinate an appropriate response on behalf of 
the U.S. government. None of the agencies approaches a labor issue in 
isolation and without such coordination. [See comment 11] 

USTR provided GAO with evidence of our coordinated interagency 
approach in well-documented action plan efforts with Colombia and 
Jordan, and also in engagement with Panama and Peru. USTR also 
coordinates regularly with labor union representatives through 
meetings of the Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and 
Negotiations, chaired by the U.S. Trade Representative and the 
Secretary of Labor, as well as in regular meetings with labor 
advisors. In all of these venues, USTR both seeks and shares detailed 
information on concerns in FTA countries, and works to develop 
approaches to resolve issues. 

USTR Annual Reports: The GAO draft Report states that USTR does not 
include information in its annual report to Congress on FTA partner 
country compliance with labor provisions that have not been subject to 
a labor submission, and that this limits Congress' information on 
these issues. In fact, USTR's annual report provides country-specific 
infoffi1ation on labor issues. In our most recent annual report, for 
example, we included itemized labor activities for: Bahrain, the
CAFT A-DR countries (overall and on a country-specific basis for 
Guatemala, the Dominican Republic and Honduras), Chile, Colombia, 
Jordan, Korea, Morocco, the NAFTA countries, Oman, Panama, and Peru. 
Our annual report does not, however, explicitly accuse countries of
trade violations. There are a number of reasons for this policy, both 
legal and policy-based: [See comment 12] 

* First, it is difficult for us to determine consistency with 
international trade obligations definitively before formal 
consultations with the trading partner in question. Such confidential 
consultations allow us to evaluate the practice of partners in greater 
detail. 

* Second, Article 23(2)(1) of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding 
states that Members "shall not make a determination to the effect that 
a violation has occurred ... except through recourse to dispute 
settlement." 

* Third, public assertions of non-compliance create pressure to 
prematurely disclose sensitive legal reasoning, which could undermine 
our ability to pursue the most vigorous enforcement of labor standards 
and hurt our chances of success in disputes. 

In addition to its annual report, USTR ensures that Congress has 
extensive information on FTA labor issues through regular engagement 
with Congress, via meetings and phone conferences. For example, since 
2009, there have been 40 labor-related meetings and conference calls 
with Congress on Colombia alone. This is part of hundreds of meetings 
we have had with Congress on labor issues in FTA and non-FTA trading 
partner countries. Indeed, formal reports are not the primary way that 
we communicate with Congress. We have very close contact and dialogue
with our committees of jurisdiction and many interested Members. Those 
contacts serve as a critical, and in many cases, primary channel of 
communication. 

USTR's comments above, and the volumes of supporting documents 
provided to GAO to date, demonstrate our coordinated and systematic 
efforts to monitor and enforce labor provisions in FTA countries where 
concerns exist. We respectfully request that GAO update its draft 
report to reflect the factual record and we offer U[ resources to help 
GAO achieve a more accurate reflection of USTR's and DOL's monitoring 
and enforcement efforts. 

The Administration will continue to work to ensure that our FTAs 
benefit through improved conditions for trade that expand 
opportunities for workers and their families, farmers, ranchers, and 
businesses, including through a special focus on the fundamental labor 
rights enshrined in the FTA Labor Chapters. By increasing respect for 
labor rights, we can help ensure the benefits of trade are shared 
broadly throughout the United States and our partner countries. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Timothy M. Rief: 
General Counsel: 

Footnotes: 

[1] A submission on Peru regarding public sector collective bargaining 
issues unrelated to those detailed here was resolved in 2012. 

[2] Available at: [hyperlink, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-
110hrpt421/html/CRPT-110hrpt421.htm] 

[3] Hornbeck, The U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreement, Congressional 
Research Service at 29 (November 8, 2012). 

GAO Comments: 

The following are GAO's comments regarding the Office of the U.S. 
Trade Representative's (USTR) letter dated September 16, 2014. 

In its letter, USTR questions our evaluation of its monitoring and 
enforcement of free trade agreement (FTA) partners' compliance with 
their labor commitments and expresses concern that we do not give 
sufficient credit to U.S. agencies for their multifaceted work to help 
FTA partners comply with their labor commitments. We acknowledge in 
our report that the agencies have given, overall, greater political 
and organizational priority to monitoring and enforcement of FTA labor 
commitments since we last reported on this topic in 2009.[Footnote 88] 
The evidence that USTR and the Department of Labor (DOL) provided 
demonstrate that their monitoring and enforcement activities have 
sometimes led to a strengthening of FTA partners labor laws and 
practices that might not have occurred absent these activities. 
Nevertheless, we stand by our current assessment that USTR and DOL 
have not demonstrated a proactive and systematic approach to 
monitoring and enforcing FTA partners' compliance with their FTA labor 
commitments, with the exception of a few partner countries.[Footnote 
89] On the contrary, the evidence that the agencies provided shows 
that USTR's and DOL's approaches and actions are generally ad hoc and 
leave important gaps. 

Our review focuses on steps that USTR and DOL have taken, with support 
from the Department of State (State), to monitor and enforce the labor 
provisions in the FTAs. In reviewing USTR's and DOL's monitoring and 
enforcement of the provisions in the FTA labor chapters, we looked for: 

* evidence that USTR and DOL took steps to ensure that each FTA 
partner had the requisite laws in place by the time the President 
determined that the FTA could enter into force, as well as: 

* evidence that USTR and DOL have taken steps to ensure that the 
partners are enforcing their laws and maintaining labor rights in law 
and practice since the FTAs entered into force. 

Further, because USTR announced in 2009 that it would not wait for 
complaints (e.g., labor submissions) to investigate and address 
possible inconsistencies with FTA provisions, we looked for evidence 
that the agencies had established means or mechanisms to anticipate, 
analyze, and resolve problems in the absence of a submission. 

We consider the approach to monitoring and enforcement that USTR 
outlines in its letter to be broadly compatible with the definitions 
of monitoring and enforcement and with the key elements of monitoring 
and enforcement that we have identified in our report. That is, 
enforcement involves taking action to secure compliance by the 
partner, and monitoring and enforcement typically involve six key 
steps: (1) gathering and analyzing information, (2) setting 
priorities, (3) identifying compliance problems, (4) developing and 
implementing responses, (5) taking enforcement actions, and (6) 
coordinating with agencies. 

Following are specific comments in response to USTR's letter. 

Comment 1: Throughout our year-long review process, we requested 
documentation of USTR's monitoring and enforcement of labor 
provisions. However, USTR provided a large number of documents very 
late in the process and provided most documents only after receiving 
our draft report. We thoroughly reviewed and considered all documents 
that USTR provided and made changes in our report as appropriate to 
ensure its accuracy and completeness. Several of these changes are 
described in the comments that follow. 

Comment 2: The evidence that we obtained from USTR and DOL does not 
support USTR's assertion that the two agencies actively and 
systematically monitored and enforced labor provisions in all 20 FTA 
countries, implementing all of the key elements that we identified, 
regardless of whether the country had been the subject of a 
submission. USTR and DOL submitted evidence that they had taken some 
of these key steps in several FTA partner countries, three of which--
Colombia, Jordan, and Panama--were not the subject of labor 
submissions. In addition, to support its technical comments about a 
draft of our report, USTR submitted further evidence of certain 
proactive steps, which we have incorporated in our report as 
appropriate. However, in the absence of evidence that USTR and DOL 
have taken steps to analyze and address possible inconsistencies with 
FTA labor provisions in most partner countries that have not been the 
subject of a labor submission, we could not conclude that the agencies 
had implemented a systematic approach to monitoring the implementation 
of all labor provisions in all FTAs. Moreover, according to DOL--on 
which USTR relies for day-to-day monitoring of the FTA partners--the 
division's staff spent 80 percent of their work hours in the past year 
monitoring implementation of the Guatemala Enforcement Plan, 
addressing submissions for five other countries, and following up on 
activities initiated under the Colombia Labor Action Plan. This left 
the employees' remaining work hours available to monitor and engage 
the other 14 FTA partner countries. With the exception of Colombia, 
stakeholders in countries we visited indicated that their recent 
interactions with USTR and DOL had been very limited. Stakeholders in 
these countries also told us that the FTA labor affairs councils in 
their countries had been largely inactive and that the councils' 
meetings were considered a formality. 

Comment 3: Having reviewed all of the cables that State provided, we 
consider them a useful tool for DOL and State to obtain information 
about labor conditions in partner countries. Our report acknowledges 
that USTR is an addressee on such cables and is generally well 
informed about labor conditions in partner countries as a result of 
this and other input. Obtaining and analyzing information from 
credible sources such as State is integral to completing the first 
step of the monitoring and enforcement process. 

Comment 4: USTR states that it deploys a range of tools to try to 
resolve concerns, whether they were identified formally or informally. 
However, we found that USTR's and DOL's approach to addressing 
concerns that were identified formally, such as by a submission, is 
more systematic than their approach to addressing concerns that they 
have identified informally. For example, in responding to a labor 
submission, DOL conducts a formal review and issues an official 
report, which generally identifies any possible inconsistencies with 
labor provisions in the FTA and contains specific recommendations to 
resolve the issue. DOL and USTR typically use the report's findings to 
further engage with the FTA partner country and develop an action 
plan, such as in the case of Guatemala. When they have identified a 
concern informally, USTR and DOL may engage with the partner country 
to discuss the concern, usually in the context of an established FTA 
mechanism such as the FTA labor affairs council or free trade 
commission. However, we found that USTR and DOL use these mechanisms 
infrequently, and USTR and DOL officials told us that except for a few 
high-priority countries such as Colombia, the agencies do not 
typically perform in-depth analysis of a partner country's compliance 
with its FTA labor commitments unless the country has been the subject 
of a submission. 

Comment 5: We acknowledge that USTR's work with Colombia did not end 
with the ratification of the FTA. We added text to our report to 
indicate our concurrence with this point and to illustrate USTR's post-
ratification monitoring and enforcement activities. 

Comment 6: We acknowledge that USTR and DOL have engaged extensively 
with the government of Colombia to monitor the implementation of the 
Labor Action Plan, in the process addressing several of the key 
elements of monitoring and enforcement FTAs. However, we cannot 
conclude that a systematic approach to monitoring and enforcement 
labor provisions is in place, because we did not see evidence of 
certain key elements--for example, an approach to respond to 
outstanding issues identified since the implementation of the Labor 
Action Plan. 

USTR also indicates that its level of engagement to monitor and 
enforce labor provisions in Colombia is not unique and that USTR and 
DOL have engaged with other FTA countries to a similar extent as with 
Colombia. However, we did not see evidence of such a level of 
engagement with other countries that have not been the subject of a 
submission. In fact, DOL reported that in the last year, its 
monitoring division staff spent 80 percent of their time following up 
on the Colombia Labor Action Plan activities and addressing 
submissions. 

Comment 7: We do not assume or indicate that a tailored, country-
specific approach to labor monitoring and enforcement is 
inappropriate, and we do not exclude such approaches from our 
evaluation. We reviewed the documentation that USTR and DOL provided, 
looking for evidence that key elements of monitoring and enforcement 
have been implemented. We recognize that USTR and DOL have 
successfully implemented certain steps, such as gathering information 
and identifying compliance problems, using different methods in 
different countries. However, we did not see evidence of an 
overarching strategy that assures that priorities and problems are 
systematically addressed. 

Comment 8: We evaluated all evidence that USTR and DOL provided, 
including documentation that USTR provided with its technical 
comments, and we made changes to our report. Specifically, we 
incorporated language acknowledging that in some partner countries, 
the agencies took steps before and after FTA ratification that were 
consistent with key elements of monitoring and enforcement and that 
likely contributed to assuring that the partners met certain labor 
commitments. 

Comment 9: We acknowledge that the labor submission process is a 
central component of USTR's and DOL's approach to addressing possible 
inconsistencies with FTA labor provisions in partner countries and 
that the agencies have done extensive work to investigate allegations 
in the submissions that DOL has accepted. However, in our view, 
reliance on labor submissions to assess compliance and take 
enforcement actions is inconsistent with USTR's 2009 commitment to no 
longer enforce FTA partners' labor commitments "only on a complaint-
driven basis" but instead to "immediately identify and investigate 
labor violations."[Footnote 90] 

Comment 10: As stated, the report acknowledges that labor submissions 
are a key component of USTR's and DOL's monitoring and enforcement of 
FTA labor provisions and that the agencies undertake considerable 
research and analysis in the process of addressing submissions We 
modified the text of the report to clarify that after DOL receives a 
submission, it works with USTR and State to engage diplomatically to 
address concerns, as well as independently to investigate and analyze 
the issues. 

Comment 11: We acknowledge that USTR and DOL work together to address 
labor concerns identified in submissions and to engage with partner 
countries regarding labor matters. Our review of evidence obtained 
from the agencies and in FTA partner countries generally confirmed 
that USTR and DOL also coordinate on an ad hoc basis. However, the 
evidence that we reviewed did not show that the agencies have 
developed a coordinated, strategic approach to systematically address 
the key steps of monitoring and enforcing labor provisions in all FTAs 
and to address labor conditions that may be inconsistent with FTA 
provisions, such as the conditions identified in DOL's management 
reports. For example, agendas that USTR provided for two meetings of 
the interagency Subcommittee on Labor Monitoring and Enforcement list 
meeting topics but do not detail expected actions or outcomes; USTR 
provided no record, beyond a general description, of what transpired 
at the meetings or of any intra-agency correspondence following the 
meetings. Further, during our interviews with USTR officials, the 
officials discussed items that the interagency process had not 
produced, such as up-to-date assessments of risk; agreed-on 
priorities; and formal action plans for partners other than Colombia, 
Guatemala, and Jordan. For example, USTR officials indicated that a 
previous interagency effort to develop a comprehensive risk-based 
approach had been overtaken by events and not revised. DOL officials 
indicated that in general, there had been no discussion of cross-
agency resource use However, our work on best practices in 
collaboration has shown that agencies can enhance and sustain their 
collaborative efforts by engaging in the following eight practices: 
(1) define and articulate a common outcome; (2) establish mutually 
reinforcing or joint strategies; (3) identify and address needs by 
leveraging resources, (4) agree on roles and responsibilities; (5) 
establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate 
across agency boundaries; (6) develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, 
and report on results; (7) reinforce agency accountability for 
collaborative efforts through agency plans and reports; and (8) 
reinforce individual accountability for collaborative efforts through 
performance management systems. 

Comment 12: Our report does not state that USTR should explicitly 
accuse partner countries of trade violations in its annual report to 
Congress. Our report states that, reflecting in part USTR's and DOL's 
limited monitoring and enforcement of these provisions, USTR's annual 
report generally does not detail concerns about the implementation of 
FTA labor provisions by partner countries that have not been the 
subject of labor submissions. Our report also states that appropriate 
information resulting from more extensive monitoring and enforcement 
could help inform Congress and other U.S. stakeholders about the 
extent to which trade partners are fulfilling their FTA labor 
commitments. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

U.S. Department of Labor: 
Deputy Undersecretary for International Affairs: 
Washington, D.C. 20210: 

September 26, 2014: 

Kimberly Gianopolous: 
Acting Director, International Affairs and Trade: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Gianopolous: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report, Free Trade Agreements: 
U.S. Partners Are Addressing Labor Commitments, but More Proactive 
Monitoring and Enforcement Are Needed. The stated purpose of the GAO
report was to assess the current status of implementation of free 
trade agreement (FTA) labor provisions as well as the United States' 
and trade partner countries' responses to related challenges. The 
Department of Labor (DOL), through the Bureau of International Labor 
Affairs' (ILAB) Office of Trade and Labor Affairs (OTLA), is strongly 
committed to monitoring compliance with and enforcing FTA labor 
commitments and engages regularly with U.S. FTA partners to raise and 
address labor issues. 

Your report made four recommendations, three of which were made to the 
Secretary of Labor and relate to recommended DOL actions: 

1. That DOL reevaluate and adjust, if necessary, its FTA labor 
submission review time frame to ensure that it more accurately 
reflects the time required to thoroughly investigate. 

After a coordinated interagency review process involving the Office of 
the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the Department of 
State (State), on December 21, 2006, DOL published in the Federal 
Register a notice of procedural guidelines regarding the receipt and 
review of FTA labor submissions. Under the guidelines, "within 180
days of the acceptance of a submission for review, unless 
circumstances as determined by the OTLA require an extension of time, 
the OTLA shall issue a public report" with "any findings and 
recommendations." When the guidelines were published, DOL had received
labor submissions under only the North American Agreement on Labor 
Cooperation (NAALC) and not under FTA labor chapters. However after 
reviewing labor submissions under both the NAALC and FTA labor 
chapters, DOL recognizes that under the existing internal OTLA 
submission review processes, it is difficult, within 180 days, to 
conduct a thorough and detailed review and assessment of all of the 
information obtained related to the allegations in a submission and 
publish a report describing the review and providing "any findings and 
recommendations," as called for under OTLA guidelines. As a result, 
DOL commits to reevaluate existing internal submission review 
processes, in consultation with USTR and State and working closely 
with stakeholders, to determine whether internal adjustments may be 
necessary to ensure that the process best serves its purpose of 
providing the public a mechanism to raise, and have DOL review and 
assess, concerns regarding trading partners' compliance with FTA labor
commitments. 

2. That DOL take steps to better inform stakeholders in FTA partner 
countries about its FT A labor submission process. 

DOL makes significant efforts to inform stakeholders in the 19 U.S. 
trading partners with FTA labor commitments about our FTA labor 
submission process, as well as about our proactive labor-related 
engagements with FTA partners on areas of concern identified by
stakeholders and/or uncovered through our monitoring efforts. DOL 
regularly shares labor submission procedural guidelines with 
stakeholders during visits to trading partner countries engages with 
AFL-CIO Solidarity Center representatives in such countries, who in 
turn communicate and coordinate with local labor stakeholders, 
including in many cases on the FTA labor submission process~ and 
refers stakeholders to the procedural guidelines now available in 
English, Spanish, Arabic, and French on the recently redesigned and 
more user-friendly ILAB website. Nevertheless, DOL acknowledges that
more stakeholder outreach would benefit our existing efforts to 
monitor and enforce compliance with FTA labor obligations. We will 
evaluate additional available actions to expand our ability to inform 
stakeholders in FTA partner countries about the FTA labor submission 
process, as well as about our labor-related engagements under FTAs more
generally. 

3. That USTR and DOL, in cooperation with State, coordinate their 
approaches to monitoring and enforcing FTA labor provisions to ensure 
that they proactively assess the consistency of priority FTA partner 
countries' laws, regulations, and practices with trade agreement labor 
provisions and address any identified concerns. 

DOL and USTR, in cooperation with State, regularly coordinate 
monitoring and enforcement activities related to assessing and 
ensuring the consistency of FTA partner countries' labor laws, 
regulations, and practices with FTA labor provisions, both within
and outside the context of labor submission reviews. DOL and USTR, in 
cooperation with State, undertake such proactive and coordinated 
monitoring and enforcement through formal FTA labor mechanisms, 
including Labor Affairs Council and Labor Subcommittee meetings and 
direct communications between DOL and trading partners' FTA labor 
contact points designated under the FTA labor chapters, as well as 
through more informal internal and bilateral activities, including 
interagency sharing of country-specific DOL management reports, 
interagency monitoring trips, interagency discussions, and wide-
ranging interagency engagement with stakeholders both in the United 
States and in trading partner countries. In particular, DOL and USTR, 
in cooperation with State, have undertaken extensive proactive 
monitoring and enforcement activities in countries where we have 
particular existing or potential labor concerns, whether or not
there is a submission under review. All three agencies share 
information, collaborate on monitoring and enforcement efforts, and 
consult each other on key concerns and responses to ensure proactive 
assessment of FTA partner countries' compliance with FTA labor 
provisions. 

For example, there have been no formal labor submissions under the Fr 
As with Colombia, Jordan, or Panama, but DOL and USTR, in cooperation 
with State, have been proactively engaged for several years monitoring 
labor conditions in the context of FTA labor commitments and working 
to resolve identified concerns. Similarly, unrelated to the labor 
submission against Peru that was resolved in 2012, DOL and USTR, in
cooperation with State, have engaged with Peru since 2009, with a 
particular focus on labor laws, regulations, and practices related to 
temporary and subcontracted workers. 

* In the case of Colombia, DOL and USTR, in cooperation with State, 
began proactively monitoring and assessing Colombian labor laws, 
regulations, and practices before the Colombia FTA went into effect, 
to identify and address concerns. DOL and USTR, in cooperation with 
State, worked with the Government of Colombia to craft the April 2011 
Colombian Action Plan Related to Labor Rights (Action Plan), with 
concrete Colombian commitments related to the protection of 
internationally recognized labor rights and the prevention and
prosecution of violence against labor leaders. DOL and USTR, in 
cooperation with State, have monitored Action Plan implementation, 
including through formal technical- and high-level meetings required 
under the Action Plan and countless informal monitoring calls, emails, 
and meetings with counterparts in Colombia. Additionally, from late 20 
II through late 2012, DOL detailed a full-time staff person to the 
U.S. embassy in Bogota to help facilitate implementation of the
Action Plan; this was the first time DOL has provided for such a 
detail in the context of an FTA. 

* In Jordan, DOL and USTR, in cooperation with State, negotiated with 
the Government of Jordan an implementation plan in January 2013, with 
specific measures to be taken by the Government of Jordan, to address 
labor concerns regarding foreign workers in Jordan's garment sector, 
including concerns related to freedom of association, discrimination 
including sexual harassment, and living conditions in worker 
dormitories. DOL and USTR, in cooperation with State, have been 
monitoring the measures taken by the Government of Jordan under the
plan, including through an inter-agency monitoring trip in June 2014 
that included site visits to several garment factories and worker 
dormitories. 

* Since the Panama FTA entered into force in 2012, DOL and USTR, in
cooperation with State, have proactively monitored the implementation of
Panama's FTA labor commitments. This monitoring included two interagency
trips to Panama City, three interagency videoconferences with the 
Government of Panama, and a meeting of the Labor Affairs Council in 
Panama City in January 2014, in addition to numerous regular, informal 
monitoring calls and emails with counterparts in the Panamanian 
government. 

* In the case of Peru, DOL and USTR, in cooperation with State, have 
proactively monitored Peru's implementation of its FTA labor 
commitments since the FTA's entry into force in January 2009, in 
particular with respect to temporary and subcontracted workers. USTR 
and DOL have taken three trips to Lima, in cooperation with State, and 
held several video- and phone conferences with Peruvian officials to 
monitor these issues, in addition to regular, informal monitoring 
through numerous calls and emails with counterparts in the Peruvian
government and contacts with stakeholders in Peru. 

Following GAO's recommendation, DOL will evaluate additional options 
to increase our proactive monitoring and enforcement, as well as our 
coordination with USTR and State on these issues. 

In closing, DOL reiterates our gratitude to GAO for the time and 
effort dedicated to reviewing our work to monitor and enforce FTA 
partner countries' labor commitments. We appreciate GAO's recognition 
that, subsequent to DOL engagement, partner countries including El
Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia, Oman, and Peru, have taken steps to 
implement FTA labor commitments and other initiatives to strengthen 
labor rights. As we continue to build upon our existing work of 
monitoring and enforcing FTA partner countries' labor commitments, DOL
remains committed to using all available mechanisms and processes to 
improve global working conditions, raise living standards, protect 
workers' ability to exercise their rights, and address the workplace 
exploitation of children and other vulnerable populations. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Carol Pier: 
Deputy Undersecretary for International Affairs: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Kimberly Gianopoulos, (202) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Kim Frankena (Assistant 
Director), Francisco Enriquez (Analyst-in-Charge), Juan P. Avila, 
Nicholas Jepson, Jill Lacey, Reid Lowe, Grace Lui, and Oziel Trevino 
made major contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] For example, FTAs that have entered into force since February 2009 
contain a provision stating that "each Party shall adopt and maintain 
in its statutes and regulations, and practices thereunder, the 
following rights, as stated in the ILO [International Labour 
Organization] Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work 
and Its Follow-up (1998)." For example, see United States-Colombia FTA 
(entered into Force May 2012), art. 17.2. According to the Department 
of Labor (DOL), freedom of association is the right of workers and 
employers to organize to defend their interests, including for the 
purpose of negotiating salaries, benefits, and other conditions of 
work, and is a fundamental right that underpins democratic 
representation and governance; collective bargaining is an essential 
element of freedom of association that helps to ensure that workers 
and employers have an equal voice in negotiations and provides workers 
the opportunity to seek to improve their living and working conditions. 

[2] As of July 2014, the United States had entered into FTAs with 
Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican 
Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Jordan, South 
Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Panama, Peru, and Singapore. 
The Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade 
Agreement (CAFTA-DR) covers six of these countries (Costa Rica, 
Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua). 

[3] Trade Promotion Authority, previously known as "fast track" 
negotiating authority, established conditions and procedures under 
which the President could submit legislation to approve and implement 
trade agreements, such as FTAs, that Congress could approve or 
disapprove but could not amend or filibuster. See Bipartisan Trade 
Promotion Authority Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-210, Div. B, § 2103, 
116 Stat. 933, 1004-08. 

[4] GAO, International Trade: Four Free Trade Agreements GAO Reviewed 
Have Resulted in Commercial Benefits, but Challenges on Labor and 
Environment Remain, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-439] (Washington, D.C.: July 10, 
2009). Our 2009 report reviewed implementation of the U.S. FTAs with, 
respectively, Chile, Jordan, Morocco, and Singapore. 

[5] Additional information about U.S. agencies' monitoring and 
reporting on compliance with, and progress under, FTA labor provisions 
is presented later in this report. 

[6] According to USTR, FTA provisions provide for the FTA's entry into 
force through an exchange of formal diplomatic notes among the 
parties. USTR also notes that, in the United States, the President 
must first determine that the trading partner has come into compliance 
with obligations that will take effect when the agreement enters into 
force. When an FTA enters into force, it generally means that the 
agreement becomes legally binding on the parties to the agreement. 

[7] Congressional leaders and the Bush administration jointly agreed 
to the May 10th Agreement, resulting in a new trade policy template 
that calls for, among other things, (1) enforceable reciprocal 
obligation for the countries to adopt and maintain in their laws and 
practice the five basic internationally recognized labor principles, 
as stated in the International Labour Organization (ILO) Declaration 
on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and (2) labor obligations 
subject to the same dispute settlement procedures and remedies as 
commercial obligations. 

[8] The views expressed by these officials and organizations cannot be 
generalized to all officials or organizations knowledgeable about 
labor provisions in the selected FTAs. 

[9] All of the selected FTAs contain mechanisms to address matters 
arising under the respective labor chapters. CAFTA-DR and the 
Colombia, Oman, and Peru FTAs each include labor provisions that state 
that each party shall designate an office within its labor ministry 
that shall serve as a contact point with the other party and with the 
public. Furthermore, the FTAs state that each party's contact point 
shall provide for the submission, receipt, and consideration of 
communications on matters related to the respective labor chapter and 
shall make such communications available to the other party and, as 
appropriate, to the public. While either party can request 
consultations regarding any matter addressed in the labor chapter, FTA 
dispute settlement procedures may be invoked only under specified 
circumstances, which vary by FTA. 

[10] FTAs with Colombia, Panama, Peru, and South Korea contain 
language reflecting the labor provisions of the May 10th Agreement. 

[11] United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (entered into force 
in January 2004), art. 17.2; United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement 
(entered into force in January 2004), art. 18.2; United States-
Australia Free Trade Agreement (entered into in force January 2005), 
art. 18.2; United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement (entered into 
force in January 2006), art. 16.2; CAFTA-DR (entered into force 
between 2006 and 2009 for the various countries), art. 16.2; United 
States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement (Bahrain FTA) (entered into force 
in January 2006), art. 15.2; and Oman FTA (entered into force in 
January 2009), art. 16.2. 

[12] CAFTA-DR, art. 16.6.7; Oman FTA art. 16.6.5. 

[13] CAFTA-DR, art. 16.1.1 and 16.6.7; Oman FTA, art. 16.1.1 and 
16.6.5. 

[14] United States-Peru FTA (entered into force in February 2009), 
art. 17.2, 17.3; United States-Colombia FTA (entered into force in May 
2012), art. 17.2, 17.3; United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement 
(entered into force in March 2012), art. 19.2, 19.3; and United States-
Panama Free Trade Agreement (entered into force in October 2012), art. 
16.2, 16.3. 

[15] International Labour Organization, Declaration on Fundamental 
Principles and Rights at Work and Its Follow-Up (1998), [hyperlink, 
http://www.ilo.org/declaration/thedeclaration/textdeclaration/lang--
en/index.htm], accessed August 18, 2014. The principles and rights 
stated by the ILO are (1) freedom of association and the effective 
recognition of the right to collective bargaining, (2) the elimination 
of all forms of forced or compulsory labor, (3) the effective 
abolition of child labor, and (4) the elimination of discrimination in 
respect of employment and occupation. 

[16] United States-Peru FTA, art. 17.7; Colombia FTA, art. 17.7; 
United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement, art. 19.7; and United States-
Panama Free Trade Agreement, art. 16.7. 

[17] Working Group of the Vice Ministers Responsible for Trade and 
Labor in the Countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic, 
The Labor Dimension in Central America and the Dominican Republic: 
Building on Progress: Strengthening Compliance and Enhancing Capacity 
(April 2005), accessed June 7, 2013, [hyperlink, 
http://www.ilo.org/sanjose/lang--es/index.htm]. 

[18] Colombian Action Plan Related to Labor Rights (April 7, 2011), 
accessed May 29, 2013, [hyperlink, 
http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/2787]. 

[19] These labor initiatives were created outside an FTA framework. 

[20] [20] Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade 
Agreement Implementation Act, Pub. L. No. 109-53, 119 Stat. 262 (Aug. 
2, 2005). 

[21] Under the White Paper, the labor ministers of the six CAFTA-DR 
countries agreed to address the following priority areas: (1) labor 
law and implementation, (2) budget and personnel needs of the labor 
ministries, (3) strengthening the judicial system for labor law, (4) 
protections against discrimination in the workplace, (5) worst forms 
of child labor, and (6) promoting a culture of compliance. 

[22] The nine areas that Colombia agreed to address under the Labor 
Action Plan were (1) creation of a specialized Ministry of Labor; (2) 
criminal code reform; (3) prohibiting the misuse of cooperatives; (4) 
preventing the use of temporary service agencies to circumvent labor 
rights; (5) criminalizing the use of collective pacts to undermine the 
right to organize and bargain collectively; (6) collecting and 
disseminating information on the definition of essential services; (7) 
seeking the ILO's assistance in implementing the Labor Action Plan and 
working with the ILO to strengthen its presence, capacity, and role in 
Colombia; (8) reforming protection programs; and (9) criminal justice 
reforms. 

[23] 19 U.S.C. § 2171. Generally, the trade agreements program 
includes all activities consisting of, or related to, the negotiation 
or administration of international agreements that primarily concern 
trade and that are concluded pursuant to the authority vested in the 
President by the Constitution, 19 U.S.C. § 1351, the Trade Expansion 
Act of 1962, and the Trade Act of 1974 as amended. 

[24] In addition, DOL is responsible for convening the FTA labor 
affairs councils among partner government's labor ministries, which 
oversee the FTA labor chapters, and for administering the U.S. Labor 
Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy. The 
committee consists of representatives of labor organizations and is 
tasked with providing information and advice with respect to 
negotiation and implementation of U.S. trade agreements. DOL also 
administers the National Advisory Committee for Labor Provisions of 
U.S. Free Trade Agreements, which consists of 12 representatives (4 
from the business community, 4 from the labor community, and 4 from 
the public sector). 

[25] Department of Labor, Progress in Implementing Chapter 16 (Labor) 
and Capacity-Building under the Dominican Republic-Central America-
United States Free Trade Agreement (Washington D.C.: May 11, 2012). 
According to DOL, this report relies on information collected by the 
ILO as part of its project to verify the results of actions taken to 
address the White Paper recommendations. 

[26] Stakeholders reported challenges related to the issuance of 
fines, as discussed later in this report 

[27] Mutually Agreed Enforcement Action Plan between the Government of 
the United States and the Government of Guatemala (2013), accessed 
August 1, 2013, [hyperlink, 
http://www.dol.gov/ilab/programs/otla/guatemalasub.htm]. 

[28] The commitments outlined in the Enforcement Plan are (1) reaching 
an interagency information exchange agreement, (2) providing police 
assistance for Ministry of Labor inspectors, (3) allocating resources 
for Ministry of Labor enforcement of labor laws, (4) allowing for the 
ministry to issue fine recommendations and expedited judicial review, 
(5) standardizing time frames for Ministry of Labor inspections, (6) 
ensuring labor law compliance for certain enterprises, (7) ensuring 
labor law compliance for enterprises receiving export benefits, (8) 
ensuring labor law compliance upon enterprise closure, (9) employer 
substitution, (10) developing a system for tracking compliance with 
court orders, (11) verifying employer compliance with court orders, 
(12) monitoring judicial enforcement of court orders, (13) applying 
certain labor code articles, (14) ensuring transparency and tripartite 
coordination on Enforcement Plan implementation, (15) publishing labor 
law enforcement statistics and data. 

[29] According to DOL, associated work cooperatives are self-governed, 
autonomous enterprises, under which associated workers are considered 
cooperative owners, rather than workers, and are excluded from many 
Labor Code protections. 

[30] According to DOL's 2011 Labor Rights Report on Colombia, until 
late 2010, penalties for the misuse of cooperatives to avoid direct 
employment relationships were not enforced against third-party 
employers. According to DOL, as a result, cooperatives became a 
vehicle widely used by employers to end direct employment 
relationships with their workforces while retaining the same workers 
through cooperatives and continuing to act as their de facto employers. 

[31] This amount includes both FTA and non-FTA labor-related 
assistance provided to FTA partner countries. This amount does not 
include labor-related technical assistance to Oman that DOL provided 
for a joint project in Oman and Bahrain. DOL's records show that it 
obligated $758,000 for the project in 2006 but do not show how the 
funds were divided between the two countries, because, according to 
DOL, standard financial reports for federal grants to more than one 
country do not allow the grantor to report amounts received by each 
country. In addition, this amount excludes any assistance provided 
under the United States-Israel Free Trade Agreement (Israel FTA), 
which does not contain a specific article on labor provisions, and the 
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which addresses labor-
related issues under a related agreement, the North American Agreement 
on Labor Cooperation. 

[32] This amount excludes the Israel FTA and NAFTA. 

[33] Beginning in 2005, Congress appropriated funds for labor-capacity-
building activities relating to the free trade agreements with the 
countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic. For example, 
see Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. No.108-447, §570, 
118 Stat. 2809, 3026 (2004). 

[34] According to USTR, as of September 2014, this bill had not been 
passed by the Guatemalan congress. 

[35] For more information about the status of implementation of the 
Guatemala Enforcement Plan, see appendix III. 

[36] According to U.S and Guatemalan officials, as well as union 
representatives and the ILO, violence against unionists has occurred 
in Guatemala. The government of Guatemala reported that it had taken 
steps to address the violence. However, stakeholders were unsure of 
the extent of the problem because of a lack of statistics collected by 
the government. For more information about violence against unionists 
in Guatemala, see appendix II. 

[37] According to DOL, Colombia's Minister of Labor heads SENA's board 
of directors. 

[38] According to DOL, a simplified stock company is a corporate model 
that holds shareholders liable only up to the amount of their 
investment. DOL further stated that these companies are easy to create 
and dissolve and are a legitimate business model in Colombia. In cases 
where a simplified stock company is used for contracting--either legal 
or illegal--an employer hires the company to carry out a task and the 
company provides the labor through its own employees. 

[39] In addition, although murders of unionists have generally been 
decreasing over the past 10 years, and despite actions by the 
Colombian government to reduce homicides of union members and labor 
activists, stakeholders we interviewed reported that violence against 
unionists continues. For a more detailed description of reported 
violence against union members and activists in Colombia, see appendix 
II. 

[40] According to State, Peru's nontraditional export sectors include 
fishing, wood and paper, nonmetallic minerals, jewelry, textiles and 
apparel, and the agriculture industry. 

[41] According to DOL officials, DOL also received a sixth submission, 
filed under the Costa Rica FTA in July 2010, which the filing party 
withdrew before DOL decided whether to accept it. DOL has also 
accepted other labor submissions under the North American Agreement on 
Labor Cooperation (one of three accords supplementary to NAFTA), which 
we did not examine. 

[42] 71 Fed. Reg. 76691 (Dec. 21, 2006). 

[43] DOL has also accepted other labor submissions under the North 
American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (one of three accords 
supplementary to NAFTA), which we did not examine. 

[44] DOL may extend the timeframe if it determines that the 
circumstances require such an extension. 71 Fed. Reg. 76691. 

[45] GAO, Auditing and Financial Management: Standards for Internal 
Control in the Federal Government, AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: 
Nov. 1, 1999). 

[46] The American Center for International Labor Solidarity, better 
known as the Solidarity Center, is a nonprofit organization affiliated 
with the AFL-CIO labor federation whose mission is to help build a 
global labor movement by strengthening the economic and political 
power of workers around the world through effective, independent, and 
democratic unions. 

[47] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/AGO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[48] U.S. Department of Labor, Submissions under the Labor Provisions 
of Free Trade Agreements, accessed Aug. 5, 2014, [hyperlink, 
http://www.dol.gov/ilab/trade/agreements/fta-subs.htm]. See also, 71 
Fed. Reg. 76691. 

[49] The labor chapters of some FTAs call for the establishment of a 
bilateral labor affairs council to oversee, and review progress in, 
implementation of the labor chapter's provisions. 

[50] In commenting on a draft of this report, DOL noted that during 
its submission review, the partner government has the opportunity to 
provide input and DOL visits the partner country and reviews any 
information that the partner government provides. DOL also noted that 
the submission review process is a fact-finding exercise intended to 
evaluate the merits of allegations raised in a submission and that 
acceptance of a submission for review does not imply that the 
allegations are correct. In addition, DOL stated that its decision to 
review a public submission does not indicate any determination as to 
the validity or accuracy of the allegations contained in the 
submission; instead, the submission's merit is addressed in the public 
report that follows DOL's review and analysis. According to DOL, after 
its submission review report is issued, USTR and DOL engage with the 
partner country to address any recommendations in DOL's report and to 
attempt to find a mutually agreeable solution to any potential 
violation of FTA labor provisions. 

[51] For information about USTR's and DOL's efforts to monitor 
Guatemala's and Colombia's implementation of other labor initiatives, 
see appendix III. 

[52] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-439]. 

[53] Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, "Ambassador Kirk 
Announces New Initiatives for Trade Enforcement" (press release), July 
16, 2009, accessed July 18, 2013, [hyperlink, 
http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-
office/speeches/transcripts/2009/july/ambassador-kirk-announces-new-
initiatives-trade]. 

[54] See GAO, International Trade: Strategy Needed to Better Monitor 
and Enforce Trade Agreements, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-00-76] (Washington, D.C.: March 
2000). 

[55] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-00-76]. To 
identify these five steps, we reviewed agency records and interviewed 
agency officials and staff at several U.S. agencies. 

[56] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-439]. 

[57] For information about other steps that DOL took in response to 
our 2009 report's recommendations, see [hyperlink, 
http://gao.gov/products/GAO-09-439]. 

[58] Appendix III also discusses the agencies' efforts to monitor 
implementation of the CAFTA-DR White Paper and the Guatemala 
Enforcement Plan. 

[59] See figure 1 for information about U.S. agencies' cooperative 
project funding by FTA partner. In comments on a draft of this report, 
USTR indicated that 12 of the 20 FTA partners have received, or are 
expected to receive, some technical assistance from State or Labor. 

[60] USTR divided the existing TPSC Subcommittee on Labor to form the 
Subcommittee on Labor Monitoring and Enforcement and the Subcommittee 
on Labor Policy and Negotiations. 

[61] In addition, according to USTR, the subcommittee is responsible 
for satisfying public reporting requirements and making eligibility 
determinations tied specifically to labor standards, such as those in 
specific preference programs. According to USTR, other TPSC 
subcommittees may also address enforcement of labor provisions. 

[62] USTR staff noted that they also receive information about labor 
conditions in partner countries from the subcommittee as well as by 
other means, such as direct coordination with DOL and State staff, 
discussions with stakeholders such as unions and advocacy groups, 
communication with FTA partner government officials, and reviews of 
State cables and reports and news articles. 

[63] According to DOL, the labor affairs councils for the Singapore 
and Australia FTAs have not met since the FTAs went into effect (in 
2004 and 2005, respectively). The labor subcommittee (which serves the 
same purpose as a labor affairs council) for the Jordan FTA has met 
twice since the FTA took effect, and the labor affairs councils under 
the remaining FTAs have each met once. The last labor affairs council 
meeting under CAFTA was in 2008. According to DOL staff, meetings of 
the labor affairs councils under the Morocco and Peru FTAs have been 
planned. The labor chapters of the Israel FTA and NAFTA did not 
provide for labor affairs councils. 

[64] According to DOL staff, DOL has been monitoring compliance with 
FTA labor provisions since NAFTA entered into force in 1994. Before 
DOL established the Monitoring and Enforcement of Trade Agreements 
Division, the Trade Agreement Administration and Technical Cooperation 
Division, in the Bureau of International Labor Affairs' Office of 
Trade and Labor Affairs, oversaw administration of FTA labor 
provisions. 

[65] According to DOL, the Monitoring and Enforcement of Trade 
Agreements Division also monitors implementation of FTA labor 
provisions and other labor conditions through phone calls, e-mails, 
and interactions with numerous stakeholders, as well as through 
periodic visits to partner countries, as resources allow. 

[66] The five FTA labor submissions exclude any submissions that DOL 
has received under the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation. 

[67] These eight practices are as follows: (1) define and articulate a 
common outcome; (2) establish mutually reinforcing or joint 
strategies; (3) identify and address needs by leveraging resources; 
(4) agree on roles and responsibilities; (5) establish compatible 
policies, procedures, and other means to operate across agency 
boundaries; (6) develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on 
results; (7) reinforce agency accountability for collaborative efforts 
through agency plans and reports; and (8) reinforce individual 
accountability for collaborative efforts through performance 
management systems. GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That 
Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: 
October 2005). An updated version of this guidance is available at 
[hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/leading_practices_collaboration/issue_summ
ary]. 

[68] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[69] In January 2012, DOL accepted a labor submission for Mexico under 
the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation. 

[70] DRL also includes a position of Special Representative for 
International Labor Affairs, which State reported to be vacant during 
the time of our review. 

[71] Section 163 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 
2213), requires the President to annually submit to Congress the Trade 
Policy Agenda and the Annual Report of the President of the United 
States on the Trade Agreements Program. The President delegated this 
function to USTR in 2004. 69 Fed. Reg. 10133 (Mar. 1, 2004). The 
President is required to submit a biennial report about labor issues 
for CAFTA-DR. 19 U.S.C. § 4111(a). This function was delegated to DOL 
in 2008. 73 Fed. Reg. 38297 (June 30, 2008). State is required to 
report to Congress annually about human rights in every country 
worldwide. 22 U.S.C. §§ 2151n and 2304. The Trade Act of 1974 (19 
U.S.C. § 2464) requires the President to submit an annual report to 
Congress on the status of internationally recognized worker rights 
within each beneficiary developing country (i.e., countries that 
benefit from U.S. trade preferences), including the findings of the 
Secretary of Labor with respect to the beneficiary country's 
implementation of its international commitments to eliminate the worst 
forms of child labor. According to DOL, this commitment historically 
has been fulfilled by State's Human Rights Reports and DOL's Trade and 
Development Act of 2000 reports on child labor. 

[72] 19 U.S.C. § 4111(a). 

[73] Of the countries we selected for our review, violence against 
unionists was reported only in Colombia and Guatemala. 

[74] ENS and Colombia's Prosecutor General's Office have used 
different methodologies to determine whether a victim was murdered 
because of union affiliation. In some cases, ENS has considered a 
murder union related, while the Prosecutor General's Office has 
classified the murder as unrelated to union activities. For more 
information on the differences in data collection methodologies, see 
Congressional Research Service, U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: 
Labor Issues, RL34759 (Washington, D.C.: January 2012). 

[75] We did not determine the cause of the variation, because it was 
beyond the scope of our work. 

[76] A commission of inquiry, the ILO's highest-level investigative 
procedure, is generally established when a member state is accused of 
committing persistent and serious violations and has repeatedly 
refused to address them. According to DOL, as of August 2014, 12 
commissions of inquiry had been established. 

[77] As a result of a 2006 agreement between the United Nations and 
the government of Guatemala, CICIG was established as an independent 
international body designed to support the Guatemalan Public 
Prosecutor's Office, National Civil Police, and other government 
institutions in the investigation of crimes committed by members of 
illegal security forces and clandestine security structures and, in a 
more general sense, to help disband such groups. 

[78] International Labour Organization Governing Body, Complaint 
Concerning Non-Observance by Guatemala of the Freedom of Association 
and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), 
Made by Delegates to the 101st Session (2012) of the International 
Labour Conference under Article 26 of the ILO Constitution, 
GB.320/INS/9 (Mar. 19, 2014). 

[79] The Guatemalan Attorney General's Office stated that extinction 
of criminal liability is defined as an instance in which the 
government is unable to prosecute as a result of the death of the 
offender. 

[80] International Labour Organization Governing Body, Complaint 
Concerning Non-Observance by Guatemala of the Freedom of Association 
and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention. 

[81] Working Group of the Vice Ministers Responsible for Trade and 
Labor in the Countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic, 
The Labor Dimension in Central America and the Dominican Republic: 
Building on Progress: Strengthening Compliance and Enhancing Capacity 
(April 2005), accessed June 7, 2013, [hyperlink, 
http://www.ilo.org/sanjose/lang--es/index.htm]. 

[82] Colombian Action Plan Related to Labor Rights (April 7, 2011), 
accessed May 29, 2013, [hyperlink, 
http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/2787]. 

[83] These labor initiatives were created outside an FTA framework. 
Consequently, matters arising from these initiatives would not be 
addressed through the dispute settlement provisions of an FTA. 

[84] Mutually Agreed Enforcement Action Plan between the Government of 
the United States and the Government of Guatemala (2013), accessed 
August 1, 2013, [hyperlink, 
http://www.dol.gov/ilab/programs/otla/guatemalasub.htm]. 

[85] According to DOL, its funding for the ILO Verification Project in 
2007 and subsequent years totaled $11.6 million. According to ILO 
staff, the Verification Project represents one of the ILO's most 
comprehensive evaluation efforts in the region. 

[86] DOL has also accepted other labor submissions under the North 
American Agreement on Labor Cooperation, which we did not examine. 

[87] Pursuant to the Bahrain FTA Labor Chapter, parties may only have 
recourse to dispute settlement under the FTA for matters arising under 
the commitment to not fail to effectively enforce its labor laws, 
through a sustained or recurring course of action or inaction, in a 
manner affecting trade between the parties. Seeking recourse through 
the dispute settlement chapter of the FTA could lead to the imposition 
of a monetary assessment or other trade measures. Matters arising 
under the other commitments in the labor chapter cannot have recourse 
to dispute settlement under the FTA, but parties are entitled to 
request consultations on any matter arising under the chapter in an 
effort to find a mutually agreeable solution. Bahrain FTA, art. 15.6 
and ch.19. 

[88] GAO, International Trade: Four Free Trade Agreements GAO Reviewed 
Have Resulted in Commercial Benefits, but Challenges on Labor and 
Environment Remain, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-439] (Washington, D.C.: July 10, 
2009). 

[89] At the same time, we stand by our prior decision to close 
recommendations from our 2009 report because USTR and DOL had taken 
steps to increase engagement with all FTA partners on labor matters 
and to identify and address labor compliance concerns in several 
partners. 

[90] Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, "Ambassador Kirk 
Announces New Initiatives for Trade Enforcement" (press release), July 
16, 2009, accessed July 18, 2013, [hyperlink, 
http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-
office/speeches/transcripts/2009/july/ambassador-kirk-announces-new-
initiatives-trade]. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
"E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]