Document 2q1eXQL7RZOG031nwY7jJdO1g

FILE NAME: Eternit (ETER) DATE: 1981 Oct 15 DOC#: ETER114 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: ICEF Letter RE Eternit Begins to Retreat from Asbestos lauuiiai renerauon ot tnemicai, tnergy and General Workers' Unions Fdration Internationale des Syndicats de Travailleurs de la Chimie, de l'Energie et des Industries Diverses Internationale Fderation von Chemie-, Energie- und Fabrikarbeiterverbnden Internationella Kemi-, Energi- och Fabriksarbetarfederationen Federacin Internacional de Sindicatos de Trabajadores de la Qumica, de la Energa e Industrias Diversas Secretary General: Charles Levinson President: Karl Hauenschild Circular Letter No. 88/81 TO ALL ICEF AFFILLIATEP AND ASSOCIATED ORGANIZATIONS AND MEMBERS,OF THE ETERNIT WORLD COUNCIL _______ _ Geneva, 15th October, 1981 Dear Colleagues: ETERNIT BEGINS RETREAT FR The asbestos cement manufacturing group, Eternit, has just announced th8 closure of three asbestos mines in Zimbabwe and the sale of its sub sidiary asbestos mining company. Asbestos Investment Limited, in South Africa. These moves clearly signal the company's intention to phase out Its depend ency on asbestos in its various products as substitute materials become available. They also vindicate the ICEF's position in regard to Eternit's opera tions in particular and the use of asbestos in general. Representatives of the ICEF Permanent World Council for Eternit met with international management of the company in July 1976. As a result of discussions at that time, thB ICEF expressed its opinion that Eternit and other leading multinational companies manufacturing asbestos products were well aware of the dangers to workers from asbestos, but were simply playing for time in fighting trade union representations on the question. Meanwhile, as the latest events prove, these companies were vigorously seeking means to move away from asbestos by developing substitutes. Eternit's decision clearly indicates that the company has now developed alternatives, even though it continues to operate facilities in Italy and Canada and to receive a portion of its raw asbestos from the USSR. The com pany has -continued to adopt the common line of other asbestos manufacturers, however, in refusing to discuss with the responsible trade unions those new materials which it intends to substitute for asbestos. In the light of the industry's past record this gives continued cause for concern. Such evidence as exists on the health dangers of alternative inorganic fibres (such as ; glass fibre) suggests a pattern remarkably similar to that of the early data forasbestqs fatalities In certainstages of production. If fibres of this type are to be substituted, therefore. instead of other safer alternatives, -COPYRIGHTREPRODUCTION AFFILIATES ONLY ^ ~2` there could be- the danger of simply substituting a well known less well-defined one, which may repeat the tragic pattern of the industry continues to modify its production techniques as as cheaDly as possible. hazard by a asbestos as little and The present move by Eternit is further evidence of the need for negotiations to be ooened at international and local levels to discuss the future of the industry and of its workforce in a Dlanned and responsible manner. Yours fraternally,