The brand informed the factory on 25th July as soon as the complaint was received.

Salewa Compliance Manager of the Bangladeshi supplier provided on the complaint’s investigation.
She talked both to HR & Compliance team and the worker in order to clarify the facts and have a complete picture.

The outcome of the investigation is:
1.The complainant, who is working in the factory for less than two years, has two children and she is expecting now the third child. As per Bangladeshi labor Law, in case of a third child, the worker is entitled to have the maternity leave but not the financial benefit.
2.The floor administrative person & welfare officer asked the worker to resign if she feels not comfortable in working during pregnancy.
3.The worker talked about law requirements and the forced resignation with the HR & Compliance team, and she lodged the complaint.
4.The Compliance team and the top management took the complaint very seriously and talked to the floor administrative that told the worker to resign.
5.The administrative confessed that “he only suggested her to resign if she felt problem to work but not forced her”.
6.HR & Compliance team assured the worker she can keep her job and have the maternity leave.
7.The worker confirmed to have receive all the information and know she can address to the Compliance team or our Compliance Manager for any future issues.

In order to fulfil the remediation process, the brand asked to have evidence on the non-validity of the resignation document.
The brand also suggested to organize a meeting with all the supervisors to inform that this behavior is not ok and to give them some hints on how to deal with this kind of issues, recommending to involve Workers’ Representatives, members of Anti-Harassment Committee.
The brand checked that in the HR Recruitment Policy, Women Worker Working Policy & Maternity Worker Working Policy, there’s no system to force any worker / female worker / pregnant worker to resign from the job.

The member informed FWF that the Compliance Manager of the Bangladeshi supplier stated that no resignation letter was signed. For proving that the worker didn’t lose her job the 31st of July, she provided us the Attendance Card of the complainant for the first week of August.

Moreover, the factory has already started working to avoid a repeat of this type of problem in the future.
- It includes AHC function & activities in its induction training for new employees
- AHC meetings are conducted in regular interval
- Periodical awareness trainings for mid-level management, AHC & Participation Committee representatives are organized.

FWF local team called the worker who confirmed that she is continuing to work at the factory.

She is satisfied with the outcome.

This case was resolved thanks to the high responsiveness of the brand and the factory in looking for and providing solutions.

FWF informed Sol's about the matter and the member informed the factory's management.

The factory's management paid the workers and shared the payment sheet as proof with the brand.

The brand shared the payment sheet with FWF and FWF cross-verified the sheet by calling the workers who confirmed that the payment had been settled.

The case is resolved. FWF recommends Solo to check with the factory next year to make sure this issue does not happen again.

After receiving the complaint Suit Supply immediately reached out to the factory to investigate this case. Also three additional complaints were received about the same issue with non payment of outstanding salaries for resigned employees.

Suit Supply came back with a response and mentioned it took time to collect all info since there were people involved from different departments that report to different supervisors.
Suit Supply asked them to focus on my below 4 questions:
1. A copy of the labor contracts of these workers with the resign clause in it;
2. If the workers claims are wrong and they are paid correctly, copy of receipts/ bank transfers that show this clearly;
3. If the workers claims are correct, can you please walk us through your side of the story;
4. A confirmation that all workers now have received a copy of their labour contracts and that these are also handed out to all new workers;
5. More information from factories side about workers not being able to resign- we understand that the worker shortage is difficult, but restricting workers to leave technically is forced labor and not allowed.

In response, this is what the factory has come back with:
1. A copy of the labor contract.
In accordance with Article 42 of the Labor Contract Law, Party B shall terminate Party A's labor contract by notifying Party A in writing 30 days in advance (less than three days during the trial period).
2. The workers' feedback on the unpaid wages is true, but the workers did not resign according to the formal resignation procedures. They did not verify the individual's salary and information with HR department. But our production management personnel handled the incidents and haven't given feedback in time. There are problems such as asymmetry of information. Our company will deal with the salary problems according to the Labor Law, the Labor Contract Law and the company's rules and regulations very soon.
3. On the issue of labor contract: one copy of the labor contract is kept in the archives room, and another employee is notified by the clerk to the window to collect it. If some employees who are not convenient to keep it, the clerk will help to save it in the file cabinet. The workers could pick it up at any time if they need.
4/5. The reasons of employee's complains that they cannot resign: 1 The employee did not submit a written resignation letter according to the normal resignation process, and did not go to the HR department for corresponding assistance and coordination. 2 because of work intensity and management methods, etc., sometimes there will be emotional resentment. When the emotions covered, and the situation will be reassured. 3 the four employees are vicious recruited by another factory. Especially the couple suddenly left the company without mentioning any resignation in 2019 and joined the other factory. In response to the incident, the company will strengthen the management of the resignation of employees. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Labor Law and the Labor Contract Law, we gradually standardize and improve in future.

Suit Supply has asked the factory to especially update them on point 2, how much outstanding payment and when this will be solved.

Suit Supply concluded that indeed workers were not paid their outstanding salaries after resignation.

Suit Supply send the proof of compensation to the workers. Since they resigned without notice, they got 80% compensation as mentioned in the Chinese Labour law. Suit Supply requested FWF to double check with the workers if these amounts were received accordingly and if this was indeed, as the factory stated, according to law and fair.
Suit Supply was still double checking if no other workers resigned without notice to make sure all got compensated and requested if FWF had any more information.

FWF responded that since the factory admitted there was information asymmetry due to their internal management communications (production management personnel and their HR management), FWF strongly request the factory to pay a full amount of wage to the complainants instead of the current 80%. They just cannot attribute the fault to the complainants and this problem was mainly caused by factory's internal management. FWF request the factory to take full responsibilities. Suit Supply took action to request the factory to pay the remaining 20% and informed FWF that the remaining 20% was paid.

After communicating with the all 5 complainants they confirmed the proper receipt of the remaining 20% of their salaries.

This complaint is resolved. Nevertheless FWF requests Suit Supply to remain monitoring the factory, so the policy and communication is implemented correctly to avoid that non-payment of salaries for resigned employees will happen in the future.

To investigate whether or not the complaint was admissible and whether dismissal of the worker was in accordance with local legislation, FWF assigned an external legal expert to investigate. The investigation focused in particular on the applicability of Article 160 of Act No.13/2003 on Manpower in the Labour Law, as the factory used this articleas basis for the dismissal(based on the documentation provided by the factory to Schőffel.

The independent legal expert reviewed all documentation, interviewed the worker, checked with local legislation and invited the factory to provide input. The factory, however, indicated it did not want to use the opportunity at that time to contribute to the investigation of the independent legal expert. Based on the investigation, the main findings of the independent legal expert were: Article 160 of Act No.13/2003 on Manpower is applicable to dismiss a worker if the worker has been detained by the police. There is no evidence that showed that the worker had been detained by the police.Article 160 of Act No.13/2003 on Manpower allows termination against a worker who is unable to work for 6 months because the worker is involved in a legal process. In this case, however, the worker was suspended by the factory and was subsequently not allowed to work by the factory even though he had not been detained by police. This means that it was the factory that made it impossible for the complainant to work at the factory, and not the involvement in any legal process. Article 160 of Act No.13/2003 on Manpower obliges the employer to rehire the worker if the worker is not found guilty by the court within 6 months period. The employer may terminate the worker if the court declared that the worker is guilty. In this case, there is no evidence can prove that the worker was tried in court or declared guilty. The case remained with the police, and was never submitted to a prosecutor or court of law. A person cannot be considered guilty if the decision of the criminal court is not legally binding, as referred to in Article 8 paragraph (1) Act of the Republic of Indonesia Number 48/2009 on Judicial Power.In this case, therefore, the complainant still had the right to work.Even if there is a determination from the police that the worker is seen as a suspect,as long as there was no detention then the worker still has the right to work.Based on the report of the independent legal expert, FWF determines that the dismissal of the complainant on the basis of article 160 of Act No.13/2003 is not appropriate.

According to Article 171 of Act. No. 13 Year 2003 on Manpower, the worker may file a lawsuit for the settlement of an industrial relation dispute within one (1) year of date on which his employment was terminated. In this case, the complainant has not done this, meaning that the right for him to file a lawsuit has expired. However, given his/her long employment history(more than 20 years), the determination that the dismissal was inappropriate based on the report of an independent legal expert, and the complainant’s desire to resume work at the factory, Fair Wear Foundation recommends that Schőffel actively works to remediate. To this end, Schőffel should ensure that the factory and the worker enter into a dialogue, preferably one which is facilitated by an independent third party, and come up with a solution that is acceptable to both sides.

A verification audit will take place in 2017 where the progress of the complaint remediation will be evaluated.

The brand informed FWF that the member stopped sourcing at the supplier as of 2 October 2017.

At that time, the supplier and complainant were still negotiating and no final conclusion had yet been reached.

In line with the FWF Complaints policy, FWF will close the complaint six months after a member stops sourcing from a supplier.

On 5 April, the brands informed the factory about the case.

The factory answered that:
1. The factory always commits worker to limit overtime of 1.5 hour per day from Monday to Friday, no OT on Saturday. In case we need overtime more we always communicate with worker to let them know the situation and worker will register overtime on a volunteer basis but we always do best to eliminate this case.
2. Workers are free to refuse the overtime, we think this may be a misunderstanding. Also, workers only need to register overtime once per week, signing on only 1 set of paper, the practice to have 2 OT registration set is wrong and we will check whether some line or department are not comply with the normal practice and improve.
3. The agent didn't share the registration of OT documents since it contains detailed information about workers which we are not able to share. However, I can confirm that we have employees from the two mentioned departments that work more than 1,5 OT h per day during some weeks. As you will see, we are working on solutions – employing more people – to avoid this situation. Further, I want to add that we are constantly working with our customers to try levelling the production as much as possible since this remains one of the biggest challenges of our industry.
4. After received the complaint we did communicate with all Production Manager, Supervisor, Leader, HR, CSR to study situation and improve the case together.

On 8 April, another worker called to complain about the same issue: workers have to work overtime from 16:30 to 20:30 from Monday to Friday and from 16:30 - 19:00 on Saturday. Workers cannot refuse OT work and they have to sign in 2 sets of the overtime registration forms (OT until 18:00 and another form is OT until 20:30)

On 28 April, a third worker complained with the same issues. That worker also said workers have to punch their time record at 18:00 then return to work until 8:30 PM.

In the beginning of May, the brands informed the factory about the issue stressing importance of compliance with local law and recording overtime without falsifying or hiding records.
The supplier shared answers and the following information (on 8 May):
1)Total working hours per week:
The factory is fully aware of the legislation in terms of OT. Further, as an SA8000 certified factory which is audited two times per year, we have to comply with these rules. Our company ethics and value set also mean that we have to offer good working conditions and follow the local requirements. Lastly it is also worth mentioning that Vietnamese workers value their private life and therefore companies offering good working conditions including reasonable OT hours are more attractive working places, hence, it helps the company in terms of recruiting and retention of employees.

2) On voluntary overtime:
A seasonal working schedule based on the production plan. This plan is made, respecting the local OT rules of max 30 OT hours per month. Factory doesn't force people to work OT but we would expect people to follow the work schedule because otherwise it is very hard to ensure a reliable production schedule and the lines cannot work efficiently if some operators are missing.
One of the most common reasons for changes in the schedule is the delay in raw material deliveries that might cause a delay in the production start date.

3) Clocking out, but continuing to work:
Here, we see two perspectives:
a. Our wage system consists of different elements such as ground salary, efficiency bonus, OT payment, industry related surcharge etc. Clocking out earlier than actual working time might be an advantage for the worker because efficiency will increase and thereby the efficiency bonus will increase.
b. A team leader or manager might wrongly think it is beneficial to clock out earlier to ensure the official working hour records “look correct”. However, this is strictly against company policy.

Remediation proposals from the factory on 8 May 2019:
1) To avoid this problem, we have reconfirmed in the management team that we must comply with the legislation in terms of the maximum number of working hours.
2) We are going to reinforce to our raw material suppliers as well as transport companies that they must live up to the confirmed delivery dates, and if not, it might lead to economic consequences in the form of penalties or discounts.
3) To solve this issue we have agreed a) to remind all team leaders and managers with people management responsibilities that clocking in/out must be done correctly without any exception and b) to introduce a control procedure ensuring that if any line is working OT hours beyond our normal schedule, then production and salary book keeping will coordinate and check the clocking out time is correct.

Brands input:

- Production planning should not include overtime, but a buffer in case of potential delays
- Production targets should be discussed with workers. although this migh be challenging.
- Possibly targets are high because Spectre is moving factories from Latvia to Spectre, which means they might rely on Latvia productivity when setting targets, and those could be higher than what is achievable.
-Spectre has issues with seasonality, as do many outdoor apparel manufacturers. They have more than 65% of their business (warmwear) sold in the winter season, which is mostly produced between April and July. Even if Mammut and Schoeffel allow them to spread the business over a long time period, they are forced to plan with overtime. The buyers at Schoeffel and Mammut will know that they plan with overtime. The bigger issue is this reasonable overtime and within the legal constraints.

- Schöffel discusses the production planning in prior with the suppliers and we also send several forecasts and let the suppliers check and confirm if the order-quantity and delivery dates are workable without overtime. If they have difficulties we accept later delivery dates or split order-quantities in prior. I would ask here for a better explanation of the production planning.
If the fabric is nominated by us we support the suppliers in case of delays in delivery and have clear rules for the fabric producers.

FWF input for remediation:
- a remediation plan (using CAP template) should be discussed and agreed on between brands and the factory
- Overtime legal requirements must be respected
- If overtime (within legal limits) is known in production shcedule then it should be clearly shared and communicated with workers in advance, and breaks should be respected
- The factory should show how overtime is recorded and explain their system, as part of the investigation on the double register complaint.

Brands and factory met at ISPO on 26 June 2019 to discuss the complaint case. They clarified some points and agreed on the following remediation plan. Besides, factory will shut down power at 18:30 to avoid excessive overtime.

1)
>Order and customer perspective: Currently, and ongoing, we work with customers to level the production plan so that the workers only work until 18:00 if needed. On 10 June the production plan has been re-worked again to ensure no order delivery date has been based on excessive OT.
> Management board and manager commitment: All related managers are noticed about the company rules and policies and commit to follow the regulation about OT.
> Workers and CSR: Any case of OT work after 18:00 will be tracked by CSR dept. independently whether they exceed OT limit and why they have been staying after 18:00;
Besides we encourage workers to communicate with department head/supervisor or HR/CSR dept. to solve their difficulties in daily working, and to make internal CSR dept. become effective communication channel between employee and employer.
> Tracking status: From June, CSR/HR dept. needs to follow up OT hours daily and report if there are sewing line OT after 18:00 or any abnormal OT.
> Internal communication: OT information is updated to Production team and CSR dept. to track together and ensure everyone knows about OT regulation from local law, company policy and customer requirement. In case of extraordinary reasons requiring OT after 18:00, management team agrees to explain workers affected, however, this can only happen in exceptional cases that have been approved by the plant manager.
> Local law: Vietnam Labour law is under plan to change and increase OT annual limit from 300 to 400 hrs per year.

2)
- OT is based on voluntary basis. This means there are employees leaving at 16:30 and do not work OT;
- There are not 2 sets of OT, this may be a misunderstanding from workers. Production plan has been scheduled based on workers' capacity (working hours) so that is why we often have had "Week OT registration". But in case the line/worker wants to change the OT, they can sign on another "Daily OT registration", then HR can update the latest OT information for attendance and payroll.
- This policy is communicated with Production team already and will track if there is any case of involuntary OT.
- For new workers, they are trained and get informed on on-board date, to ensure they are aware of the company's OT rules and policies.

3) OT is recorded based on actual working hours;
- No one is forced to be come back to work after punching time record. There have been some leaders/workers who came back to rework orders or catch up with daily efficiency as they want to get more efficiency bonus;
- It has been informed to workers and other employees in production to let everyone strictly follow company's rules and policies to punch time record based on actual time worked, without exception.
- From 11 June CSR team goes checking OT after 18:00, there have been found some voluntary workers and they were requested to go home;
- From 8 June it has been communicated only to work OT until 18:00;
- From 14 June factory shuts down electricity from 18:15 to avoid worker staying for excessive OT.

It was agreed with Mammut that the factory will have seasonal production planning meetings starting from FW20. To level out production and avoid OT Schoeffel usually has seasonal planning meetings.

Two out of three workers could be reached by the complaint handler. They confirmed working until no later than 18:00 for the last couple weeks.

They thanked FWF, brands and factory for receiving their claims and improving working time for workers.

FWF complaint handler and complaint coordinator agreed that the CAP of the supplier and the brands was good. Thus they will leave it to these partners to follow up on implementation.

FOND OF reached out to the factory where the complaint occurred and mentioned that it is a subcontractor of their direct supplier.

According to the feedback from the factory, the worker received his/her September salary on 7 January. This salary was the outstanding salary of RMB 2344 after deducting a loan of RMB 2000 that the factory gave to the worker on 3 November.

The outstanding salary for October has indeed been withheld by the factory. According to the factory management, the worker had foregone his salary for October for not handing in an official leave application. However, there was no documented proof of this. After explaining to the factory management that this is not in line with local regulations, the outstanding wage for October was paid to the worker.

The factory management has been made aware of the local regulations of salary payments and termination of contracts to avoid such cases to happen in the future.

FOND OF took immediate steps to request the factory to respond to this complaint and the factory remediated the issue by paying the September and October salary to the complainant.

The complainant sent messages to FWF confirming that he/she received the due wages of September and October 2018.
The wage of September 2018 paid to him/her was 2334 RMB and the wage of October 2018 was 3417 RMB. He/she also sent payslips with his/her signature for confirmation of the wages for FWF reference.

All wages were paid and confirmed by the complainant.

This complaint was received on 2 January and resolved on the 9 January thanks to the good co-operation between FOND OF and the factory. All wages were paid and confirmed by the complainant. This complaint is resolved.

The FWF member brand sourcing at the factory, Takko, immediately contacted the factory management and asked for its response.

The factory management responded that it never promised that workers who worked during 7-16 January 2019 would be paid double the minimum wage. According to management, this must be a misunderstanding.

Factory management furthermore indicated that annual leave already taken cannot be undone for the workers who agreed to take annual leave during 18/19 to 27/28 January. However, workers who have not yet taken annual leave, can discuss with the management to decide the dates for their annual leave. Factory management confirmed that if they do not want to take the annual leave, it will pay their salary as per law.

FWF responded that there seems to be difference of opinion, as the complainant said the opposite. Communication therefore appears to have been unclear or ambiguous somehow at the very least. A misunderstanding as such seems to point to lack of good communications between management and workers, which unfortunately contributes to a negative sentiment. Workers somehow felt cheated. However, as payment of double wages is obviously not obligatory according to law, not doing so is obviously not a labour violation as such. Factory management, however, is advised to invest in better and more constructive communication to avoid such misunderstandings in the future.

On the second issue, it should be noted that the period that was declared for annual leave (18/19 to 27/28 January) includes two Sundays. According to the Leave and Holiday Act, if Sundays are within the period of annual leave, they are counted as annual leave. However, the Leave and Holiday Act 1951 also stipulates that annual leave should be decided in agreement of both employer and employees. Now, the factory decided by themselves without consultation with the workers.

It is important that the factory communicates about all leaves and benefits clearly and transparently to the workers following local laws. Workers should not feel obliged or pressured to take annual leave because there are not enough orders. Annual leave should not be declared unilaterally by the factory management. The complainants claimed that they were not given any options. But if the workers were given options and clear explanation, they could have avoided selecting a period that includes two Sundays.

Takko indicated that it had a meeting with the factory management, which indicated that it would check with the local government if their practice of annual leave planning is as per law.

Subsequently, the factory management indicated that, according to the relevant laws, the first and last day of the annual leave period cannot be a statutory holiday. The annual leave period can include one holiday. Factory management acknowledged that some workers had two statutory holidays during the annual leave period. Management promised that it will pay attention to this problem when they arrange annual leave in the future to avoid recurrence.

Takko suggested the factory management to discuss the annual leave planning together with workers or their representatives in future, as recommended by FWF.

FWF suggest Takko to encourage the factory management to invest in more regular and constructive communication with workers, and listens to workers concerns rather than making unilateral decisions that infringes on workers rights.

FWF brands sourcing at the factory, Jack Wolfskin and Schoffel, immediately contacted the factory management and asked for a response. The brand also explained clearly that the initial complaint report reflects the story from the complainant. There are, as always, two sides to a story, which must be investigated. The brands encouraged the management to conduct its own investigation to check whether the accusations from the complainant reflected the truth or not. Finally, it was conveyed that each factory has issues. In this regard, complaints must always be taken seriously and seen as an opportunity to improve.

The factory management shared the results of its investigation with the FWF member brands. The factory management made a CAP in which it responded systematically to the accusations.

The investigation of the management confirmed that the accused supervisor seems to be somewhat intense in his/her expression sometimes, which did give workers an uncomfortable feeling. In case of conflict, workers could perceive the reprimand as an insult. Factory management indicated that no radical expressions or sexual expressions are allowed.
In such a case, a warning letter must be issued and the supervisor retrained by a top manager.

As to the forced donations, factory management explained firstly that there is a unique and religious culture in Myanmar that the factory management must respect. However, the company stipulates that any form of fundraising is not compulsory. Management indicated that it will once again raise awareness of compulsory fund raising, and if compulsory fundraising re-occurs, they will prohibit any kind of fundraising in the company. Also, fines for mistakes are prohibited.

The factory also investigated the absenteeism and resignation rates of the production lines of the supervisor and compared this to other lines, looking specifically at the period 10 days before and after the complaint was lodged. It did not find any increase in absenteeism and resignations in the lines of the supervisor.

Furthermore, after receiving this complaint, the management conducted an anonymous survey and tried to listen personal opinions. The contents of the survey, and the steps taken by the management, are summarised below:

1. Verbal abuse and sexual statements
Survey result: considering the survey results, resignation rate and statements from other managers, it was concluded that the supervisor's management style is rough and strict. He/she use bad language sometimes. As for workers, the supervisor should receive a warning card and training.
Corrective measure:
1/ Issue warning card due to language
2/ Job retraining: explain company rules of managing production line.
Give a training: verbal warning x 3 times to worker -> Written warning after 3 times verbal warnings

2. Misuse of power
Management could not find any evidence with written and verbal statement.
As for the early leave, factory management is going to set up the procedure as below in order to avoid personal judgement.
Notice to Nurse-> Check body -> report to office if somebody is in sick -> Sign by factory manager for gate pass.

3. Collect monetary fines in case of mistakes
Corrective measure:
Penalties for mistakes are immediately forbidden.
Publicly disclosed all collected information and returned it to the collectors with a signature at once.

4. High amounts of money collected for Myanmar New Year and public blaming for those who cannot pay.
Corrective measure:
1. Announce officially to prevent compulsory fund-raising.
2. Set new rule up for compulsory funding to be returned immediately.

Finally, the factory management indicated that the supervisor is also one of the workers, and he/she need more training on how the manager and worker can work together and collaborate. The factory will continue to make such efforts and immediately resolve any issues found and communicate with relevant workers.

FWF repeatedly tried to contact the complainant but was unsuccessful. FWF therefore closed the case, noting that the factory management investigated the complaint thoroughly and took appropriate action.

FWF suggested to carefully monitor the chance of discriminatory practices for the gate-pass approval system (irrespective of sickness) after normal working hour and during break time as it means that the workers are restricted to leave the factory and there is a chance of discrimination like this although the factory may not intend to do so.

Finally, FWF concurs with the FWF brands that some sort of training to improve worker-management communication may prove of use in the factory. FWF's WEP Communications module could be considered in this regard.