FWF member brand Vaude, sourcing at the factory, immediately contacted the factory management, reiterating FWF’s point of view that donating money should not be a requirement. It should be something decided upon voluntarily by the workers and not requested or required by elders/supervisors. Vaude stressed that especially the threatening of workers with OT during lunch time is not acceptable at all. Vaude asked the management to investigate this complaint. Vaude also stressed that that it is necessary to make a public announcement that money donations are not a requirement. Also, supervisors should be instructed that they are not allowed to threaten their workers.

Factory management responded to Vaude that they agree that all kinds of donation have to be voluntary and without threatening the workers. The management investigated amongst their supervisor but none of them admitted the case. As requested by the brand, the factory subsequently made an announcement to all workers and the Supervisors. The annoucement was also shared with Vaude. The factory furthermore indicated that it will encourage workers to report all cases of threats and forced donations directly to the factory management.

Both the complainant and the accused supervisor contacted FWF's complaints handler seperately.

The supervisor called FWF in the morning several times to explain that he/she made it clear to the workers that the donation was voluntary. From the conversation it became clear that he/she was the only supervisor who collected the highest amount because there are fewer workers in his/her building compared to others and he/she wanted to make sure that their Chinese supervisor was well respected. He/she denied the fact that he/she threatened the workers into paying for the donation. He/she just told them to pay the fixed amount if possible. If not, the workers could pay as much as they wanted. At the end of the conversation, he/she asked FWF the name of the complainant and how he/she contacted FWF. FWF explained that it is FWF policy to protect the identity of the complainant.

In the evening, the complainant called FWF indicating that the supervisor was so angry and cursing all over the place, looking for the complainant. According to the complainant, the supervisor suspected a few workers in his/her mind and announced that he/she will definitely find out the complainant and do something horrible to him/her. The complainant is now scared and asked FWF not to call him/her and said that if there’s anything, he/she would contact FWF. Also, the complainant indicated that he/she does not want FWF to inform this to the factory as he/she does not want to make things worse.

FWF informed Vaude of the above and suggested Vaude conveys the following to factory management:

1. The policy should be made crystal clear to workers and supervisors: donation are 100% voluntary and will be made anonymously by workers in the future.
2. Supervisor are under pressure to show their respect by giving a high donation. Management should reassure all supervisors that they will not be judged/blamed based on the amount received from workers.
3. Based on the above, supervisors should be urged not to make any investigation/enquiry into the identity of the possible complainant(s). Workers who complained should have their identity protected.
It is suggested that this message is brought in a subtle way and as part of an overall approach. In order not to fuel the emotions further, it is advised that the management does not inform the supervisor in question about the fact that the complainant contacted FWF saying that the supervisor threatened to find out the identity of the complainant and retaliate against him/her. It is important that the supervisor is calmed down and encouraged to cease his/her pursuit.
4. Internal grievance system should be clearly announced to all workers. If any workers is pressured to give a high donation, workers should be able to raise their objections anonymously.
5. Furthermore, as the accused supervisor became so emotional, FWF suggested that the accused supervisor needs comfort from the management who blamed him/her personally, and be convinced not to cause any retaliation. Proper training regarding wages and benefit for all supervisors would help him/her understand better. FWF suggested that it is important to make him/her feel he/she is not the only one who is warned on this; it is just a factory policy that everyone should be aware of.

Vaude contacted the factory management again and asked it to explain what they did after they received the complaint. Factory management responded that they had a meeting with all the supervisors in which they stressed that such behaviour is unacceptable and that workers can only donate voluntary if they want. Following this meeting, the supervisors informed all workers about this in the morning meeting. Factory management also made a public announcement about it and posted it on the notice board.

Vaude and the factory management agreed that the factory will include this in their factory rules and also in the orientation training for new workers.

Vaude stressed that it is important that in general all supervisors and workers are aware that donations are voluntary and that it is not about blaming one person in particular.

Furthermore, the factory management indicated that they want to encourage workers to solve such complaints internally but feels that workers do not dare to do so. Therefore, Vaude and factory management agreed that it will be important to do something to strengthen the dialogue structure in the factory.

FWF tried several times and through various ways to contact the complainant, but was not successful. Based on the information provided, FWF decided to consider the case resolved. Vaude indicated that it will explore options to improve the internal communications between workers and management, e.g. through the SMART programme or through FWF's Worker Education Programme.

A joint meeting had been held on 26 February 2019 in the factory with the participation of the brand (Stanley & Stella), factory management and FWF. The purpose of the joint meeting was to discuss, verify and solve the forceful resignations that occurred in the factory on 1 January 2019. The Country Manager of Stanley & Stella made certain that the management would cooperate and provide full support. The following emerged from the meeting.

Brief from Factory management:
The General Manager of the factory gave his account of what happened from 23 December 2018 to 1 January 2019. According to him, on 23 December a Worker Participatory Committee meeting was called and in that meeting workers representatives requested the management to share information with workers about the new minimum wage increase, as workers did not understand how the new wage structure would be implemented at the factory.

Considering the concern from the workers representatives, management organised a presentation on 24 December in the training centres of each of the two production facilities for some 100 worker representatives and senior workers. During the presentation, the factory management indicated that the salary of each worker will increase with not less than BDT 1,200. Through that presentation, senior workers misunderstood that, even though their total salary will increase, the basic salary would remain the same. They subsequently expressed their dissatisfaction and management tried to make them understand that it is the government declaration and management cannot increase wages beyond the government declared wage.

The problem started from there and on 25 December workers decided to slow down the work. Eventually, workers left the factory floor, and without conducting any vandalism, started to chant a slogan demanding a proper wage increase. On 26 December, workers again slowed down the work. Management tried to convince workers to resume work by talking to individual workers and explaining about their salary increase and calculation. However, management failed to make them understand and, as a result, workers left the factory and blocked the road in front of the factory. Because thousands of workers blocked the road, the traffic jam reached the nearby area. The local chairman therefore came to calm down the situation, but he did not succeed in calming down workers. At one point, the local chairman decided to declare that the factory should close until 1 January. However, this was not properly discussed with factory management and because of some important shipment planned, the factory management sent text messages to all workers requesting them to return to work on 27 December.

On 27 December, when workers arrived at the factory, they did not go to the work floor, rather they started protesting again. Considering the situation, including pressure from the local police station and the upcoming national election on 30 December, the factory management had no other choice than to close the factory until 1 January 2019.

Subsequently, on 1 January the management made a declaration to all the workers stating that every worker that felt unsatisfied with the salary increase, could leave the factory by voluntary resignation. Management found there were more than 100 workers who did not want to continue and who willingly resigned. Management subsequently prepared a salary sheet of 111 workers who were willing to resign.

According to the management, out of 111 resigned workers, the final settlement was done only for 84 workers. Out of the 27 remaining, 14 reported to Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) and the factory therefore had to settle through BGMEA. Factory management shared the list of the 111 workers with the FWF team. After the resignations, management paid the salary to those 111 workers and indicated to them that if there were other legal dues (like service benefit, provident fund, etc) management would calculate that and pay with the final settlement at a later time. Factory management denied all the claims of workers about broken mobile phones, taking of SIM + memory cards, beating.

FWF investigation:
FWF found chronological similarities between the manager’s statement and FWF offsite investigation report up until the moment of when the forceful resignations happened. Inconsistencies observed include the following:

1. In the workers' personal files there were no records of the date of payment.
2. All the resignations had been taken on 1 January 2019, except for one worker for which the date was 8 January 2019.
3. Seven files indicated a resignation date 01/11/2018, which appeared to have been done intentionally to cover the notice period as per law. To clarify, there is a legal provision that states that if workers would like to give a willing resignation then it should be given 2 months before leaving the job. FWF assumed that for this reason management (falsely) back-dated some (7) resignation letter, but failed to maintain the process for all the workers concerned, which would explain why only seven files indicate the resignation dated on 01/11/2018.
4. Some resignation letters had the same the handwriting.
5. Normally the factory management would disburse the salary during the second week of every month. Surprisingly, however, the management provided FWF a list of 111 workers for with the salary sheet was dated on 1 January 2019.
6. The General Manager told FWF team separately that if they could have given the workers their pay-slip on 25/26 December instead of 1 January, then the unrest might not have happened. So, the manager’s statement is a kind of indirect confession of their mismanagement.

Additionally, management indicated that the local chairman went to the factory in order to calm down workers following the blockage on road. According to the complainants, this is simply not true. According to the workers, the Chairman and police officer from local police station are always called by factory management to settle down whenever there is an issue with workers. Furthermore, on 1 January the local chairman, together with police officers, came to the factory in the morning for settling the resignations with the listed 111 worker.

Conclusions:
1. Considering the statements of the complainants, as well as the management, and observing the discrepancies between the management statements and the findings of the document inspection, FWF concluded that the process was in fact pre-planned.

2. However, FWF could not find solid proof whether the resignation process was forceful or voluntary when the signature of workers match the resignation letter.

3. FWF verified whether the resigned workers are paid their legal dues. In this regard, it is important to note that workers have in fact received their legal dues like salary, overtime, service benefit (if entitled) , earned leave (if entitled) provident fund (if entitled). Based on the complaints from workers received, FWF made a list of 31 workers and reviewed the personal files of those workers. Among the 31 workers, it was confirmed that 24 were paid as per law and the mentioned amount is similar to the amount that was confirmed by the complainants during offsite investigation. Management also shared photo evidence of those payments. Out of 31 complainants, 7 had yet to receive their payments. Management committed that they will settle the matter within the first week of March. The workers who were interviewed by FWF indicated that they were satisfied with this outcome.

4. Factory management committed to follow the same procedure for all resigned workers and would call them to pay their dues amount through final settlement in accordance with the law. In this regard, out of 111 workers, 27 had yet to receive their final settlement. Out of these 27, 14 had to be settled through BGMEA.

5. The factory management is facing pressure from different corners, including from some other buyers. During the exit meeting, in which both the Executive Director and CEO participated, the Executive Director expressed its commitment to do better in future.

Recommendations / Follow-up:
FWF will follow up the final settlement of the remaining 27 workers (BGMEA 14 + 13 who yet to receive their dues). From FWF’s list, out of 31 workers, 24 workers already received final settlement amount and they were happy with the outcome. FWF will follow up to ensure the remaining 7 will also receive the correct final settlement.

Furthermore, follow up is needed by brands to ensure factory management constructively considers the lessons learnt from this experience and invests in improving communication between management and workers. FWF suggests that management could have made workers understand about increased minimum wage in groups like other factories did. Generally speaking, the lack of communication between management and workers creates the potential for unrest and, unfortunately, such kind of disasters. Management should work on raising awareness among the workers and develop stronger communication between both parties. Brands are suggested to follow up to ensure the factory will invest in strengthening the internal communication channel like AHC and WPC.

Finally, the country manager of Stanley & Stella told the management that when complaints are reported to FWF, management needs to take the complaint positively and handle it with importance so that the issue can be stopped before it escalates. Stanley&Stella adequately explained to management the supportive role of FWF in resolving the issue. He added that both brand and management need to be more careful when handling complaints and follow up timely and diligently. FWF was very appreciative of the very positive role played by Stanley&Stella, which was instrumental in solving the complaint.

FWF verified that the final settlement of the remaining 27 workers (14 settled through BGMEA + 13 who were yet to receive their dues from the factory) was completed. From FWF’s list, out of 31 workers, 24 workers received their final settlement amount before the meeting of 26 February, while the remaining 7 workers received their final settlement amount gradually untill March 27.

FWF coordinated with the factory management and the complainants and advised them when they could go to the factory to receive their payment. FWF consequently followed up with all of the workers and confirmed that they had all received their due payments.

All complainants expressed that they were satisfied with with the outcome.

On 14 January 2019, Vaude contacted and informed the factory about the complaint. Management replied that this case was unknown to them and that workers were able to resign within the legally allowed notice period. The brand told the factory that they should inform all relevant managers/supervisors that workers are free to leave the company if they give the legally required notice.

He/She has resigned on 15 March 2019 and had not yet received his/her dues (the remaining salary and social insurance book). The HR officer let him/her know that the remaining salary will be paid in April and the social insurance book will be returned about 1.5 months later.

The complainant confirmed that the factory paid his/her remaining salary (for March 2019) and he/she received the social insurance book on 25 April 2019.

She/he had not yet received the payment for unused annual leave and also had no severance allowance for working time served when he/she did not pay unemployment insurance contributions as prescribed by law (she took maternity leave 2 times, in 2016 and 2017). However, the complainant felt happy and lucky and she want to stop the complaint.

The worker said that, without FWF, he/she would not have been able to get a legal employment termination and receive his/her social and insurance book. She wishes the factory would have a clear resignation process so that workers could resign legally and could get their social insurance books.

He/she thanked to FWF and Vaude for helping him/her.

The case is resolved.

The brand informed the factory about the complaint.

Factory informed the brand that the complainant had received all due payments and all documents.

The complainant confirmed that he/she received all his/her due payments and the social insurance book on 26 April 2019. He/she thanked FWF and Vaude for helping him/her.

According to the complainant, the process was a bit long but it was effective. He/she said that if he/she had not called the FWF helpline, he/she would have not received his/her due payments and social insurance book.

This complaint is resolved.

ArmedAngels contacted the factory for feedback. On 24 May 2019, the factory replied the following:

Regarding leave - they do allow migrant workers to take leave but they cannot grant it to too many workers at once as the factory runs continuously. They have a system based on priority and importance. They provided the list of migrant workers to whom they had granted leave.

Regarding overtime work (OT) - they do not force workers to do OT. They have employed more workers and multi-skilled people to solve the problem. When OT is unavoidable, employees can voluntary decide whether to do it or not.

Regarding payment of OT - regularly they pay OT on time with wages, but they will take more care in the future.

FWF informed the brand about this complaint and sought the response of the factory management. The brand in turn asked for the details of the complainant which were shared with them.

Upon investigation of the complaint, it is concluded that the worker's dues have not been cleared by the factory. The factory claimed that there has been a recent change in the HR manager of the factory and the new manager was not fully aware of the complainant's case.

Factory management is obliged to make the full and final settlement of the complainant at the earliest.

The complainant was called to the factory for settlement. The factory agreed to pay the following through bank transfer the very next day:
a) Payment for earned leave
b) Bonus
c) Notice pay
The complainant also clarified that the loan amount due with the factory is INR 3000 and not INR 20000 as stated in the first complaint report.

The brand informed that the factory management paid all the dues to the complainant and the factory's consultant contacted the complainant to check whether he/she would be willing to return to the factory for his/her old salary, but he/she declined. During this period he/she found another employer to work for. He/she added that he/she was happy to receive his/her final payments. The full and final payment along with the supporting documents were sent for verification purpose.

The complaint handler spoke to the complainant to verify if he/she had received his/her dues.
He/she confirmed that two payments were transferred to his/her account.

2. He/she does not clearly understand what is paid for what because he/she was not provided with copy of full and final receipt which mentions these details.

The amount transferred in his/her account is 18290+1950=20240. The worker does not know the details of how 20240 has arrived.
Further, complainant also wanted to know if he would be paid for the days he/she was sick.

Factory management is obliged to provide a copy of full and final settlement to the complainant with details and also explain its stand on the payment of sick leave.

The brand contacted the factory to know their policy on sick leave payment and to know if the factory had helped the complainant to understand how his/her full and final payment was made.
Factory management explained that the complainant was not eligible for any sick leave payment because his/her Employees' State Insurance (ESI) was getting deducted. To avail the medical treatment from ESI, and leave payment (period when employee is absent from work) from ESI one has to go there and get the treatment done, then they suggest the medical treatment as per the employee condition and will pay for the medical leave .

Regarding settlement copy, the factory sent the full and final settlement copy signed by him/her and assured that they have already made him/her understand his/her payment details.
The factory's consultant called the complainant and verified that he/she is happy and received the payment. Management added that they have already processed his/her records and made him/her exit from their PF Account, so that he/she can claim his/her PF.

FWF spoke with the complainant and he/she stated that he/she did not receive any call from the factory for explaining the full and final payment neither was it explained when he/she signed the document. He/she was not even given a copy of the final settlement document after he/she signed the document.

Regarding ESI, the complainant stated that upon his/her return in August he/she took treatment from ESI but the staff there told him/her that his/her card is 'put on hold' by the company since June 2018 (remember that he/she went on leave in May and came back in August as he/she faced and accident) therefore they will provide the treatment but he/she cannot claim leave benefits from ESI.

According to FWF, the complaint at this point is word against word and it is difficult to ascertain the truth of the statement. FWF recommends the factory management to share a copy of the final settlement with the complainant.

The factory sent a mail to the brand explaining that the complainant's statement seems to be not true. He/she can avail the ESI benefit during his/her sick period from May until August since his/her ESI contribution was already paid in earlier months.

The factory sent the proof for the complainant's contribution paid from April 2017 until March 2018. It was added that with this contribution paid, he/she is eligible to avail the ESI benefit for the next year.

FWF will ask for the worker's response on this and also verify if he/she has received his/her copy of the final settlement.

Brand received some feedback from factory about this complaint and it was forwarded to FWF on 18 June 2019.

Factory management sent a copy of the letter with the explanation of the amount paid in complainant's account and also a copy of letter with his/her (complainant's) full and final signed earlier by him/her.

Factory said workers are trained regularly about ESI and they are availing these facilities and also they are sending formal letters now to all employees who do not inform or turn up after their leaves finishes.

Factory said that they did not want the complainant to resign but he/she resigned on his/her will. Management added that they had offered him the job when he/she returned and complainant demanded more salary. Since the matter could not be sorted out, he/she resigned on his/her own.

FWF has asked the complaint handler to check with the complainant on whether he/she has received all his/her dues and also to clarify if he/she has resigned on his/her own will.

The complainant was called to check about the factory's reply: According to him
1. He/she has not yet received the letter and copy of full and final statement sent by PF on his/her address.
2. He/she has not yet returned and therefore not yet filed application in ESI as he/she has not come back from his/her native place.
3. On the issue of whether management offered him his/her job back: When he/she came back and was fired by Parvati Fashion, for few days he/she worked as piece rate worker (not on rolls) in the same factory (Parvati); it was during this period the factory management asked him to rejoin, i.e., join as fresh worker on same wages but the complainant wanted to join on same wages only with his/her continuity of service. He/she added that if he/she joins as a fresh worker then he/she would do it at a higher wage (losing his/her length of service and related benefits) because he/she was an experienced worker.
The management was not ready to accept either of these two options and hence dialogue failed. (These facts were not reported by the complainant to FWF and revealed only when specifically asked with reference to what management is saying). Complainant reiterated that he/she did not want to resign, but when he/she lost hope for reinstatement he/she finally resigned so that he/she can get his/her final settlement cleared.

Brand reverted that their supplier confirmed that the courier service had informed them that complainant could not be reached at the address in his/her personal file. Brand/supplier are keen to have the current address where complainant can be reached or where he/she will be able to receive the full and final settlement letter.
Brand added that if the complainant needs any documents or data or information from their supplier to apply for his/her Provident Fund amount, he/she is free to contact the company.

Whether a worker is paid as unskilled or experienced depends on the mutual agreement between employee and employer.
To put on record the supplier has been supported by brand and their social compliance consultant LINK to focus on awareness training of their workers, which includes education on how to deal with social and health insurance.

The facts in this case prove that the supplier should not have dismissed the complainant but they did since they had not heard from their employee for a long time and therefore assumed that the employee would not return to work. Factory learnt from this that as a company it is important to inform its employees in the event of illness to comply with a notification obligation and, if this does not happen, to proactively ask them to do so (e.g. factory sends in such cases letters by courier in which the employee is made aware of his/her behaviour and is asked to report immediately to the factory management, because otherwise it must be assumed that the employee does not return to work and therefore appropriate labour law steps must be taken), as well as to investigate the whereabouts of the employee.
In this case, the supplier offered the complainant to resume his/her job at the old conditions and has agreed to pay all outstanding compensations which was rejected by the complainant.

FWF will check with the complainant whether the address he/she has provided is incorrect and ask him to contact the factory on this.

Complaints handler spoke with the complainant on 18 July. He/she informed that he/she is still in the village and engaged in farming operations.
Complaints handler explained him that due to address problem the outstanding documents were not delivered to him, and that he/she can send his/her current address (also email id if he/she has) to the company then it may again be dispatched to his/her address. He/she replied that he/she would think and then inform FWF. He/she was informed that Buyer and company may like to know whether he/she will be sending his/her address or not.
It was suggested that he/she may even send the address to the FWF complaint number and then it can be forwarded to the buyer.
He/she said that he/she does not want to send the address. He/she added that he/she will go to company and meet the management personally when he/she returns. He/she also did not want to continue with the complaint.

The complaint is therefore considered closed.

FWF reached out to Mini Rodini who informed us that they shared the complaint with the factory.

No response was received but in the meanwhile an audit was planned for the beginning of December. From the audit findings, it was verified that:
Regarding point 1: it was confirmed that the workers from the finishing workshops were indeed paid 6.5 to 8.5 RMB per hour without extra overtime premiums; and this is below the local minimum wage. However, regarding the unfair payments, the audit team thought this was not the case as management determined workers' wages by referring to their skills and efficiency; thus, lower efficiency was paid a lower wage, which cannot be categorised as unfair payment.
Regarding point 2: it was confirmed that workers did work excessive overtime hours as mentioned in the complaint.

During the audit it was verified that there was payment below the minimum wage and that workers did work excessive overtime

FWF requested Mini Rodini to discuss the complaint during the audit with the factory management since Mini Rodini was visiting the factory in December. FWF suggested the factory to start with the following remediation:
1. Ensure that all employees are paid at least the local minimum wage.
2. Monitor the working hours to be no more than 11 hours/day, in other words, no more than 3 overtime hours/day; and ensure at least one day off in a 7-day period.

FWF has shared the complaint with the brands and the brands in turn have asked the factory to give its perspective for the complaint that has been raised.

Factory management answered that they are aware of this issue of mobile number updating, but the fact that the HR department is asking for 400 rupees is not true. This is a rumour that has been spread among the employees due to the amount of time it had taken.

They have suggestion boxes and cameras in many locations in the factory and management is easily accessible in case there was a genuine complaint of taking money. Employees approach senior management for other day-to-day issues such as salary advances, discrepancies, colleague issues etc. but have not approached them for this at all.

They are doing their best to educate them and explain the issue as below.

Indian employees frequently change their mobile numbers looking for the cheapest possible payment plans. They may have a mobile number only for 8-9 months at a time.

The PF (Provident Fund) department links all PF accounts to mobile numbers. The issue is that few employees who changed their mobile numbers multiple times have not informed management.

When management approaches the PF department to withdraw workers accumulated amount or change their name or make any modification at all to their PF account, the PF department sends a “one time password” to their registered mobile number for authentication.

This registered mobile number is:
1. The original number at the time of opening (registered few years before) – which has been changed multiple times.
2.Employees are unable to read English text messages and get lost in the 100s of unread text messages that they have on their phones – employees are not as tech savvy as the government expects them to be.

They are doing their best to get all the numbers changed but it takes time as government agencies in India are heavily bureaucratic. Management is asked to submit only 3-4 files at a time to the PF office so that their table does not get too full with paperwork.

Management asserted that they are doing their best to resolve this issue and all workers will be satisfied very soon.

Brand wanted FWF to investigate on whether the complainant can prove that 4-5 workers already paid INR 400 and how they were asked to pay the money to the HR department.

FWF is trying to get response from the complainant for further investigation.

Complainant was contacted and he/she informed that there is a person in the HR department who handles the work of the Employees' State Insurance (ESI) and PF in the factory, and it is this person who demanded Rs 400 from many workers for resolving this problem. Some workers also argued against this, but he/she insisted that without this payment he/she may not help.

The complainant remembered the name of one employee who had paid and 3-4 women workers (he/she did not know their names), and also one cleaning worker who had paid INR 400 and their problem was probably resolved. Others who did not pay were still facing this problem and gradually many workers lost hope and started realising that without paying they could not get the problem resolved and so they started accepting and convincing those who were opposing to pay INR 400 rather than risking their PF money.

He/she added that workers may never go forward to tell about this problem fearing that they may be fired if they are identified by the management.
The complainant also feared that he/she would be fired if his/her name is disclosed.

FWF recommends the factory to help the workers on this by ensuring a proper grievance handling mechanism and also to make sure that they would never be retaliated if they make a complaint.

As a part of investigation , Workers interview was conducted on June 16th and 17th by the complaints investigator and these Interviews were conducted outside the factory premises after the working hours. Both individual, group interviews were done.A total of 15 workers interviewed out of which 7 were female workers.
Complaint investigation revealed that company has not involved in any way in charging any money from workers for corrections in their PF account details. The ESI-PF work of the company is handled by a consultant and therefore the allegations whatsoever were against the consultant and not the company. Consultant helps in correction of entries in Aadhar card/Pan card if there is any error in the spelling of names or date of birth.
Errors/mistakes in the PF account details arise because of either entries in PF accounts needed update/correction [ if mobile number is changed] or entries in Aadhar/Pan Card etc needed corrections before updating in PF account details.
50% workers responded that no money was demanded/charged for the correction of PF account details, but the rest 50% said that earlier Rs 400 was demanded (but no one said that it was charged from them) by the consultant.
Two workers explained that in cases where corrections in Aadhar and Pan Card were needed, the company consultant helped the workers in getting contact with some other specific consultants doing the work of Aadhar and Pan card corrections for speedy resolution of the problem. These consultants may have charged INR 400 for Pan card correction and issue of new Pan card and INR 60 for Aadhar card corrections and issue of new Aadhar card. There may be a possibility that they charged less and some commission was added by the company consultant for himself, but there is no evidence for this. The company has nothing to do in this issue, as it was workers’ own responsibility and not that of company.
Therefore, we can come to a conclusion that none from the HR department has demanded money.

Since it is clear through the offsite interviews that neither the workers have paid money to factory nor the HR department has demanded any, this case can be considered as not grounded.

However the factory is recommended to actively communicate with their workers on what services they should expect from factory management (with regard to social security payments) and what they will have to avail outside. This would help in managing workers’ expectation and avoid any such complaints in future.

Since it was established through workers interview that neither HR department demanded money for updating the phone number nor any of the interviewed workers have paid money to any person in HR department this complaint is not considered as grounded and hence it is closed.

On 14 November, Vaude informed the factory about the complaint. Vaude received feedback from the factory acknowledging that the worker had been in discussion with the factory management about the situation back since July. The factory shared that he/she told the line leader that he/she needed to stop working to take care for his/her parents in law who were over 90 years old. On the other hand, he/she said that he/she would like to stay in the factory.

The worker had worked for the factory for nine years and, from the factory's perspective, because of his/her experience they would prefer to keep him/her, but they agreed they cannot stop him/her from resigning.

In the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) of a recent FWF audit, it was stated that workers said that it usually took two to three months for management to agree on termination. Since the process is too long, they sometimes have to resign unilaterally, which means they do not receive all their due payments.

After a new meeting on 14 November at the factory with the director and the union chairman, the complainant's resignation was resolved. He/she had to fill in the factory's resignation form and he/she will be resigned from 29 December 2018. He/she agreed with the new date (29 December) because he/she wanted to resign legally.

Verification will take place at the end of the year, to make sure the worker will have received all his/her due salaries and benefits.

The complainant confirmed that the factory paid all his/her dues. He/she received the social insurance book on 19 March 2019. The worker felt happy and lucky and said that, without FWF, he/she would not have been able to get a legal employment termination and receive his/her social and insurance book.

This complaint is resolved.

Kjus forwarded the complaint to factory management. Factory management indicated that, in the meantime, it had reached an agreement with the complainant with a third-party mediator and provided documentation.

FWF's complaints handler in Indonesia confirmed with the complainant that an agreement had been reached.

Although the individual case has been resolved, remediation with regards to the implementation of laws related to HR issues needs to take place as it remains unclear if the proper procedures are being followed.

For this reason, FWF expects Kjus to indicate to the factory that it needs to review its HR policies to make sure they are in line with legal requirements and thus also avoids (potentially unnecessary) time delays and mediation.

The complainant is satisfied with the resolution of the complaint by way of the agreement reached with a third-party mediator.

The case was resolved as an agreement was reached that both parties found acceptable.