The visit of the factory was organised by FWF on 3 November 2018.
The objectives of the visit were:
- To investigate whether the payment of the overtime hours was respected and improved in the last three months (after official non-compliance was found in the factory by the National Labour Inspectorate)
The investigation included a field visit where the complaint was inspected through:
a) Interview with Management regarding the actual complaint;
b) Document inspection/wage lists and supporting documents related to the wages
c) On-site interviews with the factory's trade union
Prior to the visit, the local representative of HAVEP was contacted by FWF's complaints handler and the visit to the factory was announced.

The change in the number of working hours for the last two months is confirmed by the documents and workers representative. The policy on working hours was enclosed to confirm. Official working hours in the factory are from Monday to Saturday from 07:00-14:00, or a total of 42 working hours per week. According to the legal requirements, the regular working week is 40 hours. Every hour above this is considered as overtime.
Overtime working hours in the factory are reduced from 8 to 2 overtime working hours per week. Although the overtime working hours are decreased, when they occur (2 hours every Saturday) they are not recorded in the payslips and it is not clear how they are paid. In this regard, the factory has adopted a new policy for the reorganisation of the working hours for the workers, prescribing that overtime hours per week (2 OT per week) will be compensated in one day off per month. The policy was enclosed for consideration and it is in line with article 124 of the Labour Law. Although the policy was published on the information board, it was not clearly communicated to workers and did not specify by when the compensatory days should be used.

Recommended remediation steps for the confirmed findings:
• The policy on working hours needs to be redrafted and aligned with the legal requirements (regular working hours cannot be over 40 hours per week);
• The factory needs to start reporting on the number of exact working hours per month in the payslips as handed out to workers;
• The policy on compensation for working hours needs to specify by when the compensatory days should be used; this needs to be clearly communicated and explained to workers as soon as the policy is effective;
• Overtime working hours need to be clearly administrated: when they occur and when they are used as compensatory hours. The factory administration needs to design a system and follow up on how the use of OT will be communicated in writing to the workers and in the related wage documents (e.g. payslips)

The investigation report was shared with the FWF member brand who followed up on remediation. The recommended actions were undertaken on 13 March 2019. HAVEP provided the following status update:
- The factory redrafted its policy on working hours as per 28 January 2019. The official working hours are now 07:00-15:00 from Monday to Friday. This means that there is no more ‘regular’ work on Saturdays.
- If workers work on Saturday (exceptional cases) this is registered as overtime and paid.
- The factory changed its salary administration software.
- The exact working hours per month are reported on payslips (evidence is available and checked by HAVEP)
- Overtime hours are administrated and paid (evidence is available and checked by HAVEP)
Supporting documents were sent to HAVEP and the situation will be verified by FWF during the verification audit scheduled for May 2019.

The FWF member brand Schoffel, immediately contacted the factory management and asked for a response. On 29 August 2018, the brand shared the response from the management with FWF. Factory management stated the following:

1. Management had an open meeting with all supervisors in the sewing department (both locals and expats). The statement from all the supervisors was that there were no complaints whatsoever received from workers regarding lack of either button machines or snap button machines. The supervisors were reminded during this meeting that it is imperative that they report any complaints from workers to the HR Department. Proof of the meeting was shared.

2. Factory management indicated that it looked into the injury records of the month and previous month, and found no reports of injuries by button machines or snap button machines.

3. Management also checked with its Industrial Engineer to see whether there was a bottleneck in production for either the button machines or snap button machines, and found that this was not the case. To the contrary, there were idle machines and no bottlenecks in production regarding button machines.

4. Furthermore, management asked their newly elected worker representatives about the problem. They all said that no reports had been made about injuries caused by button machines.

Finally, management indicated that it respected the privacy and anonymity of all complainants should they choose to remain anonymous. However, the factory simply can not make further capital purchases based on an anonymous claim with no backing or proof. The management added that it would take immediate action if there was any danger present due to lack of machinery, or even if there was a negative effect on efficiency based on machinery. However, no evidence was gathered that confirmed such problems.

FWF repeatedly tried to follow up with the complainant in order verify the statements made by the factory management. The complainant, however, did not pick up the phone and later FWF found that the number was no longer in use. As there were no more reports of accidents, and based on the feedback from the factory management, FWF considered the complaint as not grounded. The brand and FWF will continue to monitor the situation.

FWF member brand sourcing at the facility, Takko, contacted the factory management.

Factory management responded that they had already paid the compensation concerned on 18 March 2019. Proof of payment was also shared with the brand, which, in turn, shared it with FWF. FWF advised the brand to work with the factory to bring down the amount of overtime, and especially ensure that workers enjoy one day's rest for every seven. Overtime or work on Sunday could always happen in exceptional cases, but working until 1:00 or on Sundays on a structural basis is really not acceptable and must be avoided. This is mostly a problem of production planning.

FWF followed up with the complainant, who confirmed that the compensation had in fact been paid.

This complaint is resolved.

After discussing the claims further with the complainant and Odlo, FWF decided to conduct an on-site investigation on 30 May 2017. As part of the investigation process, documents were consulted and worker and management interviews were carried out.
The consulted documents include: the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) signed at unit level, including its annexes; the minutes concluding the social dialogue carried out at unit level in 2017; dossiers of the personnel hired/who left the company in 2017 (including job descriptions); the payslips dated from January 2017 until May 2017; the records of overtime in 2017; the medical leaves recorded in 2017; and some internal production reports. The audit reports and the training reports issued between 2013 and May 2017 formed the document baseline about the working conditions in the company. The people interviewed inside the factory were: the head of production, the human resources director, and nine elected workers’ representatives. In addition, FWF interviewed several former employees outside the factory.

Findings:
1. Extra tasks are added to the workload of experienced employees
without extra time allocation or a wage increase. This causes extra
pressure for the skilled workers. Skilled workers are leaving the company because of the increased work pressure.
Increased pressure at work was noticed starting in 2014, when the matrix
for polyvalence skills was introduced in the company as a HR tool. At the
same time, a technician from another factory started to visit the factory
on a regular basis in order to enhance the internal production process.
During the course of the investigation, documents such as the overtime
register were consulted, and worker representatives were interviewed.
According to the worker representatives, the workloads of the most
experienced workers increased after 2014 and have continued to increase.

Conclusions:
A. There were confirmed legal violations regarding the normal working
hours, records of performed overtime (OT) and the weekly rest time. Overtime
records did polyvalence not match statements of worker representatives and factory management. The management team recognised there is a common
practice to work until the workloads are finalised in good quality conditions.
That means workers must work hours after the normal working hours.
OT hours should be paid 175% between Monday-Friday and double on Saturdays.
Reference regarding overtime: Art. 119, 120-125, 137-138 from the Labour Code
B. Increased work pressure was confirmed by the interviews with worker
representatives and the consulted documents, not only for the most
skilled workers. The new CBA contains more restrictive rules about the
personal needs and interests of workers.

Findings:
2. Management is hiring less qualified, lower-paid staff to replace skilled workers who left the company. The training of these new workers is again added to the workload of experienced staff.
Some work processes were restructured – a situation that relates to
dismissal of workers after the modification of the organisational chart.
In the production orders planned for 2017, there is a noticeable gap in
the number of production personnel required to produce the allocated
orders from month to month.
The management team believes workloads did not increase; instead
more responsibility was given to different categories of production
personnel. The managers declared that they would like to hire only
qualified employees in order to replace the missing staff, but that is not
possible, because there are not enough qualified workers available in the country.

Conclusions:
A. The restructuring of the company was not discussed with worker
representatives during meetings.
B. The company does not retain any formal documentation/plan to describe the steps to be implemented in order to reach 250 active employees by the end of 2017. The job descriptions remained unaltered.
C. There were confirmed legal violations regarding communication and
consultation with the employees and regarding the occupational health
status.

Findings:
3. Romanian middle managers hire family members/friends without
proper qualifications to help carry out the related tasks. This was not confirmed by the studied documents and the interviews with the workers.
4. Workers do not dare to register for medical leave as management
discouraged workers from doing so. Certain workers whom the
management considers ‘privileged’ are exempt from this practice.
The rest leave of the employees is not planned according to legislation,
which imposes collective and individual negotiations, but is set by the
employer in general terms and in certain periods considered to be low
seasons.
The rest leave is decided only by the management, without consultations
with the worker representation. In 2017, the unpaid leave was reduced to maximum five days, with prior information to management 30 days before the unpaid leave application. The only manner for workers to have some personal time for themselves remained the medical leave. The new appendix of the CBA stated that the annual bonus shall be applied only to workers who did not “benefit” of medical leave of certain kind.
Records are kept of the medical leaves. An average of 7% of medical leaves from the total number of employees occurs on monthly basis. Adding the suspended contracts due to maternity leaves, it was observed that a mode of 15% from the total workforce is not active in the company each month.

Conclusions:
A. Some of the normal employees’ needs that are protected by the labour legislation are not being respected, but discouraged by internal rules. Internal rules are in conflict with the right to negotiate for the rest leave, the right to be granted 48 consecutive hours as weekly rest, the right to have unpaid leave within reasonable terms.

Findings:
5. Verbal abuse occurs on a daily basis; workers are threatened that
they will lose their job if they do not fulfil tasks or if they question the practices outlined in this complaint.
All interviewed employees spoke openly about the essential problems in
their company. There are two key problems from the workers’ point of
view: to have open, transparent, respectful communication and to have
their workloads recalculated.
Worker representatives confirmed workers are threatened they would
lose their jobs if they do not fulfil the workloads.
The managers listened to the accusation and responded that they do not understand why workers are afraid to talk directly to the management. The managers explained that workloads were not increased, but individualised this year. They added that, overall, on each production line the workloads remained the same.

Conclusions:
A. Stress is confirmed and internal communication is not functional. There is a major risk of demotivation and progressive loss of productivity if the current approach is maintained.
B. The standard related to health and safe working conditions is not being respected and that may lead to serious health problems and increase risk of work accidents.

FWF recommends Odlo to create an overview of the findings and discuss measures with factory management to improve the situation based on timelines.

FWF recommends the following remediation points:
1. The administrator should consult with the worker representation about each action to be taken regarding this complaint and agree on the monitoring steps for its
remediation. On request, FWF can mediate the meeting.
Art. 142 paragraph 1) from the Law regarding the social dialogue no. 62/2011,
republished

2. The administrator to elaborate the intended organisational chart, with a time frame for implementing the restructuring measures. Workers’
representatives have to be informed about the future objectives of the company. (collective dismissal)
Art. 69 and Art. 40, para 2), letters a)-e) from the Labour Code

3. The administrator should organise a meeting with all employees and explain the present and the future situation of their workplace.
Law no. 467/2006 regarding the general framework for communication and consultation with the employees.

4. The factory must set up a functional internal communication and grievance mechanisms and communicate the procedures to workers, including how complaints will be addressed. This could include setting up more complaint boxes and locate these in the eating area and in the locker room in order to encourage employees to open up about their fears, workloads, etc. under the protection of anonymity and confidentiality.
(workloads) Art. 132 from the Labour Code

5. The administrator to consider organising an exchange of experiences with the homologue factory in Portugal for some interested employees in order to compare the workloads; an alternative solution would be to find an independent technologist who may recalculate workloads in the company.

A follow-up visit at the factory was initiated by FWF to get an overview of the current situation. The objective of this visit was to prioritise and to structure recommendations/requirements for the applicable labour standards.
Findings:
The interviews held with the employees revealed the fact that starting May 2018 they observed a significant improvement of their working conditions at ODLO Romania, such as:
• There is a collective bargaining agreement signed at unit level in May 2018 in force until May 2020;
• The meeting for social dialogue is organised on a monthly base;
• In September 2018, workers' representatives were informed by the factory management about paying compensations for those who were affected by the repairs practice. The information about compensations has been shared to all employees by the workers' representatives.
Based on the documents checked in the last three months it is observed that the wages for months August, September and October 2018 are increased by 3%.
FWF could verify that a dialogue with the worker representation took place and workers were informed on the payments that would be done. FWF (and the brand) did however observe that the understanding of its role and skills of the worker representation might need to be improved to ensure a good dialogue.

The issues that still need to be addressed are related to the clear system of setting the workloads for specific operations and product type and more consistent workers involvement in decision making processes related to the calculations of benefits and the compensation of the overtime hours performed.

More detailed report is shared with all the actors involved, as the conclusions are too many to include in the public report. However, the main recommendations/requirements are summarised below:
- To involve worker representatives in drafting the solutions and decision making process regarding the clear monitoring system in a more consistent manner, rather than only informing them about the decisions. The monitoring system is recommended to be drafted by Odlo International and should include specific activities and dates (besides auditing, Workplace Education Programme trainings and complaints remediation). This can be communicated on the next workers representative meeting.
- Factory management to initiate an internal checking on how workers could be involved in setting the individual workloads per operation and product type.
- The factory management to create an overview of all the monetary and non-monetary benefits as a company wage policy, including the methods on how productivity bonuses are calculated and also the forecast for implementation of the Living Wage Project developed by ODLO International. The wage policy should be regularly communicated with the workers on more consistent manner.

A verification audit is planned for May 2019 to verify the improvement status and close the complaint.

FWF brands sourcing at the factory, Schoffel and Jack Wolfskin, contacted the factory management and asked for a response.

On 9 January 2019, the factory management shared a response in the form of a Corrective Action Plan (CAP). The management explained that in December 2018 there were many shipments with huge quantity. After an internal final inspection, the management was unsatisfied with the quality and had to open the packed garments for cleaning and re-trimming until 27 December 2019. Nonetheless, the factory had decided that no Sunday work would take place on 23 December 2018.

The management also offered some further explanation about the reason why the factory had to intensify production with overtime in 2018. According to the factory management, an important contributing factor was a fire that happened in the previous production location owned by the same company. The factory was the main production location until May 2018, after which the production was relocated to the new facility. Because of a fire at the previous facility, a lot of finished goods were lost, which had to be remade in order to keep credibility with the customers. As a result, the factory experienced a backlog which caused an additional burden until November/ December 2018. After that, the production began to stabilise and the situation went back to normal in 2019.

The management, furthermore, committed that it will not have any overtime that would exceed the legal requirements. It finally confirmed that it will pay the correct overtime fee and will grant a compensatory day off as required by law.

Considering the response from the factory management, FWF advised that:
1. The factory should announce the Sunday OT in advance at the earliest convenience so that the workers can decide and manage their logistics properly.
2. The factory should post OT permits weekly as per law and for the sake of transparency with the workers.
3. The factory must provide leave and benefits according to the law and inform the workers on the implementation.

FWF member brands conveyed a clear message to the factory management indicating that there may always be situations with higher pressure due to delivery deadlines which may require work on a Sunday. However, in such cases, the management should ensure that workers who have performed Sunday work would get the chance to get the following Monday off to recover. Also, OT may happen from time to time but workers must always have the chance to freely decide if they want to do OT. It is not acceptable that workers have the impression that it is bad for them to reject OT.

The brands also made it clear that OT until 22:00 is definitely too late, since it means that there are about five OT hours on that day. This circumstances lead to the impression that there is poor production planning in the factory.

Nonetheless, the brands expressed appreciation for the described corrective actions of the factory, noting that the brands will closely follow up on them. Concretely, the brands requested the factory to share for the next three months working time documents including all OT and Sunday work. In parallel, the brand will stay in touch with various workers via FWF to check if the situation for the workers has improved.

The brands, furthermore, indicated that it would be appreciated if the factory management would manage from now on to avoid overtime or Sunday work, as much as it can, or at least announce it properly some days in advance with the clear statement that this additional working time is voluntary and workers can freely decide whether they want to work or not.

The brands will monitor the working times of the factory closely to see if things really change and they expect full cooperation from the factory management. The factory was invited to signal any difficulties with certain delivery dates and work together to find joint solutions when needed.

This complaint is closed.

FWF shared the complaint with the brand and the brand shared the details with the factory seeking their response.

Complaints handler received a call on March 21st 2019 from the complainant saying that he has contacted the HR Manager for his dues [ Bonus plus 5 days salary] and he was informed that he would not be provided with the same since he has made a complaint with FWF and he can approach whomsoever he wants to.

There has been no response from the brand/factory as yet. The complainant is making continuous calls to check if there is any progress.

Management has replied that the complainant had collected the salary for the month of December which was disbursed in the 1st week of January 2019 which was credited to his/her account. He/she did not turn up for the 5 days as per his/her statement. It was mentioned that a worker has to give a formal written leave request before taking leave but in this case the complainant did not inform the management and directly went to his/her home town. It was added that the complainant made a call to the factory only in the first week of March asking for his/her bonus. As per their company policy, the complainant should inform them with proper notice and the leave request has to be signed and approved by the production manager, HR Manager and MD.

Also management claimed that he did not tell anything about his father health when he had called them and took this is clear case of absconding and regret that they cannot release his bonus. They said that the below clause is mentioned in the appointment letter and the complainant has signed it.
“Bonus will not be applicable if the notice period is not served and the receiving documents will not be provided or won’t cover any additional benefits in your employment service. Pending salary will not be given.The notice period is 30 days from either side. Even if Butler has to terminate we give them 30 days notice period"

According to FWF, the complaint at this point is word against word as it is difficult to ascertain the truth of the statement on whether the complainant has taken permission from the management before leave or not.
FWF has sought an expert's advice to check the complainant's right to bonus and to check if management's stand on the bonus pay is legal.

FWF's complaint handler has checked with the complainant to clarify if he/she has taken permission before leaving the factory. It was informed that since he/she received an urgent call he/she had to leave but he/she had called the HR Manager on this and received permission.

HR has assured that the factory would settle the amount once he/she is back. As the illness of the complainant's father prolonged, he/she could not return as early as expected. When he/she returned, the factory management did not allow him/her to re-join and also did not give his/her bonus. Hence he/she is working at a nearby company now.

His/her claim is that now the factory management says that as he/she did not join factory for work, they would not settle the bonus. He/she stated that as per company norms those who worked about a year are eligible to receive the bonus.

Also the factory management is threatening that as he/she complained against the factory, they will not settle his/her bonus.
As per the complainant, the management claimed that If they settle his/her bonus, then everyone will start using the helpline.

Our legal expert has asserted that the complainant is entitled to bonus payment.

Though management has cited a clause from the appointment letter which dis-entitles the worker from getting bonus, it is not legal though the worker has signed the appointment letter.

However, the management cannot use is stronger bargaining power to take away from the worker what has been provided to him/ her under the law.

Section 9 of Payment of Bonus Act says that an employee shall be disqualified from receiving bonus under this Act, if he/she is dismissed from service for -- (a) fraud; or (b) riotous or violent behaviour while on the premises of the establishment; or (c) theft, misappropriation or sabotage of any property of the establishment.

In our given case, Section 9 clearly does not apply and the management cannot add its own disqualifications and hence the complainant is entitled to the bonus.

Since the factory is obliged to pay the bonus to the complainant , FWF recommends the factory to pay the bonus to the worker at the earliest.

FWF brands sourcing at the factory, Schoffel and Jack Wolfskin, contacted the factory management and asked for a response.

On 9 January 2019, the factory management shared their response in the form of a Corrective Action Plan (CAP). The CAP indicated that an investigation was conducted, which established that the manager of line 6 to 7 tends to give strong warnings with emotional expressions to workers who make a mistake during production. The factory management board has agreed entirely that such behaviour is wrong.

Management also indicated that it will set up official training, and train the manager group in charge of production lines that it must point out mistakes to workers and give training in order to improve. Also, managers were advised that after three efforts to improve, it should give a written warning instead of making insulting remarks.

Management, furthermore, indicated that "if rude and violent expressions continue despite company rule and training, the manager's job will be changed, e.g. to sample maker. The factory also indicated that it will take all possible action to protect a stable and comfortable mindset of workers.

FWF called the complainant and found that, despite the management's earlier statements, the problem still remains as the accused supervisor reported physically harassed another worker (line helper) from line 6. According to the complainant, the supervisor cursed at the worker and knocked on his/her head harshly for three times. Due to the pain, the worker could not work anymore and try to go back home but the security guards did not let him/her leave. Finally, they ended up at the HR office. The victim was moved to another department while no action was taken against the abuser.

FWF member brands approached the factory management again with information about the second complaint about the supervisor. The new information was added to the CAP and the brand conveyed strongly that the factory management must take this very seriously.

In the meanwhile, one of the technicians of the brands was at the factory from 15 to 17 January 2019 and (secretly) tried to check the situation in the factory. He reported, that he did not see any of the supervisors with a rude or inappropriate behaviour towards workers. He was especially asked to observe line 6 and 7 and he could not observe any bad behaviour.

Factory management responded to the brands and indicated that, according to the accused supervisor's statement, there was a difference of opinion on the day of the incident, and there was a slight physical act of touching the shoulder, but it was exaggerated. Factory management denied that the security guard had stopped the worker from going home.

Factory management indicated that on the day of the incident, the Korean factory manager met the victims and firstly moved him/her to another department, but he/she had now left the company. The management noted that it will invite him/her in order to listen to both sides of the story and to secure the exact circumstances and statements. Moreover, since the victim did not report the incident to FWF by himself/herself, but it was reported by a worker that witnessed it, the factory management intends to listen to other witnesses on line 6 and try to verify it accurately.

Factory management furthermore stated that it will consider warnings, reductions, suspension, and layoff based on its own investigation. Finally, it committed to continuously educate managers about the problems of verbal and physical violence and recommends that they take precautions in case of work problems.

Following further discussions and follow-up by the brands, another, more detailed, response was shared by the factory management about the complaint. Factory management confirmed that the supervisor scolded the helper due to his/her repeated mistakes after three trainings. According to the supervisor, the reason was careless work.

Factory management indicated that the worker tried to go back home without informing the manager. As he/she did not have a gate pass, the security guard informed the HR office, as per factory procedure.
The HR manager subsequently went to gate in order to bring him/her to the office to check the reason for leaving without permission.

The worker, who was crying at the HR office, indicated that his/her head was knocked by the supervisor because of his/her mistake. The production manager then called the supervisor to talk. The supervisor apologised about scolding the worker but did not admit the hitting.

Management also indicated that it conducted an official survey among six workers who were positioned near the drawing table and none of them indicated that they saw the hitting occuring. The management furthermore noted that it also conducted a secret anonymous survey among 15 randomly selected workers. Among these 15, 4 workers witnessed the incident. According to the management, all four witnesses denied seeing any hitting and abuse.

Based on this internal investigation, the conclusion of the management was that:
1. The supervisor corrected and trained the new worker drawing work three times.
2. The supervisor found repeated mistakes and scolded him/her in front of all workers.
3. The worker felt insulted and shamed because the supervisor talked to him/her angrily.
4. No finding on hitting or touching except for the worker's statement.

Factory management indicated that the supervisor violated the company rule on the warning procedure, according to which workers must be given warning letters and not being attacked verbally. As a penalty, it was decided to suspend the supervisor for a week with a warning as she did not follow the official procedure. Factory management, furthermore, announced the action taken and provided information about the grievance system with a notice on the bulletin board so that all workers were aware about the case and system.

FWF was not able to speak to the complainant (who resigned from the factory), but did manage to talked to two other workers. They both confirmed that the supervisor did knock the worker on the head and many of the workers know about it.

FWF notes that it is not surprising that the factory's internal investigation did not confirm the same. Since the investigation was done by the factory management team, it is likely that workers would not trust fully that their anonymity would be ensured. In such case, one cannot expect reliable answers. Workers usually would not get involved in this kind of issues, especially when their own supervisor is accused.

Based on the statement of the complainant, and those of two other workers that confirmed the incident, FWF concluded that there is good reason to believe that the complaint is grounded. It must be noted, however, that the factory management came to a different conclusion following their own investigation.

Factory management admitted that the supervisor scolded the worker, for which he/she apologised, but did not admit that the hitting occurred. With the accused and factory management denying the incident, it will remain difficult to prove fully that it happened. Nonetheless, it was also noted that the factory management decided to suspend the supervisor for a week and announced the action taken and provided information on the grievance system with a notice on the bulletin board so that all workers could know.

Finally, FWF has taken note that the factory is arranging training to make sure supervisor do not scold, or insult workers, and do not react with a lot of emotion when workers make a mistake.

FWF is hopeful that with all the attention that this incident generated and the training the factory arranged, this type of behaviour will not happen again. This will be monitored and followed up by the brands. If FWF receives another complaint about the supervisor to the complaints helpline, more serious disciplinary action towards the supervisor would be taken.

Continental Clothing reached out to the factory and asked to provide their comments on the complaint. At the end of July, the factory replied that, after checking, they found that they never deducted any of money from workers if they took more than three days of holiday. The factory would check with workers if some of them had misunderstood the factory's regulations.

FWF tried several times to contact the complainant again but he/she did not reply. Since the FWF audit team had planned to audit the factory in mid-September, FWF requested the audit team to pay special attention to the any problems related social security in the factory.

According to the FWF audit team, when workers asked for personal leave for three days in a month, on top of their personal share, the factory also charged them 100% of the company's share for social security. When they asked for sick/marriage/mourning leave for more than 15 days in a month, 50% of the company share for social security was required to be paid by workers. Management also confirmed they implemented the above policy to ensure the smooth flow of their computerised hanger sewing line, since if one worker asked for leave, the flow of the sewing line would be affected. This is a violation of the law.

FWF requested the factory management to pay back the company's share of the social security to all workers who paid it in 2018.

The factory said they discontinued this policy and reimbursed the nine workers who had been affected and provided their signatures to confirm that the company's share of social security from January 2017 to December 2018 had been repaid.

FWF could not reach the complainant again to verify whether the payments were received.

This case has been closed. Nevertheless, FWF highly recommends Continental Clothing to work together with the factory, monitor and take further action, if necessary, on the problem of illegal deductions from salaries for social security.

As the complainant wanted to remain anonymous, FWF and Vaude decided that factory management should be encouraged to handle this case delicately without harshly blaming the individual Chinese supervisor. One should consider that the Chinese supervisor is being strict and inflexible towards workers as he/she is a very hardworking employee himself/herself. It was thus suggested to the factory management to give him/her constructive feedback as a reflection from the workers rather than a personal complaint, and take this as an opportunity to train him/her and other supervisors on good supervisory skills.

On this basis, Vaude contacted the factory management and suggested to them that they should not confront the supervisor (which is easy to identify) directly, but instead make a general announcement on how to treat the workers and also that this kind of behaviour as described in the complaint is not acceptable.

As a result, the factory management held a meeting on 9 January with all Chinese supervisors where the message was conveyed that supervisors should always keep a calm attitude when workers make a mistake or disobey the regulation or plan. Managers also have to learn how to respect workers. It will promote harmony between workers and managers. Abuse or shout will not improve the bad situation.

In addition, on 12 January the factory management had a meeting with SMART with the intention to participate in the communications and dialogue programme to strengthen the internal communication and also the internal complaints mechanism.

FWF repeatedly tried to follow-up with the complainant but the number was no longer in use. It was therefore decided to close the complaint. FWF and Vaude will continue to monitor the situation and support the factory to improve internal communication between workers and management, e.g. through the SMART programme or WEP Communications. This complaint is closed.

On 27 February 2017, FWF informed Continental Clothing about the case. In August, the brand informed FWF that factory management responded by referring to their practice of refunding 3 RMB/day to workers for social security. However, the corresponding documentation that was sent to the brand dealt with the annual bonus.
FWF also asked the complainant to provide a pay slip that showed workers were obliged by the factory to pay an amount of 380 RMB per month. The complainant provided a pay slip that proved that workers paid 380 RMB per month towards social security.
According to local legislation, the personal share of the pension is 8% of the wage, which is 230.2 RMB (8%*2878 RMB/month). The personal share of medical insurance is 2%, which is 57.6 RMB (2%*2878 RMB/month). In total, this is 287.8 RMB per month to be paid by workers. This is also the amount that workers had to pay in 2016.
Since May 2017, the personal share per month has been 306.8 RMB. Calculation: 3068*(8%+2%).
The complainant was not aware of the refund of 3 RMB/day. Furthermore, workers receive their annual bonus irrespective of whether they buy social security or not.

According to the Chinese Labour Law and the FWF CoLP, no illegal deductions should be made from workers’ wages.
The workers’ share for pension and medical insurance was 287.8 RMB per month and became 306.8 RMB per month in May 2017.
Before May 2017, the factory was deducting an extra 92.20 RMB per month per worker and an extra 73.2 RMB since May 2017.

Since October 2017, the correct amount of 306 RMB has been deducted from workers’ wages. The complainant informed FWF complaints handler that no back-pay had yet been received.

Continental Clothing was informed by factory management that the illegal 2017 deductions had been fully repaid to workers as a bonus for Chinese New Year. No illegal deductions have been made since January 2018.

As the complainant stopped using his/her phone number, FWF could not check the truthfulness of the factory's statement. FWF advised the member brand to ask the factory for proof, such as bank transfers confirming that deductions had been repaid.

The factory sent the relevant documentation to Continental Clothing. This proved that they had repaid all workers for the extra social security deductions between January and July 2017. However, FWF could not check whether these amounts were actually received by all workers. Therefore, FWF asked Continental Clothing to request proof of bank transfers to each worker.

The factory provided the bank transfers to each worker as requested by Continental Clothing. This complaint is resolved.