Legally binding employment relationship Archives — Page 3 of 10 — Fair Wear Foundation Fair Wear Foundation

Turkey Complaint Hessnatur, Mini Rodini and Nudie Jeans April 2016 interim report

INTERMEDIARY REPORT OF A COMPLAINT IN TURKEY AT A FACTORY SUPPLYING HESSNATUR, MINI RODINI, AND NUDIE JEANS

The local helpline received a call on 5 April 2016 after a verification audit took place. The complainant, a worker currently employed at the factory, claimed that if a worker refuses to work on Sunday three times, he or she will be dismissed. Overtime is frequent, with ironing and packing departments especially often working until the morning during peak months. Also, in peak season, they worked seven days straight.
The worker stated that all of the workers are registered; however, they are generally registered one month after recruitment. This results in late registration for social security.

FWF informed Hessnatur, Mini Rodini and Nudie Jeans about the complaint. The members contacted the supplier to discuss the outcomes of the audit, the CAP and the complaints. The factory owner and management agreed that overtime is a problem, especially in peak season. The brands are in touch with the factory and they are discussing potential solutions. According to management, employees are usually registered for social security the day they start; however, there may be a few exceptions when documents are missing.

The factory owner and management agreed that the factory would provide an overview about the current situation and a plan with measures to improve the situation by the end of November. A verification audit is planned for Spring 2017.

Download

Share this on

Turkey Complaint Bierbaum-Proenen Jan. 2017

Final report of a complaint at a factory in Turkey supplying Bierbaum-Proenen

On January 21, 2017, FWF received a complaint from a worker who was dismissed by the factory management. The complainant claimed that (s)he was dismissed by the factory management. The complainant refused to sign a resignation letter and claims that the factory owed her/him 25 days outstanding payment and compensation.

FWF informed Bierbaum-Proenen about the case, who contacted its supplier and got immediate feedback from the factory management. Social security declarations, pay slips and time record card concerning the complainant’s for the last 3 months as well as written warnings, defense statement or any other document which was given/received during his working period were requested from the factory management.

The factory management provided a document showing that the complainant signed the receipt of the payments in March 2017. Documents proved that outstanding wages are paid and the complainant withdrew her/his complaint.

Download

Share this on

DRAFT Tunisia Complaint Bierbaum Proenen Feb. 2017

Final Report of a complaint at a factory in Tunisia supplying Bierbaum Proenen

On 28 February 2017, FWF received a complaint from a worker that is currently employed by the factory. The complainant claimed that the factory does not pay income taxes in accordance with the tax law. Three workers were asked by the Tunisian Tax Department of the Ministry of Finance to pay an additional 400 dinars over 2016.

FWF informed Bierbaum Proenen about the case who then contacted the supplier. Factory management confirmed that workers had approached them with this question. After Bierbaum Proenen had contacted factory management, a meeting was held between management and the Workers Council to discuss this issue. The FWF complaints handler and the FWF documents inspector contacted factory management to inform them about current obligations under Tunisian tax law. It was further suggested to find out more about whether the problem is due to tax calculation by the factory or the tax department.

Three workers complained because they needed a statement from the tax department about their annual income to obtain a loan. It is therefore highly likely that more workers will be affected. The FWF complaints handler requested a list of all the workers that could be affected.

After discussions between factory management, worker representation, the tax department of the Ministry of Finance and the accountant, it was concluded that taxes were not correctly calculated and paid. A training session with the accountant and the workers was organized. The accountant explained the new tax regulations to workers and management. Factory management agreed to ensure that taxes were correctly paid. It will monitor the situation.

Download

Share this on

Vietnam Complaint Jack Wolfskin, Schöffel Sportbekleidung March 2017

Initial Report of A Complaint at a Factory in Vietnam Supplying Jack Wolfskin, Schöffel Sportbekleidung GmbH

On 12 March 2017, Fair Wear Foundation received a complaint from an employee that was employed at the factory until January 2017. The complainant called the helpline to inform FWF that she resigned but did not receive her year-end bonus and social insurance book. FWF’s complaints handler advised the employee to first talk to her HR manager. On 29 March the employee called again and stated she had found a new job. She received her last salary for eight working days in January on the 10th of February by bank transfer. She did not receive the year-end bonus or her social insurance. She did receive her social insurance book but the HR officer informed her that she cannot receive the unemployment allowance from the social department but he did not explain why.

FWF decided that the case is admissible on 29 March 2017. The factory is an active supplier of Jack Wolfskin and Schöffel, members of FWF. The authenticity of the complaint is still pending investigation.

Download

Share this on

Tunisia Complaint Van Puijenbroek March 2017

Final report of a complaint at a factory in Tunisia supplying Van Puijenbroek

On 11 March 2017, Fair Wear Foundation received a complaint from a worker that is currently employed by the factory. The complainant claimed that the salary of workers was being paid late, which resulted in difficulties for workers to make ends meet. Workers refused to work on the Saturday morning after payment was overdue. The manager had explained to the workers that he was faced with cash flow problems. Furthermore, the worker complained about excessive overtime taking place in the finishing and packaging department. Although the complainant was not affected by the overtime, the worker did wish to report it.

FWF informed Van Puijenbroek about the case. Van Puijenbroek contacted factory management who confirmed the late payment, claiming that it was partially due to the fact that a large order of Van Puijenbroek was of insufficient quality. Van Puijenbroek did not pay the invoice until repairs were made. After the complaint and discussion with factory manager, Van Puijenbroek decided to immediately pay for the order. After payment of Van Puijenbroek, salaries were paid to the workers. Since the findings were already part of the audit findings, Van Puijenbroek will continue to work on improvements with the factory, especially concerning (payment of) overtime hours. The worker withdrew the complaint during the investigation for personal reasons.

Download

Share this on

India complaint DW-Shop July 2016

Final report of a complaint at a factory in India supplying DW-Shop

On 10 July 2016, Fair Wear Foundation (FWF) received a complaint from a worker formerly employed at the factory. The complainant stated that he took leave for one month on 11 February 2016, but did not return to the factory until 9 June 2016. The management had replaced him due to his long unreported absence. The worker accepted his dismissal and asked management for his full and final payment and the form necessary to collect social security (PF). The HR manager told him to come back in two days as they needed time to prepare the files. The worker returned several times to the factory, but was repeatedly told that it was not yet ready.

On 11 July, FWF decided that the complaint was admissible on the grounds of the following labour code standards: employment is freely chosen, no excessive working hours, and legally binding employment relationship. The worker then called the FWF complaint handler again with a different story, but the complaint handler had a feeling that the worker was being pressured to say this in the presence of factory management. In a subsequent call, the worker said he received payment and all he still wanted was the signed form from management needed to collect social security payments (PF). The complaints handler tried to call him several times without success.

FWF is unable to draw a final conclusion, whether the worker received the full payment and relevant forms to claim social security or not, and has decided to close the case since the worker is not available for follow-up. FWF’s impression is that it is likely that the worker was asked to sign a blank paper in exchange for a lesser amount.

In terms of remediation, DW Shop must explain to the supplier that transparency and the willingness to improve are crucial parts of their business relationship and clarify regulations surrounding dismissal and wage slips.

Download

Share this on

Vietnam Complaint Outdoor & Sports Company Nov. 2016 Final Report

Final REPORT OF A COMPLAINT AT A FACTORY IN VIETNAM SUPPLYING OUTDOOR & SPORTS COMPANY

On 4 November 2016, a worker made a complaint that she had been working at the factory for about a year without a signed labour contract, or an employee card or health insurance card. The complainant claimed having been fired on 4 November, without advance notice, and that on 5 November the worker had been told that the factory would pay the salary for October, if she agreed to work 3 days without payment.

FWF decided this complaint was admissible on 5 November 2016 and informed OSC about the case. FWFs complaint handler obtained evidence that the worker was in fact employed by the factory and then called one of the complainant’s coworkers who claimed she was under the impression the plaintiff was fired because she was absent for two days without permission (29 & 31 Oct). On 14 November, another employee from the same company called FWF’s complaints handler, stating she would like to receive her social insurance book.

FWF scheduled an audit at this supplier on behalf of Outdoor & Sports. The investigation revealed that the worker was working without a labour contract, and that the dismissal did not comply with the legal procedure. The factory paid the complainant her October salary and informed her that the November salary would be paid on 25 December. The factory did not inform the other complainant of when she can get her insurance book, since it is late in paying social insurance.

With regard to remediation, FWF has made recommendations regarding proper attention to labour contracts, the payment of insurances, and the compensation of due wages within seven days of the termination of a labour contract. The factory must pay severance allowance to the two complainants for the working time served when employees did not pay unemployment insurance contributions as prescribed by law. The labour discipline (such as dismissal) or termination should be in compliance with local laws requirements. A long-term recommendation is to investigate ways of reducing worker turnover through better job security.

On 2nd of January 2017, FWFs complaint handler confirmed both employees were paid their due salaries of November and December 2016. However, social insurance and severance compensation were not paid. Remediation and follow up by OSC will be verified during next Brand Performance Check. On 22 March 2017 FWF received news that the complainant was reinstated by the company and is working in the finishing department.

Download

Share this on

Roundtable Turkey: integrating Syrian refugee workers

Garment brands, factories, unions, the Turkish government, international organisations and other stakeholders gathered in Istanbul on Monday to discuss challenges and possible solutions for integrating Syrian refugee workers. The roundtable was organised by Fair Wear Foundation.

“The turnout was quite high”, said FWF’s Andriëtte Nommensen, who organised the meeting. “The participants covered the whole spectrum that is needed to address the issue of Syrian refugees in Turkish garment factories.”

Tackling child labour
In his opening speech, Dutch ambassador Cornelis van Rij praised Turkey for taking up so many refugees, and FWF for actively trying to tackle child labour in the country. He said he hoped that the organisations that were present would be able to work together on possible solutions.

The meeting resulted in an outline of next steps that the Dutch and Turkish governments, brands and factories, and civil society organisations can take. Possible solutions mentioned include improved labour inspections and an easier way to get work permits for Syrian refugees.

Remediation
The participants also emphasised the role of European brands. They can take responsibility by getting better insight into their supply chains, including subcontractors, put less pressure on the price and play an active role in remediation when children are found.

Fair Wear Foundation requires its members to ensure that all suppliers have a policy in place for registering Syrian refugee workers; see the FWF guidance for members sourcing in Turkey.

Read more about the difficulties of eradicating child labour in garment supply chains and possible solutions in this FWF article.
If you want to learn more about the Turkish garment industry, read FWF’s latest Turkey country study.

Share this on

Vietnam version of FWF Formula now online

FWF is pleased to announce that the Vietnamese version of the Fair Wear Formula film is now available online

(more…)

Share this on

Myanmar Complaint Jack Wolfskin Salewa November 2016

Final report of complaint involving Jack Wolfskin and Salewa in Myanmar

In September 2015, the Worker Rights Consortium contacted Jack Wolfskin to report that a factory where the company has production had, without notice, dismissed 204 of its 1332 workers, including the union leadership, at the beginning of the month and without previous notice. This was derived from a report by CTUM, the Confederation of Trade Unions of Myanmar.

Jack Wolfskin and Salewa & Dynafit immediately contacted the supplier and asked for a response. Factory Management indicated that, in order to keep the factory in business, rather than shutting down altogether and having to lay off all 1,400 workers, the factory has no alternative than down-sizing the factory by dismissing 203 poor-performance workers. This was done after consultation with several local agencies, and severance compensation was provided.

Most of the dismissed workers (161) accepted to collect severance pay. Only 43 workers did not agree to receive this compensation as they believed that it was not fair to them and they wanted to be reinstated.

The case was brought to the Labor Department and Arbitration Court to judge, and the Arbitration Court ruled on the matter. Nevertheless 24 workers still appealed the dismissal and wanted to be reinstated. The factory refused citing reputation reasons.

In April 2016, after a call facilitated by FWF, the 24 workers were allowed to return to work at the factory, under a number of conditions.

CTUM confirmed, on behalf of the factory union, that the case of the 24 workers was resolved satisfactorily. CTUM, however, maintained that it is still seeking a solution for the second group of 104 workers that were dismissed. Again, for the sake of clarify, this will be reported upon in a separate complaints report.

Download