Final report of complaint in China at factory supplying Odd Molly – January 2016
On 2 December 2015 a complainant contacted the FWF complaints handler after being informed on 26 November that she had been laid off, and that her last working day would be 30 November 2015.
The member contacted the supplier, who assured that the situation was a misunderstanding. According to the factory, the complainant was not laid off. Further, she was offered alternatives after all the work was finished. She could receive 80% of her wage and being able to go home early for Chinese New Year, but with the opportunity to go back. Or she could continue to work but in a different department. The complainant denied this.
The complainant used a public phone to file her complaint. She promised the complaints handler to get in touch if further assistance was needed. FWF did not receive another call, so the complaint has been closed.
Download
final REPORT COMPLAINT IN Indonesia AT FACTORY SUPPLYING jack wolfskin
FWF received a complaint 16th November 2015. The complainant union stated that because of the bankruptcy of the factory, the workers have not received their due wages and any of the severance payments and fringe benefits still owed to them according to Indonesia law. The factory was an active supplier to FWF member Jack Wolfskin.
FWF concluded that the claim of the union is justified. The workers’ claim is supported by the Ministry of Labor and the curator. It looks extremely unlikely that workers receive payment of funds owed to them through pursuing their claim through the bankruptcy process.
FWF looked into the sourcing and business practices of FWF member Jack Wolfskin. FWF concludes that Jack Wolfskin meets the requirements of FWF. It has taken its responsibility to conduct business with the supplier concerned in a responsible way, according to FWF standards and expectations. It has monitored labour conditions at the factory and subsequently motivated the supplier to improve the labour conditions at the factory. FWF cannot find reason to believe that its sourcing practices may have caused or contributed to the bankruptcy. This doesn’t mean however that there is no responsibility. FWF has been able to confirm that Jack Wolfskin tried to mitigate the harm of the bankruptcy to the workers.
Even though FWF does not have a basis to require a specific amount to be contributed by Jack Wolfskin, and there is also no legal obligation for Jack Wolfskin to pay outstanding wages and other outstanding payments to workers, in the understanding that there is a responsibility, Jack Wolfskin is willing, on a voluntary basis, to support the former workers of the factory in Cikupa, Tangerang, with a financial payment. This payment was distributed to the employees through the collaboration of several parties, which FWF can confirm based on its own involvement. The workers were pleased by the compensation, but also felt it was small in comparison to the amount owed to them by the factory.
Download
A complainant was absent for two days, allegedly without giving notice. Upon return to his work he was informed about a management decision to fire him. He received a payment that was lower than his expected salary, and he did not receive a bonus and other benefits he felt entitled to. The administrative officer alleges there is no such a system in place.
FInal REPORT COMPLAINT IN China AT FACTORY SUPPLYING Acne Studios
The complainant claimed that on 27 November 2015 she received a position transfer notice that she would be transferred to the mending section. She did not want to accept the transfer because the payments in that section are by piece rate. Also, moving would mean that she would receive less money than in her ucrrent section because of the lack of work. According to the complainant, as of 1 December she was not allowed to punch her time card to record working hours in her original section, and was told by management that she would only be able to log her working hours if she agreed to move.
On 11 December, 2015, the complaints handler asked the complainant whether she wanted to make it an official complaint. On 19 January 2016, the complainant informed the complaints handler that she didn’t want to raise an official complaint.
Download
Final report of a complaint in China at a factory supplying VAUDE
In August 2015, a worker of a factory supplying FWF member VAUDE filed a complaint concerning his contractual position. When returning to the factory after a period of (approved) leave, his position had been changed without his consent. During the investigation, which was launched immediately by FWF and VAUDE, the complainant was fired on the grounds that his complaint to FWF had caused damage to the supplier’s reputation. He did not receive severance pay – though he had been working at the factory for 10 years. The factory claims the worker was dismissed for violating company rules, but the worker denies receiving any warning or notification to that effect.
In the course of the investigation, the case was put to the labour department and FWF decided to wait for the outcome of that process before deciding on the complaint. The complainant confirmed the local aritration committee did not support his appeals.
VAUDE and its supplier are required to improve the policy for dismissing workers as well as organise training to improve internal communications. VAUDE should ensure there is no retaliation for workers filing a complaint through FWF’s complaints hotline, or the labour department.
Download
Final report of complaint at a factory in India supplying madness
On 2 March FWF received a complaint from a worker working for a factory supplying Madness. The complaint related to the labour standards ‘Legally binding employment relation’ and ‘No excessive overtime’ which are part of FWF’s Code of Labour Practices.
The plaintiff claimed that the factory dismissed him/her without prior written notice and that (s)he did not receive an appointment letter at the beginning of the contract. Also, the plaintiff complained that (s)he had to work excessive overtime, which according to him/her also is common practice. Madness contacted the supplier immediately after receiving the complaint. Factory management stated that they did not dimiss any employees recently and that they had implemented legal binding contracts with their workers.
In May 2015, the worker accepted the settlement payment for one week salary and does not want to pursue his claims regarding further payments. The complaint regarding his case is therefore closed. However, FWF asks Madness to ensure, that the supplier implements legally binding contracts with the entire workforce, including current employees and newly hired employees. This will be verified in an audit later in 2015.
Download
Final REPORT COMPLAINT IN india AT FACTORY SUPPLYING Dw-Shop
In May 2015, FWF’s complaint handler in India received a complaint about a supplier to DW Shop concerning two employees who said they had been dismissed for refusing overtime. They claimed that their severance pay had been too low and that their salary was below the legal minimum wage.
During an earlier audit conducted by FWF in April 2015, the auditors had found that the workers they interviewed were heavily coached and many of the documents were forged.
Given the audit outcomes and additional information gathered during the investigation about the complaint, FWF concluded that the complaint was likely to be grounded, but it was not possible to prove this. Management of the factory denied all allegations.
FWF and its member company DW Shop outlined a proposal in which additional severance pay was to be made to the complainants. But when the complaints handler called them, they said they had been paid an additional amount by the factory and wanted to drop the complaint.
FWF will add the information collected to the audit outcomes. DW Shop is required to follow up on the ensuing corrective action plan (CAP). FWF will verify the corrective action in early 2016.
Download
intermediate REPORT COMPLAINT IN India AT FACTORY SUPPLYING Madness
In July, a (former) employee of a factory in India filed a complaint, claiming that he had been forced to resign when he refused to work (excessive) overtime. In addition, the wage he was paid didn’t cover the overtime he had already worked, and he did not receive full social security benefits.
The complaint was investigated, and on the basis of available documentation, the situation was mediated by FWF to the satisfaction of both parties. Nevertheless, the complainant filed a police report regarding alleged assault by a supervisor, and this is being pursued outside the FWF complaint mechanism.
As part of its remediation efforts MADNESS should continue to facilitate and support the application of legally binding employment documents and the provision of social security according to Indian law. It should also help ensure that wage structures are clearly communicated, and that the root causes of overtime are addressed.
These points under remediation will be verified during a verification audit in the first half of 2016, and during the 2016 Brand Performance Check.
Download
Intermediate REPORT COMPLAINT IN India AT FACTORY SUPPLYING nudie jeans
On 11 August, three workers, all migrant workers from a different region, stated they wanted to terminate their employment with the factory for personal reasons, but management refused to accept their resignation. Further, according to the complainants, factory management said they would not receive social security settlement and bonus if they left. On 19 August there was a call between the brand, factory management and FWF’s country representative to discuss the situation. The factory claimed that workers were free to terminate their employment within legal notice periods, and that payments would be made according to law.
By September, FWF learned that all three workers had resigned and received their due wages, as well as their social security numbers, so now they are able to claim social security. Those workers who were elegible also received a settlement payment. FWF further suggests that the member support the development of a resignation and leave policy at the factory, in dialogue with workers.
Download
Final report of complaint in Bangladesh at factory that supplies Takko
On 7 January 2015 FWF received a complaint from a worker working for a factory supplying Takko. The complaint related to the labour practice ‘Legally binding employment relationship’ and might also be relevant to discrimination against anti-harassment committee members.
The complainant, who was an elected member of the factory’s Anti-Harassment Committee, said that she was asked to sign a resignation letter on 31 December 2014. The general manager said that a male co-worker reported that she invited workers to her house to form a group. She was active in helping workers to report their grievances to the management, and setting up the internal system to handle cases on violence against women at the workplace.
The factory’s response was that the complainant resigned voluntarily and a final conclusion could not be reached. A meeting was then organized which included representatives of the factory – which is participating in FWF’s Workplace Education Programme – as well as FWF and Takko. During the meeting, a solution was negotiated: the worker was not reinstated but was paid severance pay equal to the amount she would have been paid had she been made redundant. The worker accepted the outcome and reported to FWF’s complaint handler that she was happy with the outcome.
Download
