The complainant reported an incident that happened to a current line supervisor at the factory. According to him/her, on 6 March 2017, a line supervisor in Building 6 of the factory had a morning production target meeting with the section supervisor. During this meeting, the section supervisor allegedly hit the line supervisor's head when it became clear that production targets were not being met. Later that same day, a similar meeting took place, and the complainant claimed that the section supervisor hit his/her head again and punched his/her stomach. During a final meeting between the two, the section supervisor allegedly punched his/her lips and hit his/her hands. This hurt the line supervisor, who went home in tears.
The next day, the line supervisor felt uneasy and did not report for work. Supported by a number of colleagues, s/he reported the case to the factory's trade union. The trade union asked him/her to wait three days to let them process the case.
On 8 March, accompanied by a representative from the factory trade union, the line supervisor reported the case to factory management. Management then invited the section supervisor to attend the meeting and interviewed him/her. The section supervisor indicated that s/he had merely touched the line supervisor's cheek accidentally. Factory management subsequently asked the line supervisor to go back to work. However, the line supervisor had trouble sleeping after the alleged incidents and felt that management had insufficient regard for his/her trauma.
On 9 March, the line supervisor again met with factory management because s/he still did not feel safe. According to the line supervisor, the manager indicated that they had also received other complaints regarding this section supervisor. In the afternoon, the line supervisor was transferred to another line, and another manager told him/her s/he should not make a big deal of these incidents. A few days later, factory management indicated that they could only transfer him/her to a different line and that the section supervisor would not be punished.
The complainant and the alleged victim feel that factory management failed to handle this complaint properly and would like suitable remediation.
Findings and conclusions
Overview of the complaint investigation
The factory indicated that it confirmed that the statement from the victim was correct. The section supervisor received a third warning letter, that s/he signed, admitting the mistake s/he made.
The line supervisor indicated that s/he requested to be transferred to another department because s/he felt uncomfortable being in the same workplace as the section supervisor. The factory agreed, and transferred him/her to another building in April 2017.
02/13/2018 Conclusion of the investigation
The complainant confirmed that the warning letter was sent and that the line supervisor was transferred to another building on his/her request.
This complaint is similar to another complaint at this factory, in the sense that both complainants felt management did not deal with them in an proper manner.
FWF proposed the following remediation, based on the investigation:
- Factory management should hire an independent/external consultant to do independent assessment of its standard operating procedures (SOPs) related to the two recent complaint cases in order to assess if improvements need to be made;
- Ensure that all relevant employees are sufficiently trained on the upcoming revised SOPs.
It is recommended to have the corrective action written in an agreed-upon work plan between Haglofs and factory, with clear deadlines and outputs for each activities.
As the individual complaint was resolved by the placement of the line supervisor in another building and the signing of a warning letter, this complaint case is resolved.
At the next verification audit, FWF will verify whether the factory has taken the necessary remediation steps.