- What we stand for
- Our members that move with us
- See the impact we create
- Knowledge sharing
The complainant is a worker from printing department who complained about high temperature on the work floor. The printing department started operation for Greatmen in 2017. The department is located in the same compound with Greatmen and Bellmart. However, it is told that the printing business is ran by a separate company although the workers were recruited by the HR of Greatmen and Bellmart and all the material required for printing are provided by Greatmen. The salary of those printing workers are paid by their own company.
Another printing facility has been recently expanded. In each printing department, there are more than 30 workers. Improper PPE are provided as only fabric masks are available for tasks that are overly exposed to hazardous chemicals. The complainant added that the ventilation system in printing is poor as the exhaust fans are installed only to suck out the smell of chemicals. So, the temperature inside the department is quite high and workers suffer from heat and strong smell of chemicals at the same time. Moreover, they do not know if they can use the clinic of Greatmen because no one officially informed them that they can use the clinic. The complainant also mentioned that they have not receive employment contracts or health examination.
The complainant wishes that the factory helps to install some cooling fans like they do in Greatmen and Bellmart and clarifies whether they can use the clinic in the factory.
This is a new complaint that FWF has just filed. At this point in the procedure, the complaint is pending investigation, and FWF has not yet proven it to be grounded. Updates to the investigation will follow. The brand is requested to share the complaint with factory management and to get their perspective. Ideally, this includes obtaining documental evidence in addition to a statement from management.
On 1 May, 2019, FWF informed the FWF member companies, Mammut and OSC, sourcing at the factory that the printing facility located inside the member's factory compound, operating for the factory, was reported on hazardous working conditions such as not providing masks, poor ventilation, high temperature, having no clinics and health examination, and not providing employment contracts to their workers.
The brands made it clear that none of their products were handled at the subcontractor, which only works for other customers of the supplier. FWF clarified that the complaint was from the printing facility located in the factory compound that operates for the member's factory and that the complainant prioritised the cooling fan and clinic but it was necessary to take action on the hazardous conditions at the workplace.
Subsequently, FWF member brands followed-up with the factory management. The factory conducted investigation at the printing facility. On 15 May, the brand informed FWF that the factory would encourage their subcontractor printing company to improve the working conditions in their facilities and the brand asked for a detailed work plan on it. The factory subsequently shared evidence with the brands of the investigation and remediation that took place, including photographic evidence of fans installed. The brand shared the details of the investigation and remediation with FWF, which repeatedly tried to reach the complainant to verify the remediation from the factory but the complainant was not reachable. Therefore, the complaint is closed herewith.