- What we stand for
- Our members that move with us
- See the impact we create
- Knowledge sharing
The Complainant was a senior sewing operator and has worked in the factory since November 2010. When the employee joined, a birth certificate copy was given as age reference. Later, her National Id (NID) card was submitted instead, which shows a different name. Management stated at the time that this would not be an issue in future.
However, recently the employee opened the digital wage account and discovered there was confusion because of the fact that she was registered in the factory under two different names. For this reason, management told the complainant to hand in her resignation in October 2019 and assured her she would be reappointed. The employee did accordingly and continued to work until 1 December 2019. On 11 December the complainant was reappointed in the factory with the name as indicated on her National Id (NID) card, but on 20 December the complainant's contract was terminated and management gave the complainant only 35,000 taka based on her recent re-appointment date.
As the complainant worked in the factory for almost 9 years, she believes that more money is owed. However, she would really like to be reappointed. She also is of the opinion that she worked satisfactory during her 9 years of employment.
The complainant provided the complaints handler with more background information and relevant details about the problem with the different names on her ID card. The complainant thinks that she is entitled to more money than she received, as she worked in the factory for almost 9 years. The complainant wants to receive legal compensation, service benefit etc, but most of all she wants to be reinstated with the very first joining date.
Fair Wear was in contact with the factory management. According to the factory management, they investigated the issue and found out that the complainant gave resignation and left the factory with all legal dues as per law. Later, at the request of the complainant, she was reappointed as an apprentice but failed to perform. As she was under probation period, the factory dismissed her as per the labour law and paid all her dues entitled during her probation period.
No mention was made of the confusion with the names and the agreement that they made with the worker to resolve the issue. Fair Wear recommended that the complainant is allowed to rejoin the factory.