- What we stand for
- Our members that move with us
- See the impact we create
- Knowledge sharing
The complainant is the head of a trade union. He/she sent a letter to FWF's complaints handler about the dismissal of a union member. This member was caught taking another employee's wallet. When interviewed by the human resources and security departments, he/she said that did not have money to pay for his/her mother’s medical costs.
On 21 December 2017, factory management decided to dismiss the worker without any compensation. The trade union asked management to issue a third warning (the most severe type), as a dismissal after a third warning would allow the worker to receive compensation. The trade union indicated that this was similar to a theft case that happened before. Management suggested that the employee caught stealing sent a resignation letter, so that they could give him/her four times his/her monthly salary as compensation. However, this offer was rejected by the union as they felt the worker should receive more because he/she had been working at the factory for nine years. Management said that if the employee caught stealing did not resign, they would bring the case to the police.
On 27 December 2017, the employee was dismissed without any compensation. On 2 January 2018, the union asked for a bipartite meeting but there was no response from management.
On 5 January 2018, FWF's complaints handler in Indonesia received a letter from the head of a trade union. The letter was about the dismissal of a trade union's member. This member was caught taking another employee's wallet. The trade union asked management to issue a warning, as this would allow the worker to receive compensation. Management replied that if the employee caught stealing did not resign, they would bring the case to the police. FWF declared this complaint admissible and informed Kjus, the FWF member sourcing at this factory. The subsequent investigation revealed that the dismissal of the worker caught stealing was in line with the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) of the factory. Although the trade union invited the worker to discuss his/her severance payment on several occasions, he/she did not respond. As a result, the case was closed.
FWF's complaints handler in Indonesia investigated the complaint.
The dismissal of the worker caught stealing was in line with the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) of the factory. The worker caught stealing apologised to the worker whose wallet he/she had stolen and the apology was accepted.
The dismissed worker did not receive his/her severance payment, while the trade union wanted to vie for that.
The trade union invited the worker to discuss his/her case on several occasions, but he/she did not respond.
Due to the fact that it was not possible to reach the complainant, this case was closed.