- What we stand for
- Our members that move with us
- See the impact we create
- Knowledge sharing
The complainant claimed that she could not get approval from management on her request for personal leave. She planned a vacation to Beijing from 4 to 10 May 2016 and she asked for personal leave on the 27 April. The factory refused her request on 30 April 2016. The complainant had booked flight tickets already and found it too expensive
to cancel the tickets. She continued her vacation although she did not get approval from the factory. When she returned to work on 10 May, she was informed her job was terminated due to her absenteeism. She informed she had been working at the factory for 8 years and the factory told her that if she still wanted to work at the factory, she needed to re-start as a new worker.
On 31 May 2016, the factory made payments to its workers, but the complainant did not get her wages of April and from 1 to 3 May. She requests the factory to pay all due wages of April and 1-3 May 2016 to her.
Article 39. 2 is applicable to this situation: When an employee seriously violates the rules and procedures set up by the employer, his employer may dissolve the labor contract. If workers go on holiday without permission, it could be regarded as unauthorized absenteeism, which is violating the rules of the employer.
on 1 June 2016, FWF's complaints handler in China received a complaint from a former factory worker, who claimed that he/she had been dismissed without receiving his/her wages for April and 1-3 May 2016. FWF declared this complaint admissible and informed Outdoor & Sports Company (OSC), the FWF member sourcing at this factory. OSC reached out to the factory management, who stated that the complainant had started a case against them at the local arbitration committee. OSC stressed to the factory that the complainant would be happy to drop the case as soon as the factory paid the wages due, however, management stated they preferred to wait for the court ruling and abide by the outcome. The local arbitration ruled in favour of the factory. OSC received a translation of the ruling. FWF has advised OSC to continue its dialogue with the factory on their dismissal policy and effective grievance mechanism. FWF's complaints handler contacted the complainant who said to be disappointed with the ruling of the court.
FWF informed OSC about the case. OSC contacted the supplier and the supplier
informed that the complainant started a case against them at the local arbitration
committee. OSC remained in close contact with the factory regarding this complaint. The factory’s dismissal process and this case was of the supplier meeting on the 21st October. OSC kept stressing to the factory the complainant would be willing to drop the case if the factory would pay her due wages of April. The factory stated the hearing has already taken place and their preference is to wait for the outcome and they will abide by the ruling.
The court case is closed. OSC is advised to continue its dialogue with the
factory on dismissal policy and effective grievance systems.
The complaint handler called the complainant, who said to be disappointed with the
ruling of the court.
This complaint has been closed due to the ruling of the court.
The outcome of the local arbitration ruled in favor of the supplier. The request of compensation for the worker’s complaint is not supported by the labour court. OSC received translated version of the ruling