Takko Holding GmbH, Complaint 541

CONCERNING LABOUR STANDARDS
Legally binding employment relationship
STATUS
Closed
DATE
2018-11-19

The complainant reported that a mistake had been initiated on 19/11/2018. The supervisor and the leader of the finishing department caused a mistake of not providing enough stamps to the three workers (including the complainant). Subsequently, the supervisor and the leader went to the office to create a photocopy of the stamps at 4:11pm. The Chinese translator witnessed this scene and reported it to the Chinese manager.

Approximately 30 minutes later, the supervisor and translator approached the three workers, forcing them to sign a warning letter for causing the mistake. However, it was not right for the workers to sign it, and thus, they refused. As the complainant made an attempt to defend themselves by expressing the words, "That mistake was not made by us, Therefore, there is no reason for us to sign a warning letter," the Chinese translator dismissed the comment rudely.

Moreover, the translator and supervisor brought warning letters for the three workers (two letters for each of them to sign). As the translator proceed to force them on signing the letters, the complainant begin to contemplate about compromising, especially after the supervisor said, "Just sign it for now. I will take care of it once it gets to the office," as if (s)he promised to keep them out of the trouble. The complainant was eager to visit the office to prove themselves innocent, however, the supervisor continued to reassure them that (s)he will handle the situation. Eventually, the complainant agreed to sign the warning letters, but only one letter for each person. (S)he also requested for one of them to be excused from it, since only two of them take care of putting the stamps.

After the complainant and her/his co-workers finished signing the warning letters, the complainant said (s)he suspected that the supervisor lied with the intentions to escape the consequences as (s)he was the one who did not provide enough stamps for the workers in the first place. Additionally, the complainant mentioned about how the translator is often verbally abusive towards the workers, except the ones (s)he favors . (S)he is also known for translating words inaccurately and only interpret the words (s)he desires. There are several times when the workers requested to deliver messages to the Chinese supervisor, however, (s)he either delivers the messages incorrectly or doesn’t fulfill their request, which causes the supervisor to have a wrong perception of them.

The complainant hopes the factory will take action towards the translator to help prevent the discriminatory acts that (s)he demonstrates within the workplace. Lastly, the complainant wants the supervisor to stop accusing workers who are innocent, and instead, confess to the mistake that (s)he committed herself with the stamps.

Overview of the complaint investigation

2018-12-17 Investigation

The factory investigated the case and clarified the initial claim from the complainant with investigation summary and photo evidence. The factory reported that one worker in the finishing department received a warning letter because she/he posted the wrong labels on carton boxes. The worker accepted the warning letter without objection. Another worker mistakenly put the tags on clothes of the wrong sizes. The worker admitted his/her mistake and signed the warning letter. The third finishing worker is the leader of the other two workers. The worker had the responsibility to check the mistakes made by the team members in the work. As the worker failed to properly check, a warning letter was issued to the leader as well.
Furthermore, the factory management admitted that the interpreter had a poor attitude towards workers which needs to be improved.

2019-01-01 Verification

The complainants clarified that they accepted the warning letters and the main issue of the complaint was about the interpreter who was impolite towards them.

2019-02-01 Closed

The complainant is no longer reachable to confirm whether the interpreter's behaviors were improved or not. This complaint case is thus closed.