- What we stand for
- Our members that move with us
- See the impact we create
- Knowledge sharing
The complainant reported that the supervisors had been pressuring workers on production target by demanding more overtime and work during lunch break in building A.
The complainant claimed that the number of overtime hours increased from 2 to 3 hours and production target raised since the new chinese supervisor arrived 3-4 months ago. At first, the factory announced that the overtime would be increased so, the workers needed to sign on overime consent letter to obtain overtime permit but overtime work still would be voluntary. However, in reality, both the local and chinese supervisors demanded everyone to work 3-hour overtime a day and intimidated the workers that they could be given warning letters or terminated if they refuse. They have to work 3-hour OT twice a week. Many of the workers who live in the villages far from the factory do not wish to work 3-hour OT but dare not go against the supervisors.
The complainant stated that her friends who live in the factory dormitory has to work until 8-11pm without proper meal break.
The prodution quota is now 24 pcs per hour; 240 pcs per day (may vary base on the product). The workers who cannot achieve the target are given warning letter. However, it is heard that the CoC manager does not accept those warning letters since it is not compliant. Nevertheless, the workers feel threatened by it.
During the past 3 months, the chinese and local supervisors asked the workers to come early and start working at 7:10am although the regular working time starts at 7:30am. The workers were told that they would be given warning letter if they did not come early. If the workers arrive before 7:30am but do not start working, the supervisors scold them.
Moreover, the workers are told that they have to work of products that need to be repaired during their break time only. Therefore, workers do not get full break during lunch time. Additionally, although the overtime break is is from 4:10pm to 4:20pm, workers mostly cannot stop for break and continue working. The supervisors always tell them that if they could not catch up, they should just resign.
The complainant and her friends were upset when the chinese supervisor called everyone in building A before lunch break for meeting, asking them to come back to work at 11:50am although the lunch break starts at 11:30am on 13th July, 2019. They felt unfairly treated as the face scanning takes 5 minutes, leaving them only 15 minutes for lunch.
The workers have their faith in the union as the union does not have any activites and the union leader herself is struggling with the production pressure. The complainant and her friends even thought of reporting this case to the township labor department but for the sake of their identity, the decided to conatct FWF first.
The complainant expects that the workers are provided with full break and less pressure from the chinese and local supervisors.
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 14 July 2019, FWF’s complaints handler in Myanmar received a complaint from a factory worker, who claimed that the supervisors had been pressuring workers on production target by demanding more overtime and work during lunch break in building A.
FWF declared this complaint admissible and informed Takko Holding GmbH, the FWF member sourcing at this factory.
On 16 July the member informed the factory about the complaint. On 17 July the factory replied that the working hours applied with the legal limits, there was no work before 7:30 according to their investigation and working during break time and unreasonable use of warning letters shall be educated to the supervisors and monitored.
FWF complaint handler informed the worker about the response from the management and he/she stated that although the other points she mentioned remained the same, they were not asked to work during break time during that week.
FWF provided response from the complainant and recommended remediation.
(a) The complainant emphasised on the mandatory overtime rather than the working hours being under the legal limits.
(b) To educate the supervisors about the warning letters and asking the workers to work during break time and monitor it.
On 25 July, the factory held an internal meeting with the Chinese and Local supervisors about the complaint and remediation on it.
Since more time was required to see the improvement, the complaint handler convinced the worker to wait and see the corrective action from the management.
On 28 August, the complainant confirmed that they had stopped working during break time in building A.
This complaint is resolved.