- What we stand for
- Our members that move with us
- See the impact we create
- Knowledge sharing
The complainant claimed that workers worked on 3 September 2015, which was the 70th anniversary of anti-fascism war 2015 (statutory holiday), and they were not aware whether they would be paid 200% for that day.
On 7 September 2015, FWF's complaints handler in China received a complaint from a factory worker, who claimed that workers worked on 3 September 2017 which is a statutory holiday and they did not know whether or not they would be paid 200% for that day. FWF declared the complaint admissible and informed Vaude, the FWF member sourcing at this factory. In November, the complaints handler reached out to the complainant to check whether the workers had received the correct payment for 3 September. The complainant stated that the workers had received two days of holiday on 6-7 October as deferred rest days for 3 September, which is in accordance with local law. FWF recommends a WEP training to promote better communication between management and workers. The complainant confirmed they were satisfied and that he/she understood the law had not been violated
FWF informed Vaude about the case. It was decided to wait until beginning of November to check with the workers if 200% salary was paid for working during the national holiday.
The local complaints handler checked with the complainant at the beginning of November, whether the workers had received their 200% pay for working on the 3rd of September.
The complainant told her that all workers enjoyed two more days of holiday from 6-7 October 2015, which can be considered a deferred rest day for the 3rd of September 2015. Therefore, the factory did not need to pay 200% for working on the 3rd of September, and the matter is resolved according to local law.
No remediation is needed. FWF suggests promoting better communication between management and workers. This might be done via the Workplace Education Programme.
FWF verified whether the issue was solved through the complainant.
After communicating with the complainant, he/she understood that the law has not been violated. During this process the complainant increased his/ her knowledge about the local labour law
As the case in question did not violate local labour law, the case can be closed.