Vietnam Complaint Jack Wolkskin and Schoeffel October 2015

Final REPORT OF COMPLAINT IN Vietnam AT FACTORY THAT SUPPLIES Wolfskin and Schoeffel

Complainants claimed that 11 workers had been expelled because the linemanager found teared trousers. The management then llegedly called a group of 11 workers and forced them to write a ltter of volunary resignation, without explanatin or investigation. The group of workers said they ha not made the mistake. The complainants talked with the Factory Trade Union, but it did not provide a solution. A fourth complainant alleged that her application was rejected because of her family ties to some of the other complainants.

The factory claimed that workers were dismissed because of a policythat allowes it to dismiss workers for damaging products.However, there was no evidence to prove who cut the trousers. Later, after a meeting with the complaints handlers, manager mentioned the workers had been dismissed because they had not checked the products at the end of their working day. Had they done so, they would have found the destroyed trousers. According to management this was internal regulation. However, no record of this policy was found. The factory management later claimed that this was relayed orally to the workers.

FWF found that resignation was not voluntary and that the disciplinary policy cannot be applied as a reason for dismissal because there was no proof of who destroyed the trousers and there is no written policy about checking the products at the end of the day. There was no evidence to substantiate a discrimination claim.

The members engaged with the factory and ensured that workers received dismissal compensation. FWF encouraged the brands to discuss formal disciplinar policy and factory regulation, and ensure it complies with the FWF Code of Labour Practices. The workers, who had hoped to be rehired, were nevertheless grateful for FWF for having received compensation.

 

Download

Share this on

FacebookTwitterLinkedInWhatsAppEmailCopy link