| Mulberry - Responding to Campaigners |
| Thursday, 14 May 2009 15:14 |
|
The only brand that has chosen to respond to consumers who have contacted them in regard to this case is Mulberry, a UK based company retailing luxury leather goods. We welcome the fact that Mulberry has made the effort to respond to consumers on this case, we feel it is important to respond to the points raised by them in their letter. "I am concerned that you may have been given some information that is factually incorrect as actually a lot of work has been done over the last year. Please find below an accurate outline of the situation. We also met with Neil Kearney recently of the ITGLWF and the other major brands." We don't dispute that work has been done by Mulberry on this case. We specifically mentioned in our update that brands had met with the ITGLWF and that some of the brands had worked together. However simply doing any work is not enough – it has to be work that aims to actively address the issues raised. In our opinion this has not been done by the majority of the buyers, including Mulberry, in this case. "Mulberry works with a very small number of carefully selected suppliers across the world, sourcing from around seven factories. The suppliers that operate these factories are chosen due to their high quality and ethical standards, which reflect Mulberry's own strict standards." We can't comment on other Mulberry suppliers, but based on the information provided to us by workers at DESA, it would appear that our definition of ethical standards would differ with those of Mulberry. For us ethical standards should include payment of a living wage, reasonable working hours and decent working conditions. Most importantly we would consider freedom of association to be central to any 'ethical workplace.' "Since May 2008 we have carried out three independent audits, supported the introduction of an independent ethical sourcing expert to one of the sites, and maintained weekly visits to the locations. During the visits, Mulberry employees from our office in Turkey speak directly with the workers, including those who are members of a union, to understand what, if any, issues might exist." From the beginning of the case we have questioned the value of constantly commissioning audits. Firstly there is plenty of evidence that these kinds of audits consistently fail to uncover the most serious rights violations and that workers are coached on what to say under threat of harassment and dismissal. Secondly, even high quality audits are only useful in identifying problems, not in resolving them. Any factory where workers have been dismissed as a result of organising (as confirmed by the court) and where daily worker demonstrations are taking place clearly has a problem and audits aren't needed to find this out. Investigations can be helpful at the early stage of a dispute if they are aimed at uncovering the facts of a dispute and developing recommendations for moving forward. Such an investigation would need to a. consult all parties involved in the dispute and b. carry out interviews away from the factory and c. come up with remediation strategies for resolving the dispute. Audits that are commissioned merely to deny that problems exist (when they clearly do) are not going to help. "The most recent independent audit, carried-out just last month, clearly stated that there were no issues relating to Freedom of Association or discrimination." The CCC have seen a copy of this audit report and are sceptical as to its real value. It did consult with two union members, but only as part of a large group interview carried out at the DESA factory. It is unlikely that under these conditions workers would feel able to speak openly and honestly to auditors. Those who have already admitted to being union members are even less likely to want to mark themselves as 'trouble makers.' It is also unclear to us why auditors didn't feel it was necessary to talk to Deri Is, given that they are the other party to the ongoing dispute. We would query Mulberry's assertion that there were 'no issues relating to Freedom of Association or discrimination. Several times in the report auditors noted that workers felt they risked dismissal if they chose to join the union, and that this perception was related to the ongoing dispute between the factory and the Deri Is union. We would argue that if workers are too frightened to join the union then there clearly is an issue regarding freedom of association. "It also showed that DESA management have communicated to their employees that they are free to join a union and that workers are represented through a freely-elected worker committee and receive bonuses, social security insurance, free transportation and lunch." We would argue that sending a letter to workers saying they are free to join a union probably doesn't counter the actions of management so far towards the only independent union existing in the factory - namely refusing to reinstate workers sacked for union organising, refusing to allow the union access to speak to their members and publicly slandering the union involved is not sufficient for providing an environment conducive to freedom of association. ILO recommendations state that a workers committee is not a replacement for an independent union (apart from in exceptional circumstances where unions are prohibited) and can actually signal an attempt to undermine union activities. It is suspicious that a committee was set up in November, at precisely the moment the campaign for union recognition at DESA went international. Free transportation and food is not a replacement for paying a living wage and paying social security is a legal requirement, not an act of generosity towards workers. "As DESA has chosen to take the cases to the Court of Appeal we now look forward to these cases reaching a conclusion in the next few months. Once the appeal decisions have been made, we will insist that DESA act in accordance with the Courts ruling and will ask that they issue a statement in the days following to outline the action they will take." We are still waiting two weeks after the decisions were made.... "We would not work with a factory that did not maintain our high quality or ethical standards, which include respecting the rights of employees to join or form an association of their choosing - such as a workers council or union - and not discriminating against any employees...we would work closely with the supplier and independent experts to put the best possible improvements in place for the workers." As we said above, a workers council and a union are not the same thing and it is of concern that companies who claim to have ethical standards refuse to see the difference. Workers are not 'free to choose' if a workers committee is set up by management, given facilities and access and the trade union is prevented from speaking to workers, from organising or negotiating. We look forward to seeing Mulberry follow through with their commitment and finally work to ensure Deri Is is allowed to carry out its legitimate activities without further harassment and impediment. I hope this answers some of the points that Mulberry has raised and will help you to respond to Mulberry with your concerns. We would urge people to continue this dialogue with Mulberry and to urge them to move beyond audits into taking concrete action to end this dispute. Feel free to contact us is you require more information. |
