|
June 1th
2006
Help Bangladesh Workers'
Reps Get Their Jobs Back
Push European/US buyers,
management at A-One factory to respect workers'
rights and reinstate workers
 Agitating
garment workers bring out a procession
in support of their 11-point demand
at the Dhaka Export Processing Zone
(DEPZ) in Savar on Sunday June 04 2006.
Workers were barred from entering the
DEPZ area by the law enforcers following
the closure of all the factories at
the DEPZ by local and foreign investors
on Saturday afternoon. The factories
will remain closed for four days.
Dear friends,
We are contacting you today to ask your
support for the workers who were dismissed
, terminated and forcefully removed in September
2005 from the Korean owned A-One factory
in the Dhaka Export Processing Zone (DEPZ)
in Bangladesh. The A-one case is even more
urgent in the light of recent workers' protests
in Bangladesh, highlighting the desperate
situation of workers in general in the Bangladeshi
garment industry: protests which also extended
to the A-One factory. It shows how the legal
system, local authorities (BEPZA) and factory
owners block attempts to improve working
conditions. Please find some time to take
action, both on behalf of the A-one workers
and Bangladeshi garment workers in general.
We describe below the events thus far in
the A-One case in some detail, hoping it
will serve as a wake-up call and important
case study to all those companies sourcing
from the Bangladeshi zones. Ultimately,
this case is about freedom of association
and the rule of law in Bangladesh. Legal
workers' representatives, honestly elected
under the law, rules and regulations set
out by the Government of Bangladesh and
its Export Processing Zone Authority (BEPZA),
were terminated in unlawful fashion. If
this is allowed to happen without consequences,
it has implications not just for this case,
but for the implementation of the law in
other cases in the EPZ and outside the Zones.
It also casts serious doubts on the credibility
of brands' codes of conduct, which call
for full compliance with the ILO conventions
on freedom of association, collective bargaining
and worker representation.
Who is involved?
In February 2005 the workers at A-one elected
a 15-person Workers Representation and Welfare
Committee, as is their legal right under
the EPZ Workers Association and Industrial
Relations Act of 2004 . The Workers Representation
and Welfare Committee (WRWC) was certified
by the Bangladesh Export Processing Zone
Authority (BEPZA) on April 4, 2005 and raised
outstanding issues with management on July
4, 2005. On August 18, A-One management
agreed to act on 12 of the 13 demands that
had been discussed. Then the A-One management's
real agenda became clear. In mid-September,
management started to illegally dismiss
workers and WRWC members. On September 10,
47 workers were terminated and 9 WRWC members
received death threats to force them to
resign; On September 11, 80 workers were
terminated and on October 1, a further 119
workers. Factory management did not pay
the dues owed to the dismissed workers,
instead some workers were paid a certain
amount in cash (less than total amounts
due).
Early October 2005 The WRWC asked CCC to
contact the buyers as well as the Bangladeshi
authorities, including the BEPZA and the
BEPZIA (Bangladesh Export Processing Zone
Investors Association). They are supported
by the National Garment Workers Federation
NGWF, Bangladesh Independent Garment Union
Federation BIGUF and the Bangladesh Center
for Worker Solidarity and by the Solidarity
Center Bangladesh.
The demands formulated by
the workers were the following:
-
reinstate the 255 workers with back
pay
-
cease all forms of intimidation of
the WRWC and workers who support the
WRWC
-
investigate reports of abusive treatment
of personnel by management
-
management must negotiate in good
faith with WRWC representatives
CCC contacted the buyers of A-One: the
German companies Tchibo and Miles, the Italian
companies COIN and Tessival (a supplier
of the Italian based COIN) and the Dutch
company C&A. These buyers were also
approached by the American National Labor
Committee (NLC). The Solidarity Center contacted
the US based Target/AMC. CCC also wrote
to A-One itself, BEPZA, BEPZIA and various
governmental authorities. The WRWC also
wrote letters to the buyers, A-One management
and the BEPZA Management, who refused their
invitation to meet.
Since then, CCC Germany, Italy, Netherlands
and the CCC International Secretariat, as
well as other groups have been in touch
regularly with the various buyers resulting
in a series of meetings between A-One management,
some of the buyers, the workers, the unions
supporting them and the ITGLWF. Though some
of the buyers (notably Tchibo) made an effort,
and officially requested A-One to reinstate
all dismissed, terminated and 'voluntary'
resigned workers ( while making it clear
refusal to do this would have negative consequences
for future orders, and meeting the request
would result in A-One being put on a priority
list for future orders) the main demands
themselves have to date not been met. To
go directly to the action request click
here Read on for more information on
this case and the situation in Bangladesh.
Workers' protests in Bangladesh
today
CCC was in the midst of preparing a public
campaign on the A-one case, when the news
of the extensive protests in Bangladesh,
starting May 19, reached us. A-One is one
of the factories that was attacked by the
workers, destroying the canteen and part
of the building. We feel it is important
to make it clear that throughout the many
months following their dismissal, despite
receiving many threats and being subjected
to outright acts of repression, the dismissed
A-one workers maintained a peaceful and
constructive attitude, ready to meet with
management, buyer representatives and others
and to provide detailed information and
evidence and they've always stated that
they wanted to be reinstated. This attitude
stands in marked contrast to the one of
A-One management and of the EPZ authorities
(see below for more details).
Today, June 1st, workers reportedly clashed
with A-One management during protests in
the zone.
The role of BEPZA and BEPZIA
There is substantial evidence that the
BEPZA plays an important role, in conjunction
with management, in denying the A-one workers
their rights, and in trying to prevent the
2004 EPZ law, which allows for the formation
of Workers Representation and Welfare Committees
as a first step towards allowing freedom
of association, from being implemented.
Also the BEPZIA has played an important
role, having lobbied against the EPZ law
in its draft stages and continuing to influence
BEPZA and the owners of the zone on this
matter.
CCC contacted the authorities, BEPZA and
BEPZIA, on October 12. On October 31 BEPZA
sent a letter to the CCC denying that any
illegal dismissals had taken place, and
stating that workers were 'aggressive' and
'unruly' and had conducted illegal strikes,
and therefore had to be dismissed. They
also stated that the 15 WRWC members had
resigned voluntarily. BEPZA claimed that
the A-One problems 'started following the
workers agitation in Ringshine Textiles'
and that 'the WRWC members of Ringshine
Textiles are being used by some outside
NGO and Trade Union to instigate the WRWC
members of A-One (…)'. This amounts
to a full-on condemnation by the BEPZA of
a legitimate agreement, signed by buyers,
management and elected worker representatives
of the Ringshine factory (see
box). Brands who contacted the BEPZA
and BEPZIA following CCCs request received
a more extensive version of the same letter.
BEPZA maintains that the WRWC did not follow
the correct procedures, and that the dismissals
were legal. In answer to their allegations,
a detailed account was sent by the WRWC
on November 17 to the brands, which provides
ample evidence of the systematic repression,
and also of the attempts made by the WRWC
to follow the 'procedures' which BEPZA theoretically
needs to maintain. See: 
Nov 17, 2005 Letter
to A-one brands and buyers . BEPZA furthermore
consistently argued to buyers and others
that there would be no legal room for rehiring
the workers since they approved the dismissals.
This is incorrect: A-One has the right and
ability to negotiate with the WRWC and they
have the right and ability to agree to re-instate
the dismissed and terminated workers. BEPZA
can also allow these things to happen.
Unfortunately, buyers have nevertheless
tended to give great credence to the BEPZA
and the notion that a credible legal process
is in place to handle disputes, and repeatedly
used this not to act themselves.
Buyers' responses
In October and November 2005 various CCCs
contacted the buyers involved (not all could
be traced). The following is an overview
of their responses.
C&A contacted
both A-One and BEPZA in October, and several
times since then, but has refused to provide
copies of correspondence to enable us to
assess how much pressure has really been
put on management and BEPZA. In their communication
to the CCC, C&A keeps up its claim that
orders were placed with two Korean based
suppliers with final delivery in july 2005,
and therefore had no legal or contractual
grounds to have leverage to negotiate. CCC
has repeatedly explained that the violations
and the selection of the WRWC - a development
that C&A should support- date back to
the period when C&A had production at
A-One, and that their code extends to their
whole supply chain including subcontracting.
Later, C&A also contacted the BGMEA
e.g. and spoke to the other buyers several
times.
Tchibo hired
the global auditfirm CSCC to conduct an
audit in November 2005, the auditors documented
concerns regarding overtime and low wages.
In a meeting with the German CCC on December
5th they announced they would hire the consultancy
firm Systain to investigate matters for
them in Bangladesh throughout December,
and then to organize a mission to Bangladesh
in January. CCC passed on details of other
buyers, in the hope they could cooperate
from this point on to enhance leverage.
Between December 2005 and March 2006, a
number of meetings were organized between
primarily Systain (acting on behalf of Tchibo
and Miles, and A-One and the workers groups.
Buyers at various moments suggested 'solutions'
that did not include reinstatement of the
WRWC officers, which was clearly unacceptable
to the workers. Finally, on March 7 a Statement
of Understanding that was signed by Tchibo,
Miles (a Tchibo supplier organizing production
at A-One), Systain, the Solidarity Center,
and the ITGLWF, supported by the unions
locally and the WRWC. A-One management was
present at the meeting where the Statement
of Understanding was developed, but subsequently
refused to commit to it.
COIN/Oviesse
is an Italian retailer who sourced primarily
via another Italian company called Tessival.
Tessival also has its own brand Herod in
production at A-One. After repeated attempts,
in December the COIN group finally assigned
a quality manager to the case, and Tessival
in mid-december also stated that they had
contacted A-One, who had told them 'all
was well and the problems were all solved'.
Tessival in December produced an 'inspection
report' involving a local MP looking at
alleged labor unrest (instead of at the
dismissal), which repeated many of the earlier
claims made by BEPZA. Since by this time
both Tchibo and Miles (via Systain) had
confirmed many violations were ongoing at
A-One, and that they were substantial and
serious, Tessival was asked again to cooperate.
In February COIN also stated they have requested
Tessival further deal with the matter.
Target/AMC - On
February 22 the American Solidarity Center
sent an e-mail to Target/AMC, and asked them
to join the other buyers in a collective
effort to implement the March 7 Statement
of Understanding. Target/AMC stated they had
not sourced their for some time, though
an original indication was given that they
would be willing to coordinate with other
brands, there has been no follow-up.
The timeline attached
provides a more detailed account of the
actions undertaken by the various parties.
The role of A-one management
The main violations in the A-One case center
around freedom of association. Workers however
report also forced overtime and extremely
long working hours, wage violations and
many other violations of codes of conduct
and local law. The audit commissioned by
Tchibo, in November 2005 confirmed overtime
and wage violations.
A-One management (and BEPZA) kept claiming
the WRWC members 'voluntarily resigned',
which has throughout the case been disputed
by the workers themselves. The WRWC members
state they've been forced to sign under
duress (in one case at knifepoint) and stated
this from the moment the dispute was brought
to our attention, immediately after they
were dismissed. They've also provided a
detailed record of the systematic repression
in the abovementioned November 17 letter.
It is important also to point out that the
company never provided evidence that workers
were fired for other reasons then organizing.
New recruitment started in November 20:
as of November 25 at least ´new´
50 workers were hired.
The only direct communication CCC got from
A-One came early December, and consisted
of a copy of a letter send to CCC earlier
(on October 31) by the BEPZA. When requested
by the buyers to directly provide evidence
of payment of outstanding wages and dues,
A-One management failed to provide this.
On several occasions, A-One made promises
which they subsequently did not keep, while
the workers have provided all information
requested, and draft agreements and reasonable
proposals (see timeline for more details)
Current status
Following A-One's refusal to commit to
the March 7 Statement of Understanding,
on April 7 Tchibo sent out a proposal for
a 'roadmap' to all parties concerned. This
roadmap includes suggested changes to the
Statement of Understanding, notably an investigation
into whether the dismissals of the WRWC
members were illegal or not to be conducted
by a multistakeholder committee.
As the buyers concerned already had conducted
investigation, and concluded that the WRWC
members would need to be reinstated, a renewed
investigation in this matter would only
serve to delay. After discussions with the
workers, on April 21, CCC responded to Tchibo
that a further investigation as would be
unlikely to bring results, but agreed that
there can be a role for a multistakeholder
committee to further the case, especially
to more strongly involve the other buyers.
Such a committee though should work on the
further implementation of the agreement
reached at March 7, 2006 and monitor the
payment of the outstanding September 2005
wages and suspension pay.
A separate letter was sent on April 22
to all buyers collectively, calling upon
them to contact Tchibo and to form a common
buyers alliance to reach the goals mentioned
above. They were also again asked to communicate
their concerns to BEPZA and BEPZIA. For
a copy of both letters see:
During the first week of May, attempts
were made to contact A-One management by
the ITGLWF and by Tchibo/Systain to set
up a meeting , but with no results. In the
second week of May, workers reported having
lost almost all hope, and feeling greatly
frustrated. At that time the last Tchibo
order had been finalized in April, and currently
under production is underway on Herod and
Greenland, both brands owned by Tessival.
Conclusions
Though some of the buyers, notably Tchibo,
have put substantial effort into trying
to find a resolution, this came only following
an extremely lengthy period (6 months) of
largely unnecessary delays, caused to some
extent by buyers trusting in BEPZA to follow
up appropriately, notwithstanding the fact
that none of the procedures or entities
described in the EPZ law to handle disputes
are operational. It was also clear from
the Ocober 31 2005 response that BEPZA can
be considered a party to the dispute.
Buyers with a serious Corporate Social
Responsibility programme know very well
that there is no credible oversight or implementation
of the law in the Bangladesh EPZs, and that
the people put in charge of overseeing the
zones are the same who resisted the law
for many years. Even if buyers would somehow
have managed to miss this and be naïve
enough to assume the rule of law existed,
the evidence presented over the course of
this case alone should be sufficient to
realize that these authorities can not be
relied upon. To Tchibo's credit they did
reach this conclusion around January, but
unfortunately then spent another two months
proposing a 'solution' consisting of a programme
for the entire zone (in cooperation with
BEPZA), but would not have to include the
reinstatement of the WRWC members at A-One!
The CCC strongly supports beginning a zone-wide
process to improve working conditions and
particularly respect for freedom of association.
This process however will have to include
an acceptable settlement of the A-One case.
Such a settlement is not complicated, in
any way unreasonable or untenable at this
particular point in time: the Ringshine
case proves that it can be done. In fact,
a failure to settle the A-One case will
partly negate the success of the Ringshine
settlement. Workers will get the message
that the law clearly does not protect them,
and instead if they try to exercise these
rights they will face severe intimidation
and lose their jobs.
After last week's protests, which included
the destruction of the A-One canteen, various
organisations have called upon the authorities
to investigate and address the root causes
of the riots. These root causes include
the fundamental lack of respect for workers
right to form and join trade unions of their
choice, and to freely elect worker representatives.
The failure to implement and uphold the
EPZ law, the failure to implement codes
of conduct in a meaningful way when it comes
to provisions on freedom of association,
hours of work and wages, and the failure
of the buyers to act effectively, speedily
and collectively when confronted with serious
disputes are among these root causes.
Feb
2006, Settlement Reached by A-One
Factory Workers in Bangladesh
Action
Needed Now!
Please contact today
Coin, Tessival, C&A and Target/AMC today
and request them to:
-
Work with Tchibo
and Miles to implement the Statement
of Understanding reached on March 7,
including the reinstatement of all dismissed,
terminated and 'voluntary resigned'
worker
-
Officially inform
A-One that refusal to implement the
Statement of Understanding will result
in withdrawal of current and future
orders, but if an agreement is reached
this will result in A-One being put
on a priority list.
-
Ensure workers
receive their payment of the outstanding
September 2005 wages and suspension
payContact BEPZA and , BEPZIA and and
request them to ensure a peacefull settlement
of the A-One case and and call for full
implementation of the 2004 EPZ law
-
Send copies
of the communication to CCC
Model
letters to the Brands sourcing from
A-One and to the A-One management can be
found under here.
In the next weeks
CCC will call upon all brands sourcing at
the Bangladesh EPZs to contact the BEPZA
and BEPPZIA, and request them to ensure
a resolution for the A-One case, and also
to see to it that the EPZ law is fully implemented.
Brands should also pro-actively take action
to ensure their suppliers in the zone implement
the law, and allow the WRWC to operate freely
and independently. They should take concrete
steps to support the development of sound
industrial relations. We will keep you updated
on the brands responses, and where necessary
appeal to you to support us on this.
For an updated action
request regarding those arrested during
the riots, and a call for an investigation
into the root causes, go to: http://www.cleanclothes.org/urgent/06-05-31.htm
Model letter for
Brands sourcing from A-One
Dear,
Although the factory
is currently closed, the following demands
to workers remain valid. In addition, we
call on you to re-open the factory.
I/My organization am contacting you about
the dismissed , terminated and forcefully
removed in September 2005 from the Korean
owned A-One factory in the Savar Export
Processing Zone (EPZ) in Bangladesh. I am
shocked and dismayed to learn that elected
worker representatives were threatened and
forced to resign, and that many other workers
lost their jobs for trying to exercise their
constitutional rights.
I understand you
have been contacted various times by the
Workers Representative and Welfare Committee
as well as by the Clean Clothes Campaign
to ensure that justice is done, but that,
despite a Statement of Understanding drawn
up between some of the parties on March
7 2006, the workers have not been reinstated
and outstanding wages and dues have not
been paid.
I/My organization
call upon you to:
- Officially inform
A-One that refusal to implement the Statement
of Understanding will result in withdrawal
of current and future orders, but if an
agreement is reached this will result
in A-One being put on a priority list.
- Work with Tchibo
and Miles to implement the Statement of
Understanding reached on March 7, including
the reinstatement of all dismissed, terminated
and 'voluntary resigned' workers
- Ensure workers
receive their payment of the outstanding
September 2005 wages and suspension pay
- Contact BEPZA
and , BEPZIA and and request them to ensure
a peacefull settlement of the A-One case
and and call for full implementation of
the 2004 EPZ law
Please send copies
of the communication to CCC via info@ cleanclothes.org
The A-one case is
even more urgent in the light of recent
workers' protests in Bangladesh, highlighting
the desperate situation of workers in general
in Bangladeshi garment industry. I seriously
urge you to give this matter the highest
priority.
Sincerely,
Model letter to A-One
Dear Mr. Kim,
Although the factory
is currently closed, the following demands
to workers remain valid. In addition, we
call on you to re-open the factory.
I/My organization am contacting you about
the dismissed , terminated and forcefully
removed in September 2005 from the Korean
owned A-One factory in the Savar Export
Processing Zone (EPZ) in Bangladesh. I am
shocked and dismayed to learn that elected
worker representatives were threatened and
forced to resign, and that many other workers
lost their jobs for trying to exercise their
constitutional rights.
I understand you
have refused to sign the Statement of Understanding
drawn up between some of the parties on
March 7 2006.
I/My organization
call upon you to:
-
Immediately sign
and implement the Statement of Understanding,
and reinstatement of all dismissed,
terminated and 'voluntary resigned'
workers
-
Ensure workers
receive their payment of the outstanding
September 2005 wages and suspension
pay
For your information,
I will be contacting your clients (Tessival,
COIN, C&A, Target/AMC and others) about
this matter.
Sincerely,
The Ringshine case
The Ringshine case is very similar to the
A-One case. A Workers' Representation and
Welfare Committee (WRWC) was elected by
workers at the factory in May 2005. Shortly
thereafter, according to the workers, management
began a campaign to create labor unrest
at the factory, hoping that by destabilizing
labor relations at the factory, they would
have a pretext for dismissing the WRWC and
any other workers who supported the WRWC.
On July 20th 2005 police attacked a workers'
demonstration where at least 200 workers
were injured and 100 workers were arrested.
Three workers were jailed, and 600 were
unjustly dismissed. Twelve of the 15 WRWC
members were no longer at the factory as
they have either been dismissed or they
have gone into hiding to avoid arrest. In
the following days the company filed criminal
charges against hundreds of workers.
Buyers (a.o Inditex, Carrefour, Walmart,
Target/AMC and Camaieu) were asked to ensure
a proper investigation into July 2005 Events
at Ringshine Textiles Ltd. Dhaka-EPZ and
ensure reinstatement of the 12 dismissed
WRWC members and reinstatement of the dismissed
600 workers and payment of their back wages.
On September 7 an agreement was reached
between Ringshine management and then WRWC,
facilitated by the ITGLWF. The agreement
included immediate re-instatement, with
backpay of average wages retroactive to
date of dismissal suspension, for all WRWC
members, and reinstatement to be offered
to all dismissed workers; all criminal charges
to be dropped, plus training and other measures
to improve industrial relations at the factory.
Inditex played an important role by joining
the ITGLWF in the negotiations with RS management
and deserves praise for acting quickly and
not wasting time denying or delaying. The
other buyers did far less, though some of
them did contact management.
CCC, ITGLWF and other groups supporting
the workers have shared the Ringshine agreement
with the A-one buyers involved, asking them
to use this as a model.
Annexe: timeline of the
case
Please note that below is not a full record
- CCC reps in various countries regularly
informed buyers, in writing and in person,
of the developments throughout the case.
February 2005
Election of a 15 person Workers
Representation and Welfare Committee at
A-One
April 4, 2005
The Workers Representation and Welfare
Committee (WRWC) was certified by the Bangladesh
Export Processing Zone Authority (BEPZA)
July 4, 2005
WRWC demands discussed with management
August 18, 2005
A-one management agreed to act on
12 of the 13 demands that had been discussed
September 10, 2005
47 workers were dismissed and 9
WRWC members received death threats to force
them to resign
September 11, 2005
80 workers were dismissed
October 1, 2005
A further 119 workers were dismissed
October , 2005 (various
dates)
CCC contacted buyers of A-one
October 12, 2005
CCC contacted BEPZA and BEPZIA
November 17, 2005
WRWC writes its urgent 'request
to the brand representatives for intervention
to help resolve violations of the Bangladesh
EPZ labor and employment laws and rules
and violations of [their] brand code of
conduct (CoC) and corporate social responsibility
(CSR) policies at [their] supplier factory
A-one (BD) Ltd.'
November 20, 2005
New recruitment at A-one
November ?, 2005
Audit commissioned by Tchibo finding
concerns on overtime and low wages
December 14, 2005
The Systain representative met with
the dismissed WRWC members and other workers,
at which point people gathered some hope.
A request was made to technical details
for each dismissed/terminated worker regarding
the status of termination payments, bonuses,
provident fund payments (only established
in November even though it is a requirement
for all EPZ companies to have one), outstanding
earnings and severance payments and send
these to Tchibo. to Systain/Tchibo. Systain
informed workers a mission would be organized
by Tchibo in the third week of January.
Workers expressed disappointment in this
long delay, since this meant , meaning they
would not have the financial possibility
to travel home for Eid, the most important
muslim holiday of the year.
December 28, 2005
The workers sent a list of dismissed,
terminated and 'voluntary resigned' workers
with full payment details to Tchibo, including
a request to get workers to receive:
-
due wages from September 2005, due
suspension pay and festival bonus entitlements
-
all terminated workers to be paid
festival bonus entitlements
-
no one to be forced to sign a resignation
letter to get these due payments
-
payments to be made by January 2006
(in time for eid)
December 30, 2005
The workers sent out draft agreements
based on the Rinshine experience on dispute
settlement, procedure for future relations
between the WRWC and A-One, grievance producers
and disciplinary procedures.
January 6, 2006
Tchibo proposed a settlement only
on the EID bonus, and leave other matters
to more long-term negotiations, but workers
felt unable to accept this temporary settlement
without clear perspective on the 'longer
term'. This was also due to the fact that
Tchibo quoted different wage figures, based
on the BEPZA minima, rather than on the
actually earned wages.
January 8, 2006
A meeting took place between A-One
management, Miles, the BEPZA and the Solidarity
Center, in which A-One initially refused
to take any dismissed or terminated workers
back. Later they agreed to have 'some' workers
back but not all. and agreed to pay legally
required wages and dues. Workers refuse
to agree to o management picking and choosing
which workers they will rehire. The only
conceivable way this could be valid is if,
for the workers that are not chosen, management
produces credible evidence of severe violations
that would be punishable by termination,
and a full termination benefit package were
paid.
January 23 and 25,
2006
Parties had agreed to a 'technical
meeting' in the third week of January, in
the presence of a WRWC representatives to
determine if termination payments were accurate.
If they did not A-One said they would pay
them in full. It was made very clear this
in no way means that workers are giving
up on the reinstatement demand. Any worker
who received termination benefit is not
giving up their case and demand for reinstatement,
and if they go back to work they would be
required to pay back the service benefit
payment, notice payment and provident fund
payment (if any) to A-One. During both two
meetings A-One management refused to hand
over any information.
February 16, 2006
Tchibo, Miles and Systain presented
two alternatives to the workers, (one including
reinstatement, and one without), asking
them which one to propose to A-One management,
citing their fear for closure.
February 20, 2006
Workers responded that they stuck
to their request: reinstatement in their
former job, compensation from the time they
were removed from the service, and for the
draft agreements presented in December,
which include provisions for improving industrial
relations and training, to be implemented.
February 22, 2006
Tchibo communicated the workers'
response to A-One management, providing
CCC with a copy of the letter. Tessival
communicated the same request, C&A says
they did, but has refused to share a copy
of the letter with CCC, thereby making it
difficult for us to assess the nature of
C&A´s communication. Target/AMC
still did not respond in any substantial
way in spite of attempts by the Solidarity
Center to establish contact.
March 7, 2006
A meeting with Systain, the Solidarity
Center, A-one management and the ITGLWF
, took place where a Statement of Understanding
was drawn up, signed by all except A-One
who said they would need to review it with
their board. The statement lays out the
parameters of the negotiations (it is not
a settlement). A-One committed to paying
approximately 74 workers their September
wages, earned leave cash balances, and suspension
pay. These workers did not collect these
entitlements earlier, because they say A-One
said they'd only pay them if they signed
'release' letters. Systain and the Solidarity
Center legal services coordinator agreed
to physically witness and monitor these
payments. The original date for this was
set on march 15.
March 15, 2006
When the workers came to the factory,
A-One management tried to get them to accept
dismissal payments (which they do not want,
since it would mean they'd agree to being
dismissed or terminated), instead of the
payments duly entitled under the law and
BEPZA rules which had provided to everyone
in advance of the actual payment date. Meanwhile,
A-One management failed to respond to Tchibo/Miles
regarding the statement of understanding.
Early April, 2006
Systain reported that A-One management
refused to reinstate the WRWC members, apparently
willing to lose Tchibo and Miles orders.
Systain once more?? communicated to the
various unions and groups involved in Bangladesh
that they recommended a re-instatement of
the rank-and-file members, but no reinstatement
for the WRWC members.
April 5, 2006
On behalf of the workers, the Solidarity
Center reported once more that the workers
stand by their demands, and that the WRWC
members will return the severance pay, which
they took under duress, once reinstated.
April 7, 2006
Tchibo sent out a proposal for a
'roadmap' to all parties concerned.
April 21, 2006
CCC response to Tchibo that a further
investigation as to whether the WRWC workers
are legally or illegally re-signed, would
not lead any further on this case
April 22, 2006
Letter sent by CCC to all buyers
collectively, calling upon them to contact
Tchibo and to form a common buyers alliance
to reach the goals mentioned above. They
were also asked once more to communicate
their concerns to BEPZA and BEPZIA, and
to raise the A-one case at the MFA forum
April 27, 2006
Unions sent letter to the Worldbank,
copying in various embassies and other international
organisations, asking for their support
in settling the dispute
|
