Nike e Decathlon in Thailandia - Clean Clothes Campaign
- Subject: Nike e Decathlon in Thailandia - Clean Clothes Campaign
- From: "Ersilia Monti" <ersilia.monti at mclink.it>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:00:12 +0100
|
NIKE E DECATHLON IN THAILANDIA: servono a qualcosa
i codici di condotta? - Clean Clothes Campaign
(richiesta di azione urgente pervenuta dall'ong
thailandese CLIST: clist at loxinfo.co.th)
La MSP Sportswear è una fabbrica di abbigliamento sportivo di proprietà austriaca, situata a Huatalea Moung Nakornrachaseama in Thailandia, che produce per conto di Nike e Decathlon. Nel novembre del 2003, per la prima volta, le operaie tentano di costituire un sindacato. Lo fanno per difendersi da una serie di abusi molto comuni in questo settore: costante aumento dei ritmi di produzione a parità di salario, straordinari obbligatori, pessima qualità dell’acqua potabile, insulti, perquisizioni corporali al limite della molestia sessuale. Dopo varie vicissitudini e atti di ritorsione, il 12 ottobre 2004 il sindacato riceve il riconoscimento ufficiale e lancia una campagna di tesseramento. Poco dopo tre rappresentanti sindacali vengono licenziate e l’attività sindacale in vario modo repressa. Le lavoratrici si rivolgono a CLIST, una ong locale che presta assistenza ai lavoratori, la quale riesce ad organizzare alcuni incontri fra le sindacaliste licenziate, i rappresentanti locali di Nike e della Fair Labour Association e un funzionario del ministero del lavoro in veste di mediatore. A giudizio di quest’ultimo è stato violato il diritto di organizzazione sindacale e le tre lavoratrici devono essere reintegrate. Il titolare della MSP, Peter Krautler, dichiara in una lettera che non intende revocare i licenziamenti, offre invece una buonuscita pari a dieci mesi di salario. L’offerta viene respinta. Le ritorsioni verso il sindacato continuano con un altro licenziamento e un trasferimento arbitrario preludio al licenziamento. A metà dicembre CLIST chiede a Nike un nuovo incontro per discutere le violazioni del suo codice di condotta. Nike risponde di non essere riuscita a far cambiare idea al suo fornitore, pertanto si atterrà alle decisioni del governo sulla base delle procedure legali previste in questi casi, alle quali le lavoratrici dovranno in ultima istanza appellarsi. Un nuovo pronunciamento del mediatore governativo getta acqua sulle speranze del sindacato, le soluzioni proposte sono ora due: un risarcimento più cospicuo o la risoluzione del caso per vie legali. Si apre a questo punto un vicolo cieco. L’esperienza insegna che i dispositivi di legge messi a tutela dei lavoratori sono a maglie molto larghe, in particolare in tema di libertà sindacale, le procedure sono lunghe e si concludono il più delle volte non con il reintegro dei lavoratori licenziati ma con un risarcimento in denaro, spesso del tutto insoddisfacente. E’ ciò che CLIST e la Clean Clothes Campaign hanno ribadito a Nike, ricordando che se il rispetto delle leggi locali è doveroso, non meno doveroso è pretendere il rispetto del proprio codice di condotta quando questo sia stato violato. Se ai lavoratori non viene lasciata altra scelta che ricorrere al giudizio della legge, qual è in definitiva lo scopo di un codice di condotta? Un’altra richiesta attende ancora risposta da parte di Nike, quella di
rendere pubblici a tutte le parti in causa i risultati delle indagini che Nike
avrebbe svolto sul caso. Le lavoratrici hanno proposto ricorso contro il loro licenziamento il 23 dicembre, ma sono fermamente convinte che Nike dovrebbe rendere noti i risultati e le conclusioni delle sue indagini, e dare applicazione al suo codice di condotta senza aspettare gli esiti dell’iter legale. Hanno già preannunciato che sottoporranno ufficialmente il caso alla Fair Labour Association. Nel frattempo Decathlon ha fatto ancor meno, limitandosi ad assicurare che si sarebbe occupata del caso inserendolo nel suo normale programma di audit, in calendario per la fine di dicembre. Nessun contatto è stato preso con CLIST o con il sindacato malgrado i ripetuti inviti. SCRIVIAMO A NIKE , DECATHLON E A MSP (inviando copie a CLIST: clist at loxinfo.co.th) LETTERA A NIKE (harsh.saini at nike.com; krittika.W at nike.com) (si chiede a Nike di non aspettare gli esiti delle procedure previste dalla legge ma di far leva sulla propria influenza per pretendere il rispetto del proprio codice di condotta imponendo la revoca dei licenziamenti e il rispetto della libertà sindacale. Si chiede inoltre che siano resi pubblici i risultati delle sue indagini e avviato un processo con tutte le parti in causa per migliori relazioni sindacali)
Nell'oggetto, scrivere: MSP Sportswear factory in Thailand
Nike World Headquarters
LETTERA A DECATHLON (karalvambeveren at decathlon.com) (si chiede a Decathlon di prendere contatto con il sindacato della MSP e con CLIST, e di condividere con loro i risultati dell’ispezione prevista per fine dicembre, usando della propria influenza per giungere a una risoluzione soddisfacente della vertenza in corso)
Nell'oggetto, scrivere: MSP Sportswear factory in Thailand
DECATHLON LETTERA A MSP (samanya at mpgthailand.com; peter at mpgthailand.com) (si chiede al titolare Sig. Krautler di reintegrare le lavoratrici licenziate e di venire incontro alle richieste del sindacato, facendo cessare ogni comportamento illegale) Nell'oggetto, scrivere: MSP Sportswear factory in
Thailand Master Piece
Garment and Textile Co. Ltd.
Attn.: Mr. Peter Krautler (factory owner) 88/2 Moo4 Rama2 Road Samaedam Bangkhuntien Bangkok 10150 Thailand Tel 02-4528254-61 Fax 02-4528252-53 E-mail: samanya at mpgthailand.com E-mail: peter at mpgthailand.com Dear Mr. Krautler, I am writing you because I am concerned to hear about the situation at the MSP Sportswear factory in Huatalea Moung Nakornrachaseama in Thailand. I understand that in 2003, workers at the factory decided to organise and form a union due to the poor working conditions at the factory. Since then, union organisers and executive members have been harassed at your factory and a number of them have been unfairly dismissed in October 2004. During talks held between you, Nike representatives, and the dismissed union executives and the organisation supporting them, CLIST, you stated in writing that you had no intention of reinstating the unfairly dismissed workers. Instead of constructive negotiation with the union, you offered the dismissed workers money in the hope that they would drop their demands and leave your factory. This is unacceptable because it is in violation of Thai labour laws. The workers at your factory have the right to organise and to engage in collective bargaining. To bring a swift and fair resolution to this conflict, I urge you to take steps to reinstate the dismissed workers and ensure that the demands of the union are met, including: 1. Reinstatement of the 3 dismissed workers with back wages from the first day of dismissal until their reinstatement. 2. Reinstatement the mother of one of the committee members of the trade union, who was also working at the factory and whom the union members believe got fired because of her family connection. 3. Rescind warning letters issued to Mr. Pragun Boonluom, a union activist who was arbitrarily transferred from his sewing line to the cutting line without being given adequate training for his new duties. He was therefore unable to meet quotas and received a warning letter. 4. Stop all actions against the union and cease distributing misleading information about the union. 5. Allow the union to give leaflets and union membership application forms freely in the work place without intimidation or any form of interference to prevent workers from joining the union. MSP Sportswear employees must be allowed to form and join a union of their choosing free from intimidation and harassment. I look forward to hearing from you about actions you have been able to take on this matter. For your information, I'm also contacting your main clients, including Nike and Decathlon, to express my deep concern over this matter. (nome, cognome, paese, eventuale organizzazione di appartenenza) ------------------------------------------------------------------
Per essere esclusi dalla lista o ricevere informazioni sulla Clean Clothes Campaign, inviate un messaggio a: ersilia.monti at mclink.it Ersilia Monti (Coordinamento Lombardo Nord/Sud del mondo - Rete di Lilliput Nodo di Milano) www.lilliputmilano.org/lab/consumocritico.html
al link Abiti Puliti
www.cleanclothes.org ----------------------------------------------------------------- -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Clean Clothes Campaign [mailto:info at cleanclothes.org] Inviato: mercoledì 5 gennaio 2005 10.33 A: ccc-international at cleanclothes.org Oggetto: [Cleanclothes] Nike and Decathlon supplier MSP Thailand For more information please click on the link below. http://www.cleanclothes.org/companies/nike05-01-04.htm Dear friends, On 29 October 2004, three executives of a recently formed union at MSP Sportswear in Thailand were dismissed. Since then, the remaining nine executives in the plant have been subjected to constant harassment and have been prevented from carrying out their union activities. In the period since the dismissal there have been several meetings between the union executives, the local organization supporting them (CLIST), government officials and the main buyer, Nike. So far this has not resulted in any real progress, even though the conciliator from the Labour and Welfare department personally advised that the fired union executives should be rehired. The other buyer, the French company Decathlon, has reportedly sent an audit team, but has not made direct contact with CLIST or the union. Please find below a chronology of the case, an appeal for action and sample letters plus addresses. Chronology of the case. Due to constantly increasing quotas with no pay increase, compulsory overtime, poor quality of drinking water, verbal abuse from supervisors and daily body searches that at times amounted to sexual harassment, five workers met on 9 November 2003 to form a union at the factory. One of the organisers, Samai Kongtalei was dismissed by management due to a 'reduction in orders' but she was later rehired. On 24 November 2003, Ms. Kongtalei and another activist worker, Ms. Atchara Sophon were dismissed for submitting worker's demands to management. Nike monitors were also contacted by local organizations and asked to intervene on behalf of the workers, with positive results. After intervention by the National Human Rights Commission the dismissed workers were reinstated in February 2004. There were some improvements such as the company provided lockers, clean drinking water for workers and a food allowance of 5 Bath per day. Workers continue their efforts to form a union to address the other issues. On 12 October 2004 the union was registered. When the union launched a campaign for new members and on 29 October 2004, three union executives were dismissed. On November 23 CLIST contacted Nike, as well as the Fair Labour Association (FLA). Upon CLIST's request CCC also contacted Nike directly, and urged them to discuss the matter directly with CLIST and the fired workers. On the 26th a press release on the case was put out by CLIST. Meanwhile, the French CCC contacted Decathlon and confirmed that the company subcontracts with MSP. The three dismissed union activists, together with CLIST, met with Nike's regional coordinator and a local FLA representative on 8 December to attempt to find a solution. After talks were held, CLIST reported that another member of the union executive, Mr. Pragun Boonluom, was being harassed by factory management. On 13 December a letter was sent to Nike's regional coordinator calling for an end to this harassment and for a swift resolution to this dispute. A follow-up meeting was held on 14 December 2004 where a conciliator from the Welfare and Labour Protection Department of the Ministry of Labour Thailand , two company representatives, the three dismissed workers, CP Nonthong Union and Nike representatives were in attendance. The conciliator stated that in his opinion, the company had clearly violated the right to organize, and attempted to destroy the labour union by dismissing the three workers because of their union activities. The owner, Mr. Peter Krautler, stated in a letter that he had no intention to reinstate the dismissed workers. Instead, he offered them money equaling ten months salary in an attempt to induce them to drop their demands. All three workers refused to accept this money and stated they would continue fighting for their rights. In the meantime, the mother of one of the union activists who was working at the same factory was also dismissed. This appeared to be a continuation of the company's intimidation tactics at the factory while talks with management and Nike were taking place. CLIST wrote a letter to Nike on 15 December asking for a meeting to take place before 20 December 2004 with all parties concerned to present their information regarding the violations of Nike's Code of Conduct, and once more submitted their demands. 1. Reinstatement of the 3 dismissed workers with back wages from the first day of dismissal until their reinstatement. 2. The company must reinstate the mother of one of the committee members of the trade union, who was also working at the factory and whom the union members believe got fired because of her family connection. 3. The company must rescind warning letters issued to Mr. Pragun Boonluom, a union activist who was arbitrarily transferred from his sewing line to the cutting line without being given adequate training for his new duties. He was therefore unable to meet quotas and received a warning letter. 4. The company must stop all actions against the union and cease distributing misleading information about the union. 5 The company must allow the union to give leaflets and union membership application forms freely in the work place without intimidation or any form of interference to prevent workers from joining the union. Nike reported on 15 December 2004 that they were discussing with factory management how follow-up the conciliator's recommendation that the workers would be rehired. In the subsequent email exchanges, the company indicated that the Austrian management strongly opposed this, and that Nike wanted to ultimately follow the governments ruling on the case. CLIST and CCC made it clear to Nike that, although the dismissed union members will file against their dismissal with the relevant authorities if the case is not resolved by the end of December, the legal framework as such has failed many times in the past to ensure that freedom of association is genuinely respected, and that though we expect Nike to work with the authorities, they can't and shouldn't wait for the authorities to solve the problem. Nike's code of conduct has been violated, so Nike has a responsibility to act directly itself. On the 23d of December Nike informed CLIST that they'd requested the conciliator to identify appropriate next steps. The conciliator, after being contacted by CLIST, stated that there are two options, a higher amount of compensation can be discussed and negotiated, or, the workers can follow the standard legal procedure through the Labour relations committee. This has been a great disappointment to the union's executive and to CLIST: as outlined above, the confidence in the existing legal procedures is very low as it offers loopholes to avoid genuine freedom of association, and it is likely that this process will take a long time and not result in rehiring of the workers, but rather in paying them off with an amount probably lower then what was on offer earlier. If at the end of the day workers get referred back to the existing legal procedures then what is the use of having a Code of Conduct? If this means that Nike's Code of Conduct has no relevance if the legal procedure is followed, then why bother having a code at all? Furthermore, A request was made in the December 15 letter to set up a meeting with all parties concerned where also the results of Nike's own investigation could be shared, to which no reaction has been given. The workers have filed against their dismissal on the 23d, but meanwhile strongly believe that Nike should share the results of their investigation and their conclusions, and implement its code without waiting for the outcome of the legal process. They have informed the FLA that they wish to file an official complaint with them as well. Meanwhile Decathlon have done less, as they've only agreed to look into matters as part of its regular audit process, which was scheduled anyway for the end of December. No contact has been made by Decathlon with CLIST or with the union, despite repeated requests. Action request 1. Contact MSP sports and ask them to meet the demands of the union, and inform them you are contacting their main buyers as well. 2. Contact Nike and tell them that you appreciate their direct discussions with the workers and their organizations, you urge them not to wait for the outcomes of the Welfare & Labour protection department. Nike's code of conduct has been violated, and it's therefore Nike's responsibility to undertake effective action to ensure remediation. The fact that government officials, in this case the conciliator from the Welfare and Labour protection department, support the reinstatement only serves to strengthen the point. There is no reason why Nike would have to wait for the authorities to broker an agreement, they should use their substantial leverage over the supplier to get the workers reinstated. Nike has intervened once before in the very same factory on the very same issues. There is no reason not to do this again. Nike should also call together all parties concerned, as requested in the December 15 letter of CLIST, to share the outcomes of the investigation, and secondly to discuss what steps should be taken after re-instatement of the workers, with the support of the relevant authorities, to work towards an open and just process to improve labour-management relations. 3. Contact Decathlon and express your disappointment on their extremely passive response to this urgent matter. They have had over a month to contact CLIST and the union executives and have not done so, they should talk to them without delay, and should share the report of the audit with them. Decathlon should also per direct inform us on what steps they've taken towards the management of MSP sports to ensure that the demands from the Union are met. They should work with Nike towards an effective and immediate remediation process, notwithstanding the legal process followed, and should participate actively in organizing for all parties to discuss next steps. 4. Send copies of your letters to CLIST: 166/23 Nattagan 3 Paholyothin 52 Klongtanon Saimai Bangkok Thailand 10220 Tel/Fax 02-972-7035 Tel 01-8229477 Email : clist at loxinfo.co.th SAMPLE LETTER 1 Nike World Headquarters One Bowerman Drive Beaverton, OR 97005 Phone: 1-800-344-6453 e-mail: harsh.saini at nike.com (Nike regional coordinator) Krittika.W at nike.com Date: Dear Harsh Saini and W. Krittika I am writing to you because I am concerned to hear about the situation at the MSP Sportswear factory in Huatalea Moung Nakornrachaseama in Thailand. I understand that in 2003, workers at the factory decided to organise and form a union due to the poor working conditions at the factory. Since that time, the union executive has been harassed and threatened. In October 2004 some of them were unfairly dismissed, and in some cases their relatives were dismissed. Other members of the executive were arbitrarily transferred to other sections without proper training. Since the MSP Sportswear factory produces primarily for Nike, I call upon Nike to use its influence to bring about a fair and acceptable resolution that includes the following demands of the union: 1. Reinstatement of the 3 dismissed workers with back wages from the first day of dismissal until their reinstatement. 2. The company must reinstate the mother of one of the committee members of the trade union, who was also working at the factory and whom the union members believe got fired because of her family connection. 3. The company must rescind warning letters issued to Mr. Pragun Boonluom, a union activist who was arbitrarily transferred from his sewing line to the cutting line without being given adequate training for his new duties. He was therefore unable to meet quotas and received a warning letter. 4. The company must stop all actions against the union and cease distributing misleading information about the union. 5. The company must allow the union to give leaflets and union membership application forms freely in the work place without intimidation or any form of interference to prevent workers from joining the union. It has come to my attention you, as a representative of Nike, met with the MSP Sportswear workers and the labour organisation supporting them, CLIST, in Thailand. Despite the fact that it was clearly demonstrated that Nike's Code of Conduct was being violated at the factory, Nike has decided to wait for the outcome of the legal proceedings. This is unacceptable because it is Nike's Code of Conduct that is the issue here. If this Code of Conduct is being violated, it is Nike's direct responsibility to intervene, rather than waiting for legal proceedings to run their course. Nike should also call together all parties concerned, as requested in the December 15 letter of CLIST, to share the outcomes of the investigation, and secondly to discuss what steps should be taken after re-instatement of the workers. I urge you to do everything you can to ensure that the demands of the workers are met and that they will be able to form and join a union of their choosing free from intimidation and harassment. I look forward to hearing from you about actions you have been able to take on this matter. Yours sincerely, Your name and/or organisation SAMPLE LETTER 2: Master Piece Garment and Textile Co. Ltd. Attn.: Mr. Peter Krautler (factory owner) 88/2 Moo4 Rama2 Road Samaedam Bangkhuntien Bangkok 10150 Thailand Tel 02-4528254-61 Fax 02-4528252-53 E-mail: samanya at mpgthailand.com E-mail: peter at mpgthailand.com Date: Dear Mr. Krautler, I am writing you because I am concerned to hear about the situation at the MSP Sportswear factory in Huatalea Moung Nakornrachaseama in Thailand. I understand that in 2003, workers at the factory decided to organise and form a union due to the poor working conditions at the factory. Since then, union organisers and executive members have been harassed at your factory and a number of them have been unfairly dismissed in October 2004. During talks held between you, Nike representatives, and the dismissed union executives and the organisation supporting them, CLIST, you stated in writing that you had no intention of reinstating the unfairly dismissed workers. Instead of constructive negotiation with the union, you offered the dismissed workers money in the hope that they would drop their demands and leave your factory. This is unacceptable because it is in violation of Thai labour laws. The workers at your factory have the right to organise and to engage in collective bargaining. To bring a swift and fair resolution to this conflict, I urge you to take steps to reinstate the dismissed workers and ensure that the demands of the union are met, including: 1. Reinstatement of the 3 dismissed workers with back wages from the first day of dismissal until their reinstatement. 2. Reinstatement the mother of one of the committee members of the trade union, who was also working at the factory and whom the union members believe got fired because of her family connection. 3. Rescind warning letters issued to Mr. Pragun Boonluom, a union activist who was arbitrarily transferred from his sewing line to the cutting line without being given adequate training for his new duties. He was therefore unable to meet quotas and received a warning letter. 4. Stop all actions against the union and cease distributing misleading information about the union. 5. Allow the union to give leaflets and union membership application forms freely in the work place without intimidation or any form of interference to prevent workers from joining the union. MSP Sportswear employees must be allowed to form and join a union of their choosing free from intimidation and harassment. I look forward to hearing from you about actions you have been able to take on this matter. For your information, I'm also contacting your main clients, including Nike and Decathlon, to express my deep concern over this matter. Yours sincerely, Your name and/or organisation SAMPLE LETTER 3: DECATHLON Bourges RN 76 Route d'Orleans 18230 Saint Doulchard Tel. + 33 02 48 23 02 02 Fax. + 33 02 48 23 02 00 Email : karalvambeveren at decathlon.com Date : Dear Mr. Vambeveren, I am writing to you because I am concerned to hear about the situation at the MSP Sportswear factory in Huatalea Moung Nakornrachaseama in Thailand. I understand that in 2003, workers at the factory decided to organise and form a union due to the poor working conditions at the factory. Since that time, the union executive has been harassed and threatened. Some of them were unfairly dismissed in October 2004, and in some cases their relatives were dismissed. Other members of the executive were arbitrarily transferred to other sections without proper training. I was disappointed to learn that to date, Decathlon has not played an active role in bringing about a resolution to this labour conflict, even though it sources at MSP Sportswear and has been kept well informed about the poor labour practices at the factory. I understand that Decathlon has scheduled a regular audit of the factory and would look into the matter at that point. Your audit team however did not at any point in time contacted the fired workers or the organizations working with them. This response is therefore completely inadequate. I hereby urge Decathlon to contact the MSP Sportswear factory union and CLIST (the local organisation supporting the union) and to share the audit report with them, and use your influence to bring about a fair and acceptable resolution that includes the following demands of the union: 1. Reinstatement of the 3 dismissed workers with back wages from the first day of dismissal until their reinstatement. 2. The company must reinstate the mother of one of the committee members of the trade union, who was also working at the factory and whom the union members believe got fired because of her family connection. 3. The company must rescind warning letters issued to Mr. Pragun Boonluom, a union activist who was arbitrarily transferred from his sewing line to the cutting line without being given adequate training for his new duties. He was therefore unable to meet quotas and received a warning letter. 4. The company must stop all actions against the union and cease distributing misleading information about the union. 5. The company must allow the union to give leaflets and union membership application forms freely in the work place without intimidation or any form of interference to prevent workers from joining the union. I urge upon you also work with other buyers towards an effective and immediate remediation process, notwithstanding the legal process followed, and participate actively in organizing for all parties to discuss next steps. I look forward to hearing from you about actions you have been able to take on this matter. Yours sincerely, Your name and/or organisation |
- Prev by Date: RE: Comunicato stampa incontro con la Schering
- Next by Date: campagna Biancaneve: il Toroc rinunci ai soldi
- Previous by thread: RE: Comunicato stampa incontro con la Schering
- Next by thread: campagna Biancaneve: il Toroc rinunci ai soldi
- Indice: