Margreet Vrieling Int. verification coordinator

Margreet Vrieling Int. verification coordinator

What is fair wear foundation? Independent, non-profitrun by business associations, trade unions and non-governmental organisations Mission: to improve working conditions in apparel factories

Grounded principles

General approach Members are responsible for improving conditions in their supply chains. FWF verifies how well each member is doing, and reports to the public.

FWF methodology Factory audits assess needs for improvement Verification audits verify improvements No certificates; focus on progress Audits done by three persons; 3 roles Use input from stakeholders Complaints mechanism Brand performance checks

FWF today 80 members, based in 9 countries > 100 brands 20,000+ sales outlets in 80+ countries Fashion, outdoor, work wear & B2B brands Monitoring 1200 factories 500.000 workers FWF active in 15 countries

FWF in Turkey 2nd biggest supplier country FWF members 26 Affiliates sourcing 170 factories supplying Freelance auditors (15) Liaison officer/Local complaints handler Project staff/trainer Stakeholder network

Findings regarding social compliance in Turkey Wages (double/triple book keeping) OT > 60 hrs. per week; Juveniles/Pregnant No (adequate) leave records Unregistered workers/Social security Freedom of Association/Anti-union discrimination Unsafe workplaces, harassment Insufficient communication/consultation

ILO: “Sound industrial relations and effective social dialogue are a means to promote better wages and working conditions as well as peace and social justice”

FWF and social dialogue The right to freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively are keystone elements in the FWF code Respect for these rights is a pre-requisite for the sustainable improvement of labour conditions in the garment industry. Communicationand consultation at the factory level essential.

FWF and social dialogue FWF focus at enterprise level Dialogue at factory level is important: • Workers best in place to monitor conditions • Improved dialogue can increase efficiency, lead to better motivated workforce, avoid conflicts, solve problems, improve social compliance

Dialogue at factory level Dialogue between management representative and worker representative workers' representatives are: trade union representatives or freely elected representatives by the workers whose functions do not include activities which are recognised as the exclusive prerogative of trade unions in the country concerned

Worker representative Freely elected Be able to execute their task Structure for meetings among worker representatives and worker representation with management Workers should have access on who they are, how to contact them

Effective grievance procedure Some points of attention for an effective grievance procedure: Worker representatives should be involved. Workers should be informed about the procedure and how to make use of it Workers should receive feed back on follow up of complaints

FWF findings on dialogue at factory level in Turkey Insufficient communication and consultation with workers; Workers not well aware of their rights No functional worker committees No functional grievance mechanisms No union active No freely elected worker representative

Ceren İşat Local Liason Officer

Social dialogue programme Focus on dialogue at factory level Begin to strengthen supplier factories’ ability to handle improvements of working conditions through dialogue between workers and management

Social dialogue Programme Implemented at 7 factories, in Istanbul and Denizli More than 200 workers participated in training at factories with around 900 workers in total Approximately 50 per cent of the participants were women.

Social dialogue programme – Main activities • Gathering input from stakeholders on programme (unions, business associations) • Local workshops -> Supplier seminars at the start (Istanbul and Izmir) • Asking feedbacks from stakeholders on content of training programme • Training programme on communication and conflict resolution (7 factories)

Social dialogue programme – Main activities • Supporting improving functioning of grievance mechanism at the factory • Impact assessment • Supplier seminar and stakeholder seminar • Worker tour

Social dialogue programme – Content of training 8 modules: • Labor Standards • Communication skills • Channels of communication • Grievance mechanism • Barriers in communication • Conflict resolution/negotiation • Meeting skills • Communication under pressure

Social dialogue programme - Methodology Participatory methods Small groups Ongoing communication with management Facilitating meetings

Results – increased awareness on rights FWF Code was not posted at more than half of the factories Now Code is posted and impact assessments show that almost all participants learned about the Code elements, especially:

Results – increased awareness on Grievance Mechanism • Workers used the grievance mechanism at all factories on board. • 4 factories had improvements for a well functioning grievance mechanism Workers and management were not well aware of functioning of a grievance mechanism. Most factories underlined open door policy

Results – increased functioning of mechanism Worker representatives: Existence: from 4 factories to 6 Appointment vs. Election: Elected WRs at 3 factories

Results – increased functioning of mechanism Worker representatives: Number: increased at 2 factories Awareness: limited or no information on WRs – role and responsibility “We had a WR before and I knew the person. But it was like a formality. We did not know his role. Nobody tried to raise a demand through him. But now I think the mechanism is more efficient. There is a worker representative for each production line. I am the WR for my line. I receive demands nearly every week. They can easily ask me to communicate their needs because we are always together at the same production line.”

Results – increased functioning of mechanism Grievance boxes • Increased usage/collectively used in 6 factories for collectively formulated demands • Increased awareness • Duly implementation: WRs’ participation in opening at 4 factories

Results – increased functioning of mechanism Committees/Meetings: Establishment of grievance/WRs’ committees at 2 factories Meetings between management and WRs at 1 factory

iMprovements as a result of increased dialogue and collective demands Abolition of ban on leaving factory building during breaks Formation of praying room Providing enough drinking water for workers

improvements as a result of increased dialogue and collective demands No OT during Ramadan Dining room to be run by workers with necessary health checks

improvements as a result of increased dialogue and collective demands Duly payment of benefits/AGI Sufficient lighting at production sides

Challenges/Lessons Learned Change in Groups: Package of 8 modules complementary to each other, designed to be implemented • With same group • Group of 20-30 workers

Challenges/Lessons Learned Groups’ Profile: • Participation of supervisors (at some sessions/ on the decision of workers) • Participation of managers (served as a barrier/ served as a dialogue channel)

Challenges/Lessons Learned Allocation of insufficient time: • For some sessions because of production load • For whole programme; which resulted in a modified package(s) of: • Labor standards • Communication and grievance mechanism • Conflict resolution and negotiation • Meeting skills, barriers in communication

Challenges/Lessons Learned Planning: • done together with factory managements • flexibility was provided However; • we faced with the problem of cancellation of sessions by some factories frequently

Challenges/Lessons Learned Family businesses/need for more professional management systems • Problem of determining the real responsible • Very powerful supervisors • Lack of division of tasks

conclusions • Being transparent and open to learn and implement new things is an important factor affects the success. • Training programmes are tools for increased knowledge and enhanced skills, but also; • An important opportunity for workers to discuss working conditions and formulate collective demands.

conclusions • Professionalized management systems and clear procedures facilitate dialogue between management and workers “There is a big chance. The system changed totally. Now there are opportunities for us to talk about our problems. We participate in meetings with managers. They listen to our problems. Now we are happier and more productive.”

conclusions • Important to ensure the participation of same group in training, unless it is possible to provide training for all the workers at a workplace. • Separate modules for supervisors • Interactive/participatory training is important for demands formulating • Trade unions have best knowledge on workers rights, but lack access to factories • Flexible but serious planning

Questions?

Margreet Vrieling Int. verification coordinator