HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS ‘SUSPECT’ MARIGOLD MANUFACTURERS OF ABUSES

 NO ONE IS TREATED WITH KID GLOVES AT THAI RUBBER PRODUCTS FACTORY! – claim.

BUT COMPANY SAYS NOT TRUE AND HAS INITIATED A ‘BEST PLACE TO WORK’ CAMPAIGN

The Burmese workers at the Siam Sempermed factory in Hat Yai, Southern Thailand, claim they are paid below the wage minimum, get none of the breaks proscribed by law, and are even cheated over costs for such items as work permits, according to the Finnish Consumer Watchdog ‘Finnwatch’.

The Austrian company which owns the business Semperit (Austria) alongside Sri Trang Group (Thailand), claims Finnwatch, has been evasive in their answers and put the research down to hearsay.

But Finnwatch say they have taped all interviews and kept documentary evidence of goings on at the Hat Yai company, which also produces gloves for Nova, Sensicare and Fitguard, and their own brands (below). But Finnwatch has revised a press release issued with an embargo for today’s date – and have inserted the word ‘suspect’ into a press release.

Finnwatch say they are protecting the identities of their researchers in Thailand after the Natural Fruit Company, which they accused of abusing migrant Burmese workers in Prachuap Khiri Kan Province took out criminal libel proceedings and a US$100 million civil case against their principal researcher Briton Andy Hall from Spalding, Lincs.

They may have anticipated that Siam Sempermed would react in the same way.

“ Finnwatch informed Siam Sempermed’s European owner Semperit about these labour rights violations already in December 2013, but the company turned a deaf ear to this whistle blowing.

“Instead of addressing the situation of labour rights violations, Semperit has continued to deny all accusations and said that the company has never heard of any problems in its Thai factory.”

Semperit claim to Finnwatch that they were audited in March 2013 by The BSCI – Business Social Compliance Initiative. According to Semperit, “..external audits have underlined the proper manner in which we deal with our employees as well as our compliance with all prevailing labour regulations in Thailand.”

But in a statement to Finnwatch, BSCI  said clearly “This [Semperit] statement does not reflect the findings gathered through the BSCI audits and therefore puts the credibility of BSCI in question.”

BSCI further stated that it will take action regarding Semperit if the company does not correct its prior statement to Finnwatch.

THE FINN WATCH REPORT

An Austrian company, Semperit, is one of the world’s leading hospital glove manufacturers. 

Semperit nitrile and natural rubber gloves are produced in Thailand in factories co-owned by Semperit alongside Sri Trang Group (Thailand). Semperit and Sri Trang Group’s factory complex, consisting of three separate factories, is called Siam Sempermed and is located on the outskirts of Hat Yai city, Songkhla province in Southern Thailand. Siam Sempermed is situated in a rubber industry area amongst many rubber plantations and rubber product factories. 

US based Kimberly Clark, also producing rubber gloves, is situated in the immediate surrounds of Siam Sempermed factory compound. 

Siam Sempermed’s other smaller Thai factory is situated in Surat Thani province, North
of Songkhla Province but still in Southern Thailand. This particular factory is not studied in this report. According to Semperit, 70 % of its workers work in Asia, mostly in Thailand. 

Semperit gloves are marketed in Finland by One Med Oy and are used in several Finnish medical care districts across the country. In 2014, Semperit gloves were used in Southwest Finland, South Karelia, Kainuu, Länsi-Pohja, Satakunta and Lapland hospital districts, amongst others.

Finnwatch was informed about poor working conditions at Siam Sempermed complex at the end of 2013. Finnwatch speedily contacted Semperit and informed about the reported labour rights violations, urging the company to investigate serious claims made against Siam Sempermed. 

Semperit replied to Finnwatch’s communica- tion but was mostly interested in who had been in contact with workers or conducted workplace interviews and whether the factory had given permission for such inter- views. Semperit did not provide Finnwatch information on how they were going to react to the serious allegations made against Siam Sempermed.

At the end of January 2014, local researchers assisting Finnwatch reported that there had been no improvements in Siam Sempermed’s labour conditions. Since no progress was evident from non-public dialogue, Finnwatch decided to conduct further field research into factory conditions. 

During field research in January 2014, 18 workers were interviewed by Finnwatch’s local researcher. All interviews were recorded and other related evidence of labour conditions including workers’ ID cards, pictures from inside the factory and documents from the factory notice board were also gathered together. 

All interviewed workers were migrant workers from Myanmar who worked in Siam Sempermed’s packing department in tasks that involved straightening out and then placing rubber gloves into boxes. 

Besides Semperit’s own labels, Sempercare and Semperguard gloves, Siam Sempermed factory also produces and packs Marigold, Sensicare, Nova and Fitguard branded gloves. 

The field research gave strong indications that international labour rights as well as domestic Thai laws were being violated in the Siam Sempermed factory. 

 Semperit has denied all field research results and answered in only short sentences to some of the findings. According to Semperit, the information gathered in worker interviews is based on ”speculation and hearsay”. 

The company actively objected to the publishing of Finnwatch’s research on labour conditions at the Siam Sempermed factory complex.

The field research commissioned by Finnwatch discovered that workers in Siam Sempermed packing department were forced to work excessive hours and were unable to influence their daily working hours.

Work at Siam Sempermed is conducted in three shifts and excessive working time was reported to be a problem in all shifts. The packing department workers working in the morning shift reported, for example, that in order to meet their daily production targets, they started working at 4.30 am daily.  

However, they were not allowed to swipe their ID cards until the official starting time of around 7am. 

According to interviewed workers, strict targets were implemented and increased in 2013 after the domestic minimum wage rose to 300 baht per day across the whole of Thailand.
In an official complaint to local authorities, some Siam Sempermed workers stated that they were forced to pack 14 boxes of gloves before they were able to leave the work. Workers who demanded overtime payments were fired. 

According to interviewed workers, targets laid down by the factory vary between different kinds of gloves and box sizes. In one box there are at least tens of smaller glove cartons.
In addition, it was reported that Siam Sempermed workers were prohibited from taking legally required breaks.  

According to Thai law, a worker should have a break of at least one hour during eight hours of daily work. In addition, there should be at least a 20 minute break before starting over time that lasts for two or more hours. 

As it became evident during the field research, workers in Siam Sempermed are unable
to take these required breaks and instead during their 13-hour work day have only one lunch break which often lasts less than half an hour due to workers hurrying to eat and get back to work to fulfill their work targets.

Accordingly, workers salary varied from 300 to 400 baht (7–9 euros) for a 13-hour day. Instead of the minimum wage in Thailand (300 baht per 8-hour day) and an official over time payment (56 baht per hour), workers at Siam Sempermed are paid in piece meal rates. However, interviewed workers stated that they did not understand the principles and amounts behind these piece meal rates as they were not clearly announced or explained to them.

During the field research, workers in Siam Sempermed did not receive any personal pay slips or work contracts. Salaries were announced on the factory’s board but the amounts given on the board differed from the amounts paid into workers’ bank accounts. Apparently salaries announced on the factory board do not include deductions for accommodation and documents. 

According to interviewed workers, targets laid down by the factory vary between different kinds of gloves and box sizes. In one box there are at least tens of smaller glove cartons.
In addition, it was reported that Siam Sempermed workers were prohibited from taking legally required breaks. According to Thai law, a worker should have a break of at least one hour during eight hours of daily work. 

In addition, there should be at least a 20 minute break before starting over time that lasts for two or more hours. As it became evident during the field research, workers in Siam Sempermed are unable to take these required breaks and instead during their 13-hour work day have only one lunch break which often lasts less than half an hour due to workers hurrying to eat and get back to work to fulfill their work targets. 

Accordingly, workers salary varied from 300 to 400 baht (7–9 euros) for a 13-hour day. Instead of the minimum wage in Thailand (300 baht per 8-hour day) and an official over time payment (56 baht per hour), workers at Siam Sempermed are paid in piece meal rates. 

However, interviewed workers stated that they did not understand the principles and amounts behind these piece meal rates as they were not clearly announced or explained to them.
During the field research, workers in Siam Sempermed did not receive any personal pay slips or work contracts. Salaries were announced on the factory’s board but the amounts given on the board differed from the amounts paid into workers’ bank accounts. Apparently salaries announced on the factory board do not include deductions for accommodation and documents. 

After Finnwatch informed Semperit about fieldwork findings, workers were told to sign a working contract in Burmese language.  

Finnwatch received a copy of such contract recently and it showed wrong dates of signatures (for instance, the year 2011).  

Apparently, wrong dates have been inserted into a contract of employment so that it looks like the contract was signed at the beginning of employment. However, the daily wage in a 2011 dated contract received by Finnwatch was 300 baht, the legal minimum wage only since the beginning of year 2013. 

It was reported that workers are not allowed to have annual holidays and, in addition, national holidays are often prohibited. Interviewed workers stated that workers did not receive double payment required by law when working during a national holiday. 

Several workers also reported that Siam Sempermed did not pay salary during sick leave periods. Salaries were also left unpaid even when a worker had a sick leave certificate from a hospital. Furthermore, some workers reported that supervisors did not allow sick workers to return home in the middle of a working day. 

As a result of all these pressures, only a few interviewed workers had visited outside Siam Sempermed factory area during the last year. This was due to the unfair and long working hours and the prohibition of holiday leave. 

In essence, a worker from the factory packing department is practically restricted to stay in the factory area day in and day out. Workers participating in this field research informed Finnwatch researchers that they were exhausted and that they were in desperate need of a holiday and shorter working days. 

 UNLAWFUL TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT 

According to interviewed workers, Siam Sempermed is undertaking unlawful employment termination  and has been dismissing unlawfully a significant number of migrant workers frequently. 

Dismissed employees have not received official severance payments guaranteed under domestic law. In addition, it was reported that workers are being dismissed without  a lawful reason. For instance, workers were recently dismissed for taking a day off during a national holiday. 

Furthermore, workers participating in this field research reported that Siam Sempermed did not provide dismissed workers with  bay jingo awk certificates, hence making it difficult for them to obtain a new work placement. This certificate is an official resignation letter which is needed by migrant workers in order to acquire new employment legally.
Some workers unlawfully dismissed from Siam Sempermed filed a complaint with Thai labour protection officials in December 2013. However, the complaint was rejected by the Songkhla labour protection office in February2014.  

The labour protection office ruled that since the workers had signed a resignation letter, they were not entitled to any compensation. The office further stated that it was insignificant that the migrant workers had not even understood the content of the resignation letter that was written  in a language they did not understand. 

Workers’ complaint to the officials also reported unlawful salaries and working hours in Siam Sempermed but the authorities didn’t investigate these issues properly. Due to language and financial restraints, it would be extremely difficult for migrant workers to appeal this decision to the Songkhla labour court and hence the dismissal remains unchallenged. 

It was suggested by interviewed packing department workers that one of the main reasons for unlawful employment dismissals was a desire by human resource officials to obtain a high recruitment fee paid by new migrant workers when applying for work at the factory. The recruitment fee currently charged to new workers at Siam Sempermed is approximately 9,000 baht (200 euros) and all new migrant workers must pay it in order to get a job at the factory. 

 UNLAWFUL WORK PERMIT AND ACCOMMODATION DEDUCTIONS FROM SALARIES 

In addition to high recruitment fees, Finnwatch researchers found out that new migrant workers at Siam Sempermed were obliged to pay excessive amounts of money for a variety of documents ranging from work permits and visa procedures to passport extentions.  

The document costs and recruitment fees were deducted directly from workers’ salaries. Hence, a significant amount of money was deducted from salaries and the costs for these procedures exceeded by 3 to 4 times the official costs. Moreover, workers rarely knew the real prices for documents they had to pay for as they had not received any receipts when making payments. 

Even though all interviewed workers reported that they were regularly paying for work permits, only a few actually had a valid original copy of their work permit receipt in their possession. According to the workers, these important  documents were kept by the company. Thai law clearly states that it is unlawful to confiscate a work permit or its original receipt. 

  CHILDREN WORKING WITH FALSE PASSPORTS IN THE FACTORY? 

Workers also reported children and young adults working in Siam Sempermed factory. Interviewees alleged that young adults from15 to 17 years of age were employed as full time workers in the factory, including on the night shift. In Thailand, it is illegal to employ a young person of age 15 to 17 to work overtime, in dangerous work conditions or at night time. Consequently, workers reported to Finnwatch that young adults working in the factory used passports that had the wrong age printed in them. 

Passports with wrong ages printed (issued by Myanmar officials) are commonly used in Thailand. This issue has been revealed also in two previous Finnwatch reports from Thailand. According to Semperit, a strict policy is in place not to hire any workers under 18 years of age. 

Finnwatch does not conclude that factories knowingly employ young workers and admits that the problem of modified or false passports is difficult to tackle.
If young workers are encountered in factories, they should not be dismissed but instead their health should be adequately protected and they should be able to make a living without  having to do unreasonably long working hours or work night shifts or in dangerous conditions.
Instead of engaging on such challenges of young workers, Semperit simply repeated their position that the factory does not hire workers under 18 years of age. 

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MIGRANT WORKERS 

Discrimination against migrant workers is a general problem in Thailand. Not surprisingly, interviewees participating in this field research stated that the management of Siam Sempermed and its supervisors were also discriminating against migrant workers on a regular basis.  

Accordingly, Thai workers were reportedly being paid properly for hours they worked whereas migrant workers regularly received unlawfully low payments due to piece meal rates. Most Thai workers were, however, working as supervisors in the factory. 

Further examples of discrimination against migrant workers were also reported. For instance, Siam Sempermed workers expressed their dissatisfaction with translators provided by the factory. 

It was alleged that the translators were unqualified and this resulted in ongoing misunderstandings. This, in turn, led to workers being unaware of their rights. 

Interviewees informed Finnwatch researchers that the working conditions in the factory were not explained to them at all, or if explained, the explanation was done in an incomprehensible way. Information about working hours, over time hours, piece meal rates and salaries were generally announced only in Thai language making it impossible for non-Thai speakers to understand the information.
Additionally, many of the interviewed packing department workers reported that they were completely unaware of health and safety regulations as well as the presence of  factory welfare committees. 

It was suggested that even if migrant workers found out about an existing welfare committee, they were most probably prohibited from joining it.

WALKING HOME IS DANGEROUS

The field research commissioned by Finnwatch also suggested that both female and male workers were facing frequent violent attacks on their way to and from work. These attacks include apparently several rapes and attempted abductions. 

The attacks occurred especially at late night and in the early morning when workers had to go to work in darkness to meet production targets imposed on them. According to workers, local gangs were behind the attacks. 

Siam Sempermed factory is situated next to one of the main roads leading to Malaysia, where serious traffic accidents are common. Workers walk or bike to work dangerously on the shoulder of the road and no transportation is provided by the company, particularly from accommodation. 

Workers suggested that Siam Sempermed’s management could improve safety of its workers when travelling to and from work by providing safe transportation.
 

TAMPERING AUDITS 

Finally, field research discovered that the management of Siam Sempermed was systematically trying to influence audit reports. All the workers interviewed during this research stated that Siam Sempermed’s staff and management were training factory workers to answer ’correctly’  when speaking with visitors and auditors. 

Workers are requested to lie about break times, holiday payments and sick leave coverage. Furthermore, interviewed workers told Finnwatch researchers that auditors and visitors rarely spoke to workers anyway when visiting the factory on quick tours.
Siam Sempermed reactions to Finnwatch findings  

Semperit reacted slowly to Finnwatch findings. More meaningful dialogue began only after Finnwatch informed Semperit in February2014 that its fieldwork research findings would be published.
Semperit’s attitude towards the findings was rather defensive and the company told Finnwatch that the Siam Sempermed factory had never violated local laws during over 20 years of activity. 

Violations of local labour laws are Common in Thailand and different types of misunderstandings, corruption and unlawful activities have been found in every prior study Finnwatch has conducted in Thai factories in a number of different sectors. 

Unionisation levels in Thailand are minimal, Thailand has not ratified all ILO core conventions and governance priority conventions whilst abuse of vulnerable migrant workers is systematic and common. 

The fact that Semperit has not heard of any such misbehaviour inside its Siam Sempermed factory does not, according to Finnwatch, mean that there are no problems in the factory. Instead, it implies that the factory’s appeal mechanisms and responsibility monitoring systems are lacking in quality. 

Semperit told Finnwatch that a BSCI-auditing was conducted in the factory in March 2013. According to the company, the audit did not reveal any unlawful practices and that the few non-compliance comments regarding international labour rights standards were ’minor’. 

In its official statement to Finnwatch Semperit claims that “external audits have underlined the proper manner in which we deal with our employees as well as our compliance with all prevailing regulations in Thailand. However, Semperit refused to give Finnwatch the auditing report and refused even to reveal the auditing results in numbers. The auditing reports of BSCI are not public making it impossible to confirm these claims made by Semperit. 

Semperit asked Finnwatch to postpone the publishing of this report until May 2014 so that the company could prove its compliance in another BSCI-audit. Finnwatch had no reason to accept this request as the company had been informed about challenges in the Siam Sempermed factory already in December 2013. According to Finnwatch, Semperit cannot only rely on seldom third party audits when issues concerning working conditions are taking place in their own factories. 

Semperit didn’t reply to Finnwatch findings in detail and settled to comment on some of the findings only in a few sentences. For Finnwatch, it seems that Semperit office in Austria does not have expertise in corporate social responsibility issues whilst they also seem to have no direct control on working conditions in their joint venture factory in Thailand, Siam Sempermed. 

As Finnwatch and Semperit views on the working conditions in Siam Sempermed factory in Thailand are very different, Finnwatch asked Business Social Compliance Initiative BSCI to comment on Siam Sempermed’s alleged audit results. 

In its statement to Finnwatch BSCI stated that “(Semperit) statement does not reflect the findings gathered through the BSCI audits and therefore puts the credibility of BSCI in question”.
BSCI also continued that “should the producer not correct the above mention statement, the BSCI secretariat will need to clarify the information about the audit results and related corrective actions with the relevant stakeholder”. 

Siam Sempermed reactions to Finnwatch findings 

Semperit reacted slowly to Finnwatch findings. More meaningful dialogue began only after Finnwatch informed Semperit in February2014 that its fieldwork research findings would be published. 

Semperit’s attitude towards the findings was rather defensive and the company told Finnwatch that the Siam Sempermed factory had never violated local laws during over 20 years of activity. 

Violations of local labour laws are Common in Thailand and different types of misunderstandings, corruption and unlawful activities have been found in every prior study Finnwatch has conducted in Thai factories in a number of different sectors. Unionisation levels in Thailand are minimal, Thailand has not ratified all ILO core conventions and governance priority conventions whilst abuse of vulnerable migrant workers is systematic and common. 

The fact that Semperit has not heard of any such misbehaviour inside its Siam Sempermed factory does not, according to Finnwatch, mean that there are no problems in the factory. Instead, it implies that the factory’s appeal mechanisms and responsibility monitoring systems are lacking in quality. 

Semperit told Finnwatch that a BSCI-auditing was conducted in the factory in March 2013. According to the company, the audit did not reveal any unlawful practices and that the few non-compliance comments regarding international labour rights standards were ’minor’. 

In its official statement to Finnwatch Semperit claims that “external audits have underlined the proper manner in which we deal with our employees as well as our compliance with all prevailing regulations in Thailand. 

However, Semperit refused to give Finnwatch the auditing report and refused even to reveal the auditing results in numbers. The auditing reports of BSCI are not public making it impossible to confirm these claims made by Semperit. 

Semperit asked Finnwatch to postpone the publishing of this report until May 2014 so that the company could prove its compliance in another BSCI-audit. Finnwatch had no reason to accept this request as the company had been informed about challenges in the Siam Sempermed factory already in December 2013. According to Finnwatch, Semperit cannot only rely on seldom third party audits when issues concerning working conditions are taking place in their own factories. 

Semperit didn’t reply to Finnwatch findings in detail and settled to comment on some of the findings only in a few sentences. For Finnwatch, it seems that Semperit office in Austria does not have expertise in corporate social responsibility issues whilst they also seem to have no direct control on working conditions in their joint venture factory in Thailand, Siam Sempermed. 

As Finnwatch and Semperit views on the working conditions in Siam Sempermed factory in Thailand are very different, Finnwatch asked Business Social Compliance Initiative BSCI to comment on Siam Sempermed’s alleged audit results. 

In its statement to Finnwatch BSCI stated that “(Semperit) statement does not reflect the findings gathered through the BSCI audits and therefore puts the credibility of BSCI in question”.  

BSCI also continued that “should the producer not correct the above mention statement, the BSCI secretariat will need to clarify the information about the audit results and related corrective actions with the relevant stakeholder”. 

Violations of local labour laws are Common in Thailand and different types of misunderstandings, corruption and unlawful activities have been found in every prior study Finnwatch has conducted in Thai factories in a number of different sectors. Unionisation levels in Thailand are minimal, Thailand has not ratified all ILO core conventions and governance priority conventions whilst abuse of vulnerable migrant workers is systematic and common. 

The fact that Semperit has not heard of any such misbehaviour inside its Siam Sempermed factory does not, according to Finnwatch, mean that there are no problems in the factory. Instead, it implies that the factory’s appeal mechanisms and responsibility monitoring systems are lacking in quality. 

Semperit told Finnwatch that a BSCI-auditing was conducted in the factory in March 2013. According to the company, the audit did not reveal any unlawful practices and that the few non-compliance comments regarding international labour rights standards were ’minor’. In its official statement to Finnwatch Semperit claims that “external audits have underlined the proper manner in which we deal with our employees as well as our compliance with all prevailing regulations in Thailand. However, Semperit refused to give Finnwatch the auditing report and refused even to reveal the auditing results in numbers. 

The auditing reports of BSCI are not public making it impossible to confirm these claims made by Semperit. 

Semperit asked Finnwatch to postpone the publishing of this report until May 2014 so that the company could prove its compliance in another BSCI-audit. 

Finnwatch had no reason to accept this request as the company had been informed about challenges in the Siam Sempermed factory already in December 2013. 

According to Finnwatch, Semperit cannot only rely on seldom third party audits when issues concerning working conditions are taking place in their own factories. 

Semperit didn’t reply to Finnwatch findings in detail and settled to comment on some of the findings only in a few sentences. For Finnwatch, it seems that Semperit office in Austria does not have expertise in corporate social responsibility issues whilst they also seem to have no direct control on working conditions in their joint venture factory in Thailand, Siam Sempermed.
As Finnwatch and Semperit views on the working conditions in Siam Sempermed factory in Thailand are very different, Finnwatch asked Business Social Compliance Initiative BSCI to comment on Siam Sempermed’s alleged audit results. 

In its statement to Finnwatch BSCI stated that “(Semperit) statement does not reflect the findings gathered through the BSCI audits and therefore puts the credibility of BSCI in question”.  

BSCI also continued that “should the producer not correct the above mention statement, the BSCI secretariat will need to clarify the information about the audit results and related corrective actions with the relevant stakeholder”.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Semperit should hire personnel that have expertise on corporate social responsibility issues. Semperit should make sure that it can monitor working conditions in its joint venture factory, Siam Sempermed, which is situated in a high risk labour violations country such as Thailand. 

• Semperit should commit to international responsibility standards and include responsibility as part of the company strategy and policies. 

• Production targets for workers in Siam Sempermed factory in Thailand should be abandoned. All factory workers should receive a daily wage and overtime compensation as required by domestic Thai law. All workers paid unlawfully low wages/ overtime payment need to be compensated with proper interest rate for past periods during which they were not paid in compliance with the law.