The BHRRC compiled the responses of 15 brands tied to the nine cases in question, seven of which remain unresolved, to assess the adequacy of each’s rebuttal. Through its analysis, five key approaches were: non-engagement; engagement with the issue, with limited transparency or accountability; a gap between company commitment to freedom of association and implementation in factories; deference to local labour laws that fall short of international standards; and non-transparent dialogue with suppliers, often without meaningful engagement with unions or workers.
The Worker Rights Consortium is investigating and engaging with brands in six of the nine cases and several others. Rola Abimourched, senior program director said: “Despite having codes of conduct requiring respect for freedom of association, brands have failed to respond swiftly and effectively. This contributes to an atmosphere of fear and acceptance of poor working conditions among garment workers who are struggling to provide for the basic needs of their families.”
The Clean Clothes Campaign echoes this view. The workers’ rights organisation says: “Unless there are strong and unified reactions from the labour movement and companies buying goods from factories where violations take place such actions will undoubtedly increase and undermine workers’ rights.”
The BHRRC has outlined a number of recommendations that it urges brands to comply with if such systemic cases of workers’ rights abuses are to be mitigated. Increasing transparency is deemed a top priority, as the organisation reaffirms how brands should ensure consistent and full visibility over supplier factories, and publish a list of these in accordance with the Transparency Pledge and the Open Data Standard for the Apparel Sector.
Particularly amidst the pandemic, the BHRRC says brands should “play an active, transparent role in negotiations between their suppliers and workers, promote freedom of association, prohibit the discrimination against unionised workers in dismissals, and seek the reinstatement of unfairly dismissed union members and leaders – proactively ensuring that this takes place, even in the absence of pressure on cases in the public domain.”
Conducting labour rights due diligence and implementing worker-centred policies are also deemed integral to progress. To this end, preventing anti-union practices and providing third-party independent training so that both employers and workers understand the respective rights is of paramount importance.
The report concludes: “Brands have a duty to actively respect the rights of the workers that produce their clothes. The COVID-19 pandemic is being used as an opportunity to dismiss unionised workforces, thereby weakening rights protections and exposing garment workers to further risk of unaddressed exploitation – brands must urgently respond. When labour disputes and reports of union busting do arise in their supply chains, brands must engage directly and meaningfully with unions and worker groups as part of their due diligence and work with them to support adequate resolutions.”
You can read the report here: https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/union-busting-and-unfair-dismissals-garment-workers-during-covid-19
