TCFUA hots up fines over outworkers

Continual breaches of the Industrial Relations law has prompted the Textiles Clothing and Footwear Union (TCFUA) to step up outworker compliance inspections of clothing companies on the Gold and Sunshine Coasts.
In the past 12 months there have been 26 prosecutions for non-compliance with the Industrial Relations Law with 13 others currently in process. Many more are at the stage of receiving notice the union intends to interview them and inspect their records.
Union state secretary Jacques Morel, who has been doing the rounds of factories and fashion houses for 11 years, said in spite of warning letters most clothing companies have ignored the legal requirements relating to contract makers and outworkers. Many had failed to register, draw up written and signed outworker contracts, or keep records of all costings and process times for each garment made by outworkers.
The law aims to prevent exploitation of outworkers by exposing the price components of each garment they make while also serving to identify who and where the outworkers are so that they can be visited by the union for further checking.
Under the act, the union has the power to enter premises and inspect records. If the records are not correctly kept the union can impose multiple fines - up to $10,000 for each breach of the award.
Morel said the biggest fine so far in Queensland has been $20,000 for a case known as TCFUA v Lotus Cove Pty Ltd (2004), but most total around $15,000. In many cases the union would assist the offender by negotiating a lesser settlement to avoid the cost of going to court, he said. If a company disputes a fine, the law directs that the parties go to mediation before the case proceeds to court.
All money collected as fines is paid into union funds.
Morel said the union usually gives clothing companies three months notice to comply with the act. Initially they are sent a letter, which states that where the union finds that an employer has not complied with the award, the TCFUA will exercise its rights under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to seek that penalties be imposed by the Federal Court.
The letter also states the union's intention to put companies suspected of breaching the award on notice that it will continue to inspect premises to determine whether the award is being complied with and will prosecute breaches where they are found.
The union believes this notice should act as a warning to non-compliant clothing companies to act promptly to obey the law.
Morel said a follow-up letter is sent about three months later.
Since the union has knowledge of any compliance action that has taken place after its warning letter, or rather lack of action, inspections are virtually assured of resulting in beaches being exposed and fine being imposed.
Although Morel said he doesn't take away documents from inspections, at least two companies that have incurred penalties said they each supplied a photocopied work sheet at Morel's request which, they later realised, served as proof they were not compliant.
Companies wanting to know more about their legal obligations when it comes to employing outworkers should look at nosweatlabel.com. An alternative is to read The Workplace Relations Act 1996 or clauses 46, 47, 48 and 49 of the Clothing Trades Award 1999.