: While the TCFUA and Fairwear believe the protection of outworkers is paramount, businesses claim their activities are eroding what?s left of onshore industry. So who?s in the right? Belinda Smart investigates.
As Australian textile clothing and footwear manufacturing continues its steady seepage offshore, lured by cheap labour, the Textile Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia (TCFUA) and outworker protection campaign Fairwear continue to exercise a steadfast commitment to ridding the fashion industry from worker exploitation. Their stated aim is to ensure that companies are providing their workers with the pay and entitlements enshrined in the Clothing Trades Award 1999. The union along with Fairwear -- has entered the spotlight in recent weeks, in events which it claims -- highlight the plight of outworkers at a time when their rights are under threat of further erosion due to changes in the industrial relations system. Prosecution writs were served to 25 companies for breaches of the Award during L'Oréal Melbourne Fashion Festival (LMFF) on March 2 this year [ Ragtrader March 10, p.1] and more recently a landmark Federal Court decision was unveiled which saw Melbourne clothing company Southern Cross fined a hefty $110,550 for breaching 14 clauses of the award in relation to outworkers [see page [SUB PLS INSERT]. While many of the 25 companies implicated in the March 2 allegations are currently seeking legal advice and or conferring with the union Ragtrader has learned that at least two of the manufacturers have paid financial settlements to the union and a number have agreed to sign up to the Homeworkers Code of Practice (HCP), the voluntary code which ensures transparency of supply chain to prevent outworker exploitation. A number of companies implicated in the March 2 allegations claim to have been ?shocked? by the weight of the settlements they were requested to pay to the union more than one company cites $10,000 as the figure. The claim has also been made that, rather than safeguarding the industry, the union's activities are merely accelerating the shift offshore to less punitive climes. With the union acting in this manner, China is starting to look pretty good,claims one company head, adding companies are fearful of being named because of union repercussions. Melbourne law firm Middletons -- which acted on behalf of a number of the labels prosecuted on March 2 -- describes the union's activities as a cynical revenue raising exercise. One of my clients was working with the union at the time to comply with the Award and had signed up to the code. The next thing they knew they were being sued and told to pay up,? claims Middletons partner Tony Watson, who is so concerned by the issue that he is currently lobbying Victorian Minister Manufacturing and Export for André Haermeyer to step in and broker a resolution between the union and businesses. [See p.1] However TCFUA Victorian state secretary Michele O?Neil claims to ?completely refute? both the companies and Middletons claims. I do think there are people who are deliberately trying to malign the union to their own ends. The fact that many individuals will not put their name to such claims implies that they are fearful of their own activities being put under scrutiny,she says. Melbourne law firm Slater & Gordon which acts for the union agrees. These are outrageous allegations to make and they are completely wrong,says Slater & Gordon partner Adam Bandt. Before prosecutions take place, companies are given two written warnings prior to union inspections and are invited to contact the union for assistance on how to comply with the award, ?which they rarely do,he says. All monies paid to the union either as a result of prosecution or as part of out of court settlements -- are endorsed by the Federal Court, he adds. To suggest that the union's activities are akin to fundraising or that companies are not given time to comply with the Award is outrageous and misrepresents what the union is trying to do. While prosecutions continue at the behest of the Federal Court, the union and Fairwear continue to enlist the HCP to highlight the issue of outworker exploitation. But while many companies claim to agree with it in principle, the code's detractors believe the cost of accreditation -- $2000 plus GST -- is too high. The Melbourne-based Australian Fashion Council (AFC) while affiliated to the Council of Textile and Fashion Industries of Australia (TFIA) (itself a signatory to the code) -- is one critic. There?s really no commercial value in accreditation. The cost is seen as extortionate by many designers. Smaller designers look at it and say what do I get for it I'd rather take the risk,claims AFC general manager Zoe Edquist. But as the HCP does not receive any funding the fee is necessary to cover administration costs, claims the TCFUA's Michele O'Neil. An irony of the current state of affairs is that if more companies could be encouraged to sign up to the code, it would be easier to bring the cost of accreditation down and make it easier to administrate, she concedes. completely agree that we need to increase promotion but it's a matter of resources. It?s a ?chicken and egg situation. While O?Neil is currently lobbying the Federal government for funding assistance the union and the HCP committee have developed a number of interim measures designed to enhance the code, including an in kind arrangement whereby designers could receive free accreditation in return for promoting the HCP; a scholarship awarded by retailers to designers -- part of which would cover the cost of accreditation -- and a register of ethical makers that could be made available to designers and manufacturers to facilitate award compliance. Despite its detractors however, many code signatories have found their brand enhanced by the process, O?Neil claims. Melbourne label Hunter Gatherer was one of the first signatories to the code. As a non-profit organisation whose profits go to the Brotherhood of St Lawrence, the company is in a unique position to act as an ambassador for the code, says Hunter Gatherer development manager Nicole Burns. A big part of what the Brotherhood of St Lawrence does is about helping disadvantaged people, so it made sense to sign up to the code. Becoming HCP accredited was certainly very good for the label. The press were very supportive and we had coverage in the Herald Sun and The Age newspapers. We also got into Vogue and a number of the local street fashion magazines. Workwear label King Gee -- also an early signatory to the code agrees. Being a signatory to the code has been of great help particularly as a lot of our business involves providing uniforms on a contract tender basis,confirms King Gee marketing manager Lily Lee. When tendering for contracts it's very important to companies that we can show we've done the right thing. It's important not just from the humanitarian point of view but also with regard to continuity and reliability of supply. Companies need assurances that their supply won't suddenly run out because a factory has been closed down. A recent example was King Gee's tender to design and manufacture uniforms for Telstra, which resulted in a massive deal ? inked late last year -- to design the telecoms company's retail uniform range. However the accreditation process is lengthy, King Gee general manager Sonia Young concedes. We had to work with [our suppliers] very closely and supply a lot of the grunt work to get them signed up. It took over 12 months to get everyone signed up. I also don't think these companies saw any benefits for signing up so they could not justify putting time into the process. Melbourne retailer Feathers proprietor Margaret Porritt whose label F Line by Feathers was manufactured by one of the companies prosecuted on March 2 confirms that the manufacturer paid a small fine and agreed to sign up to the HCP. However, her own experience of the code has proved onerous and time consuming she says. I simply don't have enough hours in the day to comply with it. It really is making it too hard for businesses. Do they want to push everything offshor Clearly the jury is still out on how best to resolve the HCP's teething problems, but Michele O'Neil remains unapologetic about the union's activities, both in terms of the code and in regard to facilitating the prosecution of Award breaches. We receive calls every week from workers claiming they?re being paid three dollars an hour. It's an ongoing problem. If you're a company manufacturing in Australia you have an obligation to know what the provisions of the Award are. It's not as if these provisions came in yesterday. They've been around for 20 years. It's a bit like saying I didn't know I had to pay taxes. In the union's view, there is no excuse for companies to turn a blind eye to outworker exploitation. We never reach a resolution that doesn't involve the company agreeing to meet its obligations. Ideally we'd like to run out of companies to prosecute,she adds. Until then, it seems the union is determined to persist.
its successful tender to produce corporate apparel for Telstra
