SMETA Social Compliance Audit - Visstun
SMETA Social Compliance Audit - Visstun
SMETA Social Compliance Audit - Visstun
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Supplier name:<br />
Site country:<br />
Site name:<br />
Vissitun/Digispec/Counter Point<br />
USA<br />
H&H Enterprises<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 1
<strong>Audit</strong> Company Name:<br />
UL – Responsible Sourcing<br />
Client:<br />
Sedex Company Reference:<br />
Sedex Site Reference:<br />
S<br />
P<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> Conducted By<br />
Commercial<br />
NGO<br />
Trade Union<br />
Multi-stakeholder<br />
Purchaser<br />
Retailer<br />
Brand Owner<br />
Combined <strong>Audit</strong> (delete all that don’t apply)<br />
<strong>Audit</strong>or Reference Number:<br />
(If applicable)<br />
N/A<br />
<strong>SMETA</strong> Declaration<br />
I declare that the audit underpinning the following report was conducted in accordance with<br />
<strong>SMETA</strong> best practice guidance.<br />
Any exceptions to this are recorded here:<br />
<strong>Audit</strong>or Name:<br />
Role:<br />
Charlene Elenes<br />
<strong>Audit</strong>or<br />
Date: July 12, 2013<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 2
<strong>Audit</strong> Details<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> Details<br />
Report #:<br />
SMET-20120712-2<br />
Date of audit: 12 July 2012<br />
Time in and time out:<br />
Number of <strong>Audit</strong>or Days Used<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> type:<br />
Was the audit announced?<br />
Was the Sedex SAQ reviewed?<br />
Time in: 9:00 am<br />
Time out: 4:30 pm<br />
1-man day<br />
Full Initial<br />
Full Re-audit<br />
Partial Follow-Up<br />
Partial Other - Define<br />
Announced<br />
Semi – announced<br />
Unannounced<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
If no, why not? Facility did not receive the SAQ<br />
Previous audit date: 26 January 2010<br />
Previous audit type:<br />
<strong>Audit</strong>or name(s) and role(s):<br />
Report written by:<br />
Report reviewed by:<br />
Full Initial<br />
Full Re-audit<br />
Partial Follow-Up<br />
Partial Other - Define<br />
Charlene Elenes<br />
Charlene Elenes<br />
Grace Bayhonan<br />
Report issue date: 20 July 2012<br />
Supplier name:<br />
Site country:<br />
Site name:<br />
Site contact and job title:<br />
Vissitun/Digispec/Counter Point<br />
USA<br />
H&H Enterprises<br />
Monique Favreau, Operations Director<br />
Site address: 6355 Sunset Corporate Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89120<br />
Applicable business and other legally Business License (Manufacturing): 1000104-560 Expiration date: 31<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 3
equired licence numbers:<br />
for example, liability insurance<br />
August 2012<br />
Business License (Equipment Sales/Service): 1000313-346<br />
Expiration date: 31 July 2012<br />
Certificate of Liability Insurance<br />
Policy number: 34WEOB2049, Expiration date: 01 August 2012<br />
Site phone: (702) 876-6292<br />
Site fax: (702) 876-6847<br />
Site e-mail:<br />
Products/Activities at site, for example,<br />
garment manufacture, electricals, toys,<br />
grower<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> results reviewed with site<br />
management?<br />
Who signed and agreed CAPR (Name<br />
and job title)<br />
moniquef@visstun-digispec.com<br />
Plastic cups and computer pads<br />
Yes<br />
Monique Favreau, Operations Director<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 4
<strong>Audit</strong> Scope<br />
Local Law<br />
(Please state legal requirement)<br />
Standard work week (total hours):<br />
Maximum allowed overtime hours (per<br />
day, week, month):<br />
Minimum work age:<br />
Minimum wage for standard hours:<br />
40 hours<br />
N/A<br />
18 years old<br />
$7.25 per hour with medical benefits<br />
$8.25 per hour without benefits<br />
Minimum overtime wage: 150%<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> Scope<br />
(Please select the code and additional requirements that were audited against during this audit)<br />
ETI Base Code (if partial audit, please<br />
detail which base code items were<br />
used):<br />
A: Entitlement to Work and Immigration<br />
B: Sub-Contracting and Homeworking<br />
C: Environment<br />
Additional Requirements<br />
Note: The main focus of this ethical audit is on the ETI Base Code and local law. The additional elements A,B,C,D<br />
will not be audited in such depth or scope, but the audit process will still highlight any specific issues.<br />
This report provides a summary of the findings and other applicable information found/gathered during the social<br />
audit conducted on the above date only and does not officially confirm or certify compliance with any legal<br />
regulations or industry standards. The social audit process requires that information be gathered and considered<br />
from records review, worker interviews, management interviews and visual observation. More information is<br />
gathered during the social audit process than is provided here. The audit process is a sampling exercise only and<br />
does not guarantee that the audited site prior, during or post-audit, are in full compliance with the Code being<br />
audited against. The provisions of this Code constitute minimum and not maximum standards and this Code should<br />
not be used to prevent companies from exceeding these standards. Companies applying this Code are expected to<br />
comply with national and other applicable laws and where the provisions of law and this Code address the same<br />
subject, to apply that provision which affords the greater protection. The ownership of this report remains with the<br />
party who has paid for the audit. Release permission must be provided by the owner prior to release to any third<br />
parties.<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 5
Non-<strong>Compliance</strong> Table<br />
Issue<br />
Area of Non-Conformity<br />
(Only check box when there is a nonconformity)<br />
Rating<br />
(Currently only to be<br />
completed as a<br />
specific client<br />
requirement)<br />
ETI Base<br />
Code<br />
Local Law<br />
Additional<br />
Elements<br />
0 Management systems and code<br />
implementation<br />
1 Employment Freely Chosen<br />
2 Freedom of Association<br />
3 Safety and Hygienic Conditions<br />
4 Child Labour<br />
5 Wages and Benefits<br />
6 Working Hours<br />
7 Discrimination<br />
8 Regular Employment<br />
8A<br />
Sub-Contracting and<br />
Homeworking<br />
9 Harsh or Inhumane Treatment<br />
A<br />
B<br />
Entitlement to Work<br />
Environment<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 6
<strong>Audit</strong> Overview<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> Overview<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> attendance Senior management Worker representatives/<br />
Union representatives<br />
Present at the opening meeting? Yes No Yes No<br />
Present at the audit? Yes No Yes No<br />
Present at the closing meeting? Yes No Yes No<br />
If Worker/Union Representatives not<br />
present please explain reasons why<br />
Site description:<br />
(Include size, location, age, structure,<br />
number of buildings)<br />
Site function:<br />
Month(s) of peak season: (if applicable)<br />
N/A<br />
The facility is composed of one structure approximately 57,000 sq. ft.<br />
and is composed of 5 major departments: Printing, converting,<br />
sublimation, packaging, warehousing and shipping.<br />
Agent<br />
Factory Processing/Manufacturer<br />
Finished Product Supplier<br />
Grower<br />
Homeworker<br />
Labour Provider<br />
Pack House<br />
Primary Producer<br />
Service Provider<br />
Sub-Contractor<br />
August to December<br />
Process overview:<br />
(Include products being produced, main operations, number of production lines, main equipment used)<br />
The facility produces mouse pads and plastic cups. The facility is composed of one structure approximately 57,000<br />
sq. ft. and is composed of 5 major departments: Printing, converting, sublimation, packaging, warehousing and<br />
shipping. The facility is equipped with machinery with a value of $21, 048,880 dollars.<br />
Attitude of workers:<br />
(Include their attitude to management, workplace and the interview process. Both positive and negative information<br />
should be included) Note: Do not document any information that could put workers at risk<br />
All the employees interviewed reported having a very good work environment at the facility. What is more, the<br />
facility maintains an open door policy which makes the communication with higher positions very easy and open.<br />
The interviewees reported being treated with dignity and respect at all times and no one provided any negative<br />
comments.<br />
Attitude of managers:<br />
(Include attitude to audit, and audit process. Both positive and negative information should be included)<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 7
The management team who assisted the auditor provided a very efficient support through the day. They also agreed<br />
to the recommendations and the overall audit result and confirmed being committed to address the current findings.<br />
Summary of main findings: (positive and negative)<br />
0(1) Suppliers are expected to communicate the Child Labour Policy to all employees<br />
0(2) Code of Conduct is not posted and communicated to the employees.<br />
3(1) The facility conducts fire drills at least on a quarterly basis. However, the facility does not maintain any records.<br />
The Code of Conduct is not posted and communicated to the employees.<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 8
Key Information<br />
Key Information<br />
Do all workers (including migrant<br />
workers) have contracts of<br />
employment?<br />
Were appropriate records available to<br />
verify hours of work and wages?<br />
Were any inconsistencies found?<br />
(if yes describe nature)<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
Poor record keeping<br />
Isolated incident<br />
Repeated occurrence<br />
For the lowest paid production worker,<br />
are wages paid for standard hours<br />
below or above the legal minimum?<br />
% of piece rate workers:<br />
(if applicable)<br />
Combined hours (regular and<br />
overtime) over 60 per week found?<br />
Are the correct overtime premiums<br />
paid?<br />
Is there any night production work at<br />
the site?<br />
% of workers living in site provided<br />
accommodation (if applicable):<br />
Age of youngest worker found:<br />
Workers under 18 subject to hazardous<br />
work assignments?<br />
What form of worker representation is<br />
there on site?<br />
Are there any External Processes?<br />
N/A<br />
N/A<br />
Below legal minimum<br />
Meet<br />
Above<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
21 years of age<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
Union (name)<br />
Worker Committee<br />
None<br />
Sub-Contracting<br />
Homeworking<br />
None<br />
%age<br />
%age<br />
%age<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 9
Worker Analysis<br />
Worker Analysis<br />
Local<br />
Migrant<br />
Permanent Temporary Agency Permanent Temporary Agency Homeworkers<br />
Worker<br />
numbers –<br />
male<br />
Worker<br />
numbers –<br />
female<br />
83<br />
78<br />
Total 161<br />
Total Workers at this Site:<br />
Number of<br />
Workers<br />
interviewed<br />
10<br />
Migrant Workers:<br />
Originating Locations/Countries:<br />
Work undertaken by migrant workers:<br />
Were migrant workers recruited through<br />
an agency?<br />
If yes, is there a contract with the<br />
agency? Provide details of agencies and<br />
contractual arrangements<br />
Percentage of migrant workers in<br />
company provided accommodation:<br />
None. All workers are local<br />
N/A<br />
N/A<br />
N/A<br />
N/A<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 10
<strong>Audit</strong> Results by Clause<br />
0: Management systems and code implementation :<br />
0.1 Suppliers are expected to implement and maintain systems for delivering compliance to this Code.<br />
0.2 Suppliers shall appoint a senior member of management who shall be responsible for compliance with the<br />
Code.<br />
0.3 Suppliers are expected to communicate this Code to all employees and to their suppliers.<br />
0.4 Suppliers should, where reasonably practicable, extend the principles of this ethical code through their supply<br />
chain.<br />
Evidence of <strong>Compliance</strong> and Current Status<br />
The facility maintains written policies for the following areas of compliance:<br />
• Violence in the workplace<br />
• Family and Medical Leave of Absence<br />
• Harassment and Discrimination<br />
• Pay for exempt salaried employee<br />
• Accidents, injuries and workman’s compensation<br />
• Child labour<br />
The facility maintains a Child labour policy; however, this has not been communicated to the employees. The<br />
management confirmed that the policy has not been communicated to the employees and none of the employees<br />
reported being aware of it. Nevertheless, the management team stated that the policy will be included as an<br />
addendum to the employee handbook.<br />
Non-compliance:<br />
Finding 0(1)<br />
Description of non-compliance: The facility has not communicated the Child<br />
Labour policy to all employees<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: 0.3 Suppliers are expected to communicate this<br />
Code to all employees and to their suppliers.<br />
Recommended corrective action: Provide a copy of the policy to all the<br />
employees<br />
Finding 0(2)<br />
Description of non-compliance: Code of Conduct is not posted and<br />
communicated to the employees.<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: Request and communicate the Code of Conduct<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: The Child Labour<br />
policy has been recently<br />
elaborated. The<br />
management team<br />
confirmed that the policy has<br />
not been communicated to<br />
the employees yet.<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: The<br />
management reported that<br />
the client’s Code of Conduct<br />
has not been provided to the<br />
facility<br />
Observation<br />
Description of observation: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 11
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Good Examples observed:<br />
Description of Good Example (GE): N/A<br />
Objective evidence observed: N/A<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 12
1: Employment is Freely Chosen<br />
ETI<br />
1.1 There is no forced, bonded or involuntary prison labour.<br />
1.2 Workers are not required to lodge “deposits” or their identity papers with their employer and are free to leave<br />
their employer after reasonable notice.<br />
Evidence of <strong>Compliance</strong> and Current Status<br />
All the employees interviewed reported working on a free will. No deposits were required by the facility upon hire<br />
and each of the employees maintains their own personal documents. Also, there are no compulsory production<br />
quotas and overtime is always voluntary. Finally, all the employees reported being from local towns from the state of<br />
Nevada.<br />
Non-compliance:<br />
Description of non-compliance: No apparent concerns.<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Observation<br />
Description of observation: N/A<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Good Examples observed:<br />
Description of Good Example (GE): N/A<br />
Objective evidence observed: N/A<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 13
2: Freedom of Association and Right to Collective Bargaining are Respected<br />
ETI<br />
2.1 Workers, without distinction, have the right to join or form trade unions of their own choosing and to bargain<br />
collectively.<br />
2.2 The employer adopts an open attitude towards the activities of trade unions and their organisational activities.<br />
2.3 Workers’ representatives are not discriminated against and have access to carry out their representative<br />
functions in the workplace.<br />
2.4 Where the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining is restricted under law, the employer<br />
facilitates, and does not hinder, the development of parallel means for independent and free association and<br />
bargaining.<br />
Evidence of <strong>Compliance</strong> and Current Status<br />
At this time the facility is not unionized; however, none of the employees reported having the need or being<br />
interested on creating a union.<br />
Non-compliance:<br />
Description of non-compliance: No apparent concerns.<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Observation<br />
Description of observation: N/A<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Name of union and union<br />
representative, if applicable:<br />
If no union what is parallel means<br />
of consultation with workers?<br />
The percentage of workers at the<br />
site covered by collective<br />
bargaining with one or more<br />
recognised trade unions<br />
The percentage of workers at the<br />
site covered by negotiation with<br />
workers’ representatives who are<br />
N/A<br />
N/A<br />
N/A<br />
N/A<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 14
NOT members of one or more<br />
recognised trade unions<br />
Does the Collective Bargaining<br />
Agreement (CBA) include rates of<br />
pay<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
Good Examples observed:<br />
Description of Good Example (GE): N/A<br />
Objective evidence observed: N/A<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 15
3: Working Conditions are Safe and Hygienic<br />
ETI<br />
3.1 A safe and hygienic working environment shall be provided, bearing in mind the prevailing knowledge of the<br />
industry and of any specific hazards. Adequate steps shall be taken to prevent accidents and injury to health arising<br />
out of, associated with, or occurring in the course of work, by minimising, so far as is reasonably practicable, the<br />
causes of hazards inherent in the working environment.<br />
3.2 Workers shall receive regular and recorded health and safety training, and such training shall be repeated for<br />
new or reassigned workers.<br />
3.3 Access to clean toilet facilities and to potable water, and, if appropriate, sanitary facilities for food storage shall<br />
be provided.<br />
3.4 Accommodation, where provided, shall be clean, safe and meet the basic needs of the workers.<br />
3.5 The company observing the code shall assign responsibility for health and safety to a senior management<br />
representative.<br />
Evidence of <strong>Compliance</strong> and Current Status<br />
A Health and safety walkthrough was performed through the entire premises. The auditor observed a clean and well<br />
organized facility. Packing materials are stored along work stations in designated area. Employee workstations<br />
provide ample space for maneuverability free of risk of injury. All machinery was equipped with emergency stop<br />
buttons at respective work stations. Employees were observed standing on rubber mats which help prevent fatigue.<br />
All PPE is provided free. The work floor is illuminated via natural and fluorescent lighting. High efficiency light bulbs<br />
are in place in all fixtures. Emergency lights are available throw-out the facility. All aisle and pathways were free and<br />
clear of obstacles. Egress points were clearly marked, unlocked and easily accessible. A fire alarm system and<br />
firefighting equipment was present, mounted, regularly inspected and properly labeled.<br />
As per the last audit results, the facility adapted additional eyewash stations in the areas where the chemicals are<br />
utilized. These stations are in compliance with what the MSDS of the chemicals require. Also, it is important to<br />
mention that the auditor was able to corroborate that the facility improved the ventilation by installing new fans and<br />
giving appropriate maintenance to the ventilation systems. Consequently, none of the interviewees complained on<br />
the odor fumes.<br />
The facility provided the following documentation for review:<br />
• Safety Committee agendas, attendees, walkthrough’s and trainings<br />
• Fork lift operator qualification documentation<br />
• Emergency action plan<br />
• Blood borne pathogens procedure<br />
• OSHA 300 injury log<br />
• Hazard communication program<br />
• MSDS<br />
The facility conducts fire drills at least on a quarterly basis. However, the facility does not maintain any records of it.<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 16
Non-compliance:<br />
Description of non-compliance: The facility conducts fire drills at least on a quarterly<br />
basis. However, the facility does not maintain any records of it.<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: 29 CFR (2002) § 1910.38(e)<br />
Recommended corrective action: Document all the evacuation drills practiced<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: The<br />
management was not able<br />
to provide documentation<br />
related to the evacuation<br />
drill performed<br />
Observation<br />
Description of observation: N/A<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Good Examples observed:<br />
Description of Good Example (GE): N/A<br />
Objective evidence observed: N/A<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 17
4: Child Labour Shall Not Be Used<br />
ETI<br />
4.1 There shall be no new recruitment of child labour.<br />
4.2 Companies shall develop or participate in and contribute to policies and programmes which provide for the<br />
transition of any child found to be performing child labour to enable her or him to attend and remain in quality<br />
education until no longer a child.<br />
4.3 Children and young persons under 18 shall not be employed at night or in hazardous conditions.<br />
4.4 These policies and procedures shall conform to the provisions of the relevant ILO Standards.<br />
Evidence of <strong>Compliance</strong> and Current Status<br />
The minimum hiring age as per the employee handbook and corroborated by the management team is 18 years of<br />
age. During the facility’s walkthrough, the auditor observed that the work force is composed of mature individuals.<br />
Nevertheless, the youngest looking employees were selected as part of the random sample for the interview<br />
process.<br />
During the interview process, the youngest employee reported being 24 year of age. What is more, none of the<br />
interviewees reported ever having underage colleagues or seeing any children on the work-floor.<br />
Employee’s I-9 forms were also provided to the auditor. All the forms were observed to be adequately completed<br />
from all the sections.<br />
Non-compliance:<br />
Description of non-compliance: No apparent concerns.<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Observation<br />
Description of observation: N/A<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Good Examples observed:<br />
Description of Good Example (GE): N/A<br />
Objective evidence observed: N/A<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 18
5: Living Wages are Paid<br />
ETI<br />
5.1 Wages and benefits paid for a standard working week meet, at a minimum, national legal standards or industry<br />
benchmark standards, whichever is higher. In any event wages should always be enough to meet basic needs and<br />
to provide some discretionary income.<br />
5.2 All workers shall be provided with written and understandable information about their employment conditions in<br />
respect of wages before they enter employment and about the particulars of their wages for the pay period<br />
concerned each time that they are paid.<br />
5.3 Deductions from wages as a disciplinary measure shall not be permitted nor shall any deductions from wages<br />
not provided for by national law be permitted without the expressed permission of the worker concerned. All<br />
disciplinary measures should be recorded.<br />
Evidence of <strong>Compliance</strong> and Current Status<br />
The UL-RS auditor completed a payroll review from the last 3 pay periods that corresponds to weeks of May 21 to<br />
June 3, 2012, June 4 to 17, 2012 and June 18 to July 1, 2012<br />
Currently there are 161 production employees working in two shifts. During the audit date only 150 were present.<br />
Employees are paid on a timely manner every two weeks by check or bank deposit as requested by them.<br />
The payroll review displayed that all the employees are earning a salary slightly above the minimum wage for the<br />
state of Nevada. At this time the average wage per a 40 hour work week is $1140.9 dollars bi-weekly. What is more,<br />
all overtime hours are correctly compensated with an extra 150% as per the law.<br />
Previously, sales employees were receiving a “sale supplement’ amount to guarantee $104 per day if the employee<br />
worked a minimum of 7 hours per day. However, this amount was not added to the employees’ total wages to<br />
calculate a new hourly rate for overtime. During the current payroll review, the auditor was able to corroborate that<br />
the “sale supplement” has been eliminated and instead the minimum wage has been increased. Consequently, the<br />
finding has been corrected and rate for overtime calculations is adequate.<br />
The employees are provided with additional benefits such as medical, paid holidays, vacation days and PPE. Lastly,<br />
no illegal deductions were observed on payroll neither reported by the employees.<br />
Non-compliance:<br />
Description of non-compliance: No apparent concerns.<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Observation<br />
Description of observation: N/A<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 19
Good Examples observed:<br />
Description of Good Example (GE): N/A<br />
Objective evidence observed: N/A<br />
Wages analysis:<br />
Sample size (number of wages checked<br />
and which weeks or months):<br />
Legal minimum wage for standard time:<br />
What deductions are required by law, and<br />
have all of these been made:<br />
Industry norm for this region:<br />
10 samples for the following periods:<br />
May 21 to June 3, 2012<br />
June 4 to 17, 2012<br />
June 18 to July 1, 2012<br />
$7.25 per hour with medical benefits<br />
$8.25 per hour without benefits<br />
<strong>Social</strong> Security<br />
Taxes<br />
N/A<br />
Legal overtime premium for weekdays: 150%<br />
Legal overtime premium for rest days: 150%<br />
Legal overtime premium for holidays: 150%<br />
Were collective bargaining agreements<br />
reached on the wages stated below?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
Worker Type<br />
Process Operator<br />
(Highest paid)<br />
Process Operator<br />
(Average paid)<br />
Process Operator<br />
(Lowest paid)<br />
This is not so relevant in farms where most workers are paid the same, or are of the same ‘Worker type’. Also many<br />
farms in SA use a combination of piece and hourly rate which is impossible to capture on this form.<br />
Select one worker’s records from each “Worker Type” and populate the boxes:<br />
Pay period (pm/week) July 2012 July 2012 July 2012<br />
Employee identification/<br />
Staff ID#/Dept<br />
#2564 #55 #2508<br />
Employee Gender Male Female Male<br />
Contract monthly/daily Monthly Monthly Monthly<br />
Regular working hours 40 per week 40 per week 40 per week<br />
Regular work pay rate $22 per hour $12 per hour $9 per hour<br />
Regular day overtime 25 minutes per week 1 hour per week 2 hours per week<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 20
(hour)<br />
Regular day overtime<br />
(wage)<br />
$8.25 USD $18 USD $27 USD<br />
Rest day overtime (hour) N/A N/A N/A<br />
Rest day overtime<br />
(wage)<br />
Statutory Holiday<br />
overtime (hour)<br />
Statutory holiday OT<br />
(wage)<br />
N/A N/A N/A<br />
N/A N/A N/A<br />
N/A N/A N/A<br />
Total overtime hours 25 minutes per week 1 per week 2 hours per week<br />
Incentives/Bonus/<br />
Allowances etc.<br />
N/A N/A N/A<br />
Gross wages $1768.25 dollars bi-weekly $975 dollars bi-weekly $679.50 dollars bi-weekly<br />
<strong>Social</strong> insurance and<br />
other deductions<br />
Actual wage paid after<br />
deduction<br />
$261.84 dollars bi-weekly $172 dollars bi-weekly $47.10 dollars bi-weekly<br />
$1506.41 dollars bi-weekly $802.79 dollars bi-weekly $632.4 dollars bi-weekly<br />
Comments:<br />
(Please state here any specific reasons/circumstances that explain the lowest and highest gross wages)<br />
N/A<br />
Is there a defined living wage:<br />
Is there evidence that equal rates<br />
are being paid for equal work:<br />
How are workers paid:<br />
Yes<br />
No (add notes into guidance for auditors)<br />
Please specify amount/time period:<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
Details:<br />
Cash<br />
Cheque<br />
BACS<br />
If not explain:<br />
1. Contracted overtime premium<br />
for…<br />
Weekdays: 150%<br />
Rest days: 150%<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 21
Holidays: 150%<br />
2. Actual overtime premium paid in<br />
sample for…<br />
Weekdays: 150%<br />
Rest days: 150%<br />
Holidays: 150%<br />
3. Average wage paid to operators: $1140.9 dollars bi-weekly<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 22
6: Working Hours are not Excessive<br />
ETI<br />
6.1 Working hours comply with national laws and benchmark industry standards, whichever affords greater<br />
protection.<br />
6.2 In any event, workers shall not on a regular basis be required to work in excess of 48 hours per week and shall<br />
be provided with at least one day off for every seven day period on average. Overtime shall be voluntary, shall not<br />
exceed 12 hours per week, shall not be demanded on a regular basis and shall always be compensated at a<br />
premium rate.<br />
Employees are working the following shifts:<br />
1) Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:30 pm<br />
2) Monday to Friday 4:30 pm to 1:00 am (print shop only)<br />
Evidence of <strong>Compliance</strong> and Current Status<br />
A hand scanner system is utilized by all the employees on a daily basis to record the in and out times. Two rest<br />
breaks of 10 minutes each and a 30 minute lunch break is provided on a daily basis. All the employees interviewed<br />
corroborated taking their first rest break within the first 4 hours of work as well as the meal breaks before the middle<br />
of the work period; fact that was also corroborated on the payroll. Finally, all employees are guaranteed with a one<br />
day off per week.<br />
As per the employees statements; all overtime hours after their regular shifts are conducted on a voluntarily basis<br />
and there are no consequences for declining them. The payroll review reflected that the employees are only working<br />
one overtime hour per week.<br />
Non-compliance:<br />
Description of non-compliance: No apparent concerns.<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Observation<br />
Description of observation: N/A<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Good Examples observed:<br />
Description of Good Example (GE): N/A<br />
Objective evidence observed: N/A<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 23
Working hours analysis<br />
What timekeeping systems are<br />
used: time card etc.<br />
Sample size checked (number of<br />
workers):<br />
Legal standard work week (hours):<br />
1. Contracted standard work week<br />
this site (hours):<br />
2. Actual standard work week<br />
averaged over sample (hours):<br />
Printed out time records<br />
10<br />
40 hours per week<br />
40 hours per week<br />
40 hours per week<br />
3. Lowest basic hours worked: 40 hours per week<br />
4. Highest basic hours worked: 40 hours per week<br />
Legal permitted overtime hours:<br />
Any local waivers for this site:<br />
N/A<br />
N/A<br />
Comments:<br />
(Please state here any specific reasons/circumstances that explain the highest working hours)<br />
N/A<br />
1. Actual overtime hours:<br />
(averaged over sample)<br />
2. Range of overtime hours over<br />
all workers: (quote highest and<br />
lowest)<br />
1 per week<br />
25 minutes to 2 hours per week<br />
3. Peak seasons: The facility management reported that the production is very steady.<br />
However, there is a slightly increase from August to December<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 24
7: No Discrimination is Practiced<br />
ETI<br />
7.1 There is no discrimination in hiring, compensation, access to training, promotion, termination or retirement<br />
based on race, caste, national origin, religion, age, disability, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, union<br />
membership or political affiliation.<br />
Evidence of <strong>Compliance</strong> and Current Status<br />
The facility provides an employee handbook to the employees, which contains a non-discriminatory policy that<br />
prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, race, religion, age, disability and sexual orientation. Moreover, all the<br />
interviewees reported being treated equally.<br />
Non-compliance:<br />
Description of non-compliance: No apparent concerns.<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Observation<br />
Description of observation: N/A<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Good Examples observed:<br />
Description of Good Example (GE): N/A<br />
Objective evidence observed: N/A<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 25
8: Regular Employment Is Provided<br />
ETI<br />
8.1 To every extent possible work performed must be on the basis of recognised employment relationship<br />
established through national law and practice.<br />
8.2 Obligations to employees under labour or social security laws and regulations arising from the regular<br />
employment relationship shall not be avoided through the use of labour-only contracting, sub-contracting, or<br />
homeworking arrangements, or through apprenticeship schemes where there is no real intent to impart skills or<br />
provide regular employment, nor shall any such obligations be avoided through the excessive use of fixed-term<br />
contracts of employment.<br />
Evidence of <strong>Compliance</strong> and Current Status<br />
At this time all the employees working for the company are direct employees and there are no temporary agencies<br />
utilized.<br />
Non-compliance:<br />
Description of non-compliance: No apparent concerns.<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Observation<br />
Description of observation: N/A<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Good Examples observed:<br />
Description of Good Example (GE): N/A<br />
Objective evidence observed: N/A<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 26
8A: Sub-Contracting and Homeworking:<br />
8a.1 There should be no sub-contracting unless previously agreed with the main client.<br />
8a.2 Home-working should be properly managed.<br />
Note to auditor on homeworking:<br />
Report on whether it is direct or via agents. How many workers, relationship with site and what control systems are<br />
in place.<br />
Evidence of <strong>Compliance</strong> and Current Status<br />
The management team reported that 100% of the production is completed on-site. Consequently, the use of<br />
subcontractors or homeworking is not required.<br />
Non-compliance:<br />
Description of non-compliance: No apparent concerns.<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Observation<br />
Description of observation: N/A<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Good Examples observed:<br />
Description of Good Example (GE): N/A<br />
Objective evidence observed: N/A<br />
1. Number of sub-contractors/agents used None<br />
Summary of sub-contracting<br />
2. Is there a site policy on sub-contracting? Yes No<br />
3. What checks are in place to ensure no<br />
child labour is being used and work is safe?<br />
N/A<br />
4. What processes are sub-contracted? N/A<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 27
Summary of homeworking<br />
1. Number of homeworkers Male: Female: Total:<br />
2. Are homeworkers employed<br />
direct or through agents?<br />
3. If through agents, number of<br />
agents<br />
4. Is there a site policy on<br />
homeworking?<br />
5. How does site ensure worker<br />
hours and pay meet local laws for<br />
homeworkers?<br />
6. What processes are carried out<br />
by homeworkers?<br />
7. Are written agreements in place<br />
for homeworkers that include<br />
regular employment?<br />
8. Are full records available at the<br />
site?<br />
N/A<br />
N/A<br />
N/A<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 28
9: No Harsh or Inhumane Treatment is Allowed<br />
ETI<br />
9.1 Physical abuse or discipline, the threat of physical abuse, sexual or other harassment and verbal abuse or other<br />
forms of intimidation shall be prohibited.<br />
Evidence of <strong>Compliance</strong> and Current Status<br />
None of the 10 employees interviewed reported any instances of physical or physiological abuse. In contrast, all the<br />
employees are treated with dignity and respect and the facility maintains an open door policy to report any issues to<br />
the Human Resources department at any time.<br />
Non-compliance:<br />
Description of non-compliance: No apparent concerns.<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Observation<br />
Description of observation: N/A<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Good Examples observed:<br />
Description of Good Example (GE): N/A<br />
Objective evidence observed: N/A<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 29
Other Issue areas: A: Entitlement to Work and Immigration<br />
Additional Retailer Specific Elements<br />
A1 Only workers with a legal right to work shall be employed or used by the supplier.<br />
A2 All workers, including employment agency staff, must be validated by the supplier for their legal right to work by<br />
reviewing original documentation.<br />
A3 Employment agencies must only supply workers registered with them.<br />
A4 The supplier shall implement processes to enable adequate control over agencies with regards to the above<br />
points and related legislation.<br />
Evidence of <strong>Compliance</strong> and Current Status<br />
Section not applicable. The facility only employs direct labour.<br />
Non-compliance:<br />
Description of non-compliance: No apparent concerns.<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Observation<br />
Description of observation: N/A<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Good Examples observed:<br />
Description of Good Example (GE): N/A<br />
Objective evidence observed: N/A<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 30
Other issue areas B : Environment<br />
B.1 Suppliers shall seek to make continuous improvements in their environmental performance and, as a minimum,<br />
comply with the requirements of local and international laws and regulations.<br />
B.2 The supplier shall be aware of and comply with their end clients’ environmental requirements.<br />
Evidence of <strong>Compliance</strong> and Current Status<br />
The facility provided receipts from the recycling company “High Desert Recycling” the receipt displayed that the<br />
facility recycles cardboard boxes, rubber material, plastic and paper. Also the waste manifests displayed wastes as:<br />
flammable liquids, toxic N.O.S, petroleum distillates.<br />
The facility is testing the quality of the air emissions on an annual basis<br />
Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management<br />
Issuance date: October 29, 2007<br />
Permit: 00873<br />
Non-compliance:<br />
Description of non-compliance: No apparent concerns.<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Observation<br />
Description of observation: N/A<br />
Local law or ETI requirement: N/A<br />
Objective evidence<br />
observed: N/A<br />
Recommended corrective action: N/A<br />
Good Examples observed:<br />
Description of Good Example (GE): N/A<br />
Objective evidence observed: N/A<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 31
Worker Interview Summary<br />
Worker Interview Summary<br />
Were workers aware of the audit?<br />
Were workers aware of the code?<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
Number of group interviews 1<br />
Number of individual interviews Male: 3 Female: 4<br />
Number of interviewed workers Male: 4 Female: 6<br />
Interviews were done in private<br />
and the confidentiality of the<br />
interview process was<br />
communicated to the workers?<br />
In general, what was the attitude of<br />
the workers towards their<br />
workplace?<br />
What was the most common<br />
worker complaint?<br />
What did the workers like the most<br />
about working at this site?<br />
Any additional comment(s)<br />
regarding interviews:<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
Favourable<br />
Non-favourable<br />
Indifferent<br />
None at this moment<br />
The work environment<br />
No<br />
Agency Workers<br />
(workers sourced from a local agent who are not directly paid by the site)<br />
Number of agencies used<br />
(average):<br />
Were agency workers’<br />
age/pay/hours included within<br />
scope of this audit<br />
And names if available: N/A<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 32
Other findings<br />
Other Findings Outside the Scope of the <strong>Audit</strong><br />
None apparent<br />
Community Benefits<br />
(Please list below any specific community benefits that the site management stated that they were involved in, for<br />
example, HIV programme, education, sports facilities)<br />
None reported<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 33
Photo Form<br />
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 34
<strong>Audit</strong> company: UL – RS Report reference: SMET-20120712-2 Date: 12 July 2012 35