27.02.2015 Views

SMETA Social Compliance Audit - Visstun

SMETA Social Compliance Audit - Visstun

SMETA Social Compliance Audit - Visstun

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!