WIETA Auditing
Social
Auditing - Results from WIETAS first year
WIETA has now completed a year of social auditing, and has assessed
the performance of 42 of its producer members sites against the
WIETA code.
In this process, WIETA auditors conducted
45-minute individual interviews with around 300 employees at all
skill levels, and managerial staff, as well as a number of focus
group discussions. The 42 companies span the entire production
supply chain for wine, consisting of 11 stand-alone vineyards, 8
estates (vineyards and cellars), 10 stand-alone cellars, 5
cellar-bottling plant combinations, 2 stand-alone bottling plants,
and 1 cork producer. There was also a wine and brandy cellar, and
one each of brandy and whisky distilleries. These sites employed
almost 2000 people throughout the year, of whom just under half were
temporary or seasonal employees.
Men dominated the labour force, being over
two-thirds of the total employed at these sites, and women were much
more likely to be restricted to temporary or seasonal work than men,
being concentrated in the vineyards. Because of this, women do not
have access to the more trained and skilled jobs in the industry,
such as in the cellars, where they have no production role at all.
Looking at industrial relations, about half
(20 of the 42) of the sites had collective bargaining arrangements
involving regular meetings between recognized trade unions and
management, and these were almost exclusively cellars, especially
those that were part of the larger producer groups. A further 6
sites had trade union members, but the union was not yet recognized
by management, and its representatives were not consulted about
decisions such as wages or others. The recognized trade unions that
did exist were, like the industry as a whole, male-dominated.
Two thirds of the sites used labour brokers
to supply their temporary or seasonal workers, and in some cases,
several labour brokers were used at one site to supply labour during
the harvest. WIETA auditors therefore focused particularly on
whether labour standards for permanent workers were upheld for the
temporary workforce at these sites. Sites that were part of the
larger corporate groups were more likely to be using labour brokers
than independent sites.
Overall, the results from the audits show
both success stories where producers are complying well certain of
the WIETA and legal standards, but also some items of the Code where
labour standards were consistently low, and where much work has to
be done to raise the general level of labour practices. Cellars and
bottling plants fared better on average than vineyards and estates.
Overall, the best performance areas of the 42 companies were the
following:
| |
Living wage all sites paid their permanent workers
above the legal minimum wage |
| |
Child labour all sites avoided this entirely |
| |
Record keeping on leave and working hours was good |
| |
Access to training was generally not discriminatory |
| |
When employees had contracts of employment, men and
women had separate contracts of employment (we found no
evidence that women must work without contracts because
their husbands are employed on the farm) |
| |
No deductions from wages for personal protective
equipment |
| |
Adequate Unemployment Insurance Deductions (UIF) were
being made on behalf of workers |
| |
Basic weekly working hours, annual leave, maternity
leave, and family responsibility leave is as required by the
law |
| |
Management keeps copies of employment contracts |
| |
Unions have access to the sites, and bargaining rights
are granted to unions with sufficient members (LRA
organizational rights) |
| |
Workers receive adequate pay slips |
The areas where standards were generally low
were:
| |
Regular employment and standards for temporary and
seasonal workers |
| |
Ensuring that labour brokers complied with the WIETA
code |
| |
Occupational health and safety (in particular; risk
assessment, training, protection against risk, medical
surveillance, chemical safety, fire safety, management of
workplace injuries, personal protective equipment use,
general workplace health and hygiene) |
| |
Workplace understanding of the WIETA code, and
involvement of employees in the audit and improvement
process |
| |
Employees often did not have written contracts of
employment, and where they did, they did not understand them |
| |
Discrimination at work (evidenced amongst other things
by the lack of gender balance in the 42 sites, as mentioned
above) |
| |
Lack of pro-active approach to alcohol dependency
amongst employees and in the community |
| |
Overtime hours (highly excessive during the season and
peak times) |
| |
Freedom from harsh and inhumane treatment there were
many instances of old style supervision |
| |
Lack of active steps taken by managers to inform
suppliers about the WIETA code, and involve them in the
WIETA initiative. |
To date, six sites are WIETA - accredited.
The other 36 of these audited sites are in the process of drawing up
and submitting improvement plans to WIETA, based on the findings of
the audits. WIETA will be working hard this year to assist these
sites to reach accreditation status.
With this in mind, the WIETA strategic plan
for the next three years includes researching best practice and
using the findings to develop improved guidelines for the industry
in consultation with all its stakeholders. The other major area of
development is working with members to involve their suppliers and
labour brokers in the social audit and continuous improvement
processes. This will improve labour standards for the temporary and
seasonal workforce during harvest and other peak times, and ensure
that the growers especially are reached in larger numbers. To this
end, WIETA has developed new audit methodologies for both harvest
and labour broker audits.
A copy of the complete
report can be downloaded
HERE.
|
|
|
