rspo secretariat sdn bhd no. a-33a-2, tower a, level 33a ...s... · indoagri’s palm oil business...

RSPOSecretariatSdnBhdNo.A-33A-2,TowerA,Level33A,MenaraUOABangsarNo5,JalanBangsarUtama159000KualaLumpur,MalaysiaTel:+60323021500Fax:+60322014053 October11,2016TotheRSPOComplaintsPanelmembers:SUBMISSIONOFCOMPLAINT RainforestActionNetwork(RAN),OrganisasiPenguatandanPengembanganUsaha-usahaKerakyatan(OPPUK)andInternationalLaborRightsForum(ILRF)areherebylodgingacomplaintagainstIndofood’sPT.PPLondonSumatraIndonesiaTbk.(Lonsum)anditsparentcompanyPT.SalimIvomasPratamaTbk.(SalimIvomas),forlaborviolationsonmultipleLonsumplantationsincontraventionoftheRSPOPrinciples&CriteriaandviolationsoftheRSPOCodeofConduct. Thiscomplaintismadeonourownaccountandnotinthenameofanyspecificworkers.Itconcernsnon-compliancesbyPT.PPLondonSumatraIndonesiaTbk.anditsparentcompanies,PT.PPLondonSumatraIndonesiaTbk.andIndofoodAgriResourcesLtd(Indoagri),aswellasthecredibilityoftheRSPOsystemindetectingandrespondingtolaborviolationsonRSPOmemberplantations. Thecomplainants’contactdetailsareasfollows:

● GemmaTillack,RANAgribusinessCampaignDirector,[email protected]● FitriArianti,RANIndonesiaCoordinator,[email protected]● RobinAverbeck,RANSeniorCampaigner,[email protected]● HerwinNasution,OPPUKExecutiveDirector,[email protected]

[email protected]● EricGottwald,ILRFLegal&PolicyDirector,[email protected]

Pleasefindbelowmoredetailedinformationregardingthecomplaint.WefullyunderstandandagreethatRSPOSecretariatwillbelookingintothiscomplaintbasedonitsstandardGrievance&DisputeSettlementHandlingProtocol.Thankyouforattentiontothismatter. Yourssincerely,GemmaTillackRANAgribusinessCampaignDirector

HerwinNasutionOPPUKExecutiveDirector

EricGottwaldILRFLegal&PolicyDirector

RAN,OPPUK&ILRF’sComplainttotheRSPO

2

ComplaintOverviewIndofood’splantationbusinessesaremembersoftheindustrycertificationsystem,theRoundtableonSustainablePalmOil(RSPO).AsRSPOmembers,Indofood’sPT.PPLondonSumatraIndonesiaTbk.(Lonsum)andPT.SalimIvomasPratamaTbk.(SalimIvomas)arerequiredtofollowtheRSPOCodeofConductandtheRSPOPrinciplesandCriteria,whichincludeseveralPrinciplesandCriterionaddressingworkers’rights.Fieldresearchwasconductedinthesecondhalfof2015ontwoRSPO-certifiedLonsumplantationsinNorthSumatratodetermineifIndofoodwascomplyingwiththeRSPOPrinciplesandCriteria,theprocurementpoliciesofitsJointVenturePartnersandcustomers,andtheFreeandFairLaborinPalm

OilProduction:PrinciplesandImplementationGuidance(FairLaborPrinciples).TheinvestigationsfoundLonsumviolatingnumerousworkers’rights,includingRSPOprinciples2.1,4.6.,4.7,6.5,6.6.,6.7,6.8and6.13,andevidencewaspublishedbycomplainantsRainforestActionNetwork(RAN),OrganisasiPenguatandanPengembanganUsaha-usahaKerakyatan(OPPUK)andInternationalLaborRightsForum(ILRF)inJune2016inareporttitledTheHumanCostofConflictPalmOil:Indofood,PepsiCo’sHidden

LinktoWorkerExploitationinIndonesia.InJuly2016AccreditationServicesInternational(ASI)conductedaComplianceAssessmentofGunungMalayu,athirdIndofoodpalmoilmillandsupplybaseandRSPOcertificateholder,toassessviolationsfoundbyRAN,OPPUKandILRF.Althoughtheassessmentwascarriedoutonadifferentplantationthanthoseoftheoriginalinvestigations,manysimilarviolationsweredocumented,includingviolationsofRSPOprinciples2.1,4.6,4.7,5.3,6.1,and6.5.ASIalsofoundthat7majorNon-Conformitiesfromthecertificationbody’sApril2016surveillanceaudithadnotbeenclosed,anditnotedinitsobservationsthatitappearedthat“documentsandrecordsrequestedwerepreparedonthespot,”aviolationoftheRSPOCodeofConduct.1Thisdocumentoutlineskeyfacts,includingasummaryoffindingsfromfieldinvestigationsanddetailedrecommendationsfortheRSPOComplaintPanel.GiventhepreponderanceofevidencepointingtoviolationsoftheRSPOPrinciplesandCriteriaonmultipleLonsumplantationsaswellasviolationsoftheRSPOCodeofConductrequirementthatmemberscommittoopenandtransparentengagementwithinterestedpartiesandactivelyseekresolutionofconflict,RAN,OPPUKandILRFrequestthattheRSPOmembershipstatusofLonsumanditsassociatedSalimIvomasbesuspendeduntiltransparentactionsaretakentoresolvetheviolationsoutlinedherein.CompanyBackgroundThepalmoilarmofIndofood,IndofoodAgriResourcesLtd(IndoAgri),ownsplantationsthatcoveratotalareaof246,000hectaresinSumatraandKalimantan.IndoAgri’spalmoilbusinessoperationsareconductedbyitssubsidiariesPT.PPLondonSumatraIndonesiaTbk.(Lonsum)andPT.SalimIvomas

12.3Memberswillcommittoopenandtransparentengagementwithinterestedparties,andactivelyseekresolutionofconflictfromtheRSPOCodeofConductforMembers2015.http://www.rspo.org/key-documents/membership


3

PratamaTbk.(SalimIvomas),bothofwhicharememberstotheRSPO.TheownershipstructurebetweentheLonsum,SalimIvomasanditsassociatedparentcompaniesareasfollows:

Confidentialityofthesitesofinvestigation:Thecomplainants,bothinouroriginalreportaswellasinthiscomplaint,havechosennottodisclosethespecificplantationlocationswheretheinvestigationstookplaceinordertoprotecttheidentitiesoftheworkersinterviewedandnotriskreprisalsagainstworkersbyLonsummanagement.GivenASI’sfindingsofsimilarlaborviolationsandbreachesoftheRSPOPrinciplesandCriteriaonathirdanddifferentLonsumplantation,thecomplainantsrecommendtheRSPOComplaintsPanelfocusthecomplaintatthecompany-grouplevelofIndoAgri,notonthespecificlocationsofthethreeplantationsinvestigated,asviolationsappearsystemicinnatureandnotconfinedtoparticularplantations.KeyFactsandFindingsofBreachesoftheRSPOPrinciplesandCriteriabyRAN,OPPUK,andILRFFieldresearchwasconductedinSeptembertoOctober2015ontwoofIndofoodsubsidiaryPT.PPLondonSumatraIndonesiaTbk.(Lonsum)’splantationsinNorthSumatra.Ineachoftheplantations,theinvestigationwasconductedthroughone-on-oneinterviewswithworkers;on-siteexaminationofworkers’documentssuchaspayslips,lettersandworkagreements;andon-siteobservationofworkersperformingtheirworkduties,workers’livingconditionsandtheplantations’amenities.Atotalof41laborerswereindividuallyinterviewedforthisinvestigation––23workersfromthefirstplantationand18workersfromthesecondplantation.Workersinterviewedincludedmenandwomen


4

workingasharvesters,harvesterhelpersknownaskernet,pesticidesprayers,fertilizerspreaders,milloperators,securityguards,fruitloaders,waterpumpoperatorsandfieldforemen.Thefollowingtableshowsabreakdownoftheworkersinterviewed.

Thefullfindingsoftheinvestigationcanbefoundinthereportavailableatran.org/indofood.BelowareasummaryofthefindingsofviolationsoftheRSPOPrinciplesandCriteria:Principle2.1Thereiscompliancewithallapplicablelocal,national,andratifiedinternationallawsandregulations.● Twolimited-durationcontractworkersworkedinjobsthatarepermanentinnatureasharvesters.

Casualworkersalsocarriedoutpermanentplantationworkasisevidencedbytheirongoingandregularemploymentforuptodecades.Additionally,sevenkernetworkersreportedworkingregularlytoassistharvestersinconductingcoreplantationwork.Theseprecariouslyemployedworkersperformedtasksthatarepermanentinnatureandincontraventionwitharticle59ofIndonesia’sManpowerLawthatstipulatesnon-permanentwork“cannotbemadeforjobsthatare

permanentbynature.”● Researchersfoundthatbasicwagesforpermanentharvestersatoneplantationwerebelowthe

district’smonthlyminimumwage.Casualworkersatthesameplantationalsoreportedreceivingadailywageratethatwassimilarlybelowthedistrict’sdailyminimumwage.

● ChildrenwereobservedworkingonIndofoodplantations.Researchersinterviewedthreechildworkersoneaged13,twoaged16,aswellasone19yearsoldwhoreportedworkingontheplantationsincehewas12yearsold.Indonesianlawstatesthat“Childrenshallbeassumedtobeat

workiftheyarefoundinaworkplaceunlessthereisevidencetoproveotherwise.”Furthermorethisviolatesarticle68ofIndonesia’sManpowerLawthatstates“Employershallnotemploychildren”.

● Basedonthecomplainants’investigationandtheviolationsoutlinedbelow,Indofoodviolatedmorethan20Indonesianlaborlaws.PleaseseeAppendixAforfullsummaryoffindingsandrelatedlegalviolations.


5

Principle4.6Pesticidesareusedinwaysthatdonotendangerhealthortheenvironment● ThreeworkersatoneoftheplantationsreportedhavingusedthepesticideGramoxonewhich

containsParaquat,ahighlyhazardousherbicidethatisbannedintheEUandseveralothercountries.2Indofoodreportedusing21,000litersofParaquatonitsplantationsin2015.3

● Pesticidesprayingandfertilizerapplicationwerepredominantlycarriedoutbycasualmaintenanceworkers,manyofwhomarewomen.Mostoftheseworkerslackedadequatehealthandsafetyequipmentandaccesstohealthcare.

● ThephotosbelowdemonstratethelackofadequatepersonalprotectivegearandsafeworkingequipmentusedbypesticidesprayersonIndofoodplantations.PleaseseeAppendixBforfullsizephotos.

Principle4.7Anoccupationalhealthandsafetyplanisdocumented,effectivelycommunicatedandimplemented.● Allbutonecasualworkerreportedonlyreceivingsomesafetyequipmentfromthecompanyand

purchasingotherbasicequipmentsuchasshoesandglovesattheirownexpense.Noneofthekernetworkersinterviewedatoneplantationreceivedanyequipmentatall.

● Allcasualandkernetworkersreportedhavingnohealthinsuranceandlimitedaccesstotheon-sitecompanyclinic.Twocasualworkersreportedthattheydidnottreatconditionsarisingfromaccidentsonthejobduetoalackofaccesstohealthcareandinsufficientfundstopayfortreatment.

● Thephotosbelowshowworkersofvariouspositionsworkingwithoutadequatepersonalprotectiveequipment.PleaseseeAppendixCforfullsizephotos.

2“Paraquat:APANAPFactsheetSeries:HighlyHazardousPesticides,”PesticideActionNetworkAsiaandthePacific.http://www.panap.net/sites/default/files/pesticides-factsheet-hhps-paraquat.pdf3“TowardsResponsibleSourcingandTraceability,”IndoAgri.SustainabilityReport2015.http://www.indofoodagri.com/misc/sr2015.pdf


6

Principles6.5Payandconditionsforemployeesandforcontractworkersalwaysmeetatleastlegalorindustryminimumstandardsandaresufficienttoprovidedecentlivingwages.o Indofoodpaidpermanentandcasualworkersatoneoftheplantationsbelowthedistrict’sminimum

wage.Thiswagewassetthroughacollectivebargainingagreement,whichworkersreportedthattheyhadnoroleinnegotiatingandwasneverexplainedtothembyunionleadership.

o Casualdailyandkernetworkers,whowerenotprovidedwithwrittencontractsorwageslips,reportedregularlymakingbetween20%to75%lessthanthedistrictmonthlyminimumwageforpermanentworkers.

o Harvestersreportedbringinghelptomeettheirhighquotasandtoearn“premiums”—additionalincomeearnedfromcollectingextrafruitbunchesandpalmkernelsbeyondthebasicquota.Harvestersreportedthattheyneededtopursuepremiumstoearnenoughto“getby.”Althoughharvestersearnmorebybringinghelpandacquiringadditionalpremiums,theyultimatelyhavetopayforthathelpoutoftheirwagesorenlistfamilymembersas“free”labor.Nineharvestersreportedhiringchildrenorbringingtheirwivesorfamilymembersaskernet.Harvestersenlistedwivesorfamilymembersaskernettoretainincomeinthefamilyunitorhiredchildworkersbecauseitcostthemless.

o Thewageslipbelowwasobtainedfromoneoftheworkers’interviewedandshowtheworker’sbasicwageisbelowoneofthedistrict’sminimumwageofRp2.015.000atthetimeoftheinvestigation.


7

Principle6.6Theemployerrespectstherightsofallpersonneltoformandjointradeunionsoftheirchoiceandtobargaincollectively.Wheretherighttofreedomofassociationandcollectivebargainingarerestrictedunderlaw,theemployerfacilitatesparallelmeansofindependentandfreeassociationandbargainingforallsuchpersonnel.● PermanentworkersattheIndofoodplantationsvisitedreportedbeingdeniedfreedomof

associationbybeingautomaticallyenrolledinacompany-backed“yellow”unionandhavingfeesdeductedfromtheirsalary,withouttheirconsentorproperrepresentation.“Yellow”unionsareaworkerorganizationswhichareeffectivelycontrolledbytheemployerandarebannedunderinternationallaborlaw.

● Workerswhoattemptedtoengagewithanindependentunionreportedfearingreprisal.Onepermanentworkerreportedthathewasinitiallyinterestedinjoininganindependentunionbutwasquestionedbythemanagementandbecamefearfulthathewouldbesanctionedforjoininganyotherunionthanthecompany-backedunion.

Principle6.7Childrenarenotemployedorexploited.● ChildrenwereobservedworkingonIndofoodplantations.Threeworkersaged13,16,and16years

oldwereinterviewed,aswellasone19yearoldwhoreportedworkingontheplantationsincehewas12yearsold.Allwereworkingindirectlyforthecompanyaskernet,orhelperstoharvesters.

● Harvestersreportedbeingrequiredtobringkernet,whoareoftenchildrenortheirwives,tomeettheirquota,andearnbonusestosupplementtheirlowbasesalaries.Nineharvestersreported


8

choosingtohirechildrenorbringtheirwivesorfamilymembersaskernetbecausetheycouldnotaffordtopayanadultoutsideofthefamily.

● IndofooddirectorFranciscusWelirangcorroboratedthatchildrenworkonIndofoodplantationsinaninterviewwiththeJakartaPostwherehesaidthatthepracticeofhiringchildrentomeetthehighquotaswasanacceptablepartofIndonesianculture.Heisquotedassaying“It’sstandardforfamiliestoaskforhelp[fromtheirchildren].”4● ThephotosbelowshowchildrenworkingonIndofoodplantations.PleaseseeAppendixDforfullsizephotos.

Principle6.8Anyformofdiscriminationbasedonrace,caste,nationalorigin,religion,disability,gender,sexualorientation,unionmembership,politicalaffiliation,orage,isprohibited.Ofthefemaleworkersinterviewed(nine),onlyonewasemployedasapermanentworker.Sixwereemployedasdailycasualworkersandtwoworkedwithoutofficialemploymentstatusaskernetworkers.Thesewomenworkingascasualandkernetworkerslackedjobsecurity,earnedaslittleashalforlessthepaythanpermanentworkers,usuallypaidfortheirownsafetyequipmentandhealthcare,andoftenfacedincreasedhealthandsafetyrisks.Thesixfemalecasualworkersworkedsprayingpesticidesandspreadingfertilizer,someofthemosthazardousjobsontheplantation.Thephotosbelowshowwomenworkers-fertilizerspreaders,pesticidesprayers,andkernetworkers-workingonIndofoodplantations.PleaseseeAppendixEforfullsizephotos.

4Jong,HansNicholas.“NGOallegesabusesatIndofoodplantations,”TheJakartaPost.June9,2016.http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/06/09/ngo-alleges-abuses-indofood-plantations.html


9

Principle6.13Growersandmillersrespecthumanrights.Asdemonstratedaboveandinourreport,severalofthefundamentalrightssetoutintheInternationalLabourOrganization’sDeclarationonFundamentalPrinciplesandRightsatWorkhavebeenviolatedforworkersofallstatuses.TherightsofKernetworkers,whohavenoofficialemploymentstatus,andcasualworkers,inparticular,wereatparticularlyhighriskofbeingviolated.KeyFactsandFindingsofotherViolationsnotCurrentlyCoveredbytheRSPOP&CPrecariousEmploymentPractices● Indofoodisutilizingseveralkindsofprecariousornon-standardemploymentpractices––including

casualworkers,limiteddurationcontractworkers,andevenworkerswithnodirectemploymentrelationshiptothecompany––toperformcoreplantationworklikeharvesting,gatheringloosefruits,andapplyingpesticidesandfertilizers.Theseworkershavenojobsecurity,earnaslittleashalforlessthepaythanpermanentworkers,usuallypayfortheirownsafetyequipmentandhealthcare,andoftenfacegreathealthandsafetyrisks.

● Nineteenof41workersinterviewed(46%)wereprecariouslyemployedascasualworkers,contractworkers,orkernetworkers–informalworkerswhohelpharvestersmeettheirquotas,buthavenoemploymentrelationshipwiththecompany.


10

● AccordingtoIndofood’sownreporting,itemploys50%ofitsworkersonacasualbasisand2%onlimiteddurationcontracts;itdoesnotreportonthepresenceornumberofKernetworkersworkingonitsplantations.5

● Leadingstandardsarebeginningtoaddressprecariousemploymentinthepalmoilsector.ThePalmOilInnovationGrouplimitsprecariousemploymenttonomorethan20%oftheworkforce6

HistoryofEngagementBetweentheComplainantsandLonsumtoResolveGrievancesandBreachof

theRSPOCodeofConductBelowisasummaryofengagementbytheComplainantswiththeCompanyandevidenceofviolationoftheRSPOCodeofConduct:RSPOCodeofConduct2.3Memberswillcommittoopenandtransparentengagementwithinterestedparties,andactivelyseekresolutionofconflictOnbehalfofthecomplainants,RANprovidedPTIndofoodSuksesMakmurTbk(Indofood)andIndofoodAgriResourcesLtd.(IndoAgri)withasummaryofthefindingsin“TheHumanCostofConflictPalm:

Indofood,PepsiCo’sHiddenLinktoWorkerExploitationinIndonesia”inApril2016withdueopportunitytocommentpriortothereportbeingfinalizedandpublished.Specifically:

● Thereport’skeyfindingswereprovidedtoIndofoodandIndoAgriforreviewandcommentby

RANonApril10th2016;

● RANextendedtheopportunitytoreviewthefindingsuntiltheApril22nd2016toallowmore

timeforIndofoodandIndoAgritoprovidefeedback;and

● RANincorporatedinformationfromthecompany’sannualandsustainabilityreportsintothe

finalreportandensuredthattheinformationincludedinthefinalpublicationwasfactually

correctandwherepossible,referenced.

DuringthistimeIndofoodwasunwillingtoengagewithRANindialogue.InalettersentonApril15,2016,Indoagrideniedtheallegationsstatingthatit"compliedwithallIndonesianlawsandregulations"andthreatenedlegalaction.Followingthereport'srelease,IndoAgriwrotetoRANonJune28,2016requestingthatRANprovideallsupportingfactsandevidencetosupportourclaims.Specifically,IndoAgrirequestedGPScoordinatesforphotosandothersupportingdocuments,whichwouldincludeworkers'contracts,payslips,andworkerinterviewtranscripts,allofwhichcouldbeusedtoidentifytheworkersinterviewed.RAN,OPPUKandILRFarenotwillingtoshareanyinformationthatcompromisestheidentitiesofworkersorputstheworkersinterviewedatundueriskofreprisal.Additionally,givenongoingthreatsfromIndoagritotakelegalactionagainstourorganizations,furtherprecautionsfortheworkers’safetyaswellasourorganizations’protectionhavebeentaken.5“Towards Responsible Sourcing and Traceability,” IndoAgri. Sustainability Report 2015.http://www.indofoodagri.com/misc/sr2015.pdf 6Palm Oil Innovation Group Verification Indicators, POIG. March 2016. http://poig.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/POIG-Indicators_FINAL.pdf


11

DespitetheaforementionedcorrespondencefromIndoagri,ourorganizationshaverepeatedlyofferedtositdownindialoguewithIndoagriandIndofoodmanagementtodiscusstheviolationsdocumentedinourinvestigations.OurlatestletterrequestingdialoguewassentfromRANExecutiveDirectoronJuly22,2016.Todate,IndoAgriandIndofoodhaverefusedtoengageinformaldialoguewiththecomplainants.KeyFactsandFindingsofBreachesoftheRSPOPrinciplesandCriteriabyASIInJuly2016,AccreditationServicesInternational(ASI)carriedoutanassessmentofGunungMalayu,anIndofoodpalmoilmillandsupplybaseandRSPOcertificateholderinordertoassessfindingsinthecomplainants’report,TheHumanCostofConflictPalmOil:Indofood,PepsiCo’sHiddenLinktoWorker

ExploitationinIndonesia.ThefullfindingsoftheASIassessmentcanbefoundinthereportavailableathttp://www.accreditation-services.com/resources/document-library/download-info/asi-rspo-sai-pc-compliance-indonesia-2016.BelowareasummaryofASI’sfindingsofviolationsoftheRSPOPrinciplesandCriteriaandtheRSPOCodeofConduct:Principle2.1Thereiscompliancewithallapplicablelocal,national,andratifiedinternationallawsandregulations.

● ASIfoundanInternalMemorandum(No.005/HRD/CIR/V/2016)dated16May2016statingthatcompanyisonlyresponsibleforharvesters’accidents,insurance,medicalcoverageandsalary,andwhentheharvesterasksforhelpfromotherpartiessuchasfamilymembers,thenitistheharvester’sresponsibility,notthecompany’s.ThisshowsthatIndofooddoesnotprohibitharvestersfrombringingtheirfamilymemberstohelptheminthefield.

● AnotherInternalMemorandumonInsentifPanenKepalaSawit004/HRD/c/11/2016dated12/2/2016,statedthatextrabonus(premi)isalsogiventothehelpers.,clearlyshowingthatIndofoodwasawarethatharvesterswereusingundocumentedkernettoreachtheirquotas.

Principle4.6Pesticidesareusedinwaysthatdonotendangerhealthortheenvironment.

● ASIobservedthefollowingnon-complianceswith4.6.5(Appropriatesafetyandapplicationequipmentshallbeprovidedandused(forpesticides)):inconsistentchemicalmixing,inconsistentimplementationofkeepingacleanclothforsprayers,andinconsistentimplementationofwashingandstoringofPPE

● ASIobservedthefollowingnon-complianceswith4.6.6(Storageofallpesticidesshallbeaccordingtobestpractices):thechemicalstoragehadnoproperventilation,therewasnopropersetupforwashingPPEs,andtherewasnoproperemergencyshowerandeyewash

● ASIobservedthefollowingnon-complianceswith4.6.11(Specificannualmedicalsurveillanceforpesticideoperators,anddocumentedactiontotreatrelatedhealthconditions,shallbedemonstrated):medicalrecordsfrom2015showednofinalresult,afewworkerswerefoundtobeabovetheaveragerangeofCholinesterasebuttherewasnofurtheractiontakenbythecompany,andtherewasnon-compliancewithamedicalletterrecommendingaparticularsprayerberotatedfromspraying


12

Principle4.7Anoccupationalhealthandsafetyplanisdocumented,effectivelycommunicatedandimplemented.

● LonsumwasnotabletodemonstratethatmonitoringtheuseofPPE’swasinplace,andinventoryrecordsofPPEswerenotalwaysconsistentwiththerecordsofPPEissuance

● Lonsum’shazardousidentificationandriskassessment(HIRA)didnotcoversomeofthesupportingactivitieswherehealthandsafetymightbeanissue-forexamplefirefighting,andtherewasnomonitoringoftheimplementationoftheHIRA

Principle5.3Wasteisreduced,recycled,re-usedanddisposedofinanenvironmentallyandsociallyresponsiblemanner.

● ASIdocumentedthefollowingnon-complianceswith5.3.2(Allchemicalsandtheircontainersshallbedisposedofresponsibly):therewereoildrumsoutsidethestoragewiththespillageontheground,achemicalcontainerwasfoundtobere-usedtofilltheoil/dieselatthelinesite,andtherewasnochemicalwasteinthescheduledwastestoragewhilethesprayingactivitieswereinoperationforthemonthofJuly(accordingtotherecord,thelastscheduledcollectionofwastewason15July2015).

● ASIdocumentedinappropriatedomesticwastehandlingwasobserved(5.3.3)throughthefollowingnoncompliances:inappropriatewastedisposal(burning)atthelinesite,noopen&closedatesignageatthelandfill,andevidenceofoilandpaintcontainers

Principle6.1Aspectsofplantationandmillmanagementthathavesocialimpacts,includingreplanting,areidentifiedinaparticipatoryway,andplanstomitigatethenegativeimpactsandpromotethepositiveonesaremade,implemented,andmonitored,todemonstratecontinualimprovement.

● ThecompanyhadaSocialImpactAssessment(2015),buttherewasnomanagementandmonitoringplanavailable.ItisalsofoundthattheSIAwasinadequatetocoveralltypesofworkersandactivitiessuchasreplanting.

Principle6.5Payandconditionsforemployeesandforcontractworkersalwaysmeetatleastlegalorindustryminimumstandardsandaresufficienttoprovidedecentlivingwages.

● Contractsforcasualworkers(PHL)juststartedearlythisyear,2016.● Foronethirdofcompanyemployedworkers,theircontractdoesnotallowthemtoworkmore

than19dayseverymonth.Thesalaryforcasualworkers(PHL)hasbeendividedto25daysofworkingdaysinsteadof19days(numberofworkingdaysasallowedbythecontract).Withthiscondition,workerswillnotreceivethebasicminimumwageeveniftheyworkfull19days.

● Notallcasualworkerswereregisteredforsocialbenefit.Alsotheregistrationjuststartedon15July2016.

● Notallworkersinterviewedwereawareofthecontract.Somesaidtheydidn’thaveacopyofcontractandsomesaidtheydon’trememberiftheyhaveacopyofthecontract.

● InaLetterofAppointmentforSKU(permanent)workers,therewere2clausesfoundthatcouldbeconsideredasdiscrimination:(i)Clause2.3–Medicalexpenseswillbepaidfortheemployeeanddependent(formaleemployee)thatconsistof1legalwifeandmaximum3childrenandshouldbelegalizedwithMarriedandBirthCertificateorthelegaldocumentfromtheCourtforfosterchildand(ii)Clause2.4–EmployeemembersmaybetransferredtoanylocationwithintheCompanyoritsassociatedcompaniesaccordingtotherequirementofthecompany.Ifemployeedoesnottobetransferred,employeewillingtoberesignedbyownrequest.Clause2.3appearstodiscriminateagainstfemaleemployeesandclause2.4againstthebusinesscodeofethics.


13

RSPOCodeofConduct2.3Memberswillcommittoopenandtransparentengagementwithinterestedparties,andactivelyseekresolutionofconflict

● Initsobservations,ASIallegesthat“itlookslikethedocumentsandrecordsrequestedwerepreparedonthespot”citingseveralexamplesincludingthattwopagesinanofficialdocumenttobesubmittedtogovernment(DINASKER)regardingnumberofemployeesappeartohavebeenchanged;workers'agreementslookfreshlyprinted;andamemotoworkerswhodidnotpassthemedicalcheckupwasnotavailablebutsuddenlyappearedonthetablelater.FalsificationofdocumentsviolatestheRSPOCodeofConductcommitmenttoopenandtransparentengagement.

RecommendedActionsfortheRSPOComplaintsPanelGiventhepreponderanceofevidencepointingtoviolationsoftheRSPOPrinciplesandCriteriaonmultipleLonsumplantations,includingevidenceofviolationoftherequirementsforpartialcertification(P&C2.1),aswellasviolationsoftheRSPOCodeofConduct,thecomplainantsrecommendthattheRSPOsuspendthemembershipofLonsumanditsparentcompanySalimIvomas.RSPOMembershipofLonsumandSalimIvomasshouldnotbereinstateduntil:

1. TransparentactionstoresolveallviolationsoutlinedhereinandcomeintofullcompliancewiththeRSPOP&Caretaken;

2. Suchactionsareverifiedbyacrediblelaborassessorandtheassessmentismadepublic;and3. Apublictime-boundactionplan,agreedbythecomplainants,ismadepublictoensure

compliancewiththeRSPOP&CandpartialcertificationrequirementsacrossLonsumandSalimIvomas’certifiedandnon-certifiedoperations,respectively.

Transparentandverifiedactionstoaddresseachcriterionwherenon-compliancewasfound-namelyPrinciples&Criteria2.1,4.6,4.7,5.3,6.1,6.5,6.6,6.7,6.13-mustberequired,andacrediblelaborassessormustbeappointedtoverifycompliance.TheassessmentshouldbeconductedinaccordancewiththefollowingbestpracticesoutlinedintheFairLaborPrinciples:

● Becarriedoutbyacompetentlaborassessorwhoisobjectiveanddoesnothaveanyconflictofinterest;

● Beunannouncedordoneonshortnotice,soastolimitthepreparationtimeforthecompany;● Ensureapolicyofnon-reprisal,meaningthatworkerswillnotbeaskedwhathappenedduring

theinterviewprocessandthattheconversationwillremainconfidentialbetweenauditorsandinterviewees;

● Ensurefull,unhinderedaccesstotheplantationandrelatedfacilities,includingmills,livingquarters,etc,aswellasalldocuments;

● Prioritizeconfidentialworkerinterviewswitharepresentativecross-sectionoftheworkforcewhomarechosenbytheassessor,notcompanymanagement;

● Ensureinterviewsareconductedwithoutthepresenceofthecompany’smanagerialstaffandinalanguagespokenbytheworkers;

● Ensuretogetherwithemployersthatworkerrepresentativeshaveaccesstoallrelevantdocumentationandareinvitedtoproviderecommendationsaswellaschallengeandnotetheirdisagreementontheassessor’sfindingsinwriting;and

● Ensurethefindingsandcorrectiveactionplansarepubliclyreportedandtheprivacyandconfidentialityofanyaffectedpartiesisprotected.


14

Atime-boundactionplantobringallLonsumandSalimIvomasplantationsinlinewiththeRSPOPrinciples&Criteria(forcertifiedplantations)andpartialcertificationrequirements(fornon-certifiedplantations)shouldconsiderbothcorrectiveactionsforimmediateimpactandpreventativeactionsforalonger-term,sustainablechangeinpractices.Assystemicchangesmayberequiredforsomeareas,theplanshouldincludeananalysisoftherootcausesofnon-complianceandincorporatemeasurestoaddressgapsincapacity.Inordertoensureaccountability,theplanshouldbeagreedbythecomplainantsandRSPOComplaintsPanel;havetime-boundactions,includingproceduresformonitoringandexpectationsforreporting;andamechanismforcredibleverificationofactions.ConclusionsCitingthe

● EvidenceofviolationsoftheRSPOPrinciplesandCriteria2.1,4.6.,4.7,6.5,6.6,6.7,6.8and6.13presentedbyRAN,OPPUK,andILRFontwoRSPO-certifiedLonsumplantationsinNorthSumatra;

● EvidenceofviolationsofRSPOPrinciplesandCriteria2.1,4.6,4.7,5.3,6.1,and6.5foundinASI’scomplianceassessmentonathirdRSPO-certifiedLonsumplantationinNorthSumatra;

● Evidenceofviolationoftherequirementsforpartialcertification(P&C2.1)byboththecomplainantsandASI;and

● EvidenceofviolationsoftheRSPOCodeofConductbyboththecomplainantsandASI,thecomplainantsrecommendthattheRSPOsuspendthemembershipofLonsumanditsparentcompanySalimIvomas.Shouldfurtherevidence,responses,orrequestsfordialoguebemadebytheRSPOComplaintsPanel,pleasecontactthefulllistofcomplainantsbelow.Wherepossible,werequestcorrespondencebeprovidedinbothEnglishandBahasaIndonesia.Shouldcorrespondenceonlybeprovidedinonelanguage,pleaseallowoneweekadditionaltimefortranslationofmaterialssoallcomplainantscanreviewandrespondaccordingly.LeadContactPersonforComplaint:GemmaTillack,RANAgribusinessCampaignDirectorListofallcontactpersonsandcontactinformation:

RAN:

● [email protected]● [email protected]● [email protected]

OPPUK:

● [email protected]@gmail.comILRF:

● [email protected]

RAN,O

PPUK&

ILRF’sComplainttotheRSPO

15

APPENDIXA:Sum

maryofFindingsandRelatedLegalViolations

Allfindingsinthissum

maryarebasedontheinvestigationconductedbyRAN

,OPPU

KandILRFinSeptembertoO

ctober2015intwoofIndofood

subsidiaryPT.PPLondonSumatraIndonesiaTbk.(Lonsum

)plantationsinNorthSum

atraasreportedinTheHumanCostofConflictPalm

Oil:

Indofood,PepsiCo’sHiddenLinktoWorkerExploitationinIndonesia.

Thissummaryw

asdevelopedincollaborationwithYayasanLem

bagaBantuanHukumIndonesia(YLBHII).

N

O

FIND

ING

S R

ELE

VA

NT

IND

ON

ESIA

N LA

WS

EX

PLA

NA

TIO

N

In

visible

and

“Te

mp

orary”: H

ow

pre

cariou

s em

plo

yme

nt p

ractices p

lace w

orke

rs at risk 1.

Kern

et wo

rkers

Seven workers, referred to as kernet, reported

working regularly to assist harvesters but had no

direct employm

ent relationship with the com

pany.

Kernet workers help harvesters w

ith tasks such as collecting loose palm

kernels, loading fresh fruit bunches onto w

heelbarrows, hauling the

wheelbarrow

s to the road for pick up, organizing and chopping the stem

s of fruit bunches and cutting and organizing palm

branches.

Six harvesters reported that they would not be able

to meet their assigned quotas w

ithout bringing kernet w

orkers, and five harvesters reported that they w

ere instructed to bring kernet workers or

they would be sent hom

e without pay, dem

oted to casual status or lose their job.

Casu

al wo

rkers

Three casual workers interview

ed worked as

§5

0 o

f Man

po

we

r Law N

o. 1

3/2

00

3:

Employm

ent relationship shall exist on account of em

ployment agreem

ent between em

ployer and em

ployee/labor.

Kern

et wo

rkers

The indirect employm

ent of kernet workers is

driven by the pressure put on harvesters to meet

unreasonably high daily quotas as well as their

need to supplement low

wages by earning

premium

s. While not classed as official em

ployees of the plantation, kernet w

orkers are clearly needed to help harvesters fulfill their quotas and are conducting core plantation w

ork. As such,

these workers should be recognized as perm

anent em

ployees, as many w

ork full-time. A

dditionally, harvesters reported being instructed to bring kernet w

orkers, which indicate som

e knowledge

on the part of the company for this practice.

Casu

al wo

rkers

Unspecified period em

ployment (of w

hich casual w

ork falls under) should be limited to a m

aximum

of three years. M

oreover, the ongoing em

ployment of casual w

orkers for up to decades dem

onstrates a regular and permanent need of

§5

6 o

f Man

po

we

r Law N

o. 1

3/2

00

3:

Work agreem

ent shall be made for specified [PKW

T] or unspecified period [PKW

TT].

§ 5

9 o

f Man

po

we

r Law N

o. 1

3/2

00

3:

(1) A work agreem

ent for a specified period of time can

only be made for a certain job, w

hich, because of the type and nature of the job, w

ill finish in a specified period of tim

e, that is: a.

Work to be perform

ed and completed at one

go or work w

hich is temporary by nature;

b. W

ork whose com

pletion is estimated at a

period of time w

hich is not too long and no longer than 3 (three) years;

RAN,O

PPUK&


16

NO

FIN

DIN

GS

RE

LEV

AN

T IN

DO

NE

SIAN

LAW

S E

XP

LAN

AT

ION

harvesters w

hile the rest worked in m

aintenance. They reported being em

ployed as daily casual w

orkers for years without ever being prom

oted to perm

anent status. Six workers interview

ed reported they had been w

orking on the plantation for 10 to 20 years but rem

ained in casual em

ployment w

ithout any path to permanent

status.

All of the casual w

orkers reported that they were

regular employees but w

ere kept working under 21

days so they could not claim the benefits of

permanent w

orkers.

Limite

d-d

uratio

n co

ntract w

orke

rs (PK

WT

) Researchers interview

ed two lim

ited-duration contract w

orkers who w

ere both working in jobs

that are permanent in nature as harvesters.

c. Seasonal w

ork; or d.

Work that is related to a new

product, a new

[type of] activity or an additional product that is still in the experim

ental stage or try-out phase.

(2) A work agreem

ent for a specified period of time

cannot be made for jobs that are perm

anent [tetap] by nature.

…

(4) A work agreem


may be m

ade for a period of no longer than 2 (two)

years and may only be extended one tim

e for another period that is not longer than 1 (one) year.

…

(7) Any work agreem


that does not fulfill the requirements referred to

under subsection (1), subsection (2), subsection (4), subsection (5) and subsection (6) shall, by law

, becom

e a work agreem

ent for an unspecified period of tim

e.

work being carried out by casual w

orkers. Based on the duration of their casual em

ployment and

the permanent nature of their w

ork, casual w

orkers should also be classified as permanent

employees.

Limite

d-d

uratio

n co

ntract w

orke

rs (PK

WT

) The tw

o limited-duration contract w

orkers interview

ed were both perform

ing permanent

work as harvesters and therefore should have

been employed under perm

anent employm

ent.

The precariously employed kernet, casual and

contract workers interview

ed on Indofood plantations perform

ed permanent tasks and have

been inappropriately classified as “short term”. By

law, they should be em

ployed under unspecified period em

ployment and granted the benefits of

permanent em

ployees.

2. N

one of the casual workers interview

ed reported having w

ritten contracts.

§5

7 o

f Man

po

we

r Law N

o. 1

3/2

00

3:

(1) Specified-period work agreem

ent shall be made in

writing and Indonesian language using Latin

alphabets. (2) A w

ork agreement for a specified period of tim

e, if m

ade against what is prescribed under subsection

(1), shall be regarded as a work agreem

ent for an unspecified period of tim

e.

The absence of written contracts should am

end their em

ployment into unspecified-period w

ork agreem

ent (permanent status).

RAN,O

PPUK&


17

NO

FIN

DIN

GS

RE

LEV

AN

T IN

DO

NE

SIAN

LAW

S E

XP

LAN

AT

ION

3.

One of the tw

o limited-duration contract w

orkers had not received a copy of their contract despite being prom

ised one.

§5

4 o

f Man

po

we

r Law N

o. 1

3/2

00

3:

(3) A work agreem

ent as referred to under subsection [§54.] 1 shall be m

ade in 2 (two) equally legally

binding copies, 1 (one) copy of which shall be kept

by the entrepreneur and the other by the worker/

labourer.

No further explanation.

4. O

ne of the two lim

ited-duration contract workers

reported that he had initially come on contract to

prune, but had been forced mid-contract to

harvest, despite it being outside of his agreed contract.

§5

2 o

f Man

po

we

r Law N

o. 1

3/2

00

3:

(1) Work agreem

ent shall be made based on:

a. The agreem

ent of both sides; b.

The capability or competence to take legally-

sanctioned actions; c.

The availability/ existence of the job which

both sides have agreed about; d.

The notion that the job which both sides have

agreed about does not run against public order, m

orality and what is prescribed in the

valid legislation. …

(3) Any w

ork agreements that are m

ade by the parties not according to the applicable law

as provided under §52.1.c and d hereof shall be legally null and void.

Having the contract w

orker work outside of the

initially agreed terms of em

ployment breaches

the agreement and should be considered void.

Additionally, harvesting is a perm

anent task that should only be carried out by perm

anent em

ployees with corresponding com

pensation, benefits and social protection.

N

ickle an

d D

ime

d: H

ow

wo

rkers are

paid

un

eth

ically low

wage

s

5. W

age slips of permanent harvesters interview

ed at one of the plantations visited revealed base w

ages that w

ere below the district’s m

inimum

wage. A

t the tim

e of the investigation, the monthly

minim

um w

age was Rp 2.015.000, around $150

§8

8 o

f Man

po

we

r Law N

o. 1

3/2

00

3:

(1) Every worker/ labourer has the right to earn a living

that is decent from the view

point of humanity

[literal: the right to earn an income that m

eets livelihood that is decent for hum

ans].

In Indonesia, the minim

um w

age is proposed by the district and approved by the provincial governm

ent. The district-wide m

inimum

wage is

based on a survey of 60 basic-needs items,

including food, clothing, housing and

RAN,O

PPUK&


18

NO

F

IND

ING

S

RE

LE

VA

NT

IND

ON

ES

IAN

LA

WS

E

XP

LA

NA

TIO

N

USD

, wh

ile th

e p

lantatio

n o

nly p

rovid

ed

a base

w

age o

f Rp

1.9

52

.64

0, aro

un

d $

14

5 U

SD, o

r so

me

time

s less. Th

e w

age slip

s of five

pe

rman

en

t w

orke

rs reve

aled

a base

wage

of R

p 1

,76

1,0

37

,

arou

nd

$1

30

USD

, in A

ugu

st 20

15

.

Alth

ou

gh casu

al wo

rkers in

tervie

we

d d

id n

ot

rece

ive d

ocu

me

nte

d p

ay slips, all th

e casu

al w

orke

rs at the

same

plan

tation

rep

orte

d re

ceivin

g a m

aximu

m d

aily wage

of R

p 7

8,6

00

(arou

nd

$6

U

SD) —

less th

an th

e d

aily min

imu

m o

f Rp

80

,48

0

base

d o

n th

e sam

e d

istrict-wid

e m

inim

um

wage

.

Ou

t of th

e kernet w

orke

rs inte

rview

ed

, six of se

ven

re

po

rted

wo

rking fo

r pay an

d e

arnin

g be

twe

en

Rp

2

0,0

00

to R

p 3

5,0

00

pe

r day, aro

un

d $

1.5

0 to

$

2.5

0 U

SD —

wh

ich falls far b

elo

w th

e statu

tory

daily rate

for a casu

al wo

rker. Th

e o

the

r kernet w

orke

r inte

rview

ed

rep

orte

d w

orkin

g with

ou

t pay

in o

rde

r to h

elp

he

r hu

sban

d re

ach h

is harve

sting

qu

ota.

…

(4) The Governm

ent shall establish/ set minim

um

wages as referred to under subsection (3) point (a)

based on the need for decent living (keb

utu

han

h

idu

p layak) by taking into account productivity and

economic grow

th.

transp

ortatio

n, fo

r a single

pe

rson

. Ho

we

ver, fo

r p

lantatio

n w

orke

rs, wh

o typ

ically have

familie

s to

sup

po

rt and

live in

rem

ote

areas w

he

re th

e co

st o

f goo

ds is sign

ificantly h

ighe

r, this w

age

calculatio

n o

ften

falls sho

rt of w

hat is n

ee

de

d to

sup

po

rt a family an

d is far fro

m a livin

g wage

.

Ne

verth

ele

ss, on

e o

f the

plan

tation

s visited

still faile

d to

me

et th

e m

inim

um

wage

req

uire

me

nts

by p

aying p

erm

ane

nt, casu

al and

kernet wo

rkers

be

low

the

district’s m

inim

um

wage–

in cle

ar vio

lation

of th

e law

.

§9

0 o

f Ma

np

ow

er L

aw

No

. 13

/20

03

: (1) Entrepreneurs are prohibited from

paying wages

lower than the m

inimum

wages as referred to

under Article 89.

6.

Ind

ofo

od

’s sub

-min

imu

m w

ages are

set b

y a co

llective

bargain

ing agre

em

en

t that w

as n

ego

tiated

be

twe

en

an asso

ciation

of Su

matran

p

lantatio

n co

mp

anie

s called

Badan Kerja Sama

Perusahaan Perkebunan Sumatra (BKSPPS) —

to

wh

ich In

do

foo

d’s Lo

nd

on

Sum

atra be

lon

gs — an

d

an In

do

ne

sian u

nio

n th

at claims to

rep

rese

nt all th

e

§9

1 o

f Ma

np

ow

er L

aw

No

. 13

/20

03

: (1) The am

ount of wage set based on an agreem

ent betw

een the entrepreneur and the worker/

labourer or trade/ labour union must not be low

er than the am

ount of wage set under valid statutory

legislation. (2) In case the agreem

ent as referred to under subsection (1) sets a w

age that is lower than the

The

colle

ctive b

argainin

g agree

me

nt th

at In

do

foo

d re

fere

nce

s for its w

age stan

dard

sho

uld

b

e co

nsid

ere

d vo

id as th

e w

age se

t in th

e

agree

me

nt falls b

elo

w th

e d

istrict’s min

imu

m

wage

and

con

traven

es m

inim

um

wage

law.

RAN,O

PPUK&


19

NO

FIN

DIN

GS

RE

LEV

AN

T IN

DO

NE

SIAN

LAW

S E

XP

LAN

AT

ION

workers of the m

ember plantations.

one that has to be set under valid statutory legislation or runs against valid statutory legislation, the agreem

ent shall be declared null and void by law

and the entrepreneur shall be obliged to pay the w

orker/ labourer a wage

according to valid statutory legislation.

§1

24

of M

an

po

we

r Law

No

. 13

/20

03

: (2) Stipulations of a collective w

ork agreement m

ust not run against w

hat is stipulated in valid statutory legislation.

(3) Should the contents of a collective work agreem

ent run against w

hat is stipulated in valid statutory legislation as referred to under subsection (2), then the contradictory stipulations shall be declared null and void by law

. What shall then apply is w

hat is stipulated under valid statutory legislation.

7. M

any of the workers interview

ed stated that they had no role in negotiating the collective bargaining agreem

ent and the union leadership has never explained it to them

.

§1

16

of M

an

po

we

r Law

No

. 13

/20

03

: (2) The CBA as provided under §116.1 hereof shall be

drafted by means of consensus.

As explained under the “Yellow

Unions and

Intimidation” section of the report, m

embership

to the company-backed union w

as mandatory for

permanent w

orkers and happened without

workers’ consent or proper registration

procedure. Such process questions the legitimacy

of the consensus that initially founded the collective bargaining agreem

ent, as it is highly likely that the union representative did not truly represent the w

orkers.

§1

26

of M

an

po

we

r Law

No

. 13

/20

03

: (2) The entrepreneur and the trade/ labour union are

under an obligation to inform the contents of the

collective work agreem

ent [that they have made

and signed] or any changes made to it to all the

enterprise’s workers/ labourers.

RAN,O

PPUK&


20

NO

F

IND

ING

S

RE

LE

VA

NT

IND

ON

ES

IAN

LA

WS

E

XP

LA

NA

TIO

N

C

hild

Wo

rk

ers

: Ho

w u

na

tta

ina

ble

qu

ota

s d

riv

e c

hild

lab

or

8.

Ch

ildre

n w

ere

ob

se

rve

d w

ork

ing

on

Ind

ofo

od

pla

nta

tion

s. R

ese

arc

he

rs in

terv

iew

ed

thre

e c

hild

wo

rke

rs o

ne

ag

ed

13

, two

ag

ed

16

, as w

ell a

s o

ne

19

ye

ars

old

wh

o re

po

rted

wo

rkin

g o

n th

e

pla

nta

tion

sin

ce

he

wa

s 1

2 y

ea

rs o

ld.

§6

8 o

f M

an

po

we

r L

aw

No

. 13

/2

00

3:

Employer shall not em

ploy children.

Ph

oto

s w

ith G

PS

co

ord

ina

tes a

s w

ell a

s v

ide

o a

nd

au

dio

reco

rdin

gs w

ere

co

llecte

d d

urin

g th

e

inve

stig

atio

n th

at fo

un

d th

ree

ch

ildre

n w

ork

ing

as

kernet wo

rke

rs o

n In

do

foo

d’s

pla

nta

tion

. §

73

of M

an

po

we

r L

aw

No

. 13

/2

00

3:

Children shall be assumed to be at w

ork if they are found in a w

orkplace unless there is evidence to prove otherw

ise.

9.

Ch

ildre

n a

re g

en

era

lly n

ot e

mp

loye

d d

irectly

by

pla

nta

tion

s a

nd

do

no

t ha

ve

a c

lea

r wo

rk s

tatu

s.

All c

hild

ren

wo

rke

d in

dire

ctly

for th

e c

om

pa

ny a

s

kernet wo

rke

rs h

elp

ing

ha

rve

ste

rs to

me

et th

eir

qu

ota

s.

Ha

rve

ste

r rep

orte

d th

at th

ey n

ee

d to

me

et v

ery

hig

h q

uo

tas e

ve

ry d

ay. T

wo

ha

rve

ste

r sta

ted

tha

t

the

ir da

ily q

uo

ta w

as 2

ton

s o

f fresh

fruit b

un

ch

es

pe

r da

y.

§6

9 o

f M

an

po

we

r L

aw

No

. 13

/2

00

3:

(1) Exemption from

what is stipulated under A

rticle 68 m

ay be made for the em

ployment of children aged

between 13 (thirteen) years old and 15 (fifteen)

years old for light work as long as the job does not

stunt or disrupt their physical, mental and social

developments.

(2) Entrepreneurs who em

ploy children for light work

as referred to under subsection (1) must m

eet the follow

ing requirements:

a. The entrepreneurs m

ust have written

permission from

the parents or guardians of the children;

b. There m

ust be a work agreem

ent between the

entrepreneur and the parents or guardians of the children;

c. The entrepreneurs m

ust not require the children to w

ork longer than 3 (three) hours [a day];

d. The entrepreneurs shall em

ploy the children to

Alth

ou

gh

the

re is

an

exce

ptio

n fo

r the

em

plo

ym

en

t of c

hild

ren

be

twe

en

ag

es 1

3 a

nd

15

ye

ars

old

for “

ligh

t wo

rk”, w

ork

on

pa

lm o

il

pla

nta

tion

do

es n

ot m

ee

t its re

qu

irem

en

ts.

All

the

ch

ildre

n

wo

rke

d

ind

irectly

a

s

kernet w

ork

ers

wh

o w

ere

no

t reco

gn

ize

d a

s p

art o

f the

offic

ial

pla

nta

tion

w

ork

forc

e,

ha

ve

n

o

leg

al

pro

tectio

ns,

an

d a

re n

ot

elig

ible

fo

r h

ea

lth ca

re,

wo

rk-re

late

d

inju

ry

co

mp

en

sa

tion

, a

nd

o

the

r

so

cia

l pro

tectio

ns.

Be

ca

use

kernet wo

rke

rs h

ave

no

dire

ct

em

plo

ym

en

t rela

tion

sh

ip w

ith th

e c

om

pa

ny n

or

leg

al w

ork

sta

tus, th

e la

w d

oe

s n

ot c

on

tem

pla

te

the

m w

ork

ing

mo

re th

an

21

da

ys o

r be

ing

pa

id

the

min

imu

m w

ag

e.

Wo

rke

rs o

n p

alm

oil p

lan

tatio

ns fa

ce

ma

ny

occu

pa

tion

al s

afe

ty a

nd

he

alth

ha

za

rds, in

clu

din

g

RAN,O

PPUK&


21

NO

F

IND

ING

S

RE

LEV

AN

T IN

DO

NE

SIA

N LA

WS

E

XP

LAN

AT

ION

work only at day or during the day w

ithout disturbing their schooling;

e. [In em

ploying the children, the entrepreneurs shall m

eet] occupational safety and health requirem

ents; f.

A clear-cut employm

ent relation [between the

entrepreneur and the child worker/ his or her

parent or guardian] must be established; and

g. The children shall be entitled to receive w

ages in accordance w

ith valid rulings.

bu

t no

t limited

to p

oiso

nin

g an

d lo

ng term

health

effects from

pesticid

e use o

r exp

osu

re; bein

g hit b

y falling fru

it bu

nch

es; m

uscu

loskeletal in

juries fro

m rep

etitive and

fo

rceful m

ovem

ents an

d liftin

g and

carrying h

eavy o

r awkw

ard lo

ads; in

juries fro

m cu

tting to

ols

rangin

g from

min

or cu

ts to severe w

ou

nd

s; skin

abrasio

ns d

ue to

con

tact with

oil p

alm fru

it and

th

orn

s; eye dam

age from

falling p

alm fro

nd

s; high

levels o

f sun

expo

sure w

hich

can resu

lt in skin

can

cer and

heat exh

austio

n; lo

ng w

orkin

g ho

urs;

and

snake an

d in

sect bites.

Acco

rdin

g to In

do

nesia’s N

ation

al Actio

n Plan

for

the Elim

inatio

n o

f the W

orst Fo

rms o

f Ch

ild Lab

or,

“child

ren in

plan

tation

s, especially o

il palm

p

lantatio

ns” h

as been

categorized

as on

e of seven

p

riority areas in

elimin

ating ch

ild lab

or.

§7

4 o

f Ma

np

ow

er La

w N

o. 1

3/2

00

3:

(1) Every body shall be prohibited from em

ploying and involving children in the w

orst forms of child labour

[literal: in the worst jobs].

(2) The worst form

s of child labour [literal: the worst

jobs] as referred to under subsection (1) include: …

d. All kinds of job harm

ful to the health, safety and m

oral of the child.

10. B

eyon

d th

e fou

r teenage b

oys in

terviewed

, two

h

arvesters repo

rted h

iring ch

ildren

as kernet to

help

them

meet h

igh q

uo

tas and

earn p

remiu

ms.

§1

3 o

f Ch

ild P

rote

ction

Law

No

. 23

/20

02

: (1) Every child, insofar as he/she is under the care of

his/her parent(s), guardian, or any other parties w

hatsoever responsible for so doing, shall be entitled to protection against the follow

ing treatm

ents: …

b. Econom

ic and sexual exploitation;

Palm o

il plan

tation

s directly b

enefit fro

m ch

ild

labo

r (thro

ugh

high

er yields p

er wo

rker) with

ou

t b

earing d

irect legal respo

nsib

ility for th

e presen

ce o

f wo

rking ch

ildren

.

RAN,O

PPUK&


22

NO

FIN

DIN

GS

RE

LEV

AN

T IN

DO

NE

SIAN

LAW

S E

XP

LAN

AT

ION

Hazard

ou

s and

Un

safe: H

ow

pe

sticide

s and

wo

rk practice

s jeo

pard

ize w

orke

rs’ he

alth an

d safe

ty

11. A

t the Indofood plantations visited, workers

reported working w

ithout proper Personal Protective Equipm

ent (PPE). Fertilizer spreaders and w

orkers tasked with general upkeep reported

not being provided with any protective equipm

ent. W

omen applying fertilizer w

ere observed using a sm

all plastic bowl to throw

fertilizer with only a rag

wrapped around their face to protect them

from

the chemical dust.

Maintenance w

orkers reported using Gram

oxone, w

hich contains the highly toxic pesticide Paraquat.

Due to kernet w

orkers’ indirect employm

ent relationship w

ith the company, Indofood did not

provide health and safety equipment for these

workers.

§8

6 o

f Man

po

we

r Law N

o. 1

3/2

00

3:

(1) Every worker/ labourer has the right to receive:

a. O

ccupational safety and health protection;


§1

4 o

f Wo

rk Safety Law

No

. 1 o

f 19

70

: [M

anagement] Adm

inistrator shall: …

c. Provide, for free of charge, all required PPEs to the em

ployees for which it is responsible as w

ell as others w

ho enter the work area, com

plete with necessary

signs according to supervisor employees or

occupational safety experts.

12. A

ll casual and kernet workers reported having no

health insurance and limited access to the on-site

company clinic.

Kernet workers w

ho are not recognized as part of the official plantation w

orkforce, have no legal

§9

9 o

f Man

po

we

r Law N

o. 1

3/2

00

3:

(1) Labors and their families shall each be entitled to

social security.


§1

00

of M

anp

ow

er Law

No

. 13

/20

03

: (1) In order to im

prove the prosperity of labors and

RAN,O

PPUK&


23

NO

FIN

DIN

GS

RE

LEV

AN

T IN

DO

NE

SIAN

LAW

S E

XP

LAN

AT

ION

protections, and are not eligible for health care, w

ork-related injury compensation, and other social

protections.

Two casual w

orkers reported that they did not treat conditions arising from

accidents on the job due to a lack of access to health care and insufficient funds to pay for treatm

ent.

IndoAgri’s 2015 Sustainability Report states

“employees and their dependents enjoy the

medical...services free of charge”. H

owever,

Indofood then goes on to define employees only as

permanent w

orkers and limited duration contract

workers, indicating that casual w

orkers, which

comprise 50%

of its workforce, are not entitled to

free medical services.

Both contract workers interview

ed also reported their w

ives and children were not covered by

health insurance.

their families, em

ployer shall provide welfare

facilities. 1

§3

of E

mp

loye

e’s So

cial Secu

rity (Jamso

stek)

Law N

o. 3

/19

92

: (2) Every em

ployee has the right to employee’s social

security.

§4

E

mp

loye

e’s

Social

Secu

rity (Jam

soste

k) Law

No

. 3/1

99

2:

(1) The Jamsostek Program

as stated in Article 3 must

be done by every company for w

orkers who perform

w

ork in an employm

ent relation in accordance with

the provision of this Law2.

§

6 o

f Em

plo

yee

’s Social Se

curity (Jam

soste

k) Law

No

. 3/1

99

2:

(1) The scope of the Jamsostek program

in this Law

include: a.

Accident insurance b.

Death benefit

c. Retirem

ent benefit d.

Health insurance

1W

elfare facilities refer to, for instance, family planning service, babysitting facilities, housing facilities for labors, special room

s for prayer or other religious facilities, sports facilities, canteens, policlinic and other m

edical/ health facilities, and recreational facilities.2W

orkers who perform

work in an em

ployment relation are people w

ho work in any form

of business (company) or individuals w

ho receive a w

age, including casual, piece rate and contract workers.

RAN,O

PPUK&


24

NO

F

IND

ING

S R

ELE

VA

NT

IND

ON

ESIA

N LA

WS

EX

PLA

NA

TIO

N

§1

6 o

f Em

plo

yee

’s Socia

l Secu

rity (Jam

soste

k) La

w N

o. 3

/19

92

:

(1) Workers, husband or w

ife, and children have the right to attain H

ealth Insurance.

Y

ello

w U

nio

ns a

nd

Intim

ida

tion

: Ho

w co

mp

an

y-ba

cked

un

ion

s un

de

rmin

e fre

ed

om

of a

ssocia

tion

13. W

orkers reported that their mem

bership to a union w

as mandatory as they entered perm

anent status em

ployment. The w

orkers reported that they w

ere enlisted in the union without their

consent or a proper registration procedure.

§2

8 o

f Tra

de

Un

ion

Law

No

. 21

/20

00

: Anyone shall not prevent labors from

establishing or not establishing, joining or not joining m

anagement of,

becoming or not becom

ing mem

bers of, and/or running or not running activities of labor union, or otherw

ise force them to do or not to do so by:

a. performing dism

issal, temporary dism

issal, dem

otion, or transfer to other work

section/place; b. failing to pay, or reducing paym

ent of, labors; c. intim

idating labors in any way w

hatsoever; d. cam

paigning against labor union establishm

ent.

Mandatory m

embership to a particular union

violates workers’ freedom

to join or not join a labor union as stipulated by Indonesian law

.

14. W

orkers reported that mem

bership dues for the union w

ere automatically deducted from

workers’

wages.

§5

of M

iniste

r of M

an

po

we

r De

cree

No

. 1

87

/20

04

: (1) Em

ployer may only levy from

labor union mem

bers based on pow

er of attorney giving authority from

the concerned labor to the employer to deduct

his/her salary.

Workers w

ere enlisted into the union without

their consent or proper registration procedure. A

lthough matters related to pow

er of attorney w

ere not specifically asked during interviews, it is

very likely that workers did not provide such

power of attorney to the com

pany.

15. O

ne worker explained, “W

e are not free to establish other unions. The plantation only allow

s [the com

pany-backed union] to organize workers.

§1

04

of M

an

po

we

r Law

No

. 13

/20

03

: (1) Every labor shall have rights to form

ing and becom

ing mem

ber of labor union.

At least one w

orker reported experiencing intim

idation for showing interest in joining an

independent union, which violates their right to

RAN,O

PPUK&


25

NO

FIN

DIN

GS

RE

LEV

AN

T IN

DO

NE

SIAN

LAW

S E

XP

LAN

AT

ION

Others are not allow

ed….”

One perm

anent worker reported that he w

as initially interested in joining an independent union but w

as questioned by the managem

ent and becam

e fearful that he would be sanctioned for

joining any other union than the company-backed

union. He said that others, including friends of his,

also refrained from joining due to fear of

repercussions from the com

pany.

freedom of association.


26

APPENDIXB:PhotosofUnsafePesticideSprayersandInadequatePersonalProtectiveEquipmentusedbyIndofoodWorkers


27

APPENDIXC:PhotosofIndofoodWorkersofVariousPositionsWorkingwithoutAdequatePersonalProtectiveEquipment


28


29

APPENDIXD:PhotosofChildrenWorkingonIndofoodPlantations

APPENDIXE:PhotosofWomenWorkersonIndofoodPlantations


30

APPENDIXE:PhotosofWomenWorkersonIndofoodPlantations


31

rspo secretariat sdn bhd no. a-33a-2, tower a, level 33a ...s... · indoagri’s palm oil business...

Documents