The electronics manufacturing services company said it will work with the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) after Dyson, the company’s largest customer, cut ties with ATA after an audit of its labour practices and allegations by a whistleblower.
The British home appliance maker’s contract with ATA ends on June 1.
ATA said on Dec 7 that it had found instances of staff working excessive overtime and had taken action against a manager who coached employees for a labour audit.
ATA said Suhakam had visited its facilities on Sept 27 to verify allegations of forced labour reported by media outlets and provided feedback for improvement for the company’s consideration.
It did not say what the feedback was but said it had implemented additional grievance channels for workers, terminated an agent who charged workers recruitment fees and improved communication issues at the company clinic treating workers.
Suhakam confirmed that it would be working with ATA to improve its practices.
ATA also said it “looks forward to working closely … with the government, the human resources ministry and other relevant bodies in its efforts to step up on its ESG and corporate social responsibility efforts”.
Malaysia charged ATA last month with four violations of labour law related to accommodation for workers as it investigates complaints of forced labour.
ATA has asked for the charges to be dropped, saying any infractions were caused by the “challenges presented during the pandemic”.
In the past two-and-a-half years, seven Malaysian firms, including the world’s biggest glove maker and a palm oil producer, have faced US import bans over allegations of forced labour.
Migrant worker activist questions Suhakam’s visit to ATA
However, in a statement to FMT this evening, Andy Hall, a migrant worker rights specialist, raised several questions on Suhakam’s reported visit to ATA on Sept 27.
He said Suhakam should explain their methodology or approach and whether any credible or independent social compliance or forced labour auditing techniques were applied.
“Were Suhakam’s staff certified and trained or familiar on issues of forced labour, and accompanied by related experts from the departments of trafficking and labour protection for support and advice?”
He also questioned how many workers were interviewed, and if they were alone or in groups, and who had chosen the workers to be interviewed and what type of selection criteria were used.
Hall also asked how many sites Suhakam visited and who chose the sites.
The migrant worker specialist also wants to know if any agent was terminated both in Malaysia and the worker’s source country, and whether any investigation was undertaken or action was taken against ATA staff who may have been complicit in charging recruitment fees to workers.
He also asked how much money was paid by workers to the agents and if the recruitment fees wrongly paid by workers were reimbursed to them.