10.2.4 Non-stop campaigning and legal proceedings

For some reason, the Indian Organisations kept on repeating the complaints alleged during the first round of interviews, which were subsequently labelled as 'solved' in the final report. They complained to FFI/JKPL's and several of its customers', including G-Star's, Labour Department,1 but also publicly on the internet. They asserted that FFI/JKPL employees were not free to join a labour union, that they would be dismissed if they did so and that the company had already dismissed employees who had become GATWU members. FFI/JKPL rejected the allegations, asking GATWU for substantiation. When it turned out that the Fact-finding Committee had interviewed anonymous workers, FFI/ JKPL wanted to close the case, assuming that these employees might also have come from other Bangalore garment factories.2 GATWU and the others were disappointed; in their view FFI/JKPL had not considered their complaints seriously. FFI/JKPL, on the other hand, felt insulted by the complaints. During the meeting with the Fact-finding Committee, it seemed that all complaints had been resolved or had been found to be incorrect. Moreover, FFI/JKPL found it difficult to address complaints that were not individualised, as this makes it virtually impossible for management to take corrective measures.

In late July 2006, FFI/JKPL commenced legal proceedings before the Civil Court of Bangalore against several representatives of GATWU, Cividep, NTUI, Munnade, and the CCC Taskforce Tamilnadu.3 FFI/JKPL successfully requested an ex-parte injunction order restraining the said organisations and others from

' disseminating any untrue and unsupported information.' In response, the Indian Organisations appeared before the Court to oppose the injunction, but did not submit any material substantiating the campaign and allegations. Indian law prescribes that the Courts should immediately lift an injunction order if only a small portion of the allegations or other allegedly untrue and unsupported information proves to be true and justified.4 The Indian Organisations, however, did not succeed in persuading the Civil Court to lift the order.

The Bangalore Court's injunction against members of the Indian Organisations fuelled CCC/ICN's campaign. On their websites they presented the court cases in India as a 'restriction of the freedom of speech and the freedom of association.' They now actively and publicly solicited support for their cause, with success, from other NGOs such as Amnesty International, Oxfam, and Dutch and international trade unions.5

In August 2006, CCC/ICN called upon FFI/JKPL's Western (former, current

and potential) customers to exert their influence in order to ensure freedom of association and to allow GATWU and NTUI to negotiate with FFI/JKPL management. Several customers subsequently confronted FFI/JKPL with this message.6 FFI/JKPL management explained to them that its employees enjoy freedom of association and that if GATWU or NTUI or any other trade union would represent the legally required number of FFI/JKPL employees, they would be happy to allow them to consult and negotiate.7 The customers remained at first, but as CCC/ICN put pressure on them to end their relationship with FFI/JKPL, some large American brands, such as Ann Taylor, Guess, Levi's and Tommy Hilfiger - afraid of damaging their good reputation if public campaigns would be targeted against them - stopped ordering from FFI/JKPL.

Although invited to visit the production units and to personally carry out an investigation with regard to the truth of the allegations, CCC/ICN decided not to become involved on a local scale, other than filing the aforementioned complaint with the Labour Department. They took the position that the Indian Organisations, with whom they had previously worked, were responsible for the 'field work'. CCC/ICN asserted that the Fact-finding Committee had carried out a proper investigation as an 'independent' committee;8 the fact that the Committee was paid for its investigation was - in their opinion - of no relevance to the independence thereof. Generally, that should indeed not be considered to be of any relevance. However, the substantiation of the accusations by the Indian Organisations of FFI/JKPL should have been of professional concern to CCC/ICN, especially given the observations of the Fact-finding Committee after its meeting with FFI/JKPL management and the far more moderate tone that was heard in the second round of interviews.9 CCC/ICN should at least have paid attention to the reported improvements as well as investigating the explanations by FFI/JKPL. Yet, the CCC/ICN communications concerning FFI/JKPL do not mention the customer audits,10 which show that the complaints communicated in the draft Fact-finding Report were either remediated, incorrect, or could not be retraced. Also, the positive outcome of the inspection carried out by the Labour Department was disregarded. This report stated that FFI/JKPL did not employ child labour, was strictly complying with all labour laws and was paying wages, bonuses, leave benefits and gratuities, as well as providing free food and transport facilities, and that it also ensured the health, safety and social welfare of its employees.11 In the opinion of CCC/ICN, such a government report as well as the Civil Court injunction could have been 'purchased'. This type of public statement regarding the Indian legal system infuriated Indian government officials.12

In June 2007, two members of the Fact-finding Committee, jointly with a CCC/ICN representative, were interviewed in a Dutch radio broadcast.13 They repeated the complaints listed in the draft Fact-finding Report, including human rights violations such as physical abuse. However, they made no mention of the response by management, the outcome of the second round of interviews or the Labour Department investigation. After the radio interview, additional customers terminated their business relationship with FFI/JKPL. The company decided to protect its interests by suing the two Fact-finding Committee members in order to claim financial compensation for the cancelled orders.14 In the autumn of 2007, the Bangalore Magistrate Court (a criminal law Court) took cognisance of the charge of defamation against CCC/ICN and their Dutch internet provider XS4All Internet B.V. and the website host Antenna Foundation (the Internet Service Providers).15 The procedure of the Court on the filing of a private complaint is to record the statements of witnesses and to peruse all the documents and materials placed before it. The Court then decides whether a prima facie case of criminal defamation has been made. In the case at hand, the Magistrate Court concluded that this was indeed the case. The Court then issued notices calling upon the defendants to appear. The counsel representing CCC/ICN and the Internet Service Providers gave an undertaking on behalf of their clients that they would appear in Court. However, the Dutch parties did not appear. Their counsel stated that their non-appearance was due to the fact that they had not received visas. Several dates were given to enable them to appear. When FFI/ JKPL submitted materials to show that most of them had not even applied for a visa, the Court considered itself to have been misled and it issued non-bailable warrants against the Dutch defendants to appear before the Court.16