日本語

In 2017, the Honeys factory in Myanmar dismissed nearly 450 workers after they protested over the factory unilaterally raising production targets and violating the legally-binding agreement the workers signed with the factory. After Honeys dismissed the workers, it then sued Burmese labor union leader Myo Aye for defamation and demanded approximately 1.88 billion kyats (approximately US$895,000) in compensation. Honeys is headquartered in Japan, and it only withdrew the lawsuit in January 2025 after a public campaign at the end of last year. However, Honeys refused to acknowledge the harm done to Myo Aye, and the unjust violations and dismissals against the close to 450 workers. The dismissed union leaders have still been unable to find jobs at other garment factories in Myanmar, due to the discrimination they faced after dismissal. We are conducting this petition-letter campaign to demand Honeys provide appropriate remedies to the affected workers and pay them compensation. Please see the letter below addressed to Honeys.

Letter to Honeys:

Dear Mr. Yoshihisa Ejiri,

I am writing to you about the close to 450 workers the Honeys factory in Myanmar summarily dismissed in 2017, and to demand that you provide remedy for them and pay them their deserved compensation. 

In March 2017, the Honeys Garment Industry Limited factory in Myanmar raised its production quotas excessively from 400 to 600 pieces of clothing a day, so the workers engaged in collective negotiations with the factory and reached a legally-binding agreement on 7 April 2017 to “set realistic quotas based on the workers’ abilities”. However, in early June 2017, the Honeys Myanmar factory decided to unilaterally raise the production quotas without any agreement with the workers, thus violating the 7 April 2017 agreement. The workers conducted peaceful protests, but Honeys dismissed a total of 448 workers. 

The first dismissal occurred after the workers wore red headscarves to protest and produced “only what they could do”, as agreed under the 7 April 2017 agreement. In response, the Honeys Myanmar factory announced in mid-June 2017 that it was reassigning workers to other workstations, and when 20 workers refused to accept the assignment, the factory dismissed them on 16 June 2017. On 17 June 2017, the factory dismissed another 346 workers who continued to protest. The Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) reported that Honeys gave these two batches of workers three warning letters and then dismissed them on the same day. Myanmar’s Arbitration Body ruled that the factory did not give genuine notice of discipline prior to their dismissal, and both the body and higher Arbitration Council also ruled that Honeys did not properly warn the workers they would be dismissed until the day of their dismissal. They also ruled that Honeys should have negotiated with the workers about the production quotas, and the council also acknowledged that Honeys’ representatives in Myanmar refused to facilitate discussions between the workers and the Japanese headquarters. 
On 19 June 2017, as protests went on, Honeys did not assign any work to 54 workers and told them to go home. When they did so, the factory informed them that they were considered to have “voluntarily resigned”. The Arbitration Body ruled that it was Honeys which locked the workers out of the factory, and they could not be considered to have voluntarily resigned. These rulings were not disputed by the higher Arbitration Council, on their merits.
From end-June to early-July 2017, Honeys dismissed another 28 workers including the entire union leadership at Honeys 2, after they took part in a sympathy strike. 

All times, Myanmar’s Arbitration Body ruled that the workers should be reinstated (and with backpay for the workers dismissed between 16 and 19 June 2017), but the Arbitration Council overturned the ruling or nullified it. The Arbitration Body’s ruling is however held in higher esteem, as the independence of the Arbitration Council is disputed–Honeys workers testified to WRC that the factory’s then-general manager had said: “if we […] just pay money to the Arbitration Council to get rid of you, then we will have solved our problem with you once and for all!” The council is also negatively viewed by Myanmar’s worker representatives who criticized that its 2016 election of five out of 15 members was not done democratically, and did not reflect the workers’ interests. 

By dismissing the workers, these are clearly retaliatory measures and a violation of their rights to organize and engage in collective bargaining. Under international standards such as the International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 98 (Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining), workers should be protected from dismissals due to union membership or participation in union activities. In such cases, clauses 1106 and 1169 under the ILO’s Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association state that the government must ensure that workers are reinstated without loss of pay. The Honeys Myanmar factory therefore violated both their rights as recognized under international standards and the law. Under Myanmar’s Labor Organization Law, labor organizations thus have a right to demand the employer re-appoint workers dismissed due to labor organization activities or which did not follow labor laws. Under Myanmar’s Employment and Skills Development Law and the contract signed by the workers, Honeys was supposed to ensure that workers acknowledge and sign their warning letters before dismissal, but this was not done, which is thus a violation of the law. The Honeys’ Group claims to “strive to fulfill our responsibility to respect the basic human rights of all people, based on … the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.” However, Honeys’ actions against the 448 workers tell a vastly different story. The dismissed union leaders remain unable to find jobs at other garment factories in Myanmar due to being discriminated against for their union activities at Honeys. 

In addition, after Honeys dismissed the 448 workers, it proceeded to sue Burmese labor union leader Myo Aye for defamation and demanded compensation of approximately 1.88 billion kyats (approximately US$895,000), accusing her of “instigating” Honeys’ workers to protest and to causing Honeys’ “decline in production”. Honeys only dropped the lawsuit after a public campaign at the end of last year supported by 15 international and Japanese organizations. By then, Myo Aye had endured over seven years of hardship caused by Honeys’ legal harassment against her. Still, the Honeys Holdings in Japan continue to insist that it did not violate international labor conventions, and refer to the increase in production quotas and dismissals as “one-sided allegations”. Honeys has yet to acknowledge the hurt done to Honeys’ workers and to Myo Aye, nor apologized to them, or provided remedy or compensation. 

Myo Aye is demanding that Honeys pay her compensation of 3.76 billion kyats (approximately US$1.8 million) (double Honeys’ suit against her) for her loss of dignity and damage to her work, social and political aspects of life. The 448 dismissed workers are demanding a total of 4.48 billion kyats (approximately US$2.1 million), for 10 million kyats each (of backpay of 9 million kyats for 90 months of minimum wage for each worker (extending from their unfair dismissal in June 2017 to February 2025), and 1 million in severance). 

We demand that Honeys abide by its human rights policy and code of conduct, and take responsibility and provide remedy and compensation to the close to 450 workers. We also call on Japan’s government to immediately enact a human rights due diligence legislation akin to the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) adopted by the European Union, to ensure that Japanese companies abide by their responsibility to respect internationally recognized human rights and conduct adequate due diligence across their supply chains and business operations both within and outside of Japan, and provide proper remedies to workers producing for their goods and services.