News

Top Court in Bangladesh Freezes New Safety Accord

Bangladesh’s high court has halted a new accord on fire and building safety that had been struck between fashion brands and trade unions. The nation’s garment factory owners have objected to the new agreement, which offers new protections for workers, including severance pay when facilities close for safety reasons. The Bangladeshi government is siding with factory owners. 

“It’s a one-sided agreement because the accord did not take permission from the government, owners and workers before signing it,” lawyer Islam Neelim told Bangladeshi media outlet bdnews24.com.

The new agreement was meant to replace the original Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh, which was put into place after the devastating Rana Plaza building collapse in April 2013. More than 1,100 factory workers died and over 2,500 were injured in that incident. A month later, over 150 apparel brands signed the Accord, vowing to conduct independent safety inspections at hundreds of Bangladesh factories. 

The second term of the accord, set to go into effect in May 2018, was signed on June 21. It would continue safety inspections and remediation at existing and new factories. “The new agreement demonstrates that international brands and global trade unions recognize the positive impact of the Accord and the need for the Accord to continue its work in Bangladesh to ensure that factories are made safe and stay safe,” said Rob Wayss, executive director and acting chief safety inspector of the Accord.

Brands including Lidl, Helly Hansen, Primark and H&M have already signed onto the new three-year Accord.

Lima Ferdous, president of the Bangladesh National Garments Workers Employees League, filed a petition this week challenging the new Accord. Bangladesh’s high court froze the agreement until May 15 of 2018 and issued a ruling asking authorities why the decision to “extend the agreement without permission from the government, owners and workers” would not be declared illegal. Officials have four weeks to respond to the ruling.