Workplace Conditions Assessment...

Report No : F_IAR_47685 City : Greater NoidaAudit Date : Jan 21, 2016 Country : IndiaLast Audit : Jan 13, 2015 (40%) Auditors : Primary: Parul JaglanAssessment Stage : Follow up Secondary: None

Overall Facility Score : 97%

Service Provider: IntertekSchedule Type : Announced

SAURABH PRINTERS PVT. LTD.GENERAL INFORMATION

85-100%High Performance71-84%Medium Performance51-70%Low Performance0-50%Very low Performance

Assessmentarea Score results Number of non-compliances by rating

Zero Tolerance Major Moder

ate Minor Notscored

Overall 97% - - - 4 -

Labor 97% - - - 1 -Wages & Hours 100% - - - - -Health & Safety 98% - - - 1 -Management Systems 94% - - - 2 -Environment 100% - - - - -Business Practices 100% - - - - -

WORKPLACE PERFORMANCE INDEX AND SUMMARY Participating facilities: 19146

This message contains information, which is confidential and the copyright of Intertek. All rights reserved of 26

Workplace Conditions Assessment ReportMeasured Results —Improved Performance

Products manufactured/Services provided:

Printing of Books & PeriodicalsProduction process/Service elements:

Order confirmation - Prepress - printing - binding - dispatchShifts andOperating hours:

Working Hours: 09:00 am to 05:30 pm; Lunch Break - 01:00 pm to 01:30 pm Weekly off - Sunday

Facility Legal Name: Saurabh Printers Pvt. Ltd.Audit Location: 67A-68, Ecotech Extn. -1, KasnaGreater NoidaCity: Greater NoidaCountry: IndiaContact Name: Mr. Timmy KuthialaContact Title: Chief Operating OfficerIndustry: Paper productsFacility Legal Status: Privately ownedYear facility began operations:

December 2014Located in special economic zone:

NoPerson responsible for overall social compliance issues:

Mr. Timmy Kuthiala - Chief Operating OfficerValid certificatefor social compliance certification program:

NoneVendor Name: Saurabh Printers Pvt. Ltd.Government related business:

Not Required under Law.List of Government agencies:

Provident Fund Office, ESIC department and Factory Office etc.

Facility Name: Saurabh Printers Pvt. Ltd.A. FACILITY PROFILEA1. FACILITY INFORMATION

A2. PRODUCTION INFORMATIONSecurity systems inplace:

Yes Facility had hired 04 employees for security purpose through M/s Grey Hounds Security (P) Ltd, for physical security of the facility.

Building Description:

Total land area of the facility is about 6000 square meter and covered area is 6400 square meter (Approx).Facility is operating in 01 concrete material buildings with 02 floors including basements, details are as follows:- Basement floor :- Printing and paper and other material store, Ground floor - Binding, Packing, Outward, Administration office, Toilet facility, and Dispatch, office and security. Further Diesel Generator was kept on roof of the ground floor.Special building type:

Yes Multi-story building shared with other facilities/enterprises under separate ownershipFacility had rented out in basement and half of the ground floor on The Saku Group building. Further no segregation with wall or any other measure. Also came to know both facilities was under same management but have different factory license. Further Binding work were done in The Saku Printing house private limited. Hence auditors covered both facility in this audit. As per management, they were planning to merge both facilities in the name of Saurabh Printers Pvt. Ltd


Workplace Conditions Assessment ReportNr. F_IAR_47685Saurabh Printers Pvt. Ltd.

A4. SUBCONTRACTOR INFORMATIONNo subcontractor information given

Production capacity a week: 1,05,000 impressionsTotal number of machines: 20Main machine types: Offset printing, generator, Plates, Binding machines, Cutting machine , packing machineCurrent production/Services for client:

Yes

Time recordsystem(s) used:

Manual / written recordChemicals or hazardous materialson-site:

Yes Diesel, Glue, Ink.

Range of total number of employees at the facility:

0-100 employeesUnion name: None Employs juvenileworkers:

None Hires throughemployment agent:

Yes Facility had hire 04 employee for security purpose hired through M/s Grey Hounds Security (P) Ltd.

Employee nationalities/provinces:

All Indian employee , No Migrant employee. Languages spoken in the facility:

English and HindiManagement and employees speak same language :

Yes

Female Employees: 02 Male Employees: 74 Mgmt Employees: 12 Production (Non-Management) Employees: 64 Local Employees: 76 Foreign/Migrant Employees: 0

A3. EMPLOYEE INFORMATION



A5. GENERAL INFORMATIONAll employees were favorable with the management and facility environment and no negative information was raised by the interviewed employees. Employees attitude were positive attitude towards the management and the workplace. The facility management showed a positive attitude to this audit and extended their cooperation during the process. All documentation requested for review was provided timely. At the end of the audit, all the non compliances were accepted by the facility and they assured corrective action. Facility had consistent work throughout the year.Emergency Preparedness SummaryMr. Timmy Kuthiala - Chief Operating Officer is responsible for facility's emergency preparedness. It was noted from facility tour and management interaction that Facility has installed 40 fire extinguishers, 10 fire alarms,10 emergency light, 06 fire bucket, 08 Fire Hydrant system ,08 Fire Hose reel and 2 first aid boxes with 04 first aid trained employees from St. Jhon ambulance also facility had emergency procedure with role and responsibilities. Last emergency evacuation drill training conducted was on 30/12/2015 by external agency “Sai safety engineers ”.A6. AUDIT PROCESS

Payroll and attendance records sampling

Period From To Peak Season Records ReviewedCurrent Period 01-12-2015 31-12-2015 No 8 Period 1 01-08-2015 31-08-2015 No 3 Period 2 01-03-2015 31-03-2015 No 3 Total 14

Employee interview samplingIndividual 8Group NoneTotal interviewed 8Audit pay period provided for review

Records From To11 Months Payroll 01-02-2015 31-12-201511 Months Attendance 01-02-2015 31-12-2015Special Comments Previous Audit was conducted on January 13, 2015

Personnel records Security log bookProduction records Non-Production recordsEmployment contracts Legal PermitsSocial insurance documentation Employee leave registerInfirmary logs Machine maintenance records

Other records reviewed



B. KEY PERFORMANCE METRICSB1. COMPARISON BENCHMARKCurrent performance —Global average, India average, Paper products average

Labor Wages & Hours Health & Safety Management Systems Environment

Advancers DeclinerConstant

Section NameCurrent

(21-Jan-2016)

Last(Not Applicable)

First (13-Jan-2015)

Change(Current-Last)

Change(Current-First)Labor 97 Not Applicable 70 Not Applicable 38 %Wages & Hours 100 Not Applicable 32 Not Applicable 212 %Health & Safety 98 Not Applicable 38 Not Applicable 157 %Management Systems 94 Not Applicable 18 Not Applicable 422 %Environment 100 Not Applicable 53 Not Applicable 88 %

Overall Score 97 Not Applicable 40 Not Applicable 142 %

B2. PERFORMANCE TREND ANALYSIS

(21-Jan-2016) (Not Applicable) (13-Jan-2015)


PERFORMANCE RATING

Very Low (0% –50%) Low (51% –70%) High (85% –100%)Medium (71% –84%)


B3. BUSINESS PRACTICES

Subsection Performance


PERFORMANCE RATING



International Standard: 60 India average: 47 Highest hours this facility: 41 Last Audit average: 38

Normal Work Hours Overtime Work Hours B4. WORKING HOURS AND WAGES

41

Average total hours worked weekly

Average wages paid in local currency (Rupee)

Special wage circumstances:



Wages and hours summary: Average Wages - INR 8934, Working Hours - 40.7 Hours in a week. A total of 8 employees were interviewed and time / payroll records were reviewed for 8 employees –December 2015 (Current month), 03 employees - August 2015 ( Random Month ), 03 employees - March 2015 (Random month). Based from facility tour, working hours including breaks and weekly rest day are displayed on notice board. The facility has implemented manual recording system to record all the employees IN/OUT timings. Based from the review of in and out time records, the facility had not engaged its employees for overtime work . Based from review of wage records, the facility has paid the applicable minimum wages to all the employees. As per policy overtime hours are compensated at the rate of 200%. However, no overtime performed by any of the employees. Based from employee’s interview, wages are paid on monthly basis and pay stubs were issued on the same day. Illegal deductions from wages were not permitted as per the facility rules and no such deductions were noted. Facility paid wages to employees on or before 7th of pay period. Production records reviewed from Paper Cutting, Printing and Binding.



97%C1. Labor

Sub Section: Child LaborStatus Findings % Global freq of

compliance

Corrected 40.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility reviews documentation, but has incomplete copies on file for legal proof of ageAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from review of records that facility had not maintained the copy of age proofs of their 04 security employees hired through Grey Hounds Security (P) Ltd. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from review of records , it was noted that facility had maintained 10 out 10 selected sampled employees age proof in personnel files.

94%

Corrected 46.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility does not have a procedure to invest in a remediation system to assist any children found to be working directly or indirectly for the facility to return to school, or participate in vocational program, or any other solution that can cater to the children's best interestsAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was not from review of records that facility does not have any child labour remediation policy. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected It was noted from review of records that facility had framed child labour remediation policy.

88%

C. PERFORMANCE DETAILSCurrent (21-Jan-2016) Last (13-Jan-2015)


PERFORMANCE RATING



Sub Section: DiscriminationStatus Findings % Global freq of

compliance

Corrected 64.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility does not have a clear and uniform hiring policy, to ensure employees are hired based on skill rather than subjective requirements or personal requirementsAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from review of records and management interaction that facility does not have any policy on hiring. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected It was noted from review of records and management interaction that facility had framed policy on hiring.

98%

Sub Section: Discipline, Harassment or AbuseStatus Findings % Global freq of

compliance

Corrected 73.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility does not have or/ and follow a written disciplinary procedure for tardiness, absence, mistakes, repairs, etc.Auditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from review of records and management interaction that facility does not have any written policy and procedure for disciplinary procedures for tardiness, absence, mistakes and repairs. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected It was noted from review of records and management interaction that facility had framed policy and procedure for disciplinary procedures for tardiness, absence, mistakes and repairs.

96%

Minor 76.00 : Managers and supervisors are not trained on appropriate disciplinary measures and training records are not maintained.Auditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 Based from management interaction , it was noted that facility does not have training system in place to train the managers and supervisors regarding their disciplinary measures. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Not Corrected Based from interaction with management and review of records , it was noted that facility had framed disciplinary policy and trained all manager and supervisors on disciplinary measures . However , minutes of training is not maintained .

87%

Sub Section: Employment ContractsStatus Findings % Global freq of

compliance

Corrected 105.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The agency that provides employees does not have signed employment contracts with all employees dispatched to the facilityAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from review of records that facility had not maintained the copy of contracts of their 04 security employees hired through M/s Grey Hounds Security (P) Ltd. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from review of records , it was noted that facility had maintained 10 out of 10 selected sampled employees copy of employment contract in their personnel files (company and contractor both) .

87%


PERFORMANCE RATING



100%C2. Wages & Hours

Sub Section: Working HoursStatus Findings % Global freq of

compliance

Corrected 125.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The auditor was unable to verify if employees themselves record or acknowledge the recording of real working hours on regular basisAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from review of records that facility had not maintained time record of 04 Security employees hired through M/s Grey Hounds Security (P) Ltd. for any of the day and any of the month. Further, according to agreement this security service was hired from 01 August 2014. Hence working hours of security employees could not be verified. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from review of records and audit process , it was noted that facility had maintained time record (In & Out ) manually for all employees acknowledged by employee itself.

84%

Corrected 127.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : Employees are not provided with at least one day off in seven (7) in accordance with local law.Auditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from review of muster roll with "P" for Present and "A" for absent shows that in the month of December 2014 (with specific working hours of the facility and the same verified in the audit process & employee interaction) that 02 security employees were working 13 to 31 days continuously without getting any weekly rest day. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from review of records and audit process , it was noted that facility had maintained time record (In & Out ) manually for all employees acknowledged by employee itself. Also, all employees are getting weekly rest after six days of working .

75%

Corrected 128.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : Employees are not provided with at least one day off following six consecutive days worked.Auditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from review of muster roll with "P" for Present and "A" for absent shows that in the month of December 2014 (with specific working hours of the facility and the same verified in the audit process & employee interaction) that 02 security employees were working 13 to 31 days continuously without getting any weekly rest day. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from review of records and audit process , it was noted that facility had maintained time record (In & Out ) manually for all employees acknowledged by employee itself. Also, all employees are getting weekly rest after six days of working.

75%


PERFORMANCE RATING



Sub Section: Wages and BenefitsStatus Findings % Global freq of

compliance

Corrected 134.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility only keeps or provides partial requested payroll records of the employees.Auditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from review of records that facility had not maintained a copy of wage records of 04 Security employees hired through M/s Grey Hounds Security (P) Ltd. of any of the day and any of the month. Further facility had hired security agency from 01 August 2014. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from review of records and audit process , it was noted that facility had maintained wage record for all employees (company and contractor both). Also, verified that all employees getting minimum wages as per state govt. rules.

95%

Corrected 144.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The auditor was unable to verify if the wage calculation method is correct.Auditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from review of records that facility had not maintained a copy of wage records of 04 Security employees hired through M/s Grey Hounds Security (P) Ltd. of any of the day and any of the month. Further facility had hired security agency from 01 August 2014. Hence wage calculation method for security employees could not be verified. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from review of records and audit process , it was noted that facility had maintained wage record for all employees (company and contractor both). Also, verified that all employees getting minimum wages as per state govt. by correct calculation method.

83%

Corrected 147.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The auditor was unable to verify if overtime wage is calculated and paid at the premium rate as legally requiredAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from review of records that facility had not maintained a copy of wage records of 04 Security employees hired through M/s Grey Hounds Security (P) Ltd. of any of the day and any of the month. Further facility had hired security agency from 01 August 2014. Hence overtime wages for security employees could not be verified. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from review of records and audit process , it was noted that facility had maintained In & out , wage record for all employees (company and contractor both). However , No overtime performed by any of the employee for any of the month.

77%

Corrected 153.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The auditor was unable to verify if holiday work is accurately compensatedAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from review of records that facility had not maintained a copy of wage records of 04 Security employees hired through M/s Grey Hounds Security (P) Ltd. of any of the day and any of the month. Further facility had hired security agency from 01 August 2014. Hence Statutory holidays compensation of security employees could not be verified. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from review of records and audit process , it was noted that facility had maintained In & out , wage record for all employees (company and contractor both). However , No overtime performed by any of the employee for any of the month.

79%


PERFORMANCE RATING



Sub Section: Wages and BenefitsStatus Findings % Global freq of

compliance

Corrected 155.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The auditor was unable to verify if employees are given sufficient legally mandated maternity leave, pay and/ or benefitsAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from review of records that facility had not maintained a copy of leave with wages records of 04 Security employees hired through M/s Grey Hounds Security (P) Ltd. of any of the day and any of the month. Further facility had hired security agency from 01 August 2014. Hence leave with wages benefits of 04 security employees could not be verified. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from review of records and audit process , it was noted that facility had maintained leave with wages records for all employees (company and contractor both ).

94%

Corrected 157.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : Pay stubs or similar documentation detailing pay calculations are available to some employees but not allAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from review of records that facility had not maintained a copy of pay Slip records of 04 Security employees hired through M/s Grey Hounds Security (P) Ltd. of any of the day and any of the month. Further facility had hired security agency from 01 August 2014. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected It was noted from review of records that facility had not maintained a copy of pay Slip for all employees (company and contractor both).

95%


PERFORMANCE RATING



98%C3. Health & Safety

Sub Section: General Work FacilityStatus Findings % Global freq of

compliance

Corrected 171.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : Noise level at the facility is not acceptableAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from management interaction that facility had not conducted noise testing in their printing section and near diesel generator area. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from review of records , it was noted that facility had conducted noise level monitoring test on December 7, 2015.

90%

Sub Section: Emergency PreparednessStatus Findings % Global freq of

compliance

Corrected 180.01 : Previous Non-Compliance : Fire alarm is not installed throughout the facility and/ or not regularly maintainedAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from facility tour that facility had not provided visual alarm anywhere within the facility such as in Printing section of basement. Further Facility had not provided fire alarm call point near the exit in store located in basement. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from tour of the facility , it was noted that facility had provided fire alarm call in each section with visual fire alarm (at noisy area ) throughout the facility .

92%

Corrected 185.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : Fire fighting equipment is not inspected by an internal qualified inspector who has received training by external body and/ or an authorized external inspectorAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from review of records that facility does not have any internal system to check fire fighting equipments internally. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from review of records , it was noted that facility had maintained fire fighting equipment inspection records monthly basis by internal qualified employee.

97%


PERFORMANCE RATING



Sub Section: Emergency PreparednessStatus Findings % Global freq of

compliance

Corrected 187.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility emergency evacuation exit doors are not clearly markedAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from facility tour that escape route marked through out the facility but arrow marking to show the direction of escape was not marked anywhere within the facility to easy evacuation. Further facility had marked Exits in English only not in local language (Hindi). Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from tour of the facility , it was noted that facility had marked aisles route with arrow marking toward emergency exit throughout the facility . Also, marked exit sign in local language .

84%

Corrected 192.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : There are no and/or missing evacuation plans posted throughout the facilityAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from facility tour that facility had not posted evacuation maps as per process setup further "You are here", location of Firefighting equipment’s and first aid box were not marked on the evacuation maps. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from tour of the facility, it was noted that facility had posted evacuation plan as per current floor plan in local language with "You are here", sign and location of all fire fighting equipment .

87%

Corrected 194.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : There is no and/or missing emergency lighting throughout all the emergency exits and routesAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from facility tour that facility had not provided industrial grade independent emergency light (Fog light with self power back-up) anywhere within the facility. However, facility had provided 07 LED lights as an emergency light on some locations. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from tour of the facility , it was noted that facility had installed industrial grade emergency light with self battery backup throughout the facility.

85%

Sub Section: Occupational InjuryStatus Findings % Global freq of

compliance

Corrected 207.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : Eyewash/shower stations with continuous water flow are not provided at relevant hazardous chemical areasAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 Based from tour of the facility , it was noted that facility had not provided eye wash station near chemical store and chemical using area. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from tour of the facility , it was noted that facility had installed eye wash station near chemical store and using area.

83%

Corrected 208.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility does not have procedures to record work related injuries and accidentsAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from review of records and management system that facility had not maintained the work related injury records. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected It was noted from review of records that facility had maintained the work related injury records.

96%


PERFORMANCE RATING




compliance

Corrected 209.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : For any work-related injuries in the past three years, the facility did not perform investigations to determine root cause(s) and implement corrective actionsAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from management interaction and review of records that facility does not have any system to investigate and determine the root cause of work related injury. Further according to management and audit process no accident was happen up to day of audit. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected It was noted from review of records that facility had maintained the work related injury records. Also, established system to investigate and determine the root cause of work related injury. However , no accident was happen up to day of audit.

97%

Minor 211.00 : The facility does not conduct and/ or pay for regular occupational health examinations for employees when applicableAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from review of records and audit process that facility had not conducted health examination of any printing, screen developing and diesel generator operator up to the day of audit. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Not Corrected Based from review of records and interaction with management it was noted that facility had conducted general health checkup for all employees on January 18 , 2016 . However , occupational health check up were not conducted for any employees.Factories act 1948, Section –7A (1):(1) Every occupier shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of all workers while they are at work in the factory. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the matters to which such duty extends, shall include- (a) The provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work in the factory that are safe and without risks to health; (b) The arrangements in the factory for ensuring safety and absence of risks to health in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of articles and substances; (c) The provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as are necessary to ensure the health and safety of all workers at work;THE FACTORIES ACT, 1948In accordance with factories act 1948, Section –7A (1): (1) Every occupier shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of all workers while they are at work in the factory. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the matters to which such duty extends, shall include- (a) The provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work in the factory that are safe and without risks to health; (b) The arrangements in the factory for ensuring safety and absence of risks to health in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of articles and substances; (c) The provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as are necessary to ensure the health and safety of all workers at work;

73%


PERFORMANCE RATING




compliance

Corrected 212.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility has not implemented an mechanism/program to identify, evaluate and control employee exposure to physically demanding work, such as manual handling, heavy lifting, highly repetitive tasks, and other physically demanding jobs to prevent work-related injuriesAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from review of records and management interaction that facility does not have any mechanism/program to identify, evaluate and control employee exposure to physically demanding work. Hence facility had not conducted Risk assessment up to the day of audit. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected It was noted from review of records and management interaction that facility have established mechanism/program to identify, evaluate and control employee exposure to physically demanding work. Also, facility had conducted Risk assessment on October 15, 2015.

79%

Sub Section: Machine SafetyStatus Findings % Global freq of

compliance

Corrected 225.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The use of personal protective equipment (PPE), such as face masks, safety gloves, earplugs, etc as required to protect employees from machine hazards, is not provided to the employees by the facilityAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from facility tour that facility had not provided ear plug and mask in printing section employees. Further employees were not using hand gloves during the working. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from tour of the facility and audit process , it was noted that facility had issued personal protective equipment (PPE) to all employees . Also, provided training to use PPE January 15, 2015.

93%

Sub Section: Safety HazardsStatus Findings % Global freq of

compliance

Corrected 231.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility has not implemented programs to identify, evaluate and control employee exposure to safety hazardsAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from review of records that facility does not any mechanism to identify, evaluate and control employee exposure to safety hazards in electric shock hazard. Further facility had not conducted risk assessment up to the day of audit. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected It was noted from review of records that facility had framed mechanism to identify, evaluate and control employee exposure to safety hazards in electric shock hazard. Also, facility had conducted risk assessment on October 15, 2015.

94%


PERFORMANCE RATING



Sub Section: Safety HazardsStatus Findings % Global freq of

compliance

Corrected 234.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : Electrical systems have not been regularly inspected and maintained to industry standardsAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from facility review of records that facility does not have installation/inspection certificate for their 01 number of diesel generators (01 number of 63 KVA) Further facility had applied for the same on 27 December 2014 and it was still awaited. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from tour of the facility and review of records , it was noted that facility had obtained installation and inspection certificate for 03 diesel generator (1X125 KVA, 1X110 KVA and 1X63 KVA) from electricity department on 11/3/2015.

93%

Corrected 236.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) as required to control safety hazards, is not provided to the employees by the facilityAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from facility tour that facility had not provided Rubber mats near electrical panel and Diesel generators anywhere within the facility. Further facility had not conducted any training on PPE usage. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from tour of the facility , it was noted that provided Rubber mats near electrical panel and Diesel generators throughout the facility. Further facility had conducted training on PPE usage on January 15, 2015.

97%

Corrected 239.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility does not operate in a building matched to its authorized purposeAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from review of records and management interaction that facility does not have approved layout of the facility as per current use of the building. Further had used ground floor approximately 60% under the Saku Printing house pvt. Ltd. but all ground floor was approved in the name of Saurabh Printers Pvt. Ltd. further facility had applied for amendment on 18 December 2014. Further facility does not have approved layout and stability certificate for Saku Printing house Pvt. Ltd. Further facility had applied for the same on 16 December 2014 and it were still awaited. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from tour of the facility and review of records , it was noted that facility had obtained approved layout plan as per current layout of the facility . For Saku Printing house pvt. Ltd. and Saurabh Printers Pvt. Ltd. on 10 Feb , 2015.

91%

Sub Section: Chemical and Hazardous MaterialsStatus Findings % Global freq of

compliance

Corrected 248.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : Material safety data sheets (MSDS) are not availableAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from facility tour that facility had not displayed the MSDS of any chemical and diesel near their storage and usage area. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from tour of the facility , it was noted that facility had posted MSDS at chemical using and storage area throughout the facility .

86%


PERFORMANCE RATING



Sub Section: Chemical and Hazardous MaterialsStatus Findings % Global freq of

compliance

Corrected 254.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : Preventative measures are not in place to prevent chemical leakageAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from facility tour that facility had not provided secondary containment anywhere within the facility. Further Diesel Drum was kept near the diesel generators and chemicals stored in chemical store. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from tour of the facility , it was noted that facility had provided secondary containment to all chemical containers at using area and storage area.

75%


PERFORMANCE RATING



94%C4. Management Systems

Sub Section: Management SystemsStatus Findings % Global freq of

compliance

Corrected 291.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility does not have a valid business license/ registration/ permit to operateAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from review of records and management interaction that facility does not have factory license for the year 2015. Further last factory license of Saurabh Printers Pvt. Ltd. was expired on 31 December 2014 and applied for renewal on 18 December 2014 and in the name of Saku Printing House Pvt. Ltd. on 16 December 2014 and both factory license were awaited up to the day of audit. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from review of records , it was noted that facility had obtained factory license for Saurabh Printers Pvt. Ltd. and Saku Printing House Pvt. Ltd. valid up to 31/12/2016.

96%

Corrected 293.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility does not have a comprehensive written social compliance policyAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from the interaction with management that the facility has not formed a Social compliance policy. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from review of records , it was noted that facility had framed social compliance policy w.e.f 1/2/2016 .

79%

Minor 296.03 : The facility has comprehensive employment practice processes and procedures in a written manual that support adherence to social compliance requirements but they are not all being properly implementedAuditor's comment Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Not Corrected Based from interaction with management and review of records , it was noted that facility had framed disciplinary policy and trained all manager and supervisors on disciplinary measures . However , minutes of training is not maintained .

88%


PERFORMANCE RATING




compliance

Minor 296.07 : The facility has comprehensive employee safety processes and procedures in a written manual that support adherence to social compliance requirements but they are not all being properly implementedAuditor's comment Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Not Corrected Based from review of records and interaction with management it was noted that facility had conducted general health checkup for all employees on January 18 , 2016 . However , occupational health check up were not conducted for any employees.

65%

Corrected 297.02 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility does not provide appropriate training (with training records maintained) to all relevant employees on emergency preparedness procedures in the event of a fire or other emergencyAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 Facility does not have any written emergency procedure in the event of fire and emergency further below observations were noted - It was noted from management interaction that facility had not conducted noise testing in their printing section and near diesel generator area, Facility had not provided visual alarm anywhere within the facility such as in Printing section of basement. Also facility had not provided fire alarm call point in store located in basement No Arrow marking in Escape route to easy evacuation, Evacuation maps not as per process area and You are here marking and fire and first aid equipments location not marked on evacuation maps. Further facility had not marked Exit and Emergency exits in local language (Hindi). Facility had not provided industrial grade independent emergency light (Fog light with self-power back-up) anywhere within the facility. However, facility had provided 07 LED lights as an emergency light. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from review of record and interaction with management , it was noted that facility had framed emergency preparedness procedures on October 15, 2015.

93%

Corrected 297.04 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility does not provide appropriate training (with training records maintained) to all relevant employees on chemicals or hazardous materials hazards and safety procedures to protect healthAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 Facility does not have any written procedure on chemical or hazard materials handling and on safety hazard to protect health and below observations were noted during facility tour that facility had not provided rubber mats near any electrical panel and diesel generator Facility had not displayed the MSDS of any chemical and INK near their storage and usage area. Also facility had not provided Secondary containment on any chemical kept within the facility. Facility had not provided training on PPE Usage. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Facility had framed written procedure on chemical or hazard materials handling and on safety hazard to protect health on October 15, 2015.

95%


PERFORMANCE RATING




compliance

Corrected 297.05 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility does not provide appropriate training (with training records maintained) to all relevant employees on safe machine operating proceduresAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from management interaction and review of records that facility does not have any system to investigate and determine the root cause of work related injury. Further according to management and audit process no accident was happen up to day of audit. Facility does not have any mechanism/program to identify, evaluate and control employee exposure to physically demanding work. . Hence facility had not conducted Risk assessment up to the day of audit. Facility had not provided ear plug, Mask in printing section employees further hand gloves were not using by the employees. Facility does not have installation/inspection certificate for their 01 number of diesel generators (01 number of 63 KVA) however facility had applied for the same on 27 December 2014 and it was still awaited. Facility does not have approved layout of the facility as per current usage. Further facility does not have building stability certificate for their building. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from review of records and interaction with management , it was noted that facility had framed safe machine operating procedures and also provided training for the same. Last training was conducted on January 15, 2016.

94%

Corrected 299.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility has not implemented any internal accountability standards and procedures for migrant employees (domestically and/ or internationally) at the facility and within suppliers/ sub-contractors that evaluate and address the risks of human trafficking and slavery.Auditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 Based from interaction with management it was noted that facility does not have a policy to monitor suppliers and subcontractors against human trafficking and slavery. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from review of records , it was noted that facility had framed policy to monitor suppliers and subcontractors against human trafficking and slavery.

76%

Corrected 300.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility does not conduct periodic assessments (including internal audit) of its management system in order to identify improvement opportunitiesAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from the interaction with management that facility does not frame social compliance policy and not conducted periodic assessments within the facility. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected It was noted from review of records , it was noted that facility had frame social compliance policy and conducted periodic assessments on January 15, 2016.

73%

Corrected 303.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility does not have appropriately defined and documented responsibilities and authorities for managers, supervisors and employeesAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from the interaction with management that facility does not frame social compliance policy and not defined responsibility and authorities of managers, supervisors and employees. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected It was noted from review of records that facility had framed social compliance policy and also defined responsibility and authorities of managers, supervisors and employees.

78%


PERFORMANCE RATING




compliance

Corrected 304.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility has not appointed either an individual or a committee at the highest possible management level to take responsibility for the social compliance programAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 Based from interaction with management , it was noted that facility does not framed social compliance policy and also ,not assigned responsibility to any individual. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from review of records, it was noted that facility had framed social compliance policy and also , assigned responsibility to all individual.

89%

Corrected 309.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility does not establish, maintain or document appropriate procedures to evaluate and select suppliers and/or subcontractors based on their performance and commitment towards social complianceAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 Based from interaction with management , it was noted that facility had not established a set of criteria and procedures to evaluate and select their suppliers and their performance. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from review of records , it was noted that facility had established a set of criteria and procedures to evaluate and select their suppliers and their performance.

69%

Corrected 310.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility's social compliance policy and requirements are not communicated to all suppliers and/or subcontractors in local languageAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 Based from interaction with management , it was noted that facility does not framed social compliance policy. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from review of records, it was noted that facility had framed social compliance policy. Also, communicated to all supplier .

69%


PERFORMANCE RATING



100%C5. Environment

Sub Section: EnvironmentStatus Findings % Global freq of

compliance

Corrected 323.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility does not conduct a risk assessment (internal/ external) to evaluate the significant environmental impacts of its sites and processesAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 Based from interaction with management , it was noted that facility had not conduct risk assessment for environment impact till date. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from review of records , it was noted that facility had conduct risk assessment for environment impact on October 15, 2015.

85%

Corrected 324.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility does not have all required environmental permits, licensees and / or registrationsAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from review of records that facility does not have air and water pollution consent for the year 2015. Last air and water pollution consent was expired on 31 December 2014. Further facility had applied for the same on 12 January 2015 and it was still awaited. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected It was noted from review of records that facility had obtained air and water pollution consent from pollution department valid up to 31/12/2016.

72%

Corrected 325.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The site operations is not in full compliance with the required environmental permits, licenses and/ or registrationsAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from review of records that facility does not have air and water pollution consent for the year 2015. Last air and water pollution consent was expired on 31 December 2014. Further facility had applied for the same on 12 January 2015 and it was still awaited. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected It was noted from review of records that facility had obtained air and water pollution consent from pollution department valid up to 31/12/2016.

93%


PERFORMANCE RATING



C6. Business Practices

Sub Section: IntegrityStatus Findings % Global freq of

compliance

Corrected 353.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility does not conduct periodic assessments/ audits of its business integrity system in order to identify risks and improvement requirementsAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 Based from interaction with management , it was noted that facility had not conducted periodic assessments / audit till date. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected Based from review of records , it was noted that facility had conducted periodic assessments / audit .

58%

Sub Section: CompetitionStatus Findings % Global freq of

compliance

Corrected 381.00 : Previous Non-Compliance : The facility can demonstrate compliance with trade regulations and restrictions of recognized national and international authorities, but does not have a documented maintenance system in placeAuditor's comment Initial Audit was conducted on January 13 , 2015 It was noted from the interaction with management that no training records were maintained for antitrust law, trade regulations and restriction of recognized and international authority. Follow up audit was conducted on January 21, 2016 Status :- Corrected It was noted from the interaction with management that training records were maintained for antitrust law, trade regulations and restriction of recognized and international authority.

82%

% Global Frequency of Compliance: Represents the implementation percentage performance of all suppliers participating in the WCA Community globally for each issueIdentification numbers: Represents the finding ID associated with each checklist question

RECOMMENDATION FOR IMPROVEMENT PLAN TIMELINEMinor Take action within 0 ~ 6 months to make necessary improvements. Major : Take action within 0 ~ 1 month to make necessary improvements.Moderate: Take action within 0 ~ 3 months to make necessary improvements. Zero Tolerance: Take immediate action to make necessary improvements.


PERFORMANCE RATING



This report is for the exclusive use of the client of Intertek named in this report (“Client”)and is provided pursuant to an agreement for services between Intertek and Client (“Client agreement”).No other person may rely on the terms of this report. This report provides a summary of the findings and other applicable information found/gathered during the audit conducted at the specified facilities on the specified date only. Therefore, this report does not cover, and Intertek accepts no responsibility for, other locations that may be used in the supply chain of the relevant product or service. Further, as the audit process used by Intertek is a sampling exercise only, Intertek accepts no responsibility for any non-compliant issues that may be revealed relating to the operations of the identified facility at any other date. Intertek's responsibility and liability are also limited in accordance to the terms and conditions of the Client Agreement. Intertek assumes no liability to any party, for any loss, expense or damage occasioned by the use of this information other than to the Client and in accordance with the Client Agreement and these disclaimers. In case there is any conflict between the disclaimers stated herein and the applicable terms and conditions of Intertek incorporated into the Client Agreement, then these disclaimers shall prevail.

DISCLAIMER

D. STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES

Challenges: Facility performance ranks in the bottom percentile of the population Rating Global Freq. of Compliance%The facility has comprehensive employment practice processes and procedures in a written manual that support adherence to social compliance requirements but they are not all being properly implemented Minor

88%Managers and supervisors are not trained on appropriate disciplinary measures and training records are not maintained. Minor87%The facility does not conduct and/ or pay for regular occupational health examinations for employees when applicable Minor73%The facility has comprehensive employee safety processes and procedures in a written manual that support adherence to social compliance requirements but they are not all being properly implemented Minor65%

Facility Strengths: Facility performance ranks in the top percentile of the population and/or has implemented a best practice process

tiRatingng

Global Freq. of Compliance%Total overtime hours are within allowable limits under applicable law or agreement. Moderate 52%The facility provides social security, pensions, healthcare and/ or other insurance to employees as per legal requirement. Moderate 59%

The facility has undertaken a formal and extensive privacy risk assessment over its processing of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) Minor 60%



Workplace Conditions Assessment...

Documents

Transcript of Workplace Conditions Assessment...