Individual on behalf of approximately 233 migrant workers in Malaysia vs. Ansell Limited

Allegations

On 13 August 2025, an individual migrant worker rights activist submitted a complaint on behalf of approximately 233 Bangladeshi migrant workers in Malaysia to the Australian NCP. The complaint was filed against Ansell Limited and alleged labour rights breaches at MediCeram Sdn Bhd, a Malaysian-based, now-suspended supplier of Ansell. The workers had authorised the individual to represent them.

The complaint alleges that migrant workers employed by MediCeram in Ansell’s glove production supply chain were subjected to forced labour, including high recruitment fees to secure employment (allegedly US$5,200 per worker), leading to debt bondage, wage theft, passport confiscation, and poor accommodation conditions. According to the complainant, some migrant workers were unjustly terminated and deported without notice or compensation in retaliation for engaging in industrial action over unpaid wages. It is alleged that Ansell failed to conduct adequate due diligence in relation to the alleged harms.

The complainant sought various outcomes, including compensation and re-employment, an independent investigation into Ansell’s supply chain, and a public acknowledgment by Ansell of its involvement in the alleged forced labour practices of its supplier.

Relevant OECD Guidelines

• Chapter II
• Chapter II Paragraph A14
• Chapter III
• Chapter III Paragraph 3
• Chapter IV
• Chapter IV Paragraph 3
• Chapter IV Paragraph 5
• Chapter V
• Part 1

Outcome

Australian NCP’s initial assessment rejecting the complaint

On 24 March 2026, an Independent Examiner of the Australian NCP rejected the complaint. The Examiner decided that the complaint met all but one of the admissibility criteria and acknowledged that the complaint raised valid and serious concerns. However, acceptance of the complaint for further examination would not contribute to the purposes and effectiveness of the OECD Guidelines for two reasons:

1. The Independent Examiner found that the individual complainant’s “style of engagement” persistently breached the requirement that all parties act in ‘good faith’ throughout the handling of their complaint, so “rendering a non-adversarial AusNCP dispute resolution process and outcome untenable.” According to the Examiner, “the current notifier has not engaged in good faith, as defined by the AusNCP complaint procedures. This includes failing to maintain confidentiality, misrepresenting the issues and the AusNCP process, threatening reprisals, and not genuinely engaging in the proceedings with a view to finding an OECD Guidelines-compatible solution to the issues raised.”
2. The Independent Examiner found the evidence provided by Ansell to reflect an “informed awareness of its responsible business conduct expectations, including its use of leverage and provision of support to encourage remediation under a ‘directly linked’ scenario, as well as its commitment to an independent third-party review of its supply chain due diligence approach.” The Examiner acknowledged several measures taken by Ansell:

86. While this Final Statement does not determine whether Ansell’s actions are consistent with the OECD Guidelines, the Independent Examiner notes that the enterprise has acknowledged that it may be ‘directly linked’ to the alleged human rights impacts at the MediCeram facility through its business relationship with the supplier. The Independent Examiner further notes that Ansell has taken specific remediation steps, such as advance payments to help MediCeram facilitate the reimbursement of recruitment fees to affected workers. It has also committed to a review of its Supplier Management Framework, recognising that MediCeram previously did not fall within its scope, together with a broader third party review of its supply chain due diligence approach to better identify and mitigate future risks, while incorporating lessons learned.

Among other things, Ansell had either completed or committed to the following actions: an independent third-party expert review of its entire supply chain due diligence approach and public disclosure of the review, expansion of the Supplier Management Framework and audit threshold reassessment, cash flow support to workers, continued supplier engagement and monitoring, and collective action with other suppliers and independent organisations to provide support to former workers. While some of these measures may no longer have been achievable due to the winding up of MediCeram, “these commitments are indicative of Ansell’s intention to address the labour rights concerns raised in this complaint”.

Request for procedural review by the lead individual complainant

On 4 May 2026, the lead individual complainant submitted an application for procedural review of the NCP’s decision to reject the complaint.

More details