Chapter 16 – International Ethics and Law
didn’t were regulation shoes. Twelve fainted. In other Vietnam factories, workers had been
slapped with shoes or ordered to lick factory floors.
This time, trouble was muted. Nike’s own managers, located in Vietnam near the plant,
demanded that the Tae Kwang Vina factory pay double time and give the workers another day
off. They then banned Sunday work at the five Vietnam factories that make Nike shoes but are
Korean- or Taiwanese-owned.
What a difference a global outcry over working conditions can make.
It has been more than two years since reports of atrocious working conditions in Nike’s
subcontractor plants in Vietnam set off huge waves of consumer, investor and labor-rights
protests. Today, while the plants are hardly inspiring places to work, they are better than they
were. What’s more, Nike’s experience has sent a warning to other companies who hire
overseas contractors: Ignoring poor working conditions is not acceptable.
USA Today, October 4, 1999, p. 1B. Reprinted by permission.
The article goes on to describe some of the areas in which improvements have been made: Cleaner
air, more oversight, better communication and some independent monitoring. But, the author, asserts,
“Nike has yet to tackle its biggest shortcoming: wages.” “Despite the wage complaints, every worker
interviewed was grateful to have a job in a country where unemployment is pushing 20%.”
Supplementary Cases
I. Papaila v. Uniden America Corp., 51 F. 3d 54 (5th Cir. 1995) Syllabus
A Japanese corporation set up a wholly-owned subsidiary in the United States, incorporating it
under the laws of Indiana. In overseeing its subsidiary, the Japanese parent corporation sent
various employees from the parent in Japan to the subsidiary on temporary work assignments.
Plaintiff, a former American employee of the subsidiary, sued the subsidiary for discrimination
based on race and national origin, alleging that the Japanese temporary workers received
more favorable employment treatment. The Court held that the alleged discriminatory acts
were the acts of the Japanese parent, not the American subsidiary, and therefore were not
subject to American law based on a Treaty between the U.S. and Japan which allows a foreign
corporation to discriminate in favor of citizens from its own country in filling certain specified
high-level positions. (The treaty would permit a U.S. corporation operating in Japan to do
likewise.)
II. Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. V. Avagliano, 102 S. Ct. 2374 (1982) (See
Employment-Related Regulations, p. 705)
Syllabus
Petitioner, Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc., is a New York corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of a Japanese general trading company. Past and present female secretarial
employees of Sumitomo, who (with one exception) are United States citizens, brought a class
action in federal court against Sumitomo, claiming that Sumitomo’s alleged practice of hiring
only male Japanese citizens to fill executive, managerial and sales positions violated Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Sumitomo moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that
its practices were protected under Article VIII(1) of the Friendship, Commerce and Navigation
16-10
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.