Younge	  Consulting	  Strategies	  PO	  Box	  1919	  Decatur,	  GA	  30031 	  
Legal	  Education	  Training	  Program	  in	  Cambodia	  
Rigorous	  Evaluation
Submitted	  By	  Younge	  Consulting	  Strategies	  2/16/16 	  	  	  	  	  
ii
Executive	  Summary	  
The	  Cambodian	  trade	  union	  movement	  mirrors	  the	  broader	  country	  itself	  in	  many	  ways;	  it	  is	  young	  and	  
in	  a	  state	  of	  growth,	  with	  increasing	  investment	  in	  its	  future.	  At	  present	  unions	  do	  not	  have	  the	  capacity	  
to	  address	  industrial	  disputes	  in	  an	  organized	  and	  legal	  way,	  leading	  to	  widespread	  industrial	  strife	  that
in	  turn	  negatively	  affects	  economic	  growth,	  international	  investment	  and	  the	  development	  of	  a	  mature	  
and	  independent	  trade	  union	  and	  industrial	  relations	  system. The	  Arbitration	  Council (AC), established	  in	  
May	  of	  2003, is	  an	  alternative	  dispute	  resolution	  tribunal	  responsible	  for	  addressing	  claims	  of	  labor	  
rights	  violations	  and	  resolving	  workplace	  disputes	  through	  direct	  engagement	  of	  workers	  and	  
employers.	  Solidarity	  Center (SC) implements capacity-­‐building	  programs	  designed	  to	  enable	  cross-­‐
industry	  union	  leaders	  and	  activists	  to	  act	  as	  effective	  advocates	  and	  significantly	  increase	  the	  number	  
of	  union/worker-­‐side	  labor	  legal	  advocates	  capable	  of	  successfully	  defending	  worker/union	  interests.	  
The	  legal	  training	  to-­‐date	  has been provided	  on	  an	  as-­‐needed	  basis,	  in	  order	  to	  meet	  the	  urgent	  needs	  
of	  workers	  experiencing	  violations	  or	  preparing	  for	  an	  upcoming	  Council	  hearing.	  The	  SC promotes the	  
growth	  and	  development	  of	  independent	  trade	  unions	  in	  each	  major	  sector	  of	  the	  Cambodian	  economy	  
and	  is	  currently	  evaluating	  what	  impact	  the	  SC-­‐training	  has	  had	  on	  advocates’	  ability	  to	  be	  successful	  in	  
AC.	  
This	  rigorous	  evaluation	  compared	  the	  outcomes	  of	  SC-­‐ and	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates	  in	  five areas	  
related	  to	  the	  AC.	  There	  were	  significant	  differences	  in	  all	  four	  of	  the	  five areas	  between	  the	  SC-­‐trained	  
advocates	  and	  the	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates	  on	  separate	  indicators	  related	  to	  demonstrated	  knowledge	  
of	  AC issues.	  SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  scored	  significantly	  higher	  than	  the	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates overall
with	  the	  exception	  of	  Area	  #4,	  disputing	  an	  issue	  properly citing	  law	  and/or	  past	  AC	  decision.	  There	  were	  
no	  significant	  differences	  demonstrated	  between	  SC-­‐ and	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates	  in	  the	  five	  areas	  
related	  to	  the	  demonstrated	  knowledge	  of	  the AC	  process. The	  sample	  size	  in	  this	  portion	  of	  the	  
evaluation	  may	  not	  have	  been	  large	  enough	  to	  detect	  significant	  differences. Based	  on	  the overall	  
quantitative	  findings,	  the	  trainings provided	  by	  SC	  had	  a	  positive	  impact	  on	  the	  performance	  of	  SC-­‐
trained	  advocates	  with	  regards	  to	  their	  demonstrated	  knowledge	  of	  the	  AC	  issues.
Interview	  and	  focus	  group	  data collected	  in this	  evaluation further	  support the	  benefits	  of	  SC	  trainings.	  
Advocates	  and	  trainers	  were	  randomly	  selected	  to	  participate	  in	  the	  interviews	  and	  additional	  
participants	  who	  were	  available on	  the	  day	  of	  the	  focus	  groups.	  Three	  arbitrators	  were	  selected	  to	  be	  
interviewed	  based	  on	  the	  number	  of	  cases	  they	  have	  heard	  (arbitrators	  with	  larger	  numbers	  of	  
caseloads	  were	  selected)	  and	  their	  availability.	  A	  total	  of	  twenty-­‐nine	  (n=29)	  individuals	  participated	  in	  
the	  interviews	  and	  focus	  groups.	  Adequate	  preparation	  for	  AC	  hearings was	  a	  recurring	  and	  dominant	  
theme	  reported	  by	  all	  of	  the	  participants	  in	  this	  evaluation.	  Key	  factors	  in	  successful	  AC	  hearing	  
outcomes	  were,	  how	  well	  workers	  and	  advocates	  were	  prepared,	  the	  ability	  to	  provide	  sufficient	  
evidence	  or	  documentation,	  knowledge	  of	  how	  to	  comport	  oneself	  appropriately	  during	  the	  hearing,	  
and	  having	  a	  solid	  case.	  The	  major	  challenges	  reported	  were budget	  limitations	  of	  providing	  training.	  In	  
addition,	  training	  did not	  always	  prepare	  advocates	  for	  companies	  with	  more	  resources	  including	  
attorneys,	  funding,	  preparation	  time	  for	  hearings,	  time	  to	  conduct	  research	  and	  the	  ability	  to	  cite	  past	  
cases	  to	  strengthen	  their	  current	  case. Despite	  receiving training,	  advocates	  described	  the	  challenges	  of	  
collecting	  documentation	  from	  workers	  which	  may	  be	  different	  than	  the	  documents	  the	  companies	  
have,	  use	  of	  manufactured	  documents,	  prepping	  workers	  to	  testify	  during	  the	  AC	  hearings,	  worker	  
literacy	  and	  education	  levels,	  and	  appropriate	  behavior	  during	  the	  hearings	  (e.g.,	  emotional	  or	  
aggressive	  behavior	  by	  workers	  and	  advocates).	  Training	  is	  able	  to	  address	  only	  some	  of	  these	  
iii
challenges,	  however,	  SC	  training	  has	  been	  beneficial	  to	  advocates	  as	  demonstrated	  by	  their
demonstrated knowledge	  of	  AC	  issues.
	  
	   	  
iv
Contents
Executive	  Summary ...................................................................................................................................... ii
List	  of	  Acronyms.......................................................................................................................................... vi
Program	  Background....................................................................................................................................1
Theory	  of	  Change .....................................................................................................................................2
Methodological	  Approach............................................................................................................................3
Quantitative	  Design..................................................................................................................................3
Sample..................................................................................................................................................3
Demonstrated	  Knowledge	  of	  AC	  Issues ...............................................................................................4
Demonstrated	  Knowledge	  of	  AC	  Process...........................................................................................11
Qualitative	  Research	  Design...................................................................................................................12
Qualitative	  Findings............................................................................................................................13
Challenges..........................................................................................................................................15
Vignette..................................................................................................................................................15
SC-­‐trained	  Advocate,	  Successful	  Case................................................................................................16
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................17
Recommendations .....................................................................................................................................18
Appendix	  A:	  Scorecards..........................................................................................................................19
Appendix	  B:	  Key	  Informant	  Interview	  Guide-­‐Trainers ...........................................................................21
Appendix	  C:	  Key	  Informant	  Interview	  Guide	  – Workers/Clients............................................................23
Appendix	  D:	  Key	  Informant	  Interview	  Guide-­‐ Arbitrators......................................................................25
Appendix	  E:	  Focus	  Group	  Discussion	  Guide	  – Advocates.......................................................................28
v
Preface
This	  report	  summarizes	  the	  Solidarity	  Center	  strategies	  that	  contributed	  to	  the accomplishments	  related	  
to	  its	  goal	  to	  improve	  workers’	  rights	  and	  capacity in	  Cambodia	  through	  cases	  brought	  to	  the	  Arbitration
Council.	  This report	  provides	  an	  opportunity	  for	  SC to	  reflect	  on	  its	  training and	  corresponding	  results	  to	  
promote	  and	  infuse	  workers’ rights into	  the	  Cambodian	  Trade	  Union	  Movement.
Younge	  Consulting	  Strategies would	  like to	  thank	  the	  leadership,	  guidance,	  and	  assistance	  provided	  by	  
Danuta	  Dobosz	  (Director,	  Office	  of	  Program	  Reporting	  and	  Evaluation)	  and	  Sarya	  Sok (Monitoring	  and	  
Evaluation	  Specialist).	  We	  would	  also	  like	  to	  that EMC	  Consultants for	  the	  preliminary	  analyses	  and	  the	  
Cambodia	  based	  Solidarity	  Center	  team	  members including	  Chenda	  Hun, for	  their	  feedback	  on	  earlier	  
drafts	  of	  this	  report.	  
	  
vi
	  
List	  of	  Acronyms
	  
	  
AC Arbitration	  Council
CLC Cambodia	  Labor	  Confederation
CLEC
CNC
Community	  Legal	  Education	  Clinic
Cambodian	  National	  Confederation
ILO
LO-­‐FTF
M&E
NGO
RMG
SC
International	  Labour	  Organization
Danish	  acronym	  for	  the	  Danish	  Federation	  of	  Trade	  Unions	  (LO)	  and	  the	  Danish	  
Confederation	  of	  Salaried	  Employees	  and	  Civil	  Servants	  (FTF)
Monitoring	  and	  Evaluation
Non-­‐government	  organization
Ready	  Made	  Garments
Solidarity	  Center formerly	  named	  American	  Center	  for	  International	  Labor	  Solidarity	  
Program	  Background	  
The	  Cambodian	  trade	  union	  movement	  mirrors	  the	  broader	  country	  itself	  in	  many	  ways;	  it	  is	  young	  and	  
in	  a	  state	  of	  growth,	  with	  increasing	  investment	  in	  its	  future.	  Simultaneously,	  the	  movement	  remains	  
greatly	  divided,	  often	  along	  political	  lines.	  Cambodia	  is	  essentially	  a	  one-­‐party	  state	  in	  a	  phase	  of	  
political	  paralysis.	  Leaders	  from	  trade	  unions	  not closely	  allied	  with	  the	  ruling	  party	  on	  the	  national	  or	  
local	  level	  who	  do	  speak	  out	  are	  often	  incarcerated,	  harmed, or	  killed.	  The	  labor	  movement	  also	  lacks	  
the experience	  level	  that	  might	  lead	  to	  its	  optimal	  potential,	  and	  it	  is	  unable	  to	  rely	  on	  institutions	  or	  
legal	  avenues	  to	  effect	  constructive,	  peaceful,	  and	  economically	  just	  pathways	  to	  growth.	  At	  present	  
unions	  do	  not	  have	  the	  capacity	  to	  address	  industrial	  disputes	  in	  an	  organized	  and	  legal	  way,	  leading	  to	  
widespread	  industrial	  strife	  that in	  turn	  negatively	  affects	  economic	  growth,	  international	  investment	  
and	  the	  development	  of	  a	  mature	  and	  independent	  trade	  union	  and	  industrial	  relations	  system.
Enhancing	  rule	  of	  law	  and	  access	  to	  justice	  is	  one	  of	  the	  major	  objectives	  of	  the	  Solidarity	  Center’s	  
Global	  Labor	  Program.	  Access	  to	  justice	  and	  the	  expectation	  of	  the	  application	  of	  the	  rule	  of	  law	  in	  
Cambodia	  is	  a	  powerful	  enabling	  factor	  that	  shapes	  the	  ability	  of	  unions	  to	  strengthen	  themselves	  and	  
represent	  workers’	  interests.	  The	  creation	  of	  the	  labor	  Arbitration	  Council	  (AC) was	  a	  useful	  tool	  in	  this	  
process.	  The	  AC	  was	  established	  in	  May of 2003 and	  is	  an	  alternative	  dispute	  resolution	  tribunal	  
responsible	  for	  addressing	  claims	  of	  labor	  rights	  violations	  and	  resolving	  workplace	  disputes	  through	  
direct	  engagement	  of	  workers	  and	  employers.	  Since	  its	  inception,	  it	  has	  helped	  resolve	  over	  70	  percent	  
of	  the	  nearly	  1,000	  cases it	  has	  received,	  as	  of	  December	  2010.1 It	  is	  important	  to	  note	  that in	  a	  ratio	  of	  
almost	  two-­‐to-­‐one	  in	  cases	  brought	  before	  the	  AC,	  lawyers	  are	  available	  to	  represent	  the	  employers’	  
side	  as	  opposed	  to	  those	  available	  to	  the	  union/workers’	  side.	  
Solidarity	  Center	  (SC) implements capacity-­‐building	  programs	  designed	  to	  enable	  cross-­‐industry	  union	  
leaders	  and	  activists	  to	  act	  as	  effective	  advocates	  and	  significantly	  increase	  the	  number	  of	  
union/worker-­‐side	  labor	  legal	  advocates	  capable	  of	  successfully	  defending	  worker/union	  interests.	  The	  
legal	  training	  that	  is	  currently	  offered	  by	  SC-­‐Cambodia	  consists	  of	  three	  general	  areas,	  and	  trainees	  may	  
get	  some	  or	  all	  of	  the training	  areas depending	  on	  their	  experience	  and	  immediate	  needs:
1. Cambodian	  Labor	  Law	  – This	  area	  covers	  basic	  labor	  rights,	  human	  rights,	  and	  remediation	  
processes	  as	  laid	  out	  in	  relevant	  legislation.	  Unionists	  with	  previous knowledge	  of	  the	  law	  may	  
not	  receive	  this	  training.
2. Arbitration	  Council	  Process	  – This	  area	  covers	  the	  specific	  process	  of	  an	  AC hearing,	  including	  
the	  pre-­‐,	  inter-­‐,	  and	  post-­‐hearing	  activities.	  In	  the	  past,	  this	  training	  was	  given	  in	  some	  form	  
primarily	  to	  unionists	  in	  advance	  of	  a	  scheduled	  hearing,	  but	  also	  to	  union	  members	  whose	  local	  
leadership	  anticipated	  labor	  rights	  violations.
3. Strategy	  Development	  and	  Mock	  Council	  Hearing	  – This	  area	  walks	  trainees	  through	  developing	  
their	  case	  strategy,	  use	  of	  evidence	  and	  witnesses,	  and	  a	  mock	  run-­‐through	  of	  the	  actual	  hearing	  
process.	  This	  has	  in	  the	  past	  only	  been	  provided	  to	  unionists	  in	  advance	  of	  a	  scheduled	  hearing.
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	   1 Noord,	  H.V.,	  Hwang,	  H.S.,	  &	  Bugeja,	  K.	  (2011).	  Arbitration	  Council:	  Institution-­‐building	  in	  a	  developing	  country.
International	  Labour	  Office,	  Working	  Paper	  No.	  24
2
The	  legal	  training	  to-­‐date	  was	  provided	  on	  an	  as-­‐needed	  basis,	  in	  order	  to	  meet	  the	  urgent	  needs	  of	  
workers	  experiencing	  violations	  or	  preparing	  for	  an	  upcoming	  Council	  hearing.	  
To	  build	  on	  the	  successes	  of	  the	  first	  four	  years	  of	  the	  program,	  SC	  maintained the	  same	  overall	  program	  
structure	  during	  Year	  5.	  The	  SC continued to	  promote	  the	  growth	  and	  development	  of	  independent	  
trade	  unions	  in	  each	  major	  sector	  of	  the	  Cambodian	  economy.	  While	  continuing	  to	  devote	  significant	  
effort	  to	  the	  ready-­‐made	  garments	  (RMG) sector,	  SC also	  continues outreach	  to	  workers	  in	  the	  hotels	  
and	  tourism,	  construction, and	  informal	  sectors	  (including	  domestic	  workers),	  as	  well	  as	  to	  teachers	  and	  
civil	  servants,	  even	  though	  public	  sector	  workers	  are	  legally	  denied	  basic	  union	  organizing	  rights.	  SC
continues its	  program	  of	  activities	  related	  to	  promoting	  trade	  union	  organizing,	  collective	  bargaining,	  
gender	  equality,	  and	  internal	  democratic	  practices	  in	  each	  sector.	  As in	  the	  past,	  the	  trainings focus	  less	  
on	  theory	  and	  more	  on	  actual,	  timely	  events,	  to	  the	  maximum	  extent	  possible.	  For	  example,	  organizing	  
trainings	  are linked	  to	  actual	  efforts	  to	  organize	  and	  register	  independent	  trade	  unions,	  while	  collective	  
bargaining	  trainings focus	  on	  assisting	  union	  partners	  to	  conduct	  and	  finalize	  actual	  ongoing	  
negotiations.	  
Theory	  of	  Change	  
This evaluation	  used	  the	  following	  hypothesis	  and	  theory	  of	  change	  to	  evaluate	  programmatic	  goals	  and	  
accomplishments.	  Development	  Hypothesis:	  For	  a	  significant	  and	  measurable	  change	  to	  occur	  in	  the	  
Cambodian	  trade	  union	  movement,	  and	  for	  the	  rights	  of	  workers	  generally,	  the	  following	  progress	  
illustrated	  by	  Figure 1, needs	  to	  occur.
Figure	  1 Theory	  of	  Change
The	  following	  critical	  assumptions,	  as	  outlined	  in	  the	  results	  framework2
, provide the	  context	  in	  which	  
SC	  operates	  and remains constant	  for	  the	  overall	  program	  implementation	  in	  Cambodia.
1. Democratic	  labor	  unions	  and	  civil	  society	  organizations	  are	  able	  to	  operate	  openly	  and	  without	  
increased	  or	  additional	  interference	  by	  the	  Cambodian	  government.	  
2. Workers	  and	  their	  organizations	  are	  able	  to	  work	  collaboratively	  with	  their	  employers	  and	  the	  
government	  or	  to	  overcome	  obstacles	  in	  the	  event	  of	  employer	  resistance	  to	  organizing	  and	  
bargaining.	  
3. The	  global	  economic	  recovery	  continues,	  along	  with	  an	  increased	  demand	  for	  Cambodian	  
manufactured	  goods,	  particularly	  in	  the	  Cambodian	  apparel	  industry,	  and	  an	  increase	  in	  tourism	  
and	  foreign	  travel	  to	  Cambodia.	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	   2 USAID	  GLP	  Cambodia	  Country	  Program-­‐Year	  5
Increase	  
opportunity	  
to	  organize,	  
register,	  and	  
develop	  cross-­‐
industry	  
strategies
Improve	  
accountability	  
to	  members
Affect	  
legislative	  
change	  and	  
resolve	  issues	  
formally	  and	  
informally
Ensure	  
inclusion	  of	  all	  
workers	  in	  the	  
purview	  of	  
labor	  or	  trade	  
union	  law
3
4. Foreign	  assistance	  to	  Cambodia	  continues	  at	  current	  or	  increased	  levels,	  including	  foreign	  aid	  for	  
infrastructure	  assistance,	  governance	  improvements,	  anti-­‐corruption	  efforts,	  and	  social	  welfare	  
and	  education	  programs.	  
Methodological	  Approach	  
This	  evaluation	  used	  an	  explanatory	  sequential mixed	  method	  approach3 collecting	  both	  quantitative	  
and	  qualitative	  data	  to	  explore	  the	  impact	  of	  SC	  legal training on the performance	  of	  advocates	  at	  the	  
AC, and	  case	  outcomes.	  The	  quantitative	  data	  were	  collected	  first	  in	  the	  form	  of Issue	  and	  Process	  
scorecards	  followed	  by	  the	  qualitative	  data in	  the	  form	  of	  interviews	  and	  focus	  groups.	  The	  data	  were	  
then	  analyzed	  separately	  and	  later	  linked	  to	  further	  explain	  the	  differences	  between	  SC-­‐ and	  non-­‐SC	  
trained	  advocate	  performance.
Quantitative	  Design	  
The	  goal	  of	  this	  rigorous	  evaluation	  was	  to	  analyze	  whether	  the	  ‘labor	  legal	  advocates’	  that	  emerge	  from	  
the	  legal	  trainings	  provided	  by	  SC had a	  higher	  success	  rate	  in	  AC cases	  than	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates.	  
This was	  purported to	  result	  in higher	  success	  rates	  in	  cases	  brought	  to	  the	  Council,	  as	  well	  as	  better	  
overall	  preparation	  of	  cases	  for	  Council	  processes.	  The	  broader	  impact	  is	  that	  the labor	  advocates	  that	  
SC	  partners	  with	  should	  be	  more	  capable	  of	  defending	  workers’	  rights	  than	  other	  labor	  advocates.	  SC	  
also	  conducts	  or	  is	  considering	  conducting	  such	  programs	  in	  other	  program	  countries,	  therefore,
rigorous	  analysis	  of	  the	  Cambodia	  activities	  will	  inform	  programming	  at	  a	  global	  level.
Sample	  
The	  treatment	  units or	  experimental	  groups were cases	  brought	  before	  the	  AC	  by SC-­‐trained	  legal	  
advocates	  providing	  legal	  assistance	  to	  members	  of	  local	  unions	  under	  the	  Cambodia	  Labor	  
Confederation	  (CLC)	  and	  the	  Cambodian	  National	  Confederation	  (CNC).	  The	  non-­‐treatment	  units or	  
control	  group was drawn	  from	  the	  set	  of	  cases	  brought	  to	  the	  Arbitration	  Council	  advocates	  for	  
individuals	  in	  non-­‐participating	  CLC	  unions,	  non-­‐participating	  CNC	  unions,	  ruling	  party-­‐affiliated	  
federation	  unions,	  and	  independent	  local	  unions, matched	  at	  the	  group	  level	  for	  percentages	  of	  case	  
categories	  (wages,	  unjustified	  termination,	  etc.).
Data	  for	  the	  rigorous	  study/	  evaluation	  came	  from	  three	  sources:
• Case	  results	  at	  the	  AC;
• Scoring	  of	  the	  quality	  of	  documentation	  submitted	  for	  AC	  hearings	  by	  legal	  representatives	  of	  
workers;	  and
• Scoring	  of	  the	  quality	  of	  AC	  hearing	  performance	  by	  legal	  representatives	  of	  workers
The	  quality	  scorings	  were	  conducted	  by	  an	  NGO	  experienced	  in	  rule	  of	  law	  issues;	  SC	  selected	  the	  NGO.	  
Protocols	  for	  the	  two	  scoring	  activities	  were	  developed	  in	  collaboration	  with	  the	  selected	  NGO	  partner.	  
SC’s	  M&E	  consultant	  and	  in-­‐house	  M&E	  specialist	  provided	  training	  to	  personnel	  at	  the	  NGO	  on	  
application	  of	  the protocols.	  Due	  to	  the	  potential	  need	  for	  scorers	  to	  attend	  hearings	  in-­‐person	  
periodically, and	  the	  small	  size	  of	  most	  Cambodian	  rule	  of	  law	  NGOs,	  it	  was	  decided	  that	  double-­‐coding,	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	   3 Creswell,	  J.	  (2014).	  Research	  Design:	  Qualitative,	  quantitative,	  and	  mixed	  methods	  approaches.	  Sage	  Publications:	  
Thousand	  Oaks
4
while	  ideal, was	  not	  feasible.	  Instead,	  the	  NGO	  identified	  a	  staff	  person to	  review	  at	  least	  20%	  of	  the	  
scored	  cases	  each	  year.	  The	  consultant	  and	  specialist	  conducted	  oversight	  of	  the	  scoring	  process	  
throughout	  the	  year.	  
A	  priori	  analysis	  indicated	  that	  the	  sample	  size	  in	  this	  design	  should	  provide	  sufficient	  power	  to	  reject	  
the	  null	  hypothesis,	  using	  t-­‐tests	  to	  analyze	  the	  means	  between	  the	  two	  independent	  groups	  with	  
respect	  to	  the	  three	  evaluation	  data	  sources.	  Analyzing	  each	  of	  the	  three	  indicators	  is	  preferred	  because	  
the	  results	  could	  also	  inform	  program	  design,	  i.e.,	  place	  more	  emphasis	  on	  document	  submissions	  vis-­‐à-­‐
vis	  mock	  arbitration	  hearings.
Independent-­‐samples t-­‐tests	  were	  used	  to	  compare	  the	  mean	  scores	  of	  the	  SC-­‐trained	  and	  the	  non-­‐SC	  
trained	  advocates	  on	  the	  five	  different	  areas	  of	  the	  Issue and	  Process	  Scorecards.	  All	  analyses	  were	  
conducted	  using	  the	  Statistical	  Package	  for	  Social	  Sciences	  (SPSS	  version	  22).
Chi-­‐square goodness-­‐of-­‐fit	  tests were	  also	  conducted to	  supplement	  the	  t-­‐test	  analysis and investigate
specific differences	  between	  the	  SC-­‐ and	  the	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates	  on	  certain	  indicators	  for	  which	  
data	  were	  available	  in	  the	  five	  score	  card	  areas. Additional	  analyses	  were	  conducted	  on	  the	  subscales	  of	  
the	  scorecards to	  determine the statistically	  significant	  difference between	  expected	  versus	  observed
values	  between	  the	  SC	  and	  the non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates. Adjusted	  residuals	  of	  + 1.96	  were	  used	  to	  
determine	  what	  cells	  produced	  the	  statistically	  significant	  chi-­‐square	  results.	  	  	  
In	  order	  to	  determine	  the	  impact	  of	  the	  capacity-­‐building	  program,	  the	  evaluation	  assessed two	  distinct	  
abilities,	  thus	  resulting	  in	  two	  distinct	  datasets:
1. Demonstrated	  Knowledge	  of	  How	  to	  Present	  Case	  (Issue	  Dataset)
2. Demonstrated	  Knowledge	  of	  AC	  Process	  (Process	  Dataset)
Demonstrated	  Knowledge	  of	  AC	  Issues	  
Quantitative	  Findings	  
The	  issue	  scorecard	  dataset	  consists	  of	  data	  from	  1,262	  issues	  brought	  to	  the	  AC.	  Of	  these	  issues,	  286	  
belong	  to	  the	  treatment	  group	  while	  976	  issues	  belong	  to	  the	  control	  group.	  Of	  the	  total	  109	  worker	  
representatives,	  22	  belong	  to	  the	  treatment	  group	  and	  87	  to	  the	  control	  group.
The	  scoring	  of	  the	  “Demonstrated	  Knowledge	  of	  How	  to	  Present	  Case”	  is	  composed	  of	  5	  areas:
• Area	  1:	  Statements	  of	  Issue	  and	  Demands
• Area	  2:	  Facts	  of	  Issue
• Area	  3:	  Use	  of	  Evidence
• Area	  4:	  Use	  of	  Law	  and/or	  Past	  AC	  Decisions
• Area	  5:	  Defense	  of	  Issue
For	  each	  of	  the	  5	  areas,	  one	  to	  four	  characteristics or	  indicators are	  used	  to	  assess	  the	  proficiency	  of	  the	  
advocate	  in	  that	  area	  (See	  Appendix	  1).	  Each	  characteristic	  includes	  a	  number	  of	  attributes.	  For	  
example, “Opening	  statement	  clear	  about	  the	  issue”	  is	  a	  characteristic	  and	  “Yes”	  and	  “No”	  are	  
attributes.	  Each	  attribute	  is	  associated	  with	  a	  number	  of	  points.	  The	  score	  of	  each	  area	  is	  computed	  as	  
the	  sum	  of	  the	  points	  of	  each	  attribute	  pertaining	  to	  the	  area	  using	  equal	  weight.	  If	  an	  attribute	  is	  “Not	  
Applicable,”	  it	  was	  given	  a	  null	  score	  so	  as	  to	  have	  a	  constant	  number	  of	  observations across	  all	  issues.	  
The	  total	  score	  is	  computed	  as	  the	  sum	  of	  the	  scores	  of	  each	  area.	  
5
Several	  issue	  types	  are	  present	  in	  the	  dataset.	  “Wages	  and	  Bonuses”	  constitutes	  the	  largest	  issue	  type,	  
representing	  39% percent	  of	  total	  issues (Table	  1).	  
Table	  1:	  Breakdown	  of	  issues	  by	  type
Issue	  type Freq. Percent
Wages	  and	  bonuses 488 39%
General	  working	  conditions	  (not	  OSH),	  miscellaneous 159 13%
Occupational	  safety	  and	  health 127 10%
Discipline	  and	  termination 118 9%
Labor	  rights	  of	  women 91 7%
Leave 66 5%
Unions	  and	  worker	  delegates 68 5%
Labor	  and	  other	  contracts 55 4%
Employment	  Status 38 3%
Strike 27 2%
Work	  suspension 20 2%
AC	  jurisdiction	  and	  procedure 5 0%
Total 1,262 100%
Analytic	  Approach	  
The	  causal	  effect	  of	  the	  training	  provided	  by	  SC	  on	  the	  “Demonstrated	  Knowledge	  of	  How	  to	  Present	  
Case”	  of the	  advocates	  was	  tested	  using	  independent-­‐samples t-­‐tests.	  These	  t-­‐tests were	  conducted	  
with	  unequal	  variances	  for	  each	  of	  the	  five	  aggregated	  scoring	  sections	  for	  the	  issue	  dataset	  as	  well	  as	  a	  
grand	  total	  score.	  The	  total	  score	  is	  computed	  by	  summing	  the	  scores	  of	  the	  five	  aggregated	  scoring	  
sections.
Empirical	  findings	  
Independent	  Samples	  T-­‐tests
As	  observed	  in Table	  2,	  across	  sections	  of	  the	  issue	  data, there	  is	  a	  positive	  and	  statistically	  
distinguishable	  effect	  of	  treatment	  (using	  95%	  confidence	  intervals),	  except	  for	  Area	  #4.	  It	  is	  also	  true	  
with	  the	  aggregated	  total	  score.
6
Table	  2:	  T-­‐test	  analysis	  outcomes
Area	  1 Area	  2 Area	  3 Area	  4 Area	  5 Scorecard
Grand	  Total
N
Non-­‐SC	  Trained
Advocates
M=.78	  
(SD=.39)
M=.53	  
(SD=.22)
M=.19	  
(SD=.20)
M=.86
(SD=.34)
M=.48	  
(SD=.19)
M=2.23	  
(SD=.87)
976
SC-­‐Trained	  
Advocates
M=.89	  
(SD=.30)
M=.62	  
(SD=.21)
M=.29	  
(SD=.23)
M=.45
(SD=.49)
M=.57	  
(SD=.19)
M=2.78	  
(SD=.86)
286
Difference -­‐0.11 -­‐0.09 0.23 -­‐.15 -­‐.09 -­‐.54
t-­‐statistic -­‐5.00 -­‐6.08 -­‐6.67 -­‐9.11 -­‐7.62 -­‐9.33
p-­‐value .00 -­‐.00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Note: M is	  used	  for	  the	  mean	  or	  average	  scores	  and	  SD is	  used	  for	  standard	  deviations.	  
Chi-­‐Square	  Analyses	  
Area	  #1	  Statements	  of	  Issues	  and	  Demands
A	  chi-­‐square	  goodness-­‐of-­‐fit	  test	  indicated	  that	  there	  was	  a	  significant	  difference	  in	  the	  proportion	  of	  
SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  and	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates	  who	  were	  able	  to	  make	  a	  clear	  opening	  statement	  
about	  the	  issues	  or	  demands (Area	  1)	  χ2 (1,	  n=1,047)	  =	  11.47,	  p<.00). SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  scored	  higher	  
than	  their	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  counterparts (see	  Figure 2).	  
Figure	  2
6%
94%
1%
99%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
NO YES
Opening	  Statement	  Clear	  About	  Issue	  or	  
Demand
Non-­‐SC	  Trained SC-­‐Trained
7
A	  chi-­‐square	  goodness-­‐of-­‐fit	  test	  indicated	  that	  there	  was	  a	  significant	  difference in	  the	  proportion	  of	  
SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  and	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates	  who	  were	  able	  to	  make	  a	  clear	  closing	  statement	  
about	  the	  issues	  or	  demands (Area	  1)	  χ2 (1,	  n=913)	  =	  11.86,	  p<.00). SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  scored	  higher	  
than	  their	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  counterparts (see	  Figure 3).	  
Figure	  3
Area	  #2 Facts	  of	  Issue
A	  chi-­‐square	  goodness-­‐of-­‐fit	  test	  indicated	  that	  there	  was	  a	  significant	  difference	  in	  the	  proportion	  of	  
SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  and	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates	  who	  were	  able	  to	  adequately	  describe	  the	  dispute	  
issue	  (Area	  2)	  χ2 (2,	  n=1,262)	  =	  11.47,	  p<.00). Non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates	  scored	  higher	  than	  SC-­‐trained	  
advocates	  with	  respect	  to	  “not	  at	  all”	  adequately	  describing	  the	  dispute	  issue.	  SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  
scored	  higher	  than	  their	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  counterparts in	  their	  ability	  to	  “fully”	  adequately	  describe	  the	  
dispute	  issue	  (see	  Figure 4).	  
Figure	  4
11%
89%
3%
97%
0%
50%
100%
NO YES
Closing	  Statement	  Clear	  About	  Issue	  or	  
Demand
Non-­‐SC	  Trained SC-­‐Trained
7%
79%
14%
0%
76%
24%
0%
50%
100%
NOT	  AT	  ALL PARTIALLY FULLY
Adequately	  Describe	  the	  Dispute	  Issue
Non-­‐SC	  Trained SC	  Trained
8
Area	  #3 Use	  of	  Evidence
A	  chi-­‐square	  goodness-­‐of-­‐fit	  test	  indicated	  that	  there	  was	  a	  significant	  difference	  in	  the	  proportion	  of	  
SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  and	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates	  whose	  facts	  were	  properly	  supported	  by	  
documentation χ
2 (2,	  n=775)	  =	  23.71,	  p<.00). Non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates	  scored	  higher	  than	  SC-­‐trained	  
advocates	  with	  respect	  to	  “not	  at	  all”	  having	  facts	  that	  were	  properly	  supported	  by	  documentation.	  SC-­‐
trained	  advocates	  scored	  higher	  than	  their	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  counterparts in	  their	  ability	  to	  “partially”	  or	  
“fully”	  support	  their	  facts	  with	  documentation	  (see	  Figure 5).
Figure	  5
A	  chi-­‐square	  goodness-­‐of-­‐fit	  test	  indicated	  that	  there	  was	  a	  significant	  difference	  in	  the	  proportion	  of	  
SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  and	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates	  whose	  facts	  were	  properly	  supported	  by	  witnesses	  
χ
2 (2,	  n=608)	  =	  31.3,	  p<.00).	  Non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates	  scored	  higher	  than	  their	  SC-­‐trained	  counterparts	  
with	  respect	  to	  “not	  at	  all”	  having	  their	  facts	  properly	  supported	  by	  witnesses.	  SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  
scored	  higher	  than	  their	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  counterparts	  on	  “partially”	  or	  “fully”	  providing	  facts	  that	  were	  
properly	  supported	  by	  witnesses (see	  Figure	  6).
Figure	  6
35%
62%
2%
21%
73%
6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
NOT	  AT	  ALL PARTIALLY FULLY
Facts	  Properly	  Supported	  by	  Documentation
Non-­‐SC	  Trained SC-­‐Trained
39% 41%
20% 15%
58%
28%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
NOT	  AT	  ALL PARTIALLY FULLY
Facts	  Properly	  Supported	  by	  Witnesses
Non-­‐SC	  Trained SC-­‐Trained
9
Area	  #4 Use	  of	  Law	  and/or	  Past	  AC	  Decisions
A	  chi-­‐square	  goodness-­‐of-­‐fit	  test	  indicated	  that	  there	  was	  a	  significant	  difference	  in	  the	  proportion	  of	  
SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  and	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates	  whose	  dispute	  issue	  properly	  cited law	  and/or	  past	  
AC	  decisions χ
2 (2,	  n=687)	  =	  74.31,	  p<.00).	  SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  scored	  higher	  than	  their	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  
advocated	  counterparts	  in	  “not	  used	  properly” or properly citing the	  law	  or	  past	  AC	  decisions. Non-­‐SC	  
trained	  advocates	  scored	  higher	  than	  their	  SC-­‐trained	  counterparts	  with	  respect	  to “used	  properly” or	  
properly	  citing law	  and	  or	  past	  AC	  decisions (see	  Figure	  7).
Figure	  7
Area	  #5 Defense	  of	  Issue
A	  chi-­‐square	  goodness-­‐of-­‐fit	  test	  indicated	  that	  there	  was	  a	  significant	  difference	  in	  the	  responses	  to	  
panel	  questions	  supporting	  the	  facts.	  The	  SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  and	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates	  whose	  
responses	  to	  panel	  questions	  supporting the	  facts differed significantly χ
2 (2,	  n=1,217)	  =	  54.02,	  p<.00).	  
Non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates	  had	  higher	  scores	  than	  their	  SC-­‐trained	  counterparts,	  with	  respect	  to	  
“partially”	  properly	  supporting	  the	  facts.	  SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  had	  higher	  scores	  on	  their	  ability to	  
respond	  to	  panel	  questions	  properly	  to	  support	  the	  facts “fully” in	  comparison	  with	  their	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  
advocate	  counterparts	  (see	  Figure	  8).	  
Figure	  8
13%
87%
55%
45%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Not-­‐Used	  Properly Used	  Properly
Dispute	  Issue	  Properly	  Cites	  Law	  and/or	  
Past	  AC	  Decision
Non-­‐SC	  Trained SC-­‐Trained
1%
87%
12% 1%
69%
30%
0%
50%
100%
NOT	  AT	  ALL PARTIALLY FULLY
Responses	  to	  Panel	  Questions	  Properly	  
Support	  the	  Facts
Non-­‐SC	  Trained SC-­‐Trained
10
A	  chi-­‐square	  goodness-­‐of-­‐fit	  test	  indicated	  that	  there	  was	  a	  significant	  difference	  in	  the	  responses	  to	  
opposition	  questions supporting the	  facts.	  The	  SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  scored	  higher	  in	  responses	  to	  
opposition	  questions	  supporting the	  facts	  χ2 (2,	  n=1,114)	  =	  16.78,	  p<.00).	  Non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates	  had	  
higher	  scores	  than	  their	  SC-­‐trained	  counterparts,	  with	  respect	  to	  “partially”	  responding	  to	  opposition	  
questions	  to	  support	  the	  facts.	  SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  had	  higher	  scores	  on	  their	  ability to	  respond	  to	  
panel	  questions	  properly supporting the	  facts “fully”	  in	  comparison	  with	  their	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocate	  
counterparts (see	  Figure	  9).
Figure	  9
A	  chi-­‐square	  goodness-­‐of-­‐fit	  test	  indicated	  that	  there	  was	  a	  significant	  difference	  in	  the	  challenges	  to	  
opposition	  counter	  their	  facts	  between	  the	  SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  and	  non-­‐SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  
challenges	  to	  opposition	  counter	  their	  facts	  χ2 (2,	  n=1,008)	  =	  17.31,	  p<.00).	  SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  had
scored	  higher	  in	  their	  ability	  to respond to	  the	  opposing	  parties	  challenges	  to	  the	  facts	  raised	  in	  the	  
hearing.	  Non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates	  had	  higher	  scores	  than	  their	  SC-­‐trained	  counterparts,	  with	  respect	  to	  
“partially”	  being	  able	  to	  provide	  challenges	  to	  opposition	  to	  counter	  their	  facts.	  SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  
had	  higher	  scores	  on	  their	  ability to	  “fully”	  present	  challenges	  to	  opposition	  to	  counter	  their	  facts	  in	  
comparison	  with	  their	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocate	  counterparts (see	  Figure	  10).
Figure	  10
2%
90%
2% 9%
81%
18%
0%
50%
100%
NOT	  AT	  ALL PARTIALLY FULLY
Responses	  to	  Opposition	  Questions	  Support	  
the	  Facts
Non-­‐SC	  Trained SC-­‐Trained
4%
85%
11% 2%
78%
20%
0%
50%
100%
NOT	  AT	  ALL PARTIALLY FULLY
Challenges	  to	  Opposition	  Counter	  Their	  
Facts
Non-­‐SC	  Trained SC-­‐Trained
11
Demonstrated	  Knowledge	  of	  AC	  Process	  
Data	  description	  
This	  process	  scorecard	  dataset	  consists	  of	  data from	  194	  cases	  brought	  to	  the	  AC.	  Of	  these	  194	  cases,	  47	  
belong	  to	  the	  treatment	  group	  while	  137	  belong	  to	  the	  control	  group.	  Of	  the	  total	  109	  worker	  
representatives,	  22	  belong	  to	  the	  treatment	  or	  SC-­‐trained	  group and	  87	  to	  the	  control or	  non-­‐SC	  trained
group.	  
This	  dataset	  examines	  the	  “Demonstrated	  Knowledge	  of	  AC	  Process”.	  The	  scoring	  is	  composed	  of	  5	  
areas:
• Arbitrator	  Selection	  Process
• Documentation	  Delivery	  Procedures
• Submission	  of	  Proper	  Authorization	  of	  Representation
• Hearing	  Regulations
• Post-­‐hearing	  procedures
For	  each	  of	  the	  5	  areas,	  one	  to	  two	  characteristics	  are	  used	  to	  assess	  the	  proficiency	  of	  the	  advocate	  in	  
that	  area.	  	  Each	  characteristic	  includes	  a	  number	  of	  attributes.	  For	  example, “Submitted	  preferences	  or	  
lottery	  choice”	  is	  a	  characteristic	  and	  “Yes”	  and	  “No”	  are	  attributes.	  Each	  attribute	  is	  associated	  with	  a	  
number	  of	  points.	  The	  score	  of	  each	  area	  is	  the	  sum	  of	  the	  points	  of	  each	  attribute	  pertaining	  to	  the	  
area	  using	  equal	  weight.	  If	  an	  attribute	  is	  “Not	  Applicable”,	  it	  was	  given	  a	  null	  score	  so	  as	  to	  have	  a	  
constant	  number	  of	  observation	  across	  all	  issues.	  The	  total	  score	  is	  computed	  as	  the	  sum	  of	  the	  scores	  
of	  each	  area.	  (See	  Appendix	  A)	  
We	  observed	  a	  high	  number	  of	  cases	  involving	  the	  Garment	  and	  Footwear	  sector,	  representing	  84%	  of	  
the	  cases.	  The	  manufacturing	  sector	  is	  the	  only	  remaining	  sector	  representing	  more	  than	  10	  cases.	  (See	  
Table	  3)
Table	  3:	  Breakdown	  of	  cases	  by	  industry
Industry	  sectors Number	  of	  cases Percentage
Garment/Footwear 156 85%
Manufacturing 12 7%
Hospitality/Tourism 6 3%
Service	  Sector 3 2%
Transport 1 1%
Agriculture 2 1%
OTHER 1 1%
Construction 2 1%
Health 1 1%
Total 184 100%
	  
	  
12
Empirical	  findings	  
Independent-­‐Samples	  t-­‐test	  
There	  were	  no	  significant	  differences	  between	  the	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  group	  and	  the	  SC-­‐trained	  group	  in	  an	  
of	  the	  five	  areas	  or	  the	  scorecard	  grand	  total	  (See	  Table	  4).
Table	  4:	  T-­‐test	  analysis	  outcomes
Area	  1a Area	  2 Area	  3 Area	  4 Area	  5 Scorecard	  
Grand	  Total
N
Non-­‐SC	  Trained
Advocates
M=1(SD=0) M=.62	  
(SD=.48)
M=.70	  
(SD=.46)
M=.95	  
(SD=.22)
M=.92	  
(SD=.27)
4.11	  (.99) 137
SC-­‐Trained	  
Advocates
M=1(SD=0) M=.68	  
(SD=.47)
M=.81	  
(SD=.40)
M=.96	  
(SD=.20)
M=.93	  
(SD=.25)
4.25	  (.87) 47
Difference -­‐0.06 -­‐.11 .01 -­‐.01 -­‐.15
t-­‐statistic -­‐.74 -­‐1.52 -­‐.23 -­‐.33 -­‐.96
p-­‐value .46 .16 .81 .73 .34
a. t cannot	  be	  computed	  because	  the	  standard	  deviations	  of	  both	  groups	  are	  0.
b. Missing	  responses reduced the	  total	  sample	  that	  was	  included in	  the	  analysis.
Overall	  Summary	  of	  Results	  
There	  were	  significant	  differences	  in	  four	  of	  the five	  areas between	  the	  SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  and	  the	  
non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates	  on	  the	  issue	  scorecard.	  SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  scored	  significantly	  higher	  than	  
the	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates overall with	  the	  exception	  of	  one	  indicator	  where	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  
advocates	  scored	  higher	  than	  their	  SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  counterparts	  (i.e.,	  dispute	  issue	  properly	  cited
law	  and/or	  past or	  Area	  #4).	  The	  chi-­‐square	  goodness-­‐of-­‐fit	  analyses	  demonstrated	  where	  these	  
differences	  were	  demonstrated. There	  were	  no	  significant	  differences	  in	  the	  process	  scorecard	  between	  
the	  SC-­‐trained	  and	  the	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  group	  in	  any	  of	  the	  five	  areas. The	  lack	  of	  significant	  findings	  in	  
the	  process	  scorecard	  may	  be	  due	  to	  a	  small	  sample	  size	  that	  lacked	  the	  power	  to	  detect	  differences	  
that	  may	  exist.
Qualitative	  Research	  Design	  
This	  evaluation	  used	  a	  convenience	  sampling	  strategy.	  Data	  were	  obtained	  in	  the	  form	  of	  individual	  
interviews	  and	  focus	  groups. Advocates	  and	  trainers	  were	  randomly	  selected	  to	  participate	  in	  the	  
interviews	  and	  additional	  participants	  who	  were	  available	  on	  the	  day	  of	  the	  focus	  groups. Three	  
arbitrators	  were	  selected	  to	  be	  interviewed	  based	  on	  the	  number	  of	  cases	  they	  have	  heard	  (arbitrators	  
with	  larger	  numbers	  of	  caseloads	  were	  selected)	  and	  their	  availability.	  A grand total	  of	  seven	  (n=7)	  
interviews	  and	  two	  (n=2)	  focus	  groups	  were	  conducted	  along	  with	  one	  orientation session	  for	  the	  SC	  
trainers.	  A	  total	  of	  twenty-­‐nine	  (n=29)	  individuals	  participated in	  the	  interviews	  and	  focus	  groups. A	  
separate	  orientation	  meeting	  was	  conducted	  for	  the	  SC-­‐trainers	  and	  their	  data	  were used	  to	  provide	  
context	  for	  the	  quantitative	  and	  qualitative	  data.
Interviews	  and	  focus	  groups	  were	  a	  combined	  effort	  of	  the	  evaluation	  team including	  two	  local	  
Cambodian	  based	  SC	  staff	  and	  two	  DC-­‐based	  SC	  staff with	  varying	  levels	  of	  English	  and	  Khmer	  fluency.
Data	  were	  collected	  between	  December	  14th to	  December	  19th,	  2015.	  All	  qualitative	  data	  were	  stored	  in	  
a	  qualitative	  software	  database	  (Dedoose	  Software).	  A	  codebook	  was	  developed	  with	  the	  assistance	  of	  a	  
staff	  member	  from	  the	  Solidarity	  Center.	  The	  goal	  of	  developing	  the	  codebook	  in	  collaboration	  with	  SC	  
was	  to	  increase	  the	  validity	  of	  the	  codebook	  and	  increase	  inter-­‐reliability	  to	  improve	  the	  veracity	  of	  the	  
themes.	  An	  iterative	  process	  was	  used	  to	  code	  the	  data.	  Content	  analysis	  was	  used	  to	  systematically	  
13
identify	  topics.	  The	  number	  of	  times	  a	  topic	  was	  reported	  by	  individual	  participants	  was	  counted.	  Topics	  
reported	  multiple	  times	  by	  an	  individual	  participant	  were	  only	  counted	  once.	  As	  a	  general	  rule	  of	  
evidence	  for	  the	  qualitative	  data	  collection	  activities,	  all	  findings	  required	  two	  or	  more	  independent	  
sources	  of	  data	  (e.g.,	  individuals	  being	  interviewed	  or	  in	  a	  focus	  group)	  in	  order	  to	  be	  considered	  a	  
finding	  in	  this	  report.	  
Qualitative	  Findings	  
Table	  5:	  Total	  number	  of	  interviews	  and	  focus	  groups.
Focus	  Group-­‐
Advocates
Trainer	  
Interviews
Interviews	  
Workers
Arbitrators TOTAL
SC-­‐Trained n=9	   n=2
N=29
Non-­‐SC	  Trained N=2 (n=7,	  
n=2)
Not	  Applicable N=2 (n=3,	  
n=3)
n=3
Note:	  Some	  groups	  were	  mixed	  with	  Workers and	  Advocates.	  An	  orientation	  with	  trainers	  was	  not	  included.
Trainers	  and	  Training	  
Interview	  and	  focus	  group	  participants agreed	  about	  the	  benefits	  of	  receiving	  training	  in	  preparation	  for	  
AC hearings.	  The	  interview	  and	  focus	  group	  findings	  provided	  a variety	  of	  perspectives	  about	  the	  
trainings	  provided	  by	  the	  Solidarity	  Center	  and	  other non-­‐government organizations.	  Trainers	  described	  
how	  they	  were	  confronted	  with	  a	  number	  of challenges	  including	  budget,	  timing,	  location	  of	  the	  
trainings, and	  communication.	  Depending	  on	  the	  education	  level	  of	  the	  audience,	  trainers	  must	  be	  
flexible and	  adjust how	  they	  are	  providing	  information during	  the training.	  This	  ability	  to	  adjust, and	  also	  
build	  relationships	  with	  workers	  and	  unions,	  has	  been	  beneficial	  and	  
may	  account	  for	  the	  success	  demonstrated	  amongst	  the	  SC-­‐trained
advocates.	  At	  times,	  SC	  trainers	  are	  asked	  to	  work	  long	  hours	  and	  are	  
understaffed. In	  addition	  to	  being	  flexible,	  trainers	  must have	  
knowledge	  of	  the	  law	  and be	  able to	  coach and	  speak	  to	  individuals	  
from	  different	  industries	  and	  of	  varying	  education	  and	  literacy	  levels.
Benefits	  of	  Training	  
Preferred	  Topics	  Covered	  in	  Trainings. There	  was	  consensus	  from	  the	  advocates	  and	  arbitrators	  that	  
advocates	  must	  have more training	  in	  verbal	  and	  written	  skills (including	  how	  to	  write	  a	  “Sarana4
), in	  
addition	  to	  knowing	  how	  to	  submit	  the	  proper	  documentation in	  a	  timely	  manner. The	  trainings	  also	  
provided the	  advocates	  with	  confidence	  to	  participate	  in	  the	  AC	  hearings	  and	  defend	  the	  rights	  of	  
workers.
Trainers’	  Perspective. The	  trainers	  and	  the	  advocates	  both	  agreed	  that	  advocates	  need	  to	  continue	  to	  
receive	  relevant	  and	  up	  to	  date	  training,	  including	  booster	  or	  follow-­‐up	  sessions. Trainers	  described	  
their	  dedication	  and	  at	  times	  the	  competition	  with	  other	  competing	  needs	  (e.g.,	  family	  commitments,	  
long	  hours).	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	   4 A	  Sarana	  is	  a	  case	  brief	  or	  memo.
“Sometimes	  using	  trainer	  
language	  doesn’t	  work”-­‐ SC	  
Trainer
14
Advocates’	  Perspective. The	  majority	  of	  advocates	  
reported	  wanting	  to	  receive	  more	  training	  (including	  
paralegal	  training)	  on	  a	  variety	  of	  topics	  (e.g.,	  working	  
conditions,	  wrongful	  termination,	  maternity	  leave,	  
overtime).	  Advocates	  also	  wanted	  follow	  up	  after	  the	  
trainings	  and	  found	  the	  training	  they	  have	  received	  to	  be	  
very	  useful	  and	  effective.	  In	  addition	  to	  knowledge	  of	  the	  
law,	  a	  SC-­‐trained	  advocate	  described	  the	  benefit	  of	  
knowing	  the	  workers	  they	  are	  advocating	  on	  behalf	  and	  
learning	  as	  much	  about	  their	  industry	  as	  possible.	  The	  
advocates	  have	  stated	  that	  they	  would	  like	  the	  trainers	  to	  be	  at	  AC	  hearings to	  provide	  feedback,	  
however	  given	  time	  and	  capacity	  limitations,	  it	  may	  be	  a	  challenge	  to	  make	  this	  a	  common	  practice.
Advocates	  
The	  ability	  and	  capacity	  of	  advocates	  varies	  but	  the	  majority	  of	  advocates	  agree	  that	  they	  would	  like	  to	  
receive	  more	  training.	  Advocates	  are	  held	  in	  high	  regard	  by	  the	  workers	  and	  also	  have	  a	  number	  of	  
strengths	  and	  challenges.	  There	  has	  been	  a	  noticeable	  increase	  in	  the	  quality	  of	  the	  advocates’	  
performance	  in	  AC	  hearings	  (as	  reported	  by	  the	  Arbitrators)	  post	  2013,	  after	  receiving	  training	  from	  the	  
Solidarity	  Center.	  A	  common	  critique	  of	  the	  advocates	  by	  the	  arbitrators	  is	  the	  lack	  of	  linking	  current	  
cases	  with	  past	  jurisprudences	  and	  lack	  of	  documentation	  or	  sufficient	  evidence	  for	  cases.	  	  This	  may	  be	  
due	  to	  limited	  preparation	  time,	  documentation,	  and	  knowledge	  of	  the	  law.	  Advocates	  also	  discussed	  
preparing	  workers	  to respond	  to	  opposition	  or	  authority	  leaders	  during	  AC	  hearings.	  One	  SC-­‐trained	  
advocate	  stated,	  “Introduce	  the	  bravery,	  speaking,	  [and]	  response to	  opposition.	  They	  each	  have	  rights.	  
Show	  them	  in	  the	  books	  that	  they	  have	  the	  rights	  already.	  Have	  experience talking.	  Encourage	  them.	  
Rights	  of	  staff	  and	  union,	  there	  are	  rights	  to	  protect.	  Some	  don't	  think	  there	  aren’t	  any	  rights.	  So	  when	  
there	  is	  an	  issue,	  [they] don't	  know	  there	  is	  a	  way	  to	  protect	  it.” SC-­‐trained	  advocate	  
Trained	  Advocates	  and	  Non-­‐SC	  Trained	  Advocates. In	  the focus	  groups,	  there	  were	  some	  differences	  
between	  the	  SC	  and	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates,	  but	  the	  groups	  also	  converged	  on	  a	  number	  of	  areas.	  The	  
SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  appeared	  to	  be	  more	  experienced	  that	  then	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates, as	  SC	  
trained	  advocates	  articulated their	  training	  needs	  in	  more	  detail	  than	  non-­‐SC-­‐trained	  advocates.	  Non-­‐SC	  
trained	  advocates	  did, however,	  receive	  training	  from	  other	  sources	  such	  as	  ILO	  and	  CLC.	  All	  (SC-­‐trained	  
and	  non-­‐SC	  trained)	  advocates	  described	  having	  many	  trainings	  to	  choose	  from.	  Non-­‐SC	  trained	  
advocates	  described	  wanting	  training	  that	  was less	  didactic	  and	  “easier	  to	  remember”	  and	  that	  different	  
organizations	  have	  a	  unique	  way	  of	  providing	  the	  trainings.	  SC	  trainers	  reported feeling	  as	  if	  the	  SC	  
training	  is	  “clearer and	  more	  specific” than	  the	  training	  provided	  by	  other	  organizations	  (e.g.,	  ILO,	  
LOFTF,	  BWI).	  In	  addition,	  SC	  trainers	  reported having	  more	  arbitration	  training, including	  process	  and	  
issues	  case	  preparation.	  It	  is	  difficult	  for	  some	  advocates	  to	  compare	  and	  contrast	  trainings	  if	  they	  have	  
not	  been	  exposed	  to	  different	  types	  of	  training.	  Non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates	  self-­‐reported	  a	  90%	  win	  at	  AC	  
hearings	  while	  SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  reported	  many	  successes,	  but	  not	  an	  estimate	  of	  cases	  won.	  	  
After	  the	  training,	  members	  understood	  the	  
processes	  before	  and	  during	  the	  AC.	  They	  were	  
also	  good	  at	  addressing	  facts	  of	  cases	  during	  the	  
AC.	  Factors	  that	  contributed	  to	  success,	  we	  
communicated	  with	  SC	  on	  cases	  and	  sough	  legal	  
supports.	  –SC-­‐Trained	  Advocate.
15
Workers’	  Perceptions.	  Workers	  who	  were	  represented	  by	  SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  were	  confident	  in	  their	  
advocates’	  abilities	  and	  some	  of	  these	  workers	  have	  also	  benefited	  from	  trainings	  such	  as	  the	  
Leadership,	  Organizing	  Strategy	  and	  Legal	  Advocate	  training	  provided	  specifically	  by	  an	  SC	  trainer	  on	  
December	  13th,	  2015.	  The	  workers	  who	  received	  training	  from	  the	  SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  reportedly	  
being	  more	  vocal	  than	  those	  workers	  who	  received	  training	  
from	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates.	  
Role	  of	  Unions.	  The	  unions also	  played a	  key	  role	  in	  
advocating	  for	  workers’	  rights.	  The	  role	  of	  the	  union	  leader	  
is	  different	  from	  that	  of	  an	  advocate,	  however,	  advocates	  or	  
trainees	  are	  sometimes	  selected	  from	  unions	  or	  provide	  
additional	  support	  during	  the	  AC	  hearing.	  Additionally,
union	  leaders	  may	  also	  have	  specific	  information	  about	  the	  
laws	  and	  company	  practices	  that	  may	  aid	  the	  advocate	  and	  
workers’	  case.
Perception	  of	  SC. Several	  participants	  described	  the	  role	  of	  SC	  and	  held	  the	  organization	  in	  high	  regard	  
and	  reported	  SC	  providing	  some	  
validation	  of	  their	  work	  and	  also	  respect	  
amongst	  other	  organizations	  and	  
unions.	  	  
Arbitrators’	  Perspective	  on	  advocates.
Advocates	  must	  submit	  well-­‐written	  
documents	  and	  evidence	  in	  a	  timely	  manner-­‐-­‐ one	  arbitrator	  stated	  that	  they	  need	  to see	  the	  case	  
documents	  two	  days	  in	  advance.	  The	  arbitrators	  described	  a	  need	  for	  more	  training	  of	  the	  advocates	  
including	  improvement	  of	  written	  documents,	  verbal	  skills	  during	  hearings,	  and	  providing	  sufficient	  
evidence.	  
The	  arbitrators	  interviewed	  all	  stated	  and	  provided	  
suggestions	  for	  how	  the	  advocates	  can	  strengthen	  their	  
capacities,	  while	  acknowledging	  the	  difficulties	  of	  being	  in	  
opposition	  to	  companies.	  As	  noted,	  most	  arbitrators	  
described	  a	  need	  for	  more	  training	  and	  one	  reported	  that	  
the	  consultation	  with	  lawyers	  and	  the	  SC	  were	  beneficial	  
to	  their	  cases.	  In	  addition,	  one	  arbitrator	  suggested	  
developing	  a	  mentoring	  program.	  The	  mentor	  would	  be	  
someone	  who	  would	  have	  knowledge,	  experience,	  and	  has	  won	  a	  case.	  The	  mentor	  could	  watch	  the	  
advocates	  in	  the	  AC	  and	  provide	  critical	  feedback	  to	  the	  advocate.	  
Challenges	  
There	  was	  consensus	  around	  the	  challenges	  reported	  by	  the	  advocates.	  The	  majority	  of	  participants	  
were	  aware	  of	  the	  budget	  limitations	  of	  providing	  training.	  In	  addition,	  training	  does	  not always	  prepare	  
advocates	  for	  companies	  with	  more	  resources	  including	  attorneys,	  funding,	  preparation	  time	  for	  
hearings,	  time	  to	  conduct	  research	  and	  the	  ability	  to	  cite	  past	  cases to	  strengthen	  their	  current	  case.
“Sometimes	  when	  they	  raise	  issues,	  still	  not	  very	  
clear.	  They	  sometimes	  do	  not	  know	  the	  deep	  
specifics	  of	  some	  of	  the	  evidence	  to	  prove	  
worker’s	  contracts,	  schedules,	  bills,	  exact	  dates.”	  
-­‐ Arbitrators
“We	  are	  very	  happy.	  We	  think	  SC	  is	  the	  strongest	  in	  the	  world.	  We	  
are	  proud	  of	  work	  at	  the	  SC.	  Only	  the	  SC	  is	  one	  that	  all	  unions	  respect	  
and	  recognize	  our	  work	  here.”	  – SC	  Trainer
“Normally	  they	  [unions]	  help	  coordinate	  the	  
disputed	  parties	  outside	  the	  hearing	  processes	  
and	  if	  both	  parties	  agree	  on	  some	  points,	  the	  
AC	  also	  considers	  as	  results	  of	  the	  AC’s	  
settlement	  and	  concluded	  as	  collective	  
agreement	  between	  the	  parties”-­‐ Non-­‐SC	  
Trained	  Advocate
16
Despite	  receiving	  training,	  advocates	  described	  the	  challenges	  of	  collecting	  documentation	  from	  
workers.	  The	  union	  documentation	  may	  be	  different	  than	  the	  documents	  the	  companies	  have,	  and	  vary	  
by	  use	  of	  manufactured	  documents,	  prepping	  workers	  to	  testify	  during	  the	  AC	  hearings,	  worker	  literacy
and	  education	  levels,	  and	  appropriate	  behavior	  during	  the	  hearings	  (e.g.,	  emotional	  or	  aggressive	  
behavior	  by	  workers	  and	  advocates).	  Training	  is	  able	  to	  address	  only	  some	  of	  these	  challenges.
Vignette	  
Below	  is	  a	  vignette that	  describes a	  successful	  AC	  hearing	  outcome.	  Many	  of	  the	  themes	  that	  resulted	  in	  
the	  outcome	  are	  overlap	  with	  the	  findings	  section	  of	  this	  report.	  In	  the	  vignette,	  the	  successful	  outcome	  
was	  largely	  attributed to	  the	  training	  provided	  by	  the	  SC.
The	  following	  vignette	  includes	  details reported	  in	  a	  key	  informant	  interview	  of	  SC-­‐trained	  advocates.	  
Direct	  quotes	  are	  provided	  and	  have	  been	  modified	  only	  slightly	  to	  improve	  readability.	  	  	  
SC-­‐trained	  Advocate,	  Successful	  Case	  
There	   was	   a	   problem	   where	   the	   factory	   was	   making	   trouble	   for	   him [a	   worker],	   and	  
terminated	   him	   without	   reason	   and	   that	   was	   not	   fair.	   It	   might	   be	   because	   it	   was	   a	  
girlfriend	  who	  was	  upset	  with	  him	  at	  the	  factory	  and	  made	  problems	  for him.	  I	  went	  to	  SC
to	  see	  what	  could	  be	  done.	  I	  was	  the	  union	  leader,	  so	  I	  helped	  him	  with	  the	  AC	  hearing.
[The	  advocate] prepared	  the	  documents,	  then	  when	  I	  went	  to	  the	  hearing,	  I	  answered	  the	  
arbitrator	  questions. [When	  asked	  about	  the	  main	  reason	  for	  the	  hearing].	  [The	  worker]	  
did	  not	  have	  any	  misconduct,	  so	  it	  was	  not	  fair	  for	  him	  to	  be terminated.	  AC	  asked	  for	  my	  
paperwork	  to	  represent	  him	  and	  other	  documents	  for	  the	  hearing	  itself.	  
Result	  of	  the	  AC:
He	  was	  reinstated.	  So	  this	  was	  successful.	  We	  went	  to	  AC	  twice… I	  went	  to	  SC for	  guidance:
[AC] representative authorization	   and	   then	   another	   [time	   for]	   documents/evidence	   to	  
prepare	  will	  be	  necessary	  for	  the	  case.	  	  [I’ve]	  only	  worked	  with	  SC training. [When	  asked	  
the reasons	  for	  your	  success]	  [SC]	  taught	  me	  how	  to	  be	  a	  union	  leader,	  how	  to	  prepare a	  
case-­‐-­‐ all	  of	  it	  all	  came	  from	  SC
17
Conclusions
Based	  on	  the quantitative	  findings,	  the	  training	  provided	  by	  SC	  had	  a	  positive	  impact	  on	  the	  
performance	  of	  SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  with	  regards	  to	  the	  issue	  scorecard	  or	  their	  demonstrated	  their	  
knowledge	  of	  how	  to	  present	  an	  issue,	  with	  the	  exception	  of	  disputing	  an	  issue	  properly	  citing	  law	  
and/or	  past	  AC	  decision. In	  contrast, our	  quantitative	  findings did not	  find	  a	  statistically	  significant	  
difference	  between	  SC	  and	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates	  on	  the	  process	  scorecard	  or	  their	  demonstrated	  
knowledge	  of	  the	  AC	  process.	  However,	  we	  note	  that	  this	  may	  be	  a	  feature	  of	  the	  relatively	  small	  
number	  of	  observations	  (184	  total,	  47	  treated) and	  due	  to	  factors	  outside	  of	  the	  AC	  hearing	  process.	  
Having	  a higher	  number	  of	  cases to	  analyze is	  recommended	  in	  order	  to	  make more	  meaningful	  
statistical	  conclusions about	  AC	  process. The	  Issues	  scorecard findings were	  statistically	  significant	  and
based	  on	  the overall	  findings,	  we	  can	  conclude,	  that	  training	  provided	  by	  SC	  has	  had	  a	  positive	  impact	  on	  
the	  performance	  of	  SC-­‐trained	  advocates	  with	  regards	  to	  their	  knowledge	  of	  how	  to	  present	  a	  case	  in	  
comparison	  with	  their	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  counterparts	  (refer	  to	  the	  vignette).
Adequate	  preparation	  for	  AC	  hearings	  was	  a	  recurring	  and	  dominant	  theme	  reported	  by all	  of	  the	  
participants	  in	  this	  evaluation. Key	  factors	  in	  successful	  AC	  hearing	  outcomes	  were,	  how	  well workers	  
and	  advocates	  were prepared,	  the	  ability	  to	  provide	  sufficient evidence	  or	  documentation,	  knowledge	  of
how	  to	  comport	  oneself appropriately during	  the	  hearing,	  and	  having a	  solid	  case.	  The	  quantitative	  data	  
provides	  evidence	  of	  the	  successful	  impact	  of	  the	  SC	  training overall. The	  greatest	  proportion	  of	  cases	  
were	  from	  the	  garment	  and	  footwear	  industries	  and the	  main	  topic	  being	  advocated	  for	  were wages	  and	  
bonuses. The	  quantitative findings	  have	  been	  further	  supported by the	  focus	  group	  and	  interview	  data.	  
The	  qualitative	  findings go	  one	  step	  further	  and	  provide	  some	  context	  for	  what	  factors	  are	  effective	  and	  
the challenges that exist including	  limited	  time	  to	  prepare	  for	  AC	  hearings	  and	  to	  prepare	  evidence,	  file	  
documentation,	  conduct	  research	  and	  working	  with	  workers.	  Based	  on	  these findings,	  we	  can	  conclude	  
that	  training	  provided	  by	  SC was	  effective	  and has	  had	  a	  positive	  impact	  on	  the	  performance	  of	  SC-­‐
trained	  advocates and	  the	  outcomes	  of	  AC	  hearings. Most	  participants	  agreed	  that	  more	  training	  and	  
different	  types	  of	  training	  (e.g.,	  organizing,	  legal	  advocacy,	  leadership)	  would	  be	  beneficial.
The	  arbitrators	  provided	  many	  specific	  examples	  and	  factors	  that	  led	  to	  successful	  and unsuccessful	  AC	  
outcomes.	  The	  arbitrators	  also	  reported	  a	  marked	  difference	  in	  the	  preparation	  of	  the	  advocates	  post	  
2013.	  SC	  trainings	  began	  in	  2010	  and	  in	  2013,	  the	  SC program	  staff	  began	  the	  collection	  of	  data	  related	  
to	  the	  trainings in	  order	  to	  document	  what	  characteristics	  of	  SC	  trainings	  were	  successful. This	  
evaluation	  yielded	  a	  number	  of	  important	  recommendations	  (listed below)	  for	  future	  SC	  training	  
implementation. One	  of	  the	  arbitrators	  recommended	  having	  at	  least	  two	  advocates	  represent	  the	  
workers	  in	  case	  one	  person	  is	  unable	  to	  show	  up,	  which	  leads	  to	  cases	  being	  lost. Given	  budget	  and	  time	  
limitations,	  it	  is	  unsure	  if	  this	  option	  is	  feasible. All	  participants	  recognized	  the	  systemic, micro	  and	  
macro	  level	  challenges, confronted	  by	  advocates	  as	  well	  as	  the	  challenges	  confronting	  the	  Cambodian	  
trade	  union movement	  and	  workers’	  rights	  overall.	  The current findings	  indicate	  the	  continued need	  for
relationship	  building with	  the	  unions.	  Unions	  with	  strong	  leaders	  are	  able	  to	  inform	  and	  educate	  their	  
workers, advocate	  for	  workers’ rights	  and	  impact	  the	  initiation	  and	  outcomes	  of	  AC	  hearings.
In	  this evaluation,	  the	  strength	  of	  each individual case	  including workers,	  and	  advocates	  varies	  
considerably.	  There	  are	  other	  contextual	  factors	  (e.g.,	  gender,	  class,	  literacy	  level)	  that	  were	  indicated in	  
these	  findings	  but	  warrant	  further,	  more	  in	  depth	  investigation and	  may	  have	  impacted	  the	  findings,	  or	  
lack	  of	  significant	  differences	  found	  in	  the	  process	  scorecard	  outcomes.	  Subsequent	  investigation
findings	  can	  be	  used	  to	  further	  inform	  and	  enhance	  the	  trainings	  provided	  by	  the	  SC.	  The	  primary	  
question	  of	  whether	  the	  SC	  trainings	  have	  been effective	  has	  been	  affirmed and	  demonstrated through	  
18
the	  quantitative	  and	  qualitative	  findings.	  The	  specific	  aspects	  of	  training	  that	  appear	  to	  be	  particularly	  
noteworthy	  include	  document	  and	  evidentiary	  preparation,	  mock	  trial	  experience,	  the	  ability	  to	  form
valid	  arguments	  and	  counter	  arguments,	  and	  working	  effectively	  with	  workers	  to	  build	  strong	  cases.	  
Despite	  the	  challenges	  and	  demands	  of	  being	  an	  advocate,	  the	  advocates	  interviewed	  reported	  being	  
proud	  of	  the	  work	  they	  engage	  in	  and	  their	  association	  with	  SC.
Limitations	  of	  the	  Evaluation. This	  evaluation	  only	  provides	  a	  snapshot	  of	  what	  is	  going	  on during	  
the	  present	  time,	  in	  addition	  to	  providing a	  limited	  perspective	  on	  ongoing	  processes. Small	  sample	  sizes	  
in	  some	  instances,	  also	  limit	  the	  number	  of	  inferences	  that	  can	  be	  made	  about	  the	  quantitative	  data.
Some	  of	  the	  focus	  groups	  and	  interviews were	  smaller	  than	  anticipated.	  With	  regards	  to	  the	  advocate
group,	  there	  were	  some	  new	  advocates	  with	  little	  or	  no	  experience	  representing	  workers	  that
participated	  in	  the	  focus	  groups or	  workers	  with little	  familiarity	  with	  their	  advocates,	  limiting	  the	  
perspective	  that	  we	  were	  able to	  glean	  from	  these	  participants.
As	  in	  most	  evaluations,	  all	  self-­‐reported	  data	  is	  subject	  to	  bias,	  therefore	  the	  data	  presented	  may	  not	  be	  
completely	  accurate	  (e.g.,	  percentage	  of	  cases	  won	  as	  described	  by	  the	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  advocates).	  In	  
addition,	  the	  selection	  of	  participants	  who	  participated	  in	  the	  interviews and	  focus	  groups,	  may	  have	  
been	  subject	  to	  selection	  bias	  and	  their	  views	  may	  not	  be	  representative	  of	  all	  workers,	  advocates,	  
trainers,	  and	  arbitrators.	  Finally,	  given	  the	  small	  number	  of	  participants	  and	  limited	  individual	  level	  data,	  
it	  is	  difficult	  to distinguish	  the	  differences	  between	  the	  success	  rates	  of	  the	  SC-­‐ and	  non-­‐SC	  trained	  
individuals,	  qualitatively,	  however,	  the	  quantitative	  data	  indicate	  the	  SC-­‐trained advocates	  as	  having	  
more	  successes	  in	  the	  five	  various	  areas,	  in	  comparison	  with	  their	  non-­‐SC	  Trained	  counterparts.
Recommendations	  
The	  following	  are	  recommendations	  specific	  to	  the	  current	  advocacy	  training	  programs:	  
Ø Two	  advocates	  for	  each	  case	  when	  possible (as	  suggested	  by	  an	  arbitrator);
Ø Increased	  support	  for	  both	  the	  advocates	  and	  the	  trainers	  in	  order	  to	  reduce	  burnout	  or	  
decrease	  the	  potential	  of	  being	  overly	  taxed;
Ø Addressing	  cultural	  factors	  in	  trainings,	  interviews,	  and	  during	  AC	  hearings	  (e.g.,	  the	  role	  of	  how	  
to	  comport	  oneself	  appropriately,	  how	  to	  engage	  women	  or	  younger	  workers);	  and
Ø Advocate	  suggestions	  for	  trainings	  include:
o Refresher	  trainings and/or	  have	  trainings	  every	  month;
o Trainings	  that	  build	  on	  one	  another;
o Creative	  mechanisms	  for	  obtaining	  evidence	  (i.e.,	  bank	  statements	  vs. pay	  stubs);
o Training	  on	  Sarana	  or	  fact	  sheet	  preparation,	  writing	  theses/	  filing	  complaints;
o How	  to	  debate	  or	  make	  counter	  arguments (i.e.,	  conflict	  resolution);
o Working	  with	  workers in	  different	  sectors	  (i.e.,	  construction	  workers);
o Collective	  bargaining and	  working	  with	  unions;
o Mock	  trial	  experience;	  and
o Mentoring	  program	  for	  other	  advocates.
19
Appendix	  A:	  Scorecards
Issue	  Scorecard:	  Demonstrated	  Knowledge	  of	  How	  to	  Present	  Issue
Case	  ID:	  ________________________	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Issue	  #	  ____	  	  of	  	  	  ____	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	   Issue	  Code:_________
Please  use  this  format  for  dates:  (dd/mm/yyyy)
Date	  of	  First	  Hearing:_____________________	  Date	  of	  Second	  Hearing:___________________
Date	  of	  Third	  Hearing:	  ____________________	  	  Date	  of	  Fourth	  Hearing:___________________
Issue	  Final	  Result: ¨Conciliated/Withdrawn	  before	  hearing	  	  	  	   ¨Settled	  in	  the	  hearing
¨Settled	  after	  hearing	  but	  before	  award	  	  	  	  	   ¨Decision	  rendered	  (award)
Signatory	  of	  MoU: ¨MOU	   ¨Non-­‐MoU
For	  case	  covered	  by	  MoU,	  please	  choose	  type	  of	  dispute	  	  ¨Right	  Dispute	  	  ¨ Interest	  Dispute	  
Area	  #1:	  	  Statements	  of	  Issue	  and	  Demands Points
Opening	  statement	  clear	  about	  issue/demand(s) ¨Yes	  (1)	  	  	  ¨No	  (0) ¨N/A (excl)
Closing	  statement	  clear	  about	  issue/demand(s) ¨Yes	  (1)	  	  	  ¨No	  (0) ¨N/A (excl)
Area	  #2:	  	  Facts	  of	  Issue Points
Adequately	  describe	  the	  dispute issue ¨Fully	  (2)	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  ¨Partially (1)
¨Not	  at	  all	  (0)
Area	  #3:	  	  Use	  of	  Evidence Points
Facts	  properly	  supported	  by	  documentation ¨Fully	  (2)	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  ¨Partially (1)
¨Not	  at	  all	  (0)	  	  	  	  	  	  ¨N/A (excl)
Facts	  properly	  supported	  by	  witness(es) ¨Fully	  (2)	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  ¨Partially (1)
¨Not	  at	  all	  (0)	  	  	  	  	  	  ¨N/A (excl)
Area	  #4:	  Use	  of	  Law	  and/or	  Past	  AC	  Decisions Points
Dispute	  issue	  properly	  cites	  law	  and/or	  past	  AC	  
decisions
¨Used Properly	  (1)
¨Not Used Properly	  (0)
¨No citations	  (excl)
Area	  #5:	  	  Defense	  of	  Issue Points
Responses	  to	  panel	  questions	  support	  facts ¨Fully	  (2)	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  ¨Partially (1)
¨Not at	  all	  (0)	  	  	  	  	  	  ¨N/A (excl)
Responses	  to	  opposition	  questions	  support	  facts ¨Fully	  (2)	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  ¨Partially (1)
¨Not at	  all	  (0)	  	  	  	  	  	  ¨N/A (excl)
Challenges	  to	  opposition	  counter	  their	  facts ¨Fully	  (2)	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  ¨Partially (1)
¨Not at	  all	  (0)	  	  	  	  	  	  ¨N/A (excl)
Date	  scorecard	  completed:_______________________	  By:_______________________________
Subscore	  for	  Area= (Σ of	  points)/(maximum	  points	  for	  non-­‐excluded	  elements)
Overall Score	  for	  this	  issue:	  %	  [	  (Σ	  of	  five	  subscores)/(number	  of	  non-­‐excluded	  areas)]
20
Process	  Scorecard:	  	  Demonstrated	  Knowledge	  of	  AC	  Process
Case	  ID:	  ________________________	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	   Date	  Registered:	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  /	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  /	  
Industrial	  Sector: ¨Garment/Footwear ¨Construction ¨Hospitality/	  Tourism
¨Manufacturing ¨Education ¨Transport
¨Health ¨Agriculture ¨Others:	  _________________
Award	  Application: ¨Binding ¨Non-­‐binding
Signatory	  of MoU: ¨MOU	   ¨Non-­‐MoU
Case	  Result:	   ¨Withdrawn/Conciliated	  before	  the	  hearing ¨Settled/Conciliated	  in	  hearing
¨Settled	  after	  hearing	  but	  before	  award ¨Decision	  rendered	  (award)
Area	  #1:	  	  Arbitrator	  Selection	  Process Points
Submitted	  preferences	   ¨Yes	  (1)	  	  	  ¨No	  (0)	  	  
Met	  deadline ¨Yes	  (1)	  	  	  ¨No	  (0)	  	  
Area	  #2:	  	  Documentation	  Delivery	  Procedures Points
Submitted	  proper	  number	  of	  copies (5) ¨Yes	  (1)	  	  	  ¨No	  (0)	  	  
Met	  deadline ¨Yes	  (1)	  	  	  ¨No	  (0)	  	  
Submitted	  complete	  set	  of	  required	  documents ¨Yes	  (1)	  	  	  ¨No	  (0)	  	  
Area	  #3:	  	  Submission	  of	  Proper	  Authorization	  of	  Representation Points
Proper	   authorization	   of	   representation	   submitted	   for	  
all	  worker	  representatives
¨Yes	  (1)	  	  	  ¨No	  (0)	  	  ¨N/A (excl)
Area	  #4:	  	  Hearing	  Regulations Points
Abided by	  hearing	  regulations ¨Yes	  (1)	  	  	  ¨No	  (0)	  	  
Area	  #5:	  	  Post-­‐hearing	  Procedures Points
Complied	  with	  arbitration	  panel’s	  instructions	  for	  post-­‐
hearing	  action	  prior	  arbitral	  award. ¨Yes	  (1)	  	  	  ¨ No	  (0)	  	  ¨ N/A (excl)
Date	  scorecard	  completed:_______________________	  By:_______________________________
Subscore	  for	  Area= (Σ of	  points)/(maximum	  points	  for	  non-­‐excluded	  elements)
Overall Score	  for	  Process:	  	  (Σ	  of	  five	  subscores)/(number	  of	  non-­‐excluded	  areas)]
21
Appendix	  B:	  Key	  Informant	  Interview	  Guide-­‐Trainers	  
Key	  Informant	  Interview	  Guide	  – Trainers
Interviewee	  Name
Background	   Number	  of	  years	  working	  as	  a	  trainer	  __________
Facilitator(s)	  
Note	  taker(s)
Observer(s)
Date/Time
Introduction	  and	  purpose	  
Hello,	  my	  name	  is	  ______	  and	  I’m	  a	  part	  of	  the	  Solidarity	  Center	  data	  collection	  team.	  We’re	  happy	  you	  
are interested	  in	  participating	  in	  our	  study	  which	  is	  designed	  to	  objectively	  explore	  the	  strengths	  and	  
challenges	  of	  legal	  advocates	  who	  represent	  workers	  at	  the	  Arbitration	  Council	  in	  order	  to	  better	  
understand	  what	  works	  well	  and	  identify	  areas	  for	  needed	  improvement	  for	  the	  advocates.	  Insights	  you	  
share	  with	  us	  today	  is	  completely	  voluntary	  and	  we	  will	  keep	  your	  name	  confidential	  as	  we	  report	  the	  
overall	  findings.	  
To	  help	  our	  team	  take	  notes,	  we’d	  like	  to	  use	  a	  recorder	  to	  help	  us	  capture	  all	  of	  your	  insights,	  if	  there	  is	  
any	  part	  of	  the	  conversation	  you	  wish	  to	  keep	  off	  the	  record,	  we	  will	  turn	  it	  off.	  
Do	  we	  have	  your	  permission	  to	  record	  our	  discussion? [If	  yes,	  turn	  the	  recorder	  on.]
Do	  you	  have	  any	  questions	  for	  us	  before	  we	  begin?
Questions
1. In	  what ways	  does	  SC	  train	  and	  support	  legal	  advocates?	  
Probe:	  What	  is	  the	  process	  for	  identifying	  training/support	  needs,	  frequency,	  etc.?
Response:
2. What	  seems	  to	  be	  working	  well	  and	  what	  can	  be	  improved?
Probe: How	  can	  you	  tell	  that	  the	  training	  is	  working	  well?	  How	  do	  you	  identify	  the	  areas	  that	  need	  
improvement?
22
Response:
3. Describe	  how	  other	  ACILS/SC	  programs	  (i.e.	  union	  capacity	  building,	  leadership	  training,	  etc.)	  
complement	  the	  legal	  advocate	  training	  program.	  
Probe: In	  what	  ways	  do	  the	  multiple	  programs benefit	  workers	  in	  Cambodia?
Response:
4. Describe	  how	  other	  ACILS/SC	  programs	  (i.e.	  union	  capacity	  building,	  leadership	  training,	  etc.)	  
complement	  the	  legal	  advocate	  training	  program.	  
Probe:	  In	  what	  ways	  do	  the	  multiple	  programs	  benefit	  workers	  in	  Cambodia?
Response:
23
Appendix	  C:	  Key	  Informant	  Interview	  Guide	  –	  Workers/Clients	  
Interviewee	  Name
Background	   ❒Represented	  by	  ACILS/SC	  trained	  advocate
❒Represented	  by	  non-­‐ACILS/SC	  advocate
Facilitator(s)	  
Note	  taker(s)
Observer(s)
Date/Time
Introduction	  and	  purpose	  
Hello,	  my	  name	  is	  ______	  and	  I’m	  a	  part	  of	  the	  Solidarity	  Center	  data	  collection	  team.	  We’re	  happy	  you	  
are	  interested	  in	  participating	  in	  our	  study	  which	  is	  designed	  to	  objectively	  explore	  the	  strengths	  and	  
challenges	  of	  legal	  advocates	  who	  represent	  workers	  at	  the	  Arbitration	  Council	  in	  order	  to	  better	  
understand	  what	  works	  well	  and	  identify	  areas	  for	  needed	  improvement	  for	  the	  advocates.	  Insights	  you	  
share	  with	  us	  today	  is	  completely	  voluntary	  and	  we	  will	  keep	  your	  name	  confidential	  as	  we	  report	  the	  
overall	  findings.	  
To	  help	  our	  team	  take	  notes,	  we’d	  like	  to	  use	  a	  recorder	  to	  help	  us	  capture	  all	  of	  your	  insights,	  if	  there	  is	  
any	  part	  of	  the	  conversation	  you	  wish	  to	  keep	  off	  the	  record,	  we	  will	  turn	  it	  off.	  
Do	  we	  have	  your	  permission	  to	  record	  our	  discussion? [If	  yes,	  turn	  the	  recorder	  on.]
Do	  you	  have	  any	  questions	  for	  us	  before	  we	  begin?
Questions
1. In	  your	  experience,	  how	  satisfied	  are	  you	  with	  your	  legal	  advocate?	  
Probe:	  In	  what	  ways	  has	  s/he	  demonstrated	  her/his	  level	  of	  preparedness,	  understanding	  of	  the	  
processes,	  and	  overall	  representation	  of	  your	  case?
Response:
2. What	  were	  the	  strengths	  of	  your	  advocate?
Probe:	  What	  would	  a	  strong	  advocate	  do	  to	  best	  represent	  her/his	  client?
Response:
3. What	  should	  they	  do	  to	  improve?
24
Probe:	  What	  did	  your	  advocate	  do	  that	  you	  would	  liked	  that	  s/he	  did	  differently?
Response:
4. Thinking	  of	  legal	  advocates’	  capacity	  overall,	  what	  is	  your	  assessment	  of	  the	  capacity	  of	  your	  
legal	  advocate	  to:	  
a. Address	  facts	  of	  the	  issue/demands?
Response:
b. Use	  of	  evidence	  and	  law	  and	  past	  AC’s	  decisions?
Response:
c. Defend	  issues	  with	  arbitration	  panel	  and	  their	  opposing party?
Response:
5. For	  post-­‐hearing	  action,	  what	  did	  your	  legal	  advocate	  do	  to	  comply	  with	  arbitration	  panel’s	  
instructions?	  
Probe:	  Please	  provide	  examples.
Response:
25
Appendix	  D:	  Key	  Informant	  Interview	  Guide-­‐	  Arbitrators	  
Key	  Informant	  Interview	  Guide	  -­‐ Arbitrator
Interviewee	  Name
Interviewee	  
Role	  
❒ Employer
❒ Ministry
❒ Worker
Facilitator(s)	  
Note	  taker(s)
Observer(s)
Date/Time
Introduction	  and	  purpose	  
Hello,	  my	  name	  is	  ______	  and	  I’m	  a	  part	  of	  the	  Solidarity	  Center	  data	  collection	  team.	  We’re	  happy	  you	  
are	  interested	  in	  participating	  in	  our	  study	  which	  is	  designed	  to	  objectively	  explore	  the	  strengths	  and	  
challenges	  of	  legal	  advocates	  who	  represent	  workers	  at	  the	  Arbitration	  Council	  in	  order	  to	  better	  
understand	  what	  works	  well	  and	  identify	  areas	  for	  needed	  improvement	  for	  the	  advocates.	  Insights	  you	  
share	  with	  us	  today	  is	  completely	  voluntary	  and	  we	  will	  keep	  your	  name	  confidential	  as	  we	  report	  the	  
overall	  findings.	  
To	  help	  our	  team	  take	  notes,	  we’d	  like	  to	  use	  a	  recorder	  to	  help	  us	  capture	  all	  of	  your	  insights,	  if	  there	  is	  
any	  part	  of	  the	  conversation	  you	  wish	  to	  keep	  off	  the	  record,	  we	  will	  turn	  it	  off.	  
Do	  we	  have	  your	  permission	  to	  record	  our	  discussion? [If	  yes,	  turn	  the	  recorder	  on.]
Do	  you	  have	  any	  questions	  for	  us	  before	  we	  begin?
Questions
1. When	  you think	  about	  the	  most	  effective	  successful	  cases,	  describe	  for	  us	  the	  cases	  stand	  out	  in	  
your	  mind?
Probe:	  What	  made	  these	  cases	  stand	  out?	  What	  was	  the	  advocate’s	  role	  in	  that	  case	  (i.e.	  preparation	  of	  
the	  advocate,	  presentation	  of	  evidence,	  comprehension	  of	  process	  or	  issues,	  etc.)?
Response:
2. What	  approaches	  does	  the	  ideal	  legal	  advocate	  utilize?	  
26
Probe: What	  would	  a	  strong	  advocate	  do	  to	  best	  represent	  her/his	  client?
Response:
3. In	  your	  experience,	  which	  legal	  advocates	  have	  been	  the	  most	  prepared	  and	  effectively	  
represent	  their clients?	  Why	  do	  you	  think	  they	  were	  the	  most	  prepared	  and	  effective?	  
Probe:
Response:
4. Thinking	  of	  legal	  advocates’	  capacity	  overall,	  what	  is	  your	  assessment	  of	  the	  capacity	  of	  legal	  
advocates	  to:	  
d. Address	  facts	  of	  the	  issue/demands?
Response:
e. Use	  of	  evidence	  and	  law	  and	  past	  AC’s	  decisions?
Response:
f. Defend	  issues	  with	  arbitration	  panel	  and	  their	  opposing	  party?
Response:
5. Thinking	  about	  the	  differences	  from	  before	  and	  after	  2013,	  have	  you	  seen	  any	  changes	  in	  the	  
capacity	  of	  legal	  advocates	  and	  their knowledge	  about	  AC	  process?	  If	  so,	  what	  were	  these	  
changes	  in	  their	  capacity	  and	  knowledge?
Probe:
Response:
6. Considering	  the	  required	  documents	  delivery	  prior	  the	  hearing,	  to	  what	  degree	  have	  legal	  
advocates	  complied	  with	  the	  deadline	  and	  required	  copies?
Probe:
Response:
7. Regarding	  hearing	  regulations,	  how	  well	  are	  legal	  advocates	  complying?	  What	  attitudes	  or	  
behaviors	  demonstrate	  their	  ability	  to	  adhere	  (align	  with)	  the	  regulations?	  What	  are	  the	  areas	  of	  
most	  and	  least	  compliance?	  	  What	  areas	  for	  improvements,	  if	  any,	  would	  you	  suggest?	  
27
Probe:
Response:
8. When	  legal	  advocates	  do	  not	  submit	  proper	  authorization	  of	  representation,	  how	  this	  affect	  the	  
hearing?	  What	  are	  the	  implications?	  
Probe:
Response:
9. For	  post-­‐hearing	  action,	  to	  what	  degree	  do	  the	  legal	  advocates	  demonstrate	  their	  compliance	  
with	  arbitration	  panel’s	  instructions?	  How	  is	  compliance	  measured?
Probe:
Response:
	  
28
	  	  
Appendix	  E:	  Focus	  Group	  Discussion	  Guide	  –	  Advocates	  
Participant	  name(s)
Type	  of	  advocate o ACILS/SC	  trained
o non-­‐ACILS/SC	  trained
Facilitator(s)	  
Note	  taker(s)
Observer(s)
Date/Time
Introduction	  and	  purpose	  
Hello,	  my	  name	  is	  ______	  and	  I’m	  a	  part	  of	  the	  Solidarity	  Center	  data	  collection	  team.	  We’re	  happy	  you	  
are	  interested	  in	  participating	  in	  our	  study	  which	  is	  designed	  to	  objectively	  explore	  the	  strengths	  and	  
challenges	  of	  legal	  advocates	  who	  represent	  workers	  at	  the	  Arbitration	  Council	  in	  order	  to	  better	  
understand	  what	  works	  well	  and	  identify	  areas	  for	  needed	  improvement	  for	  the	  advocates.	  Insights	  you	  
share	  with	  us	  today	  is	  completely	  voluntary	  and	  we	  will	  keep	  your	  name	  confidential	  as	  we	  report	  the	  
overall	  findings.	  
To	  help	  our	  team	  take	  notes,	  we’d	  like	  to	  use	  a	  recorder	  to	  help	  us	  capture	  all	  of	  your	  insights,	  if	  there	  is	  
any	  part	  of	  the	  conversation	  you	  wish	  to	  keep	  off	  the	  record,	  we	  will	  turn	  it	  off.	  
Do	  we	  have	  your	  permission	  to	  record	  our	  discussion? [If	  yes,	  turn	  the	  recorder	  on.]
Do	  you	  have	  any	  questions	  for	  us	  before	  we	  begin?
Questions
1. Describe	  your	  successes	  in	  representing	  workers	  at	  the	  Arbitration	  Council.	  What	  contributed	  to	  
those	  successes?	  
Probe:	  Give	  specific	  examples	  of	  trainings,	  resources,	  courses,	  ad	  hoc	  case	  support	  that	  contributed	  to	  
the	  successes	  and	  were	  most	  useful.	  
NOTE: If	  trainings	  are	  mentioned	  as	  one	  of	  the	  contributors,	  follow	  up	  and	  ask	  what	  part	  of	  the	  
training	  could	  have	  been	  more	  useful?
29
Response:
2. What	  types	  of	  advocacy	  training,	  resources/course/ad	  hoc	  case	  support	  was	  not	  as	  helpful?	  	  
Describe	  why	  some	  resources	  were	  not	  helpful/useful.	  
Probe:	  Provide	  examples.	  
Response:
3. Describe	  how	  did	  you	  manage	  Arbitration	  Council	  processes?	  What	  processes	  where	  
challenging,	  if	  any?
Probe:	  Provide	  examples.
Response:
4. Reflecting	  on	  your	  experience,	  what	  do	  you	  wish	  you	  knew	  before	  advocating	  for	  your	  clients	  at	  
the	  Arbitration	  Council	  (so	  that	  you	  could	  address	  challenges	  you	  encountered)?
Probe:	  What	  types	  of	  training,	  support,	  mentoring,	  advice,	  etc.	  would	  have	  been	  helpful?
Response:
5. Given	  your	  experience,	  what	  more	  did you	  need	  beyond	  the	  training	  you	  received?	  
Probe:	  Describe	  specific	  training	  content.
Response:
6. Imagine	  you	  started	  mentoring	  a	  new	  legal	  advocate,	  what	  lessons	  or	  advice	  would	  you	  share	  
with	  your	  mentee?
Probe:	  Describe	  the	  advice	  or	  guidance	  you	  think is	  the	  most	  important.
Response: