Texts of pending comments

Articles 1(b) and 2 of the Convention. Equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. Legislation. In its previous observation, the Committee noted that section 53 of the Labour Protection Act of 2008, in providing only equal wages in cases where men and women perform work of the same nature, quality and quantity, did not fully reflect the principle of the Convention. It: (1) expressed the hope that the necessary steps would soon be taken to amend it in order to include the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value explicitly; (2) requested the Government to report on the progress made in this regard; and (3) asked for information on any further activities undertaken, in cooperation with workers’ and employers’ organizations, to promote the principle of the Convention in the public and the private sectors. The Committee notes with satisfaction that section 53 of the Labour Protection Act was amended in 2019 (B.E. 2562/2019) so as to prescribe that an employer shall set equal rates of wage, overtime pay, holiday pay, and holiday overtime pay for men and women for “work of equal value”. The Committee also notes that, in its report, the Government indicates that under the Homeworkers Protection Act (B.E. 2553/2010) informal workers are recognized as having the right to equal remuneration, irrespective of their sex. The Committee notes that section 16 of the Homeworkers Protection Act prescribes equal remuneration for work “of the same nature and quality and with the same quantity” only, which is narrower than the principle of the Convention. Concerning the activities undertaken in cooperation with the social partners to promote the principle of the Convention in the public and the private sectors, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government on various initiatives, including awareness-raising activities on good labour practices and reach-out activities for businesses. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 53 as amended (B.E. 2562/2019) of the Labour Protection Act, including any judicial decisions invoking this provision and any violation detected by the labour inspectors, the sanctions imposed and the remedies granted. The Committee asks the Government to adopt the necessary measures so that section 16 of the Homeworkers Protection Act (B.E. 2553/2010) is aligned in the near future to the amended section 53 of the Labour Protection Act in order to include the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value explicitly. The Committee also asks the Government to continue to provide information on the activities undertaken, in cooperation with workers’ and employers’ organizations, to promote the principle of the Convention in the public and the private sectors and to raise awareness about it.

Articles 2 and 3. Determination of remuneration. Objective job evaluation. Public sector. In its previous observation, the Committee urged the Government to indicate the specific measures taken to ensure that job descriptions and the selection of factors for job evaluation are free from gender bias, and more particularly with regard to employees working in the public service who are not public officials. The Committee also requested the Government to provide statistical data, disaggregated by sex, on the distribution and remuneration of men and women in the various groups of the compensation schedule. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that the Remuneration System Manual for Civil Servants, which has been elaborated by the Office of the Civil Service Commission, sets out the factors that must be taken into account when determining remuneration rates for civil servants. Among these factors figures the “value of the work” performed, however the criteria used to determine the value of the work performed are not indicated. The Committee recalls that in order to determine the value of work, the use of appropriate techniques for objective job evaluation, comparing factors such as skills, effort, responsibilities and working conditions, is required (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 675). The Committee requests the Government to indicate how the value of the work performed by men and women is determined for the purpose of setting remuneration rates in the public sector and how it is ensured that there is no gender bias in the process, so as to comply fully with the principle of the Convention. The Committee also reiterates its request for statistical data, disaggregated by sex, on the distribution and remuneration of men and women in the various groups of the compensation schedule.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request directly addressed to the Government.

The Committee notes the observations from the National Congress of Thai Labour (NCTL) transmitted by the Government with its reply and received on 25 November 2021.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Additional emoluments. Overtime payments. The Committee notes the observations provided by the NCTL regarding the provisions of the Labour Protection Act, which set the maximum hours of work per week and stipulate that overtime work should be paid at 1.5 times the hourly rate. The union adds that the Thai Labour Standard (TLS) 8001-2020 states that the employer must pay wages and remuneration to employees for work performed outside work hours or exceeding normal working hours at not less than the legal requirement. It further indicates that Ministerial Regulation No.7 provides that workers involved in production who are paid monthly wages are eligible to be paid for overtime work only at the hourly rate. The NCTL states that therefore there is an inconsistency between Ministerial Regulation No. 7 and the Labour Protection Act, the latter being in conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes that, in its reply, the Government states that there is no inconsistency because Ministerial Regulation No. 7 indicates that employer and workers involved in production can agree the maximum hours worked in a day, as long as the weekly max is under 48 hours and states that the Convention is not relevant in this regard. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with the Convention, the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal applies not only to wages but also to any additional emoluments, including overtime payments. It also stresses that compliance with the requirements of the Convention is required in law and in practice and, therefore it is important to assess the impact of any legal provisions on the gender pay gap in practice. If, as a result of the implementation of the above legal provisions, women or men are disproportionally affected by lower supplements for overtime work, it may contribute to unequal pay for men and women and have an impact on the gender pay gap and therefore be contrary to the principle of the Convention. In order for the Committee to get an appreciation of how these legal provisions operate in practice and their possible impact on the gender pay gap, it requests the Government to provide statistical information disaggregated by sex on the distribution of men and women in the production sector and other sectors of the economy and, within the production sector, on the number of overtime hours worked as well as any other relevant information. It also requests the Government to provide any assessment it may have made of the impact of overtime payments on the remuneration of men and women.

Articles 2 and 3. Private sector. In its previous comments, the Committee urged the Government to provide information on the practical application of the Thai Labour Standards (TLS) 8001-2003 related to equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value and also asked it to indicate whether any activities, including training, had been organized in the private sector to promote job evaluation and provide a better understanding of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the TLS are regularly updated and that, on 24 March 2020, the TLS 8001-2020 entered into force. The TLS 8001-2020 state that the employer “shall treat employees equally in payment of wage and remuneration, regardless of gender of employees” (standard 4.7.3). The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government concerning a series of training sessions on TLS 8001-2020 and evaluations of businesses’ application of the TLS, which were conducted by the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results of the evaluation exercises conducted by the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare in relation to the application of standard 4.7.3 of the TLS 8001-2020 and the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, including information on the use of objective evaluation methods by employers. Please also continue to provide information on any activities undertaken to promote the application of the Convention in the private sector.

Gender pay gap. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide: (1) information on the measures taken under the Eleventh National Economic and Social Development Plan to improve women’s access to decision-making and management positions, and their impact on reducing the gender pay gap; and (2) statistical data disaggregated by sex on the participation of men and women in different occupations and sectors of activity in the public and private sectors. The Committee notes that the Government refers to the Five-Year Report on the Eleventh National Economic and Social Development Plan (2012–2016) which highlights that the number of women in executive and decision-making positions increased during the years of implementation of the Plan. The Committee also notes that currently the Twelfth National Economic and Social Development Plan (2017–2021) includes a strategy (strategy no. 2) to reduce inequality in society which, among other things, envisages the adoption of measures to reduce income inequalities (target 1). Under the Plan, the Department of Women's Affairs and Family of the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security has introduced the Action Plan for Women Development (Phase 1: 2020-2022) with the objective of fostering gender equality by changing attitudes, empowering women and enhancing their public participation, among others. Concerning statistical data, the Committee notes from the statistics provided by the Government that in the last quarter of 2020 the average monthly wage of women was 14,780 Bath, compared to 14,484 Bath for men. The Committee also notes that according to the Labour Force Survey, in the last quarter of 2020, women accounted for 45.87 per cent of the total population in employment. In the same period, the majority of women in employment worked as skilled agricultural forest and fishery workers (26.9 per cent of all women workers) followed by service workers (24.76 per cent), while the majority of men engaged in agriculture, forestry, and fishing (35.5 per cent of all men workers), followed by wholesale and retail trade (15.15 per cent), and manufacturing (14.61 per cent). As regards the public sector, the Committee notes that women represented a majority of the civil servants, however they accounted only for 30.29 per cent of civil servants in managerial positions, and 20.93 per cent of civil servants in executive positions. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted under the Twelfth National Economic and Social Development Plan (2017 – 2021) to promote the principle of the Convention and foster greater participation of women in managerial and executive positions, in the public and private sectors, as well as in a wider range of occupations and sectors of activity, and their results. Please also continue to supply statistical information disaggregated by sex on the participation of men and women in different occupations and sectors of activity and their remuneration rates, in the public and private sectors.

Article 4. Cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide the following information: (1) the number of committees set up in order to follow up the workplace policy and how they ensure and monitor the implementation of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value; (2) how the Labour Welfare Committee as well as the welfare committees at the enterprise level are in practice promoting equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value; and (3) whether any collective agreements explicitly providing for equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value have been concluded, and if so please forward copies of such agreements. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that between October 2020 and March 2021 there were 4,289 welfare committees set up in business enterprises. The Government reports that, in general, the welfare committees can promote the principle of the Convention by: raising the issue with employers; making suggestions and providing advice to employers; monitoring the provision of welfare benefits to employees; and raising awareness about the right to equal remuneration for work of equal value. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement that there are no collective agreements covering specifically the question of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. The Committee recalls that the determination of criteria for job evaluation and their weighting are matters on which cooperation between employers and workers is particularly relevant, giving collective bargaining an important place in this context (See General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 705). In addition, Governments should take the necessary steps, in cooperation with the social partners, to ensure that the provisions of collective agreements observe the principle of the Convention (See General Survey 2012, paragraph 681). The Committee requests the Government to provide specific information on the measures adopted in practice by the welfare committees to promote and monitor the application of the principle of the Convention, including information on any initiatives directed at promoting objective job evaluations, and their impact. Please also indicate if any measures have been adopted or envisaged, in cooperation with the social partners, to promote the inclusion of specific clauses on equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value in collective agreements.

Enforcement. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the following points: 1) how training activities undertaken on ILO standards, labour protection and labour law enforcement had contributed to increasing the awareness of labour inspectors on the issue of equal remuneration for work of equal value, and assisted them in better detecting and addressing violations of the principle of the Convention; and 2) the results of labour inspection activities, such as the number of written orders delivered to employers and any proceedings that have followed such delivery under sections 15 and 53 of the Labour Protection Act. The Committee notes that the Government refers to the implementation of various training and awareness-raising activities concerning the principle of the Convention that involved labour inspectors. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that no violation of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value has been detected by the labour inspectors. The Committee encourages the Government to continue to conduct training and awareness-raising activities for labour inspectors on the principle of the Convention and to provide information about these activities as well as on the number of violations detected, the sanctions imposed and remedies granted under the Labour Protection Act.

Article 1 of the Convention. Prohibition of discrimination and scope of application. Legislation. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the non-exhaustive list of the prohibited grounds of discrimination contained in article 27 of the Constitution may cover all the grounds spelt out in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention, although the ground of colour is not explicitly referred to. At the same time, the Committee noted that the Labour Protection Act (LPA) (B.E. 2541 (1998) and subsequent amendments) does not contain a general prohibition of discrimination in employment and occupation. Moreover, in the national legislation there is no definition of discrimination, with the exception of the provision of the Gender Equality Act (B.E. 2558 (2015)), section 3. In the light of the above, the Committee requested the Government to: (1) provide information on how article 27 of the Constitution as well as the relevant provisions of the LPA, and the Gender Equality Act are applied in practice to ensure that the principles of the Convention extend to all aspects of employment and occupation covered by Article 1(3) of the Convention and all grounds of discrimination prohibited under Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention, in particular how the Courts have been interpreting the expression “any other grounds”; (2) indicate how it is ensured that the same protection is applied to all workers – including the categories of workers excluded from the scope of application of the LPA and subsequent amendments under section 22; (3) indicate how non-discrimination and equality of opportunity and treatment are ensured and promoted in respect of the workers in provinces where emergency laws are applied; and (4) provide information on the application of the Convention to workers in the public sector with respect to all aspects of employment and occupation covered in Article 1(3) of the Convention and in respect of all the grounds of discrimination prohibited under Article 1(1)(a).

The Committee notes that in its report the Government states that, although the ground of “colour” is not expressly referred to in article 27 of the Constitution, the reference to “other grounds” gives the judiciary room to address cases of discrimination based on colour. Nevertheless, no judgment has so far been handed down concerning article 27 of the Constitution. Concerning the application of section 15 of the LPA, which prohibits discrimination between men and women, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to Supreme Court's decision No. 6011 - 6017/2545 concerning a case of discrimination in the determination of the retirement age of women and men employees. The Government further indicates that the Committee on the Determination of Unfair Gender Discrimination, which has been established under the Gender Equality Act to examine complaints concerning cases of discrimination, has received 60 petitions from 2015 to 2021, 12 of which concerned discrimination in employment, including alleged discriminatory rejections of job applications and discriminatory dismissals on the ground of gender and gender identity and sexual orientation. As regards the application of the protections of the Convention to the categories of workers excluded from the scope of application of the LPA, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that these workers benefit from the protections afforded by the Constitution and the Gender Equality Act, in addition to the ministerial regulations issued under section 22 of the LPA, such as the Ministerial Regulation on Labour Protection in Agriculture or the Ministerial Regulation on the Protection of Workers in Fisheries (B.E. 2557 (2014)), which make reference to the non-discrimination provisions included in the LPA. Concerning the workers in provinces where emergency laws are applied, the Government indicates that the application of emergency laws may nullify the provisions on discrimination under the Constitution and the Gender Equality Act. The Governments also states that it has been persistently trying to promote equality of opportunity for workers in these areas through the Labour Service Program in the Southern Border Provinces, the programme on Economic Development and Empowerment in Southern Border Provinces, and the Royal Vocational Training Center, among others. Finally, as far as workers in the public sector are concerned, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to a set of recommendations issued by the sub-Committee on Gender Equality Promotion to tackle gender discrimination and promote equality, which include, for example, the recommendation to have gender neutral job descriptions and requirements, to encourage women’s representation in decision-making positions and to raise awareness about sexual harassment and the means to prevent and address it. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the practical application of: (i) article 27 of the Constitution; (ii) the relevant provisions of the Labour Protection Act (LPA); and (iii) the Ministerial Regulations issued under section 22 of the LPA and the Gender Equality Act (BE 2558 (2015)), including relevant judicial decisions, cases dealt with by the Committee on the Determination of Unfair Gender Discrimination and any infraction detected by the labour inspectors, where applicable, as well as examples of application of the principles of the Convention to workers in the public sector. Please also indicate what mechanisms are available to workers in the provinces where emergency laws are in force allowing them to lodge complaints and obtain reparation in case of discrimination in employment and occupation based on at least the grounds listed in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention.

Article 1(1)(a). Discrimination based on sex. Sexual harassment. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the following: (1) whether the prohibition of sexual harassment under section 16 of the LPA covers both quid pro quo harassment (any physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature and other conduct based on sex affecting the dignity of women and men which is unwelcome, unreasonable and offensive to the recipient; and a person’s rejection of, or submission to, such conduct is used explicitly or implicitly as a basis for a decision which affects that person’s job) and hostile work environment (conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile or humiliating working environment for the recipient); (2) examples of application of this provision in practice; (3) how protection from sexual harassment is ensured in law and practice in respect of harassment practised by co-workers and clients or other persons met in connection with performance of work duties; (4) how protection from sexual harassment is ensured in law and practice in respect of vocational training, access to employment, and performing work in an occupation; and (5) examples of application of section 10(2) of the Gender Equality Act, which envisages the adoption of special measures to eliminate gender-based violence, with regard to employment and occupation.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that “any act which is intrusive, threatening, or annoying committed by those in superior positions against subordinates, either in the form of quid pro quo or hostile environment, shall be considered an offence under section 16” of the LPA. Concerning the practical application of this provision, the Government states that labour inspectors are charged with monitoring the application of section 16 of the LPA and receiving complaints from employees. However, no information is provided on violations detected or complaints received in this respect. The Government refers to two judgments of the Supreme Court related to section 16 of the LPA, namely: decision No. 1372/2545, concerning a case of sexual harassment by a worker in charge of assessing the probation period of a women worker; and decision No. 8379/2550, concerning a case of exaction of sexual favours by an employer from his employee. As regards the prohibition of sexual harassment by co-workers, the Committee notes that the Government states that the Criminal Code covers sexual offences as well as acts of bullying, maltreating, menacing, or causing to suffer humiliation or annoyance (section 397) that are committed by colleagues, customers or any other person met in relation to the performance of work duties. Section 397 of the Criminal Code also covers cases of sexual harassment in respect of vocational training, access to employment, and performing work in an occupation. In addition, the Government refers to the Rules on Acts Which Are Sexual Assault or Harassment (B.E. 2553 (2010)), issued under section 8(5) and section 83 of the Civil Service Act (B.E. 2551 (2008)), which provide for disciplinary actions in case of sexual harassment, ranging from warning and wage reduction to dismissal. The Government furthermore indicates that on 16 March 2021, Cabinet approved a Resolution on Administrative Measures for Effective Disciplinary and Ethical Procedures that provides for the application of maximum disciplinary and ethical measures to civil servants who are found to be guilty of sexual harassment, such as suspension or temporary dismissal. Concerning the application of section 10(2) of the Gender Equality Act with regard to employment and occupation, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that special measures to eliminate gender-based violence under section 10(2) of the Act are yet to be adopted. However, in 2020, the Gender Equality Promotion Committee elaborated a set of draft Measures to Prevent and Address Sexual Abuse or Harassment in the Workplace, including the establishment of internal complaint mechanisms and standard procedures to address cases of sexual harassment. The Committee recalls that addressing sexual harassment only through criminal proceedings is normally not sufficient, due to the sensitivity of the issue, the higher standard of proof and the fact that criminal law generally does not cover the full range of behaviour that constitutes sexual harassment in employment and occupation (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 792). The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide examples of the application in practice of section 16 of the LPA, including cases of quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment, and encourages the Government to consider amending section 16 so as to also cover cases of sexual harassment committed by co-workers and clients or other persons met in connection with the performance of work duties. Please also supply information on: (i) the application of section 397 of the Criminal Code to cases of sexual harassment in employment and occupation; (ii) any developments concerning the adoption and implementation of the draft Measures to Prevent and Address Sexual Abuse or Harassment in the Workplace; and (iii) any other measure adopted under section 10(2) of the Gender Equality Act to prevent and address sexual harassment in employment and occupation.

Article 1(2). Inherent requirements of the job. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of article 27 of the Constitution – which provides that, in the case of members of the armed forces, the police force, government officials, other officials of the State, and officers or employees of State organizations, the enjoyment of equal rights may be restricted by law “in relation to politics, capacities, disciplines or ethics” – and section 17(2) of the Gender Equality Act – which allows for exceptions to the prohibition of gender discrimination “for the compliance with religious principles” – , and to indicate how it is ensured that the restrictions provided for in those provisions comply with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that to date there have been no judicial decisions related to the application of article 27 of the Constitution or section 17(2) of the Gender Equality Act. The Government also states that concerns have been raised about section 17(2) of the Gender Equality Act and the Department of Women’s Affairs and Family Development is consequently conducting public hearings with a view to evaluating the impact of this provision. The evaluation should be completed in November 2021. The Committee asks the Government to continue to collect and provide information on the application in practice of article 27 of the Constitution and section 17(2) of the Gender Equality Act so as to assess the compliance of these provisions with the Convention. Please also provide information on the results of the evaluation exercise conducted by the Department of Women’s Affairs and Family Development concerning the application of section 17(2) of the Gender Equality Act as regards in particular exceptions to the prohibition of gender discrimination “for the compliance with religious principles” and any action taken as a follow-up to the evaluation.

Article 2. National Equality Policy. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the specific measures adopted under the 20-Year National Strategy (B.E. 2018 – 2037) and the 12th National Economic and Social Development Plan (2017 – 2021) to eliminate discrimination based on, at least, all the grounds prohibited under Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention and promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation, and on their results. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the projects implemented under the 20-Year National Strategy to promote equality and support employment and career development of the elderly and persons with disabilities as well as to improve the quality of life of target populations, such as hill tribes. The Committee also notes the Occupational Development Program for Women, aimed at fostering skills development, which benefited 16,630 women in 2020. Concerning the implementation of the 12th National Economic and Social Development Plan, the Government refers to a number of measures directed at providing women with vocational training, personal career counselling and skills development, as well as measures aimed at improving access to education for persons with disabilities, including through financial support. The Committee asks the Government to continue to supply information on the measures adopted to eliminate discrimination based on, at least, all the grounds prohibited under Article 1(1)(a) the Convention and promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation, and to monitor and report on their results, in cooperation with the social partners and other interested groups.

Articles 2 and 3. Equality of opportunity and treatment between men and women. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to: (1) continue to provide information on the results of the various initiatives undertaken to promote equality of opportunity and treatment between men and women; (2) provide statistical data on the evolution of the distribution of men and women in the various economic sectors and occupations; and (3) provide information on any specific measure, policy or plan adopted by the Gender Equality Promotion Committee with a view to promoting and applying the principles of the Convention in the private and public sectors, including the promotion of workplace measures which favour shared family responsibility between men and women and address gender stereotypes affecting women’s access to and advancement in employment and occupation. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the Women in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) project, which aims to reduce the skills gap between men and women and enhance women’s opportunities to career advancement. The project provided for the training of 986 women in Nakhon Ratchasima province in 2019, and 656 women in Chonburi and Samut Prakan in 2020. In 2021, training is targeted at the provinces of Patumthani, Nontaburi, and Prachinburi. The Government also states that women are for the largest part unpaid family workers and are otherwise concentrated in clerical occupations (women represent 70.3 per cent of all clerical workers). Regarding the measures adopted to promote shared family responsibilities between men and women, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to the establishment of childcare centres in workplaces and in communities, and the promotion of breastfeeding areas in business enterprises. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the impact of the Women in STEM project on increasing the number of women employed in a wider range of occupations, particularly those in which they are underrepresented. The Committee also asks the Government to: (i) continue to provide information on the measures adopted to promote equality of opportunity and treatment between men and women and their impact, including information on the initiatives undertaken by the Gender Equality Promotion Committee; (ii) provide statistical data on the evolution of the distribution of men and women in the various economic sectors and occupations; and (iii) continue to supply information on the measures adopted to promote shared family responsibilities between men and women and the results achieved in terms of women’s access to and advancement in employment and occupation.

Equality of opportunity and treatment irrespective of race, colour and national extraction. Highland peoples and other ethnic groups. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to continue to provide information on the measures adopted to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation for Highland peoples and other ethnic groups, including information on the measures taken to ensure that they can engage without discrimination in their traditional occupations and livelihoods and on any measures adopted in this regard as a follow-up to the recommendations issued by the National Human Rights Commission (Recommendation No. 3/2561of 2018). The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the Highland Occupational Security and Community Income Promotion Program, which was created in 2020 and benefited 3,255 persons. The Government also provides information on the implementation of Royal Projects aimed at promoting careers in both agricultural and non-agricultural sectors which involved 4,822 participants. Concerning the follow-up to the recommendations issued by the National Human Rights Commission, the Government states that a number of measures have been adopted in favour of the Karen people, including compensations, support for traditional occupations and a survey on land entitlements of the Karen people in national parks and reserved forest areas. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that the Ministries of Culture and Education are working towards a ‘local curriculum management’ with a view to involving communities in the definition of educational curricula and complementing main learning courses in line with communities’ lifestyles and culture. The Committee also notes from the report of the UN Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises that: (1) ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by large-scale development projects, with a significant negative impact on their livelihoods; (2) members of ethnic minorities who had toiled on the land for generations, through rotational farming, are being regarded as trespassers and are being criminalized, harassed and intimidated; and (3) a serious concern expressed by ethnic minorities relates to the lack of meaningful consultation before development projects are approved and/or special economic zones created (see A/HRC/41/43/Add.1, 21 Mai 2019, paragraph 72). In this regard, the Committee notes that the First National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (2019–2022), available from the website of UNDP, provides for the conduct of consultations with ethnic groups “in order to get involved in the decision-making process in terms of strategy, policies and projects, especially in the formulation of land management and forest conservation policies as well as the development of large projects in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” and also envisages the adoption of measures to ensure the livelihoods of highland peoples and other ethnic groups (p. 70). The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the measures adopted to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation for Highland peoples and other ethnic groups, including information on the following: (i) the results of the survey on land entitlements of the Karen people in national parks and reserved forest areas and any follow-up action taken to ensure that the Karen people have access to the material goods, including secure access to land and resources required to carry out their traditional occupations, without discrimination; (ii) any measures adopted to prevent and address discriminatory criminalization, harassment and intimidation of workers belonging to Highland peoples and other ethnic groups that stem out of biased approaches towards their traditional occupations, which are often perceived as outdated, unproductive or environmentally harmful, adversely affecting their enjoyment of equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of occupation; and (iii) the measures adopted under the First National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (2019–2022) to support the livelihoods of Highland peoples and other ethnic groups and involve them in the development of relevant policies, projects and strategies. Recalling the importance of access to education to achieve equality in employment and occupation, the Committee also asks the Government to continue to provide information on the implementation of the initiative directed at the ‘local curriculum management’.

General observation of 2018. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to its general observation of 2018 and asked the Government to provide information in response to the questions raised in that observation. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning various measures adopted in favour of stateless people in order to allow these people to live and work in Thailand.

Equality of opportunity and treatment irrespective of disabilities. Previously, the Committee asked the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation for persons with disabilities, including information on the following: (1) any action taken by the National Commission on Promotion and Development of Life Quality of Disabled Persons and any relevant services provided by the Service Centres for Persons with Disabilities, and their results; (2) any petitions concerning discrimination in employment and occupation dealt with by the National Commission and their outcomes; (3) statistical data on the situation of persons with disabilities in the labour market, disaggregated by sex; and (4) information on the application of the quotas established under the Ministerial Regulations B.E. 2554 (2011) and subsequent amendments. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the 2020 Report of the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, according to which a proposal developed by the Disability Network Assembly has been approved and includes measures to: promote access to work and self-employment of persons with disabilities; enhance the role of provincial and general disability service centres; and address negative stereotypes in society affecting disabled persons. In addition, the Government provides information on the efforts made to combat corruption in the recruitment of persons with disabilities, promoting their career and supporting entrepreneurs and employees with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic, including through incentives, such as tax reductions for employers who hire persons with disabilities during the pandemic in addition to the minimum number required by the quota system. Moreover, the Fund for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, which has been established under the Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities Act (B.E. 2550(2007)), funds capacity-building for persons with disabilities and supports their organizations. As regards the petitions concerning discrimination in employment and occupation dealt with by the National Commission, the Government states that one complaint was received in 2020 about a case of alleged discrimination in recruitment by a public education institute. The Committee notes that the Commission found that no discrimination occurred in that specific case but recommended that the province where the petitioner lived should assist him in finding suitable employment. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that available data indicate that the number of persons with disabilities employed in the private sector is increasing, including through the implementation of the quota system under the Ministerial Regulations B.E. 2554 (2011). Nevertheless, a number of challenges remain in meeting the employment quota of persons with disabilities, notably the shortage of people having the required qualifications, restrictions on workplace facilities and the distance between the workplace and the accommodation of the people concerned. In this regard, the Committee notes from the report of the UN Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises that about 1,152,254 persons with disabilities have only primary school education, and that public transport and workplaces are often inaccessible (see A/HRC/41/43/Add.1, 2019, paragraph 62). The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation for persons with disabilities, including information on the measures adopted or envisaged to tackle the barriers faced by persons with disabilities in accessing employment and occupation and those affecting the fulfilment of the quotas established under the Ministerial Regulations B.E. 2554 (2011), such as the lack of qualifications and the inaccessibility of workplaces and public transport. Please also continue to: (i) collect and provide updated statistical information on the situation of persons with disabilities in the labour market, disaggregated by sex, in order to allow for the monitoring and evaluation of the impact of the measures adopted; and (ii) supply information on the petitions concerning discrimination in employment and occupation dealt with by the National Commission and their outcomes.

Equality of opportunity and treatment irrespective of HIV status. The Committee notes the information provided by Government concerning the Notification of the Ministry of Labour on Prevention and Management of AIDS in the Workplace of 5 November 2020 and the elaboration of a Draft Bill on the Elimination of Discrimination at the initiative of the Foundation for Aids Rights (FAR) that is currently under consideration by the Government. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the measures adopted in the framework of the Ministry of Labour’s Notification in order to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation for persons living with HIV. Please also provide information on any new developments concerning the Draft Bill on the Elimination of Discrimination.

Article 3(a). Cooperation with workers’ and employers’ organizations. In its previous comments, noting the establishment of various tripartite committees in charge of labour-related matters, the Committee asked the Government to provide details on any specific initiatives undertaken by these bodies with a view to promoting the principles of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that at present 15 tripartite committees have been established. Concerning relevant initiatives taken by these committees to promote the principles of the Convention, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning a number of them. In particular, the Committee notes that the Labour Welfare Committee has focused on the prevention and management of HIV/AIDS in the workplace with a view to eliminating discrimination against people living with HIV in employment through the elaboration of the ‘notification’ mentioned above and the provision of support to employers to ensure that they comply with its instructions. The Committee further notes that the Wage Committee, in its announcement ;o. 10 on the minimum wage, has stated that employers shall pay wages not inferior to the legal minimum wage regardless of the nationality, age or gender of the worker (clause 8). The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the initiatives undertaken by the various tripartite committees to promote the principles of the Convention and their impact.

Article 4. Measures affecting an individual suspected of activities prejudicial to the security of the State. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide examples of application of article 40 of the Constitution – which provides that a person’s freedom to engage in an occupation can be restricted by law for the purpose of maintaining the security of the country or for other public interests - and section 17(2) of the Gender Equality Act – which allows for exceptions to the application of the principle of non-discrimination for reasons related to the national security – in the areas of employment and occupation, and to indicate how it is ensured that the restrictions adopted comply with Article 4 of the Convention and do not constitute discrimination under its Article 1. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to an example of the application of article 40 of the Constitution, namely the National Vaccine Security Act B.E. 2561 (2018) which provides that the National Vaccine Committee shall consist of members who do not hold political positions, are not local council members, do not hold local administrative positions, are not part of the managing committee of political staff nor are consultants or staff of political parties. The Government explains that those restrictions are justified by the need to ensure that the distribution of vaccines is not affected by political factors. As regards section 17(2) of the Gender Equality Act, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that it is aware that there are suggestions that this provision should be amended. The Act is thus being reviewed by the Department of Women's Affairs and Family Development. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the outcome of the review of section 17(2) of the Gender Equality Act undertaken by the Department of Women's Affairs and Family Development as far as the exceptions to the application of the principle of non-discrimination for reasons related to the national security are concerned and any amendments proposed. Please also continue to monitor the application of article 40 of the Constitution to ensure that the restrictions provided therein comply with Article 4 of the Convention and do not constitute discrimination under its Article 1, and continue to provide examples of its application in practice.

Article 5. Special measures. Previously, the Committee asked the Government to indicate if any special measures have been adopted by virtue of article 27 of the Constitution to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation for categories in need of special protection or assistance. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the measures adopted in favour of the elderly, people with disabilities, women and highland people, which have been recalled in the paragraphs above.

Maternity protection. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 15 of the LPA unequal treatment between men and women may be allowed if required by the “description or nature of work”. Section 38 of the LPA introduces restrictions to women’s access to a number of occupations, such as mining or construction work to be performed underground, underwater, in a cave, in a tunnel or mountain shaft, except where the conditions of work are not harmful to the health or body of the employee. Section 39 further provides for restrictions in the case of pregnant women, concerning the type of tasks that they are allowed to perform and their working time (i.e. night work, overtime work and work on holidays). Therefore, the Committee asked the Government to review periodically the provisions on restrictions to women’s access to certain jobs or occupations included in the LPA in the light of the above principles to ensure that any protective measures taken are limited to maternity protection, in the strict sense, or are based on occupational safety and health risk assessments and do not constitute obstacles to the employment of women, and to provide information on the results of such review. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the nature and working conditions for women and pregnant women are determined on the basis of women’s health risks. The Government states that 30 per cent of the employees in the mining industry are women and that the measures adopted to protect their health were not an obstacle to their employment. The Government also explains that section 39 of the LPA is meant to ensure that pregnant women have working conditions suitable to their health needs and that overtime may, for example, be allowed with their consent and provided that it does not affect their health. The Committee further notes the Government’ indication that, due to the fact that some workers produce or assemble products outside the workplace, the Homeworkers Protection Act B.E. 2553 (2010) was enacted to protect them. Section 20 of the Act in particular prohibits pregnant women from performing work that could harm their health and safety, such as work that may be dangerous because of vibrations, that involves lifting or carrying more than 15 kilograms of heavy loads, or requires exposure to aerosols, vapour, gas, dust, fumes, or fibres. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Government has provided information on its plan to conduct reviews of the LPA and the Homeworkers Protection Act, which are expected to be completed, respectively, in 2024 and 2022. Noting the information provided by the Government and recalling that provisions relating to the protection of persons working under hazardous or difficult conditions should be aimed at protecting the health and safety of both men and women at work, while taking account of gender differences with regard to specific risks to their health, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the outcome of the reviews of the LPA and the Homeworkers Protection Act and the recommendations arising out thereof, as regards sections 15, 38 and 39 of the former and section 20 of the latter.

Enforcement. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to: (1) continue to provide information on judicial decisions and cases dealt with by the National Human Rights Commission involving issues related to the application of the Convention, as well as information on any violations in this respect brought to the attention of or detected by the Labour Protection and Welfare Offices, and their outcomes; and (2) provide information on any relevant action taken by the Committee on Consideration of Unfair Gender Discrimination established under section 14 of the Gender Equality Act. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in 2020 the National Human Rights Commission received nine complaints concerning discrimination in employment and occupation, including cases of gender-based discrimination and discrimination on the ground of HIV status. As regards the Committee on Consideration of Unfair Gender Discrimination, the Government states that a case of discrimination against a transgender woman was dealt with. The Committee also refers to the information about cases of discriminatory rejections of job applications and discriminatory dismissals on the ground of gender and gender identity and sexual orientation that have been noted in the previous paragraphs. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on judicial decisions and cases dealt with by the National Human Rights Commission involving issues related to the application of the Convention as well as any relevant case addressed by the Committee on Consideration of Unfair Gender Discrimination. Please also provide information on any violations related to the principles of the Convention brought to the attention of or detected by the Labour Protection and Welfare Offices, and their outcomes as well as any measures adopted to enhance the capacity of labour inspectors to identify, prevent and address cases of discrimination.

The Committee notes the Government’s first report on the application of the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (No. 188). The Committee notes the observations of the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF), received on 20 September 2021 and the Government’s reply thereto. The Committee notes the efforts undertaken by the Government and the social partners to implement the Convention, while drawing attention to the following issues that still need to be addressed. If considered necessary, the Committee may come back to other matters at a later stage.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee notes with deep concern the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the protection of fishers’ rights as laid out in the Convention. The Committee refers to the resolution adopted by the Governing Body in its 340th Session (GB.340/Resolution) concerning maritime labour issues and COVID-19 disease, which calls on Member States to take measures to address the adverse impacts of the pandemic on fishers’ rights. In this regard, the Committee notes that, in its observations, the ITF indicates that during the COVID-19 pandemic, fishers in Thailand have been discriminated against, forced to stay at sea for long periods of time without pay, restricted to jetties when in port, and, in some cases, fenced in with barbed wire by police. The ITF indicates that due to border restrictions, many fishers faced difficulties re-entering Thailand, which have resulted in undermanned vessels and longer hours of work, increasing the risk of accidents. The ITF also indicates that in-person Port In Port Out (PIPO) inspections have been greatly reduced due to the pandemic, resulting in less accountability for fishing vessel owners regarding non-compliance with the Convention. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s reply indicating that PIPO inspections will be normalized as soon as the COVID-19 pandemic situation improves and that a multidisciplinary body called Flying Inspection Team (FIT) has been established in order to ensure the effectiveness of those inspections. The Government further states that, as a measure to control the pandemic, it had to close the borders and isolate infected people for treatment, and that, in this context, some fishers chose to stay in the vessels. The Committee is of the view that it is precisely at times of crisis, like the one created by the COVID-19 pandemic, that the protective coverage of the Convention assumes its full significance and needs to be most scrupulously applied. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Convention and to provide information on any measure adopted in relation with the COVID-19 pandemic that can affect the implementation of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any case of violation of fishers’ rights in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic that has been reported to the competent authorities. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the normalization of the PIPO inspections and on the work of the FIT.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Definitions and scope of application. Fishers. The Committee notes that the legislation provided by the Government does not contain the definition of “skipper”. Section 3 of the Notification of the Marine Department No. 216/2562: Manpower on Fishing Vessel Criteria and Methods states that the definition of “fishing labourer” does not include “captain” and “vessel operator” according to the Thai Water Navigation Law. The Committee recalls that the Convention provides that except as otherwise provided, it applies to all fishers and all fishing vessels engaged in commercial fishing operations (Article 2(1)) and that the skipper is the “fisher” having command of a fishing vessel (Article 1(e) and (l)). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to give effect to the Convention to all fishers, including skippers.

Article 3. Exclusions. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 5 of the Emergency Decree on Fisheries B.E. 2558 (2015), which defines commercial fishing as “fishing operations using a fishing vessel of a size from ten gross tonnage or more or a fishing vessel installed with an engine with unit of horse powers as prescribed by the Minister” and artisanal fishing as “fishing operations in coastal seas in which a fishing vessel is used or in which a fishing gear is used without a fishing vessel, excluding commercial fishing”. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that, pursuant to Article 5, the possibility to use gross tonnage in place of length (L) or length overall (LOA) as the basis for measurement only concerns the implementation of Annex III. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, according to section 5 of the Labour Protection in Fishing Work Act, B.E. 2562 (2019), the following categories of fishing are excluded from the scope of application of the Convention: (1) subsistence fishing; (2) freshwater fishing; (3) recreational fishing; and (4) fishing in accordance with the size of vessel or fisher as prescribed in a Notification by the Minister of Agriculture and Cooperatives. The Government indicates that, to date, no notifications have been issued in this regard. The Committee also notes that the Government indicates that during meeting No. 1/2018 of the Legislative Drafting Subcommittee to support the ratification of the Convention, it was suggested that artisanal fishing be excluded from the scope of application and that artisanal fishing operators wishing to sell aquatic products at the ports regulated by the Department of Fisheries would need to register as commercial fishing. Noting the reasons provided by the Government for such exclusions and the information on the consultations held, the Committee requests it to provide detailed and up-dated statistic information on the number of fishers who are working: 1) in the artisanal fishing sector; 2) on board fishing vessel of a size of less than ten gross tonnage; and 3) on fishing vessels that are engaged in commercial fishing operations on freshwater, like rivers, lakes or canals. The Committee also requests the Government to provide detailed information on any notification adopted by the Minister of Agriculture and Cooperatives providing further exclusions. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to clarify whether artisanal fishers (including artisanal fishing operators wishing to sell aquatic products at the ports regulated by the Department of Fisheries) are included in the scope of application of the national measures adopted in order to give effect to the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the equivalent protection provided to all the categories of fishers that have been excluded from the scope of application of the national measures adopted in order to give effect to the Convention.

Article 4. Progressive implementation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that its legislation implements all provisions of the Convention and therefore it does not plan to make use of the flexibility foreseen in Article 4 of progressively implementation. However, the Committee also takes note that the Government indicates that some provisions of a few laws and regulations could be progressively implemented, including provisions related to the medical certificate, risk evaluation, fisher’s work agreement as well as benefits and compensation. Likewise, the Government indicates that representatives of employers and workers organizations considered that the implementation of such provisions needs time for adjustment. In this regard, the Committee recalls that, where it is not immediately possible for a Member to implement all of the measures provided for in the Convention owing to special problems of a substantial nature in the light of insufficiently developed infrastructure or institutions, the Member may, in accordance with a plan drawn up in consultation, progressively implement all or some of the provisions foreseen in Article 4. Noting the reasons provided by the Government for such progressive implementation, the Committee requests it to provide detailed information on any measures adopted or envisaged in order to give full effect to all provisions of the Convention that are subject to progressive implementation and to provide a plan to that purpose.

Article 5. Scope. Basis for measurement. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the length overall (LOA) is used in place of length (L) as the basis of measurement, and that gross tonnage is also used as a basis for measurement equivalent to LOA. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to the Labour Protection in Fishing Work Act, B.E. 2562 (2019), which uses LOA when referring to the inspection certificate on the compliance with living and working conditions (section 14) and gross tonnage when referring to accommodation (sections 13 and 22). However, the Committee notes that several laws and regulations use gross tonnage as the only basis of measurement, for instance, the Emergency Decree on Fisheries B.E. 2558 (2015) and the Ministerial Regulation on Occupational Safety, Health, and Welfare System of Crews in Fisheries B.E. 2559 (2016). The Committee recalls that member States shall, for the purpose of the Convention, use L as the basis for measurement. The competent authority, after consultation, may decide to use LOA in place of L as the basis for measurement, in accordance with the equivalence set out in Annex I. Gross tonnage may not be used as a basis for measurement except for the implementation of Annex III and under the conditions specified (Article 5). The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full conformity with Article 5.

Articles 10–12. Medical examination. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 8 of the Labour Protection in Fishing Work Act, B.E. 2562 (2019) which states that “permission under the law on navigation in Thai waters, the law on foreigners’ working management and the law on fisheries, in respect of the working of fishing labourers, may be granted only in the case where the applicant for permission has a medical certificate indicating readiness, as regards health, for working on board a fishing vessel, including hearing and visual health as well”. The Committee notes, however, that the Government does not indicate whether such obligation for permission applies to all fishers, under the meaning of the Convention. The Committee also notes the Government´s reference to different relevant regulations and notifications, which require a medical certificate or examination for certain categories of fishers and for fishers working on board certain types of fishing vessels. Considering the various concurrent rules in this regard, the Committee, therefore, requests the Government to confirm that all fishers, as defined by the Convention, are not allowed to work on board a fishing vessel without a valid medical certificate attesting to fitness to perform their duties and to indicate whether any exemptions may be granted and on which grounds. Moreover, noting that the provisions indicated by the Government do not reflect the detailed requirements of Articles 10 to 12 on medical examination (for example, right to a further examination and reference in the medical certificate to the conditions foreseen in Article 12(1)(b)), the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure full conformity with these Articles of the Convention and to clarify what is the period of validity of the medical certificate for fishers. Additionally, the Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of all legislation, regulations, or any other measures adopted or envisaged to give effect to Articles 10 to 12, including the Annexes of the Notification of the Ministry of Public Health on Medical Examination and Insurance for Migrant Workers (No. 2), B.E. 2563 (2020).

Articles 13 and 14. Manning and hours of rest. The Committee notes the Government’s indication of section 5 of the Ministerial Regulation on the Protection of Labour in Sea Fisheries, B.E. 2557 (2014) which states that: (1) an employer shall provide a rest period of not less than 10 hours in any 24-hour period and not less than 77 hours in any 7-day period for an employee; and (2) in case of emergency or necessity, the employer may require the employee to work during the rest period, provided that the employer allocates the rest period without delay and prepares the evidence of such rest period. In this regard, the Committee notes that, in its observations, the ITF indicates that fishers regularly report limited hours of rest, which increases injuries and accidents on board. Moreover, the Committee also notes the Government’s reference to the Notification of the Marine Department No. 216/2562 regarding Criteria and Methods to Determine Manpower on Fishing Vessels, which sets the maximum manpower for fishing vessels in accordance with the size of the fishing vessel and the types of fishing gears used (section 4). The Committee further notes that, in relation to the requirement that fishing vessels be under the control of a competent skipper, the Government refers to the Rule of the Marine Department on Criteria, Procedures and Requirement for Issuing Certification of Fishing Vessel Inspection for Vessel Permit and Registration B.E. 2561 (2018), but does not provide a copy of such rule. Noting that the provisions indicated by the Government do not reflect the detailed requirements of Articles 13(a) and 14(1)(a) on manning levels, the Committee asks the Government to indicate any measure adopted or envisaged to give full effect to these requirements of the Convention and to provide detailed information on the criteria and the procedure established to determine the minimum level of manning, including information on the fishers’ qualifications requirements. The Committee also requests the Government to provide a copy of the Rule of the Marine Department on Criteria, Procedures and Requirement for Issuing Certification of Fishing Vessel Inspection for Vessel Permit and Registration B.E. 2561 (2018). In addition, the Committee requests the Government to provide its comment on the observations raised by the ITF in relation to hours of rest provided to fishers.

Article 15. Crew list. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 82 of the Emergency Decree on Fisheries B.E. 2558 (2015) which states that, before taking the fishing vessel out to the sea, the owner or skipper of the fishing vessel shall submit the crew list to the competent official at the PIPO Control Centre. The Committee also notes the Government’s reference to the fisher registration form (Por Mor 3 form) provided for in the Notification of the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare Regarding Crew List Form for Employees in Fishing Work, B.E. 2557 (2014). Moreover, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 7 of the Ministerial Regulation on the Protection of Labour in Sea Fisheries, B.E. 2557 (2014) which states that “in the case that the employer employs ten employees or more, the employer shall prepare the registration of employees in Thai language and keep it at the workplace of the employer and the employees for the inspection of the labour inspector, and send a copy to the Director-General of the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare or the person assigned by the Director-General of the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare within 30 days after the first day of employment.” The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether the requirement of submitting a crew list foreseen in section 82 of the Emergency Decree on Fisheries B.E. 2558 (2015) applies to all fishing vessels, regardless of the number of fishers employed by the fishing vessel owner or any other circumstance.

Article 16. Fisher’s work agreement. Annex II. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 49 of the Thai Vessel Act, B.E. 2481 (1938) which states that while a registered Thai vessel is in use, the crew’s work agreement shall be kept on board at all times. The Committee also notes the Government’s reference to the fishers’ work agreement form (Por Mor 1) provided in the Notification of the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare Regarding Employment Contract for Employees in Fishing Work B.E. 2560 (2017). The Committee notes, however, that some particulars required under Annex II of the Convention for instance, the protection that will cover the fisher in the event of sickness, injury, or death in connection with service, and the amount of paid annual leave or the formula used for calculating leave, where applicable, are not included in the aforementioned Notification. Moreover, the Committee notes that, according to the Por Mor 1, fishers’ work agreements shall be written in the Thai language. In this respect, the Committee notes that in its observations, the ITF indicates that the fishers members of the Fishers’ Rights Network (FRN) regularly report that fishers are not sure of their actual salary or other work agreement provisions because their work agreement is not written in their own language or is not in their possession. According to the ITF, a recent FRN research, based on surveys of 520 fishers in eight Thai provinces from March to June 2021, revealed that: (1) 87 per cent of fishers in Thailand were not in possession of a copy of their employment contract; (2) 96 per cent of fishers did not completely understand their contract; (3) 33 per cent of fishers who understood their contract stated that working conditions were not in accordance with the terms of the work agreements; and (4) 89 per cent of fishers have not had their contract translated or explained in a language they can understand. The ITF also indicates that fishers report that their passports, work permits, ATM cards, bank books, and other important documents are often held by the captain or vessel owner, which restricts the fishers’ movement as well as the possibility of changing vessels, accessing payments, freely transferring or remitting earnings, and reporting abuse. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s reply indicating that it is developing a work agreement with the relevant provisions in several languages and that work agreements do not remain in the possession of the fishers to prevent loss or damage, but that inspectors check whether such agreements are in the fishers’ accommodation. The Committee requests the Government to report any progress achieved in respect to the new fisher’s work agreement, ensuring that it is comprehensible to them (including to migrant fishers who do not read Thai) and consistent with the provisions contained in Annex II.

Article 17. Fisher’s work agreement. Examination of the terms and records of service. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 7 of the Notification of the Office of the Prime Minister Regarding Issuance of Seabooks in Accordance with the Legislation on Fisheries B.E. 2563 (2020), which states that an appointment shall be made for the negotiation of the fisher’s work agreement between the employer and the migrant worker, accompanied by a labour inspector and an interpreter in order to interview the migrant worker and verify the information foreseen in the agreement. The Committee notes that the Por Mor 1 provided for in the Notification of the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare Regarding Employment Contracts for Employees in Fishing Work B.E. 2560 (2017) has a standard sentence which indicates that both the employer and the employee have revised the fisher’s work agreement. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it ensures that all fishers have an opportunity to seek advice on the terms of the fisher’s work agreement before it is concluded. In this regard, the Committee also requests the Government to clarify whether the appointment foreseen in section 7 of the Notification of the Office of the Prime Minister Regarding Issuance of Seabooks in Accordance with the Legislation on Fisheries B.E. 2563 (2020), allows for the migrant fishers to seek advice on the terms of their work agreements. It further requests the Government to provide details about the laws, regulations or other measures adopted or envisaged regarding the maintenance of records concerning the fisher’s work under such an agreement.

Article 21. Repatriation. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the provisions on repatriation foreseen in section 9 of the Labour Protection in Fishing Work Act B.E. 2562 (2019), section 15 of the Ministerial Regulation on the Protection of Labour in Sea Fisheries, B.E. 2557 (2014) and its amendments, and section 54 of the Emergency Decree on Fisheries, B.E. 2558 (2015). The Committee notes that the aforementioned legislation does not refer to the maximum duration of service periods on board after which a fisher is entitled to repatriation (Article 21(3)). In addition to the legislation referred by the Government, the Committee notes that the Foreigners’ Working Management Emergency Decree B.E. 2560 (2017) provides for the repatriation of foreigners (sections 50 to 58 and 77). In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the measures adopted or envisaged to set out the maximum service period on board after which a fisher is entitled to repatriation. In the absence of specific information in this regard, the Committee requests the Government to explain in detail how it gives full effect to Article 21 with regard to migrant fishers, clarifying whether the aforementioned provisions of the Foreigners’ Working Management Emergency Decree B.E. 2560 (2017) apply to fishers.

Article 22(2) and (3)(c). Recruitment and placement. Private services. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that private recruitment and placement services are authorized in the country, subject to permission and registration by the Department of Employment. The Committee also notes the Government’s reference to the Employment Arrangement and Jobseeker Protection Act, B.E. 2528 (1985), including its section 8(2), which states that the application for, and the issuance of, a license shall be in accordance with the rules, procedures, and conditions as prescribed by the Ministerial Regulations. Furthermore, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the process of bringing in migrant workers to work for employers in Thailand is based on the Foreigners’ Working Management Emergency Decree B.E. 2560 (2017) and its amendments, and the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Thailand and Myanmar, Lao PDR, Cambodia and Vietnam. The Government indicated that there are 42,625 workers from such countries working in the fishing industry in Thailand. The Committee finally notes the Government’s indication that the Department of Employment has a mechanism to monitor and provide advice to the recruitment agencies to ensure their compliance with the Employment Arrangement and Jobseeker Protection Act, B.E. 2528 (1985) and its amendments, as well as relevant ministerial regulations. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on such mechanism and to indicate whether any ministerial regulation has been adopted pursuant to section 8(2) of the Employment Arrangement and Jobseeker Protection Act. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to explain how it gives full effect to Article 22(2) and (3)(c) of the Convention with regard to private services that provide recruitment and placement services for migrant workers and to provide a copy of the abovementioned MoU between Thailand and Myanmar, Lao PDR, Cambodia, and Vietnam.

Article 22(3)(a) and (b). Recruitment and placement. Prevention or deterrence of fishers and fees or other charges. The Committee notes that both section 26 of the Employment Arrangement and Jobseeker Protection Act, B.E. 2528 (1985) and section 42 of the Foreigners’ Working Management Emergency Decree B.E. 2560 (2017) states that a domestic employment arrangement licensee and the person granted permission for bringing foreigners for working, respectively, are prohibited from demanding or receiving any money or property from a jobseeker other than service charges and expenses. In this regard, the Committee notes that, in its observations, the ITF indicates that fishers are at high risk of debt bondage due to unlawful migration and high broker or document fees. In this regard, the Committee recalls that Article 22(3)(b) provides that each Member shall, by means of laws, regulations or other measures require that no fees or other charges for recruitment or placement of fishers be borne directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by the fishers. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that: 1) no fees or other charges for recruitment or placement are borne directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by the fishers concerned; and 2) recruitment and placement services, whether public or private, are prohibited from using means, mechanisms or lists intended to prevent or deter fishers from engaging for work.

Article 23. Payment of fishers. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 10(1) of the Ministerial Regulation on the Protection of Labour in Sea Fisheries, B.E. 2557 (2014), which states that whereas wage is calculated on a monthly, daily or hourly basis, or on the basis of other time periods not exceeding one month, wage shall be paid not less often than once a month unless otherwise agreed in favour of an employee. Moreover, section 10(2) states that shared profits in which an employer has agreed to pay according to the value of the aquatic animals being caught shall be paid according to a mutually agreed payment schedule, but the payment frequency shall not be less frequent than once every three months. In addition, the Committee notes that, in its observations, the ITF indicates that many fishers report receiving wages significantly lower than the amount stated in their work agreement, and that fishers members of the FRN regularly report that fishers are not paid for months. In this regard, the Government replied that some fishers choose to have employers buy goods and supplies for them, which is deducted from their wages, causing some to have the impression that they have not received their wages in full. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on the observations made by ITF with respect to fishers not being paid for months.

Article 24. Payment of fishers. Transmission of wages to families. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the Ministerial Regulation on the Protection of Labour in Sea Fisheries (No. 2), B.E. 2561 (2018), which states that the employer shall pay the wages and holidays to the employee through bank transfer, and the expenses of such transfer shall be borne by the employer. The Committee notes, however, that the Por Mor 1 provided for in the Notification of the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare Regarding Employment Contract for Employees in Fishing Work B.E. 2560 (2017) has a standard sentence which indicates that the employer agrees to pay wages through bank account transfer for a transaction fee. In this regard, the Committee notes that, in its observations, the ITF indicates that, in most cases, wages are paid in cash rather than monthly bank transfer as required by Thai law. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that the Ministerial Regulation on the Protection of Labour in Sea Fisheries, B.E. 2557 (2014) is in the process of being amended in order to ensure “the transfer of wage and holiday pay to family members of the employee, upon the employee’s request, with the employer bearing the transaction cost”. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress achieved in this regard and to provide a copy of the amended text once it is adopted.

Articles 26–28. Accommodation and Food. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the provisions on accommodation, food and water supply provided for in the Ministerial Regulation on the Protection of Labour in Sea Fisheries, B.E. 2557 (2014), in the Ministerial Regulation on Occupational Safety, Health, and Welfare System of Crews in Fisheries B.E. 2559 (2016), which applies partially to fishing vessels of 30 gross tonnage or more and partially to fishing vessels of 60 gross tonnage or more, and in the Rule of the Marine Department on Criteria, Procedures and Conditions relating to Accommodation Standards on Fishing Vessels B.E. 2563 (2020), which applies to new fishing vessels or extensively modified fishing vessels with a deck of 300 gross tonnage or more. Noting that the provisions indicated by the Government have their application limited by the gross tonnage of the fishing vessel and do not give full effect to Articles 26 to 28 and to the detailed provisions of Annex III, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to ensure conformity with the various aspects of fishing vessel accommodation mentioned in these provisions of the Convention. Recalling that the food and water shall be provided by the fishing vessel owner at no cost to the fisher unless an applicable collective agreement governing a share system or the fisher’s work agreement provides otherwise (article 27(c)), the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to give effect to this requirement of the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee notes that, in its observations, the ITF indicates that fishers regularly report cramped sleeping quarters and lack of toilet on board fishing vessels, as well as inadequate food and clean drinking water on board. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s reply indicating that fishing vessels in Thailand are old and have limited space, despite the Government’s efforts to encourage vessel owners to renovate their fleet in order to improve living and working conditions on board. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed information on any measures adopted or envisaged in this regard.

Articles 29 and 30. Medical care. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the provisions on medical care provided for in the Ministerial Regulation on Occupational Safety, Health and Welfare System of Crews in Fisheries B.E. 2559 (2016), which contains relevant provisions for fishing vessels of 30 gross tonnage or more, and in the Ministerial Regulation concerning Labour Protection in Sea Fishery Work B.E.2557 (2014). The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that, according to the Rule on Vessel inspection, Procedure and Condition of Certificate of Inspection of Fishing Vessel, B.E. 2558 (2015), which applies to vessels operated by machine, fishing vessels with more than 10 gross tonnage shall be equipped with a radio transceiver. In this regard, the Committee notes that the ITF indicates, in its observations, that fishers regularly report poorly stocked and inaccessible first-aid kits. Noting that the provisions indicated by the Government have their application limited by the gross tonnage of the fishing vessel and do not give full effect to Articles 29 and 30, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how it ensures conformity with each of the requirements regarding medical care foreseen in these Articles, particularly in relation to Article 29(c) and 30(b), (c), (d), and (e). The Committee also requests the Government to clarify whether the radio transceiver foreseen in the Rule on Vessel inspection, Procedure and Condition of Certificate of Inspection of Fishing Vessel, B.E. 2558 (2015) ensures communication with persons or services ashore that can provide medical advice, taking into account the area of operation and the length of the voyage.

Articles 31 and 32. Occupational safety and health and accident prevention. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the provisions on occupational safety and health and accident prevention provided in the Ministerial Regulation on the Protection of Labour in Sea Fisheries, B.E. 2557 (2014), Ministerial Regulation on Occupational Safety, Health and Welfare System of Crews in Fisheries B.E. 2559 (2016) and Guidelines for Occupational Safety in Fishing Work by the Bureau of Labour Safety, Department of Labour Protection and Welfare, Ministry of Labour (a copy of which was not provided). The Committee notes, however, that the provisions indicated by the Government do not give full effect to Articles 31 and 32, particularly to Article 31(c), (d), and (e), Article 32(2)(a), and Article 32(3)(b). The Committee also notes that the ITF indicates in its observations that health and safety conditions on board vessels are substandard, and fishers regularly report insufficient protective equipment and poor training. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how it ensures conformity with each of the requirements regarding occupational safety and health and accident prevention foreseen in Articles 31 and 32, providing a copy of any national law, regulation, guideline, or other measure adopted in this regard.

Article 33. Occupational safety and health and accident prevention. Risk evaluation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, during vessel inspections, the PIPO Controlling Centres conduct the Risk Assessment for Inspection System developed by the Department of Fisheries, which takes into account the information from its database on fishing vessels and fishers. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that risk evaluation in relation to fishing is conducted, as appropriate, with the participation of fishers or their representatives, as provided for in Article 33.

Articles 34 and 35. Social security. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 2 of the Notification of the Ministry of Labour Regarding Provision of Health and Welfare Benefits in Fishing Works B.E. 2562 (2019), which states that employers shall provide: (1) non-work-related health protection; (2) compensation for non-work-related sickness or accident; (3) compensation for non-work-related disability; and (4) compensation for non-work-related death. The Committee notes that, in the case where a fisher is sick or injured from a non-work related reason and is not protected under the law on national health security, vessel owners shall provide the health protection in accordance with the Notification of the Ministry of Public Health on health examination and health insurance of migrant workers (section 3). The Government also indicates that, according to sections 7 and 8 of such Notification, employers may choose to provide health and welfare protection (1) by themselves, (2) by purchasing private insurance for fishers (except in case of non-work-related health protection), or (3) by joining the social security scheme. Likewise, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that in the case where fishers are insured under section 33 of the Social Security Act B.E. 2533 (1990), they shall receive the same benefits as the other insured persons, that is: (1) danger or sickness benefit; (2) parturition benefit; (3) infirmity benefit; (4) death benefit; (5) child allowance benefit; (6) old age benefits; and (7) unemployment benefit (section 54). The Committee recalls that Article 34 of the Convention provides that each Member shall ensure that fishers ordinarily resident in its territory, and their dependants to the extent provided in national law, are entitled to benefit from social security protection under conditions no less favourable than those applicable to other workers, including employed and self-employed persons, ordinarily resident in its territory. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the number and the categories of fishers (i.e., artisanal fishers, migrant fishers, etc.) that are insured under section 33 of the Social Security Act B.E. 2533 (1990). The Committee requests the Government to describe in detail the social security benefits granted to fishers, including fishers working on foreign-flagged vessels ordinarily resident in Thailand. In addition, the Committee asks the Government to provide a copy of the Notification of the Ministry of Public Health on Health Examination and Health Insurance of Migrant Workers referred to in section 3 of the Notification of the Ministry of Labour Regarding Provision of Health and Welfare Benefits in Fishing Works B.E. 2562 (2019).

Article 36. Social security. Cooperation. Bilateral and multilateral agreements. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to a study on the development of a bilateral or multilateral Social Security Agreement to promote the portability of social security rights and benefits between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations as well as to the Siem Reap Roadmap Toward Labour Ministerial Declaration on the Portability of Social Security Schemes for Migrant Workers in the CLMTV Countries (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam). The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any development in this respect.

Articles 38 and 39. Protection in the case of work-related sickness, injury or death. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the Workmen’s Compensation Act B.E. 2537 (1994) and its amendments, which provides protection in case of work-related injury, illness, disability and death and establishes the “Workmen’s Compensation Fund”. The Committee takes note of sections 13 to 25 of such Act, which provide for medical care and monthly compensation in the event of injury or sickness and funeral expenses in case of death. The Committee notes that section 22 states that the employer shall not pay compensation when the injury or sickness: (1) occurred due to the employee’s loss of control because of the ingestion of alcoholic beverages or addiction and (2) was caused willingly by the employee himself or by someone else with his authorization. In this respect, the Committee recalls that Article 39(2) of the Convention provides that national laws or regulations may permit the exclusion of the liability of the fishing vessel owner only if the injury occurred otherwise than in the service of the vessel or the sickness or infirmity was concealed during engagement, or the injury or sickness was due to wilful misconduct of the fisher. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure that the exclusion of the liability of the fishing vessel owner in relation to health protection and medical care are only permitted in the cases foreseen in Article 39(2). The Committee also requests the Government to clarify whether the Workmen's Compensation Act B.E. 2537 (1994) applies to fishers (including migrant fishers), indicating exceptions, if any. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on any obstacles that may prevent fishers from being provided with health protection and medical care while employed or engaged or working on a vessel at sea or in a foreign port, and with coverage of expenses of medical care, including related material assistance and support, during medical treatment in a foreign country, until they have been repatriated.

Articles 40 and 41. Compliance and enforcement. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the Labour Protection in Fishing Work Act, B.E. 2562 (2019) in relation to inspections and corrective orders (section 16) as well as reports on work in fishing results (section 6). In addition, the Committee notes that, in its observations, the ITF indicates that the effective implementation and enforcement of the Convention remain a major challenge, particularly in relation to migrant fishers, such as Burmese and Khmer fishers. The ITF indicates that PIPO inspections are superficial and are not carried out thoroughly enough to identify, report and correct violations. In this sense, it indicates that, according to a Thai government report, the PIPO inspected 55,818 fishing vessels in 2020 and 44,322 in 2019, identifying 19 and 20 vessels in violation of labour laws, respectively. At-sea inspections of 842 vessels were carried out in 2020, and one case of labour violation was detected. The ITF affirms that it is unclear to which officer or agency fishers should report violations and that most fishers in the FRN are intimidated by the inspectors and do not trust the inspection process, which often discourages and prevents fishers from effectively reporting violations. It affirms that fishers are not interviewed privately and away from the captain or vessel owner and that there is no interpretation in the fishers’ language during the inspection. The ITF further alleges that PIPO officers are reassigned frequently, which makes it difficult for officers to establish relationships with local fishers, trade unions and civil society organizations with a view to effectively investigating complaints, as well as sharing and updating information. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s reply indicating that PIPO inspections are conducted with the presence of an interpreter and by a multidisciplinary team, which receives complaints and transmits them to the responsible agency for in-depth investigation, enforcement and remedy. The Government also replied that it is willing to work with the FRN and the ITF in case of evidence of violation of fishers’ rights. The Committee requests the Government to provide further details on the system established for ensuring compliance with the requirements concerning complaint procedures and appropriate penalties. The Committee further requests the Government to provide an example of a valid document issued by the competent authority stating that the vessel has been inspected by the competent authority, or on its behalf, for compliance with the provisions of the Convention concerning living and working conditions.

Article 43. Compliance and enforcement. Complaints. The Committee notes that, in its reply to the ITF’s observations, the Government indicates that all fishers regardless of their nationality can file a complaint through a hotline, social network platform, civil society organizations, as well as complaint boxes installed at jetties and PIPO Centres. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to provide details of the existing arrangements for investigating complaints submitted by a fisher, a professional body, an association, a trade union, or, generally, any person with an interest in the safety of the vessel, including an interest in safety or health hazards to the fishers on board, and ensuring that action is taken to remedy any deficiencies found. The Committee further asks the Government to provide information on the number of investigations carried following such complaints and on the measures taken as a result. In addition, the Committee asks the Government to describe any port State control measures taken in pursuance of Article 43 and to give information on the implementation of these measures (e.g. number and nature of cases considered and nature of any action taken).

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2024.]

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which answers the points raised in its previous direct request and has no further matters to raise in this regard.

Article 1 of the Convention. Equality of treatment in case of employment accident. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure access to benefits from the Workmen’s Compensation Fund for foreign workers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Workmen’s Compensation Fund directly provides benefits to undocumented workers regardless of their nationality and legal status should they suffer employment injury and their employers are obligated to pay contributions. The Committee further notes the measures indicated by the Government to address the situation of undocumented migrant workers, including measures to facilitate the procedure of obtaining the relevant identity and working documents and informing by employers on the status of employment of migrant workers. The Committee further notes with satisfaction the adoption of the Workmen’s Compensation Act No. 2 on 9 December 2018 (WCA 2018) and the Notification of the Ministry of Labour on 20 March 2019, which require the registration of employees engaged in the agriculture, fishery, forestry and livestock sectors within the Workmen’s Compensation Fund. The Government points out that the expansion of coverage of the WCA 2018 has resulted in a significant increase in the number of employees covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Scheme.

The Committee notes the observations of the International Transport Worker’s Federation (ITF) received on 4 September 2019.

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. I. Vulnerability of migrant workers in the fishing sector to the exaction of forced labour and trafficking. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, at its 329th Session (March 2017), the Governing Body approved the report of the tripartite committee that was set up to examine the representation made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) alleging non-observance of the Convention by Thailand.

The Committee noted that the representation raised two major sets of allegations with regard to compliance with the Convention, namely (i) the situation of workers on board Thai fishing vessels, particularly migrant workers, who were allegedly exposed to forced labour and trafficking; and (ii) the responsibility of the State to ensure that the prohibition of forced labour was strictly enforced by effective and adequate penal sanctions. The Committee also noted that the tripartite committee examined allegations raised by the ITUC and the Government’s explanations on the measures taken to combat forced labour and trafficking in the fishing sector, particularly with regard to: (a) recruitment practices; and (b) employment practices.

(a) Recruitment practices

The Committee noted that the tripartite committee examined several issues related to: (i) brokers and recruitment fees; (ii) the issue of contract substitution; and (iii) the issue of corruption and trafficking in persons.

(i) Brokers and recruitment fees. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the provisions under the Royal Ordinance on the Management of Foreign Workers Employment B.E. 2560 (23 July 2017) (Royal Ordinance B.E. 2560) which provided for harsher penalties for offenders and stated clearer responsibilities of employers and licensed recruitment agencies. The Committee also noted the observations made by the ITUC in January 2016 that some migrant and Thai workers in certain fishing vessels had paid recruitment fees of up to US$742 to brokers. In addition, they had reported not receiving any information regarding working conditions, payment of wages or the length of time at sea prior to getting on board the vessels. The payment system consisted of salary advances sent home in undocumented transfers via brokers and lump sums promised to workers after completing their work at sea. In this regard, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that it had prohibited the imposition of recruitment fees on migrant workers, except for certain costs such as the cost of preparing documents and transportation expenses. The Committee requested the Government to continue to strengthen its efforts to ensure that migrant workers in the fishing sector are not exposed to practices that would increase their vulnerability to forced labour, in particular in matters related to the payment of recruitment fees and the recruitment by illegal brokers.

The Committee notes from the observations made by the ITF that the interviews with the fisher members of the ITF’s Fishers Rights Network (FRN) over the past 12 months in Ranong, Songkhla and Trat provinces revealed that 89 per cent of fishers are in debt bondage of more than 10,000 Thai baht (THB). The average debt bondage across the entire FRN network is THB21,000 which represents at least two months’ salary for most fishers.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the Foreigners’ Working Management Emergency Decree (No. 2) B.E. 2561 (2018) (FWME Decree), which repealed certain provisions of the Royal Ordinance B.E. 2560, stipulates that an employer who brings a foreigner to work with him/her in the country shall not request or accept money or other assets from such workers, except for the expenses paid by the employer beforehand for passport fees, health check-up fees, work permits or other similar expenses as prescribed in a notification by the Director-General of the Department of Employment (section 24). Any employer who violates this provision shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months and a fine of twice the amount or asset value requested, received or accepted by the employer in this regard (section 53). The Committee further notes the Government’s information on the steps taken to integrate various government agencies such as the Department of Employment, the Royal Thai Police, Security agencies and administrative officials in respective areas for effectively enforcing this law. Moreover, the Ministry of Labour has integrated cooperation with the navy, the army, the Department of Immigration and other local security agencies to intercept smuggling of migrant workers into the country as well as to conduct operations against recruitment companies and illegal brokers. Accordingly, the Committee notes that in 2018: (i) the Department of Employment inspected 364 migrant workers recruitment agencies and brokers, identified and prosecuted 452 illegal brokers; (ii) the Royal Thai Navy conducted 10,563 patrols along the Thai territorial water border zones, identified 351 irregular migrants and arrested nine illegal brokers; (iii) the Royal Thai Army conducted 99,982 patrols along the territorial border and identified 24,664 irregular migrants; and (iv) the Department of Immigration intercepted and denied entry to 6,800 illegal migrants. The overall operations resulted in the deportation of 28,178 smuggled migrant workers. Noting the alarmingly high level of debt bondage among fisher members in the FRN network, the Committee urges the Government to continue to strengthen its efforts to ensure that migrant workers in the fishing sector are not exposed to practices that would increase their vulnerability to forced labour or debt bondage, in particular in matters related to the payment of recruitment fees and the recruitment by illegal brokers; and to report in detail on results in this respect. It also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of section 53 of FWME Decree of 2018, indicating the number and nature of violations detected and the penalties imposed for cases of violations.

(ii) Contract substitution. The Committee previously noted that the tripartite committee observed the persistence of the practice of contract substitution of migrant workers. It noted that according to sections 14/1 and 17 of the Labour Protection Act of 1998 and section 6 of the Ministerial Regulation Concerning Labour Protection in Sea Fishery Work of 2014, a formal contract should be signed between the employer and the worker and a copy should be kept with the worker. Moreover, under the Fishery Law of 2017 an identification document (known as a Seabook) has to be issued by the owner of a fishing vessel to any migrant worker in the fisheries sector while signing a standard contract of the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare (DLPW) with that worker. The employment of a worker on a fishing vessel without an identification document, or without a licence shall be subject to a fine of THB400,000 (US$12,000). The Committee requested the Government to continue to strengthen its efforts to ensure that, in practice, labour contract substitution is effectively prohibited and that the competent authorities register and verify that the signed contract corresponded to the original offer of employment consented to by the worker.

The Committee notes from the observations made by the ITF that 78 per cent of the fishers interviewed by the FRN indicated that they do not have a copy of their employment contract in their possession while some others have never seen it. Some of them have it in Thai language, which is not their language and therefore are unable to understand their pay scale and other mandatory protections available for them.

The Committee notes that according to section 23 of the FWME Decree of 2018, an employer employing a foreigner shall prepare a written contract containing all the details as prescribed by the Director-General and keep it at the business place of the employer for inspection by the competent officials. The Committee further notes the information provided by the Government on the number of Seabook documents that have been issued for migrants under the Fisheries Act, 2017. Accordingly, from October 2017 to June 2019, 14,722 Seabooks were issued and between 30 September to 15 November 2017, 13,455 migrants who did not have a work permit were provided with special Seabooks. The Committee requests the Government to continue to strengthen its efforts to ensure that section 23 of the FWME Decree is implemented and that labour contract substitution is effectively prohibited, in practice. In this regard, it encourages the Government to ensure that the competent authorities register and verify that the signed contract corresponds to the original offer of employment consented to by the worker. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the migrant workers are provided with a copy of their employment contract in their own language.

(iii) Corrupt and complicit officials. The Committee previously noted that the tripartite committee considered that corruption of government officials could create an environment of impunity that exacerbates the situation of vulnerability of migrant fishers and constitutes a major obstacle in the identification of victims of forced labour and trafficked victims. It also noted the observations of the ITUC in 2016, that often, police officers or high-ranking government officials threaten witnesses, interpreters or other police officers. The Committee requested the Government to continue to take proactive measures to ensure that government officials complicit with human traffickers are prosecuted and that sufficiently effective and dissuasive penalties are imposed in practice for violation of the legislation.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the number of government officials involved or colluding with the offences related to trafficking in persons have decreased due to the intensive legal measures that have been taken against such officials. According to the Government’s report, from 2013 to 2016, an average of 44 officials per year were prosecuted and disciplinary actions, including asset seizure/asset freezes, were carried out for their involvement in criminal cases. In 2017, the number had been reduced to 11 officials and in 2018, two officials were prosecuted. The Committee requests the Government to continue to take proactive measures to ensure that government officials complicit with human traffickers are prosecuted and that sufficiently effective and dissuasive penalties are imposed in practice for violation of the legislation. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken in this regard, including data on the number of government officials who have been prosecuted and convicted for their involvement in the offences related to trafficking of persons.

(b) Employment practices

(i) Confiscation of seafarers’ identity documents (SIDs). In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the tripartite committee highlighted that the confiscation of SIDs is a serious problem in the Thai fishing industry. The Committee noted that according to section 68 of the Royal Ordinance B.E. 2560 of 2017, the work permit should always be kept with the migrant worker during his/her work while the confiscation of IDs shall be punishable under section 131 of the Royal Ordinance. The Committee requested the Government to strengthen its efforts to ensure the effective implementation of the Royal Ordinance B.E. 2560 of 2017.

The Committee notes the observations made by the ITF that only 13 per cent of the fishers interviewed had their IDs in their possession while most workers stated that the owner or captain retained possession of their IDs and denied the fishers free access to their documents. When fishers want to change boats, the vessel owner has to sign a release before fishers can legally change the employer. The owner can demand tens of thousands of baht from the fishers for their “document fees” before they release the document or can demand that the new vessel owner “purchase” the debt from the previous owner thereby continuing a severe system of debt bondage or forced labour.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Foreigners’ Working Management Emergency Decree (No. 2) B.E. 2561 (2018) (FWME Decree), which repeals many of the provisions of the Royal Ordinance of 2017, addresses the problems arising from the work permit applications and difficulties in changing an employer with the implementation of a comprehensive system for prevention, protection, remedies and enforcement in line with the policy of hiring migrant workers. According to section 62 of the FWME Decree which repeals section 131 of the Royal Ordinance, any person who confiscates a work permit or identification card of a foreign worker shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine up to THB100,000 or both. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that the provisions of the FWME Decree have been disseminated to employers for them to understand that work permits or other documents of the migrant workers shall be deposited with the employer upon consent of the worker and that employers should provide timely access to such documents at any time upon the request of the worker. Recalling that the practice of confiscation of work permits or SIDs is a serious problem that may increase migrant fisher workers’ vulnerability to abuse, by leaving them undocumented, reducing their freedom of movement and preventing them from leaving an employment relationship, the Committee urges the Government to strengthen its efforts to ensure that the FWME Decree of 2018 is effectively implemented, and that sufficiently dissuasive penalties for confiscation of work permits or SIDs are imposed on employers who are in breach of the legislation.

(ii) Withholding of wages. The Committee previously noted that the tripartite committee encouraged the Government to continue to strengthen its efforts to address the non-payment of wages, and ensure the effective application of the Ministerial Regulation concerning Labour Protection in Sea Fishery Work B.E. 2557 (2014). It noted the ITUC’s assertions in its observations that withholding of wages continued to be a common practice in Thailand, and that weak labour law enforcement and access to justice has led to the lack of guarantee of the payment of wages. The Committee noted that section 8 of the 2014 Ministerial Regulation B.E. 2557 requires an employer to prepare a salary statement including paid leave in the Thai language and that section 11 prohibits the employer from withholding wages. If an employer intentionally refrains from the payment of the salary seven days beyond the agreed initial date of payment, he/she is required to pay an additional amount of 15 per cent of the amount withheld. The Committee requested the Government to ensure that the 2014 Ministerial Regulation B.E. 2557 is effectively implemented, so that all wages were paid on time and in full, and that deterrent penalties for non-payment of wages were imposed.

The Committee notes from the ITF’s observations that 82 per cent of the fishers surveyed indicated that they are not paid monthly. While 95 per cent of the fishers know that a bank account has been created along with an ATM card attached to that account, only 3 per cent indicated as having control and possession of their bank account and ATM card. In the majority of cases, the captains or owners control access to the bank account or ATM card and create fictitious electronic payment records showing compliance with minimum wage standards when in reality they are paying much less.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Port-In–Port-Out Control Centre (PIPO), which is a law enforcement mechanism to control and supervise whether the employees receive their benefits, conduct three levels of inspection on fishing vessels, fishing gears, and workers. Before and after a fishing vessel departs or arrives a port, the vessel must be inspected by a labour inspector in the PIPO to check the payslips and to ensure that the workers have received their wages and benefits as prescribed. The Committee further notes the information provided by the Government on the results of labour inspections conducted by the PIPO. However, the Committee notes with concern that there is no specific information on the number of cases that relate to wages. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the provisions of the Ministerial Regulation B.E. 2557 are effectively implemented, so that all wages are paid on time and in full, and employers face appropriate sanctions for the non-payment of wages. It also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the monitoring activities of the PIPO, including the number of violations detected relating to the non-payment or withholding of wages and the penalties applied.

(iii) Physical abuse. The Committee previously noted that the tripartite committee emphasized the vulnerable situation of fisher workers who may face physical violence that could in certain cases amount to murder. The Committee noted that in its observations, the ITUC provided several examples of fisher workers who had been physically abused or suffered from health complications or even killed. Survivors reported that they were deprived of food for several days, and had to work for up to three days without a break. In this regard, the Committee noted the Government’s explanation that the amendment of 2015 (B.E. 2558) of the Anti Trafficking Act increased the penalty to 20 years’ imprisonment if the offence of trafficking causes the victim(s) serious injuries, and life imprisonment or death penalty if the offence causes the victim(s) death. The amendment of 2017 (B.E. 2560) of the Anti-Trafficking Act provides for more explicit provisions, including: (i) the revision of the definition of “exploitation” to cover slavery; and (ii) the revision of the definition of “forced labour or forced service” to cover confiscation of IDs and debt bondage. The Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Anti-Trafficking Act, as amended, was effectively implemented.

The Committee notes that Emergency Decree B.E. 2562 (2019), amending the Anti-Human Trafficking Act (B.E. 2551), includes offences related to forced labour or services. According to section 5 of the Decree, any person who compels another person to work or provide services by means of threatening to cause injury to the life, body, liberty, reputation or property of the person threatened; intimidating; using force; confiscating identification documents; using debt burden incurred by such person; or by using any other similar means shall be liable to imprisonment for a maximum term of four years or to a fine up to THB400,000 or to both. If the above offence results in the victim being seriously injured or having a fatal disease, such person shall be liable to imprisonment for a maximum term of twenty years and a fine or to life imprisonment and in case of victim’s death shall be liable to life imprisonment or the death penalty.

The Committee also notes the Government’s information on the measures taken for the effective enforcement of the Anti-Human Trafficking Act, including the various training activities provided for inquiry officials, administrative staff and labour inspectors on victim identification. Moreover, a workshop to consult the multidisciplinary teams and law enforcement bodies on victim identification was hosted in Bangkok with the participation of officials from the Chief Inquiry Office, the Department of Special investigations and the Department of Local administration. Recalling the particular nature of the work of fisher workers, due in part to their isolated situation at sea, the Committee once again underlines the importance of taking effective measures to ensure that this category of workers is not placed in a situation of increased vulnerability, especially when they are subjected to physical violence. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the provisions of the Emergency Decree B.E. 2562 (2019) are effectively implemented, and regularly monitored by the law enforcement bodies, to investigate cases of physical abuse. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the appropriate sanctions are imposed on employers who are in breach of the legislation.

II. Law enforcement and access to justice. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the tripartite committee highlighted the importance of: (a) strengthening the labour inspectorate body; and (b) providing access to justice and protection to the victims in order to enable the strict enforcement of the provisions prohibiting forced labour.

(a) Labour inspection and the application of penal sanctions

The Committee previously noted that the tripartite committee found that the Government had established multidisciplinary inspection teams on fishing vessels that had the mandate to interview workers with a view to preventing them from becoming victims of debt bondage and human trafficking in the fisheries sector. It noted that in addition to the development of the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), the Command Centre for Combating Illegal Fishing (CCCIF) had established the Electronics Monitoring Messaging and Electronics Reporting System (EM and ERS) which would enhance the capability to control illegal trans-shipment at seas, and help in detecting cases of trafficking in persons. The Committee also noted that according to Order No. 22/2017 on the implementation to combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing (IUU), any authorized official who detects unlawful practices under fishery laws, shall have the right to detain the vessel and report it to the Marine Department within 24 hours. It further noted the various trainings provided for labour inspectors and the employment of language coordinators in Department of Labour Protection and Welfare (DLPW) provincial offices, PIPO centres and Migrant Workers Assistance Centres to facilitate communication between migrant workers and government officials. The Committee encouraged the Government to continue to take measures to strengthen the capacity of the labour inspectors in detecting forced labour practices and trafficking of persons.

The Committee notes the observations made by the ITF that the PIPO’s use of the vessel monitoring system as a replacement for physical inspections will increase the risk of labour rights violations going unnoticed under the guise of statistics that falsely indicate compliance. The information from the electronic system could be used to conclude that there are no problems on vessels without ever inspecting a vessel or interviewing the crew. An electronic monitoring system may assist in combating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, but cannot be viewed as a replacement to physical inspections and human intelligence gathered through hands on inspection.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that the DLPW has increased the number of labour inspectors from 1,245 in 2016 to 1,900 in 2018. With regard to the measures taken to enhance the capacity of law enforcement officials in identifying victims of trafficking, the Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government on the training and capacity-building activities carried out from 2016–18 for labour inspectors and other law enforcement officials. According to the Government’s information: (i) training was provided to 185 officials from the Ministry of Labour, Navy and Marine Police within the framework of the ILO Ship to Shore rights project, to increase their inspection skills, particularly in sea fishery and related businesses; (ii) training was provided to more than 250 labour inspectors and officials under the “Enhance Law Enforcement Efficiency for Qualitative Labour Inspectors Training Project” to prevent and deal with issues related to the use of forced labour, debt bondage, trafficking of persons and child labour; (iii) training activities was provided for 52 law enforcement officers to address illegal unreported and unregulated fishing problems; (iv) training activities on forced labour and debt bondage were provided for 101 labour inspectors; and (v) capacity-building activities were provided for 140 participants from the multidisciplinary teams to handle cases of trafficking in persons.

Moreover, the Committee notes the Government’s information that it has improved the methods of inspecting sea fishery workers, particularly to identify cases of forced labour and trafficking in persons and that the inspection ensures that workers have an employment contract as specified and receive benefits mentioned in the employment contract. The Government indicates that during 2018–19, owners of two fishing vessels were prosecuted and fined following a preliminary interview with workers in a secluded zone in the absence of the employer and through an interpreter. In 2018, the multidisciplinary team and interpreters interviewed 78,623 vessels in 22 coastal provinces and identified 511 violations relating to rest time, incorrect employment contracts, payslips and documents. Of these, 507 cases have been prosecuted, of which 482 litigations have been finalized.

The Committee further notes the information provided by the Government on the results of the labour inspections at the PIPO centres. Accordingly, in 2018, 74,792 fishing vessels were inspected, 509 offences were detected, 482 orders were issued, owners of 24 vessels were fined, and three cases were prosecuted. It further notes the Government’s indication that in 2018, 304 offenders of trafficking in persons were prosecuted, including 258 cases for sexual exploitation, 29 cases for employment-related issues, eight cases for the purpose of begging, and six cases related to the use of forced labour in the fishery sector. The Committee requests the Government to continue its efforts to strengthen the capacity of the labour inspectors in detecting forced labour practices and trafficking in persons in the fishery sector. It also requests the Government to continue to provide statistical information on the number and nature of violations related to forced labour or trafficking concerning migrant fisher workers that have been registered by the labour inspectors, as well as by the PIPO centres and penalties imposed. The Committee also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the vessels are monitored through physical inspections by labour inspectors and the PIPO centres and that the inspection results are disaggregated by offences.

(b) Access to justice and assistance to victims

The Committee previously noted the tripartite committee’s observation that, while the legislation provided for the establishment of different complaints mechanisms, there existed some obstacles to their effective use by workers, such as the duration of the complaints procedure, language barriers and the lack of information on preventive measures with regard to re-trafficking. The Committee noted the Government’s statement that there existed special assistance centres for migrant workers and that a number of centres, such as the Fishing Worker Coordinator Centres and the Fisherman’s Life Enhancement Centre (FLEC) had been established for migrant fishing workers. In addition, the Committee noted the establishment of 24-hour assistance channels that are accessible to migrant workers in their own languages, as well as the Complaint System for Foreign Workers which operates through the Internet. The Committee further noted the signing of Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) to tackle trafficking in persons with source countries, such as Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar and Viet Nam and an agreement with the Government of Myanmar on the implementation procedure for the repatriation and reintegration of victims under the concept of safe repatriation, safe receiving and no re-trafficking. The Committee encouraged the Government to continue to take measures to ensure improved protection and assistance to migrant fisher workers so as to prevent them from falling into situations of forced labour or trafficking in persons.

The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government on the establishment of various service centres which provide assistance to migrant workers, including:

-four Migrant Workers Assistance Centres aimed at upgrading the quality of life of fishery workers and providing assistance, knowledge on welfare and benefits and receiving grievances from workers;
-Fisherman Centre established by the DLPW and the Labour Rights Promotion Network Foundation which provides assistance to foreign fishers who are victims of forced labour and other abuses;
-Migrant Workers Protection and Monitoring Network under the Ministry of Labour’s LINE Application which sets up chat groups that assist migrant workers to reclaim wages and compensation and to advice workers on their rights under relevant provisions (currently there are 29 chat groups gathering 1,431 members);
-PROTECT-U, a mobile application that receive reports of trafficking in persons and refers to the relevant government agencies of other service providers;
-Joint Service Centres for Migrant Workers established in ten provinces and covering workers in 24 industrial sectors which provide advice on work-related benefits, changing employers and coordination and referral for assistance or access to their rights (from October 2018 to June 2019, the centres provided services to 31,934 migrant workers);
-“DOE Help me”, a grievance mechanism through the website supporting six languages which provides employment and job-seeking information and receives complaints from Thai and migrant workers (from October 2018 to May 2019, the website recorded 213 grievances from workers and all the complaints received assistance); and
-Hotline 1506 to receive complaints and grievances from migrant workers which has three interpreters.

Moreover, the DLPW has employed language coordinators and interpreters for the effective protection and assistance of migrant workers and to prevent them from becoming victims of forced labour or trafficking of persons. The number of interpreters has increased from 72 in 2016 to 153 in 2018. The Committee encourages the Government to continue to take measures to ensure improved protection and assistance to migrant fisher workers, so that they do not fall victims to forced labour or trafficking in persons. The Committee also requests the Government to provide statistical information on the number of migrant fisher workers who have had recourse to legal and other assistance from the above-mentioned assistance centres and other online grievance mechanisms.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request directly addressed to the Government.

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. 1. Law enforcement and penalties. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the amendments made to the Anti-Trafficking Act No. 2 B.E. 2558 of 2015 with regard to the increase in the penalties for the offences related to trafficking in persons. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the number of cases of trafficking for both sexual and labour exploitation detected and investigated by the competent authorities as well as the penalties applied.

The Committee notes the statistical information provided by the Government in its report on the prosecutions carried out for the offences related to trafficking of persons. According to this data, in 2017, 302 cases were prosecuted, of which 255 cases concerned trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation, 26 for begging, 14 for labour exploitation and seven for labour exploitation in the fishery industry. In 2018, 304 cases were prosecuted, including 258 cases for commercial sexual exploitation, 29 cases for labour exploitation, eight cases for begging and six cases for labour exploitation in the fishery sector. Moreover, in 2018, the Anti Human Trafficking Division of the Office of the Attorney General received 357 cases with prosecution orders, including 286 cases of sexual exploitation, 57 cases of forced labour or services and 14 cases of begging. In 2019, prison sentences ranging from one year to over ten years were handed down to 236 offenders. The Government indicates that the offenders sentenced to imprisonment for ten years and above increased by 17.79 per cent in comparison to 2017. The Committee encourages the Government to continue to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Anti-Trafficking Act, as amended, is effectively implemented and to continue to provide information on the number of cases of trafficking for both sexual and labour exploitation that have been detected and investigated by the competent authorities as well as the penalties applied.

2. Protection and reintegration of victims of trafficking in persons. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted the various measures taken by the Government on providing assistance to victims of trafficking and on the number of victims who benefited from such measures. The Committee requested the Government to continue to provide statistical data in this regard.

The Committee notes the Government’s information on the protection and assistance activities undertaken by the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security (MSDHS) for the victims of Trafficking. Accordingly, in 2018, 401 victims received protection in government shelters, an increase from 360 victims in 2017. Some of these victims were provided opportunities to earn income from employment inside shelters (290 victims) and from employment outside shelters (65 victims). Moreover, “Relationships building Camps” were conducted for victims of trafficking in government shelters to increase their community living skills. The MSDHS prepared victim statement impact reports for the court to determine the amount of compensation from offenders, and preventing victims from repeating the traumatic and psychological injuries suffered by them during the legal procedure. Moreover, subsidies were provided to victims of trafficking from the Anti-Trafficking Fund. According to the Government’s information in 2018, 6.15 million Thai baht (THB) was disbursed towards subsidies and remedies for victims of trafficking and in 2019, 116 injured persons received a total of THB77.56 million as damage compensation from offenders.

The Government further indicates that over 711 government officials and non-government officials received Victims Specialist Training to improve their knowledge and technical skills on victim protection and assistance. Interpreters were provided training and certification on protection and welfare of victims of trafficking by MSDHS. Currently, 251 interpreters are registered as qualified interpreters for victims of trafficking. In addition, a handbook on Trafficking in Persons’ Victims’ Rights which was translated into seven languages and a handbook for the repatriation and systematic reintegration into society of victims of trafficking was developed by the MSDHS. The Committee encourages the Government to pursue its efforts to ensure appropriate protection, assistance and reintegration measures to all victims of trafficking. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistical data on the number of victims identified, as well as those who have benefited from assistance.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. Political Parties Act. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to section 95(3) and section 120 of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550 (2007), a penalty of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) may be imposed for using the name, initials or emblem of a political party that has been dissolved by the Constitutional Court, for political activities or to receive any benefit. Pursuant to section 97 and section 120 of the Law, penalties of imprisonment may also be imposed on a person who was previously a member of the Executive Committee of the dissolved political party who, within a period of five years from the date of the dissolution, applies for the formation of a new political party, becomes a member of an Executive Committee of a political party, or promotes a new political party. Section 94 of the Law states that the Constitutional Court may issue an order to dissolve a political party if it has committed one of five acts, including “an act which may be harmful to the democratic regime of the Government with the King as Head of State under the Constitution” (section 94(3)) and “an act, either inside or outside the Kingdom, which may endanger the security of the State, or be contrary to the law, public order, or good morals” (section 94(4)). Recalling that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour (including compulsory prison labour) as a punishment for holding or expressing political views, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the above-mentioned provisions of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550 (2007) into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that an investigation was conducted in 2017 to assess the violations under the Organic Law on Political Parties. It was found that the Constitutional Court had ordered the dissolution of 16 political parties, but no violations under sections 95(3), 97 or 120 were found. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550 has been repealed and a new Law has been promulgated in October 2017 to enable individuals the freedom to form political parties through the democratic governance, with the King as Head of State. The Committee notes, however, that the Government does not provide any information on whether the penalties (involving compulsory prison labour) prescribed under sections 95(3), 97 and 120 of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550, have been repealed or replaced or still remain in force. The Committee once again recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour (including compulsory prison labour) as a punishment for holding or expressing political views and that the prohibition to express political views as a consequence of the prohibition of political parties or associations (subject to penalties involving compulsory labour) is incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention (see General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 307). The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the penalties prescribed for the violations of sections 95(3), 97 and 120 of the 2017 Organic Law on Political Parties include imprisonment involving compulsory labour.

Article 1(c) and (d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline and for participation in strikes. The Labour Relations Act and the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to sections 131–133 of the Labour Relations Act BE 2518 (1975) (LRA of 1975), penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employer or employee who violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18, 19, 22–24, and 35(4) of the Act. The Committee observed that such provisions were contrary to the provisions of the Convention in providing for sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. The Committee also noted that both the LRA and the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act BE 2543 (2000) (SELRA) contain provisions permitting the imposition of penalties of imprisonment for participation in strikes. Pursuant to the LRA, penalties of imprisonment may be imposed if: (i) the minister orders the strikers to return to work, being of the opinion that the strike may affect the national economy or cause hardship to the public or endanger national security or be contrary to public order (section 140 read in conjunction with section 35(2)); and (ii) the matter is awaiting the decision of the Labour Relations Committee, or a decision has been given by the minister or the Labour Relations Committee (pursuant to section 139 read in conjunction with section 34(5)). SELRA prohibits strikes in state enterprises (section 33), and a violation of this prohibition is punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to one year. This penalty is doubled in the case of a person who instigates this offence (section 77). The Committee noted the Government’s statement that sections 131–133 and sections 139 and 140 of the LRA, as well as sections 33 and 77 of SELRA were being repealed. The Government indicated that the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare, under the Ministry of Labour, was responsible for this task, and a draft amendment had been developed that did not contain penalties of imprisonment. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the draft revision of the LRA, repealing sections 131–133 and sections 139 and 140, and the draft revision of SELRA, repealing sections 33 and 37, would be adopted in the near future.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Working Group on Labour Relations Draft Legislation, a tripartite working group under the Department of Welfare and Labour Protection and the Ministry of Labour has proposed the following amendments to the LRA of 1975:

-exercising the right of employers to lock out and employees to go on strike under section 34 shall not be punishable as per section 139;
-the penalties laid down under section 140 shall be revised and no penalties shall be imposed for the offences laid down under section 35 (2).

With regard to sections 131 to 133 of the LRA, the tripartite working group pointed out that the provisions were intended to enforce compliance by employers of the terms of employment agreed upon with the employees and that the law does not intend to penalize employees. No employee has ever been prosecuted so far for violating this provision.

The Committee further notes that with regard to the provisions of SELRA, the Working Group proposed amendments to section 33, thereby cancelling the sanctions laid down for violations related to strikes. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the proposed amendments to sections 139 and 140 of the LRA of 1975 and section 33 of SELRA which cancel the penalties for the violations related to participation in strikes under sections 34 and 35(2) of the LRA will be adopted in the near future. It requests the Government to continue providing information on any progress made in this regard.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. Criminal Code. For a number of years the Committee has been referring to section 117 of the Criminal Code, under which participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people is punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). It previously noted the Government’s indication that this section had not been applied in practice. It also noted the Government’s statement that the elements of criminal liability in section 117 concern a strike, lockout or cessation of trade or business that aims to bring about a change in the laws of the country or coerce the Government to act in a way which would suspend its administration. The Government reiterated that this provision is not related to restrictions on freedom of association regarding social and economic benefits of workers in their work. The Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal section 117 of the Criminal Code, to ensure that no sanction of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed as a punishment for peaceful participation in strikes.

The Committee once again notes that the Government, while acknowledging the Committee’s concerns on this issue, reaffirms that, section 117 does not apply to a strike, lockout or concerted cessation of trade or business with any person in general. It is only strictly applicable to the act of bringing about any change in the law of the country, for political purposes, or for political bargaining, such as a strike to demand the change of a government or to intimidate the Government or the public to initiate a specific action by threats or use of force. The provision is not intended to deprive freedom of expression but to maintain stability and public order in the country. The Government further indicates that this provision has not been applied in practice. Taking note of the Government’s statement, the Committee must once again recall that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits recourse to sanctions involving any form of compulsory labour “as a punishment for having participated in strikes”. In this connection, the Committee also recalls the principle laid down under paragraph 315 of the 2012 General Survey on fundamental Conventions that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of organizing or peacefully participating in strikes. Observing that the Committee has been raising this issue for over two decades, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal section 117 of the Criminal Code, to ensure that no sanction of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed as a punishment for peaceful participation in strikes. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken in this regard.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. Over a number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to section 112 of the Criminal Code under which whoever defames, insults or threatens the king, the queen, the heir apparent or the regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to 15 years, as well as sections 14 and 15 of the Computer Crimes Act of 2007 that prohibit the use of a computer to commit an offence under the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning national security (including section 112 of the Criminal Code), with a possible sanction of five years’ imprisonment. The Committee noted that under the Penitentiary Act BE 2479 (1936), penalties of imprisonment involve an obligation to perform prison labour. The Committee observed that in its 2017 Concluding observations the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) was concerned that criticism and dissension regarding the royal family is punishable with a sentence of three to 15 years’ imprisonment, about reports of a sharp increase in the number of people detained and prosecuted for the crime of lèse-majesté since the military coup and about extreme sentencing practices, which resulted in dozens of years of imprisonment in some cases (CCPR/C/THA/CO/2, paragraph 37). The HRC was also concerned about reports of the severe and arbitrary restrictions imposed on the right to freedom of opinion and expression in the state party’s legislation, including in the Criminal Code and the Computer Crimes Act. The HRC further expressed concern about criminal proceedings, especially criminal defamation charges, brought against human rights defenders, activists, journalists and other individuals under the above-mentioned legislation, and about reports of the suppression of debate and campaigning, and criminal charges against individuals during the run-up to the constitutional referendum in 2016. The Committee noted with deep concern that the penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory prison labour, contained in the Penitentiary Act of 1936, were retained under the 2017 amendments to the same Act. The Committee therefore urged the Government to take all necessary measures, in both law and practice, to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political views or views opposed to the established system.

The Committee notes the explanation provided by the Government in its report that the lèse-majesté offence, which relates to the security of the Kingdom under section 112 of the Criminal Code, is intended to protect the king, the queen, the heir apparent and the regent from defamation, insults or threats in the same way as defamation law for citizen. These provisions maintain stability and order without any intention to impede freedom of expression. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the provisions under section 112 of the Criminal Code and sections 14 and 15 of the Computer Crimes Act shall be considered as a criminal offence only if they are constituted by the following elements namely: (i) an offender has committed an act defaming, insulting or threatening; (ii) the act is committed against the king, the queen, the heir apparent or the regent; and (iii) the act is intentional. The Government further refers to the amendments made in 2017 to sections 14 and 15 of the Computer Crime Act of 2007. According to these amendments, section 14 makes it an offence to dishonestly or fraudulently convey a distorted or fake or false data through the computer system which may cause damage to the people, or to the national security, public safety, national economic security or infrastructure, or an offence relating to terrorism, or data involving obscene materials that the general public may have access. This offence shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine. According to section 15, any service provider who cooperates or consents to the offences committed under section 14 shall be liable to the same penalty. The Government states that if the service provider complies with the notification issued by the Minister prescribing the suspension on dissemination of that particular data and removal of that data from the computer system, they shall not be liable to any punishment.

The Committee finally notes the Government’s information that the Corrections Act BE 2560 (2017) which repeals the Penitentiary Act of 1936, does not have any provision that imposes compulsory labour for prison sentences. According to the Government’s report, the Department of Corrections has measures to ensure that prisoners can choose to work voluntarily. However, the Committee notes that section 48 of the Corrections Act of 2017 requires prisoners to comply with the orders of prison officials to work in certain prison functions relevant to the prisoner’s physical and mental aptitude, gender and status as well as the desire to improve inmates’ behaviour and the security and specific characteristics of a prison.

The Committee recalls that restriction on fundamental rights and liberties, including freedom of expression, have a bearing on the application of the Convention if such restrictions are enforced by sanctions involving compulsory prison labour. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that legal guarantees of the rights to freedom of thought and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, as well as freedom from arbitrary arrest, constitute an important safeguard against the imposition of compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political or ideological views, or as a means of political coercion or education (see General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 302). The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to take immediate measures to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political views opposed to the established system, both in law and in practice. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that section 112 of the Criminal Code is amended, by clearly restricting the scope of these provisions to acts of violence or incitement to violence, or by repealing or replacing sanctions involving compulsory labour with other kinds of sanctions (e.g. fines) in order to ensure that no form of compulsory labour (including compulsory prison labour) may be imposed on persons who, without using or advocating violence, express certain political views or oppositions to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this respect. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 14 and 15 of the Computer Crimes Act 2007, including court decisions issued under these sections, indicating in particular the facts that gave rise to the convictions and the sanctions applied.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Implementation of an active employment policy. Labour market trends. The Committee welcomes the detailed information communicated in the Government’s report and its annexes. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the implementation of the 11th National Plan of Social and Economic Development for 2012–16 (11th Plan) with respect to employment promotion, including its impact on national labour market trends. The Government reports that the 11th Plan supported workforce development in balance with labour market demands through proactive measures that respond to the changing environment of the labour market and technological advancements. During the implementation of the 11th Plan, Thailand’s services sector experienced continuous growth, particularly in tourism and related services. The Government indicates that the unemployment rate was 1.18 per cent in 2017 and that it increased, particularly in construction and manufacturing, partly due to the shift of workers from agricultural sector to non-agricultural sectors as a result of continuous drought during 2014–16. The Committee notes that, according to the Labour Force Survey (LFS) of the National Statistical Office, the unemployment rate declined to 0.9 per cent by the last quarter of 2018, while labour force participation reached 68.29 per cent. The Government refers to a series of employment promotion programmes implemented under the 11th Plan. In this respect, the Committee takes note of the establishment of Tri-Thep Centres for Improving Employment and Income Opportunities in 2013 to provide sustainable employment and lifelong career development, as well as the establishment of 87 Smart Job Centres nationwide in 2015, offering employment services as one-stop service centres. The Committee also notes that the Government established the M-Powered Thailand, an online career development website, and developed the Smart Labour Line Mobile Application to facilitate workers in digital age to access services provided. The Committee notes that 1,303,967 were employed through employment services provided during the period 2015–18, including 8,530 persons with disabilities. The Government promotes the employment for persons with disabilities pursuant to the Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities Act, B.E. 2550 (2007), and its amendment (No. 2) B.E. 2556 (2013). The Committee notes with interest the adoption of the 12th Social and Economic Development Plan (2017–21). The Committee requests the Government to communicate detailed information on the implementation of the 12th Social and Economic Development (2017–21) with respect to employment promotion. It also requests the Government to provide updated statistical data disaggregated by sex and age on the labour market situation, including trends in employment, unemployment and visible underemployment, as well as information on the size and distribution of the informal economy.

Article 3 of the Convention. Consultations with the social partners. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that tripartite consultations were held in relation to the development and adoption of the 11th Plan, as well as in relation to the draft development strategies incorporated into the “Labour Master Plan 2012–16”. In particular, comments received from the tripartite partners were subsequently incorporated into the draft to better reflect stakeholders’ perspectives and interests. The Government adds that the Ministry of Labour also held three public hearings to gather further inputs from stakeholders from four regions across the country. The comments and suggestions from the events were taken into account to improve the Plan, ensure its inclusivity and enhance its ability to respond to people’s needs and demands of the labour market. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the consultations held with the social partners with regard to the development and implementation of active employment policy measures under the 12th Plan.

Migrant workers. In response to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government reports that, recognising the enormous contributions that migrant workers make to the Thai economy and its society, it has implemented a variety of measures to ensure adequate protection of labour rights and decent livelihood for all migrant workers in Thailand and to help accelerate the regularization of undocumented workers to enable them to access public services, legal protection and grievance mechanisms. From March 2015 to March 2018, the Government organized one-stop registration services via 88 One-Stop Service Centres across the country. As of July 2018, there are 3,420,595 migrants permitted to work in Thailand. The Committee takes note of the temporary stay extension granted for migrants working without work permits. In this context, the Government emphasizes the importance of adhering to regular migration pathways established through memorandum of understanding agreements (MOU agreements) between Thailand and countries of origin, which help ensure that incoming workers will not fall victims of illegal employment, labour exploitation, and labour trafficking. The Government reviewed and amended existing MOU agreements, with the Governments of Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia to make labour migration through MOUs channels more straightforward and compelling enough to be used as the standard mechanism for bringing in migrant workers to limit the possibilities of labour exploitation and human trafficking. The Government has organized an integrated operation to combat labour trafficking and exploitation, inter alia, through the Command Centre of Prevention on Labour Trafficking (CCPL) and the Labour Trafficking Operation Centres in 76 provinces. The Ministry of Labour also put forward updated legal measures (The Royal Ordinance/Decree on the Management of Foreign Workers Employment B.E. 2560 and its amendment (No. 2) B.F. 2561 (2018)) to respond to the current situation in labour migration by increasing penalties to dissuade both workers and employers from potential wrongdoings and deter repeated violations. The Government refers to a series of measures specifically targeted to reducing vulnerability of migrant workers. The Ministry of Labour has increased the frequency of multidisciplinary inspections in order to prevent and suppress labour exploitation in high-risk establishments. Furthermore, with the Cabinet Resolution dated 26 July 2016, three post-arrival and reintegration centres have been established to provide orientation trainings for migrant workers entering for work in Thailand through MOU channels. Furthermore, the Committee notes the increased access to Government services through digital means, the introduction of a new web-based complaint channel “DOE help me” to allow complaint launching online and the Department of Employment’s Hotlines which comprise a convenient channel for Government information. The Ministry of Labour organized training courses for migrant workers and employers to raise awareness on their rights, duties, laws, regulations, tradition and culture. The Government indicates that migrant workers in Thailand have access to healthcare; either through the Social Security Fund or the Compulsory Migrant Health Insurance Scheme. The Government reports on a series of specific measures to protect fundamental rights of workers in the fishing industry. Because the majority of migrant workers employed in the fishing industry prior to 2014 were undocumented; therefore very vulnerable, the Government undertook multiple rounds of migrant fishers’ registration and renewals of fishers’ working status. The Government entered into negotiations with industry stakeholders to guarantee incentives for migrant fishers incoming under MOU arrangements, which were proven relatively successful as, in the first seven months of 2018, 2,151 migrants were recruited into fishing under MOUs. The Committee notes that the “Baseline research findings on fishers and seafood workers in Thailand, ILO 2018” emphasizes the importance of ensuring effective enforcement of the labour laws and other standards across multiple tiers of seafood supply chains, protecting workers and creating an industry level playing field. The Baseline suggests that the Thai Government and the Ministry of Labour should reorient the inspectorate to investigate, identify and punish violations of labour laws. The Committee notes that, in this regard, the Ministry of Labour has sought to make new tools available to inspectors and, from 2015 to 2016, collaborated with the ILO under different projects to provide trainings to officials to build capacity on labour inspection. The Government indicates that Port In – Port out Controlling Centres (PIPO) were established on 12 June 2015 to conduct fishing vessels inspections. Acknowledging that the rate of prosecutions nevertheless remained low, DLPW issued the Rules concerning Labour Inspection and Criminal Procedure against offences under the Ministerial Regulation on Labour Protection Sea Fishery Work (No. 2) B.E. 2561 effective from 15 July 2018. The Committee notes the establishment of a Fishermen’s Life Enhancement Centre (FLEC) with Stella Maris to improve the quality of life for workers in sea fishery and provides access to services and assistance for workers and victims of labour exploitation. The Committee also notes the establishment of Provincial Coordination Centres for Sea Fishery Workers in 22 provinces to encourage bringing in migrant workers through legal channels. Regarding overseas employment, the Government notes that in 2017 there were 168,438 Thai workers working overseas. The Ministry of Labour, through the Department of Employment provides overseas employment services for Thai workers as well as trainings and capacity building for workers in response to overseas labour market needs. The Ministry of Labour also implements projects, such as pre-departure orientation trainings, to assist and protect workers from falling victims of human trafficking and other forms of labour exploitation. The Committee notes that there are 13 overseas labour offices located in 12 countries which comprise a very important mechanism to ensure the protection of overseas Thai workers. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the impact of the measures implemented to address and resolve issues relating to migrant workers, especially those occupied in the fishing industry, including information on the labour violations identified in the supply chain, the sanctions imposed and the compensation awarded. It also requests the Government to continue to report on the measures taken or envisaged to prevent abuse and exploitation of migrant workers in Thailand.

Women. Prevention of discrimination. The Government indicates that women’s labour market participation rate stands at 60 per cent, but that women continue to face many cultural barriers to employment. The Government has taken a number of measures to increase women’s participation in the labour market. The Committee notes that the Ministry of Labour launched a nationwide promotional campaign for business establishments to dedicate an area as a “lactation corner” in 2006 and a promotional campaign for business establishments to create childcare centres in 2004. The Government indicates that the Ministry of Labour organizes International Women’s Day annually to raise awareness among government and social partners on the importance of women workers, decent work and workplace protection. The Committee takes note of the establishment of the Women’s Empowerment Fund on 23 June 2015, which provides financial support for activities aimed at empowering women. The Government indicates that it has developed and implemented legal mechanisms and procedures to prevent discrimination against women workers. The Committee notes the promulgation of the Gender Equality Act B.E. 2558 (2015) on 13 March 2015, which established the following mechanisms: the Gender Equality Promotion Committee (or the Sor-Tor-Por Committee), responsible for policymaking, determining measures, work plans and monitoring to ensure gender equality; the Committee on the Determination of Unfair Gender Discrimination; and the Gender Equality Promotion Fund, established to cover expenses used in promoting gender equality or to provide compensation for women, men, or LGBTQ persons who experience unfair treatment on the basis of their gender or sexual orientation. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information, including statistical data disaggregated by sex and age, on the impact of the measures taken to promote increased participation of women in the labour market at all levels, and to prevent discrimination in terms of employment.

Informal economy workers. The Government indicates that the number of informal workers in Thailand increased from 32.48 per cent in 2012 to 36.24 per cent in 2016. The Government indicates that social security and welfare coverage was extended under the 11th Social and Economic Development Plan, making it more inclusive and more easily accessible for informal workers. It adds that, as a consequence, the ratio of informal workers with access to social security benefits increased from 3.7 per cent in 2011, the last year of the 10th Plan, to 10.75 per cent at the end of the 11th Plan. The Committee also notes that skills development training provided under the Skills Development Promotion Act B.E. 2545, aims to improve the employability of persons belonging to target groups, including informal workers. The Committee requests the Government to supply information, including disaggregated data, on the impact of the measures implemented to promote the transition to formal employment and extend access to social security benefits to workers in the informal economy. Referring to the Transition from the Informal to the Formal Economy Recommendation, 2015 (No. 204), the Committee reiterates its request that the Government include information on the nature and impact of measures taken to facilitate the transition of informal workers from the informal economy to the formal labour market.

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there are more than two million SMEs in Thailand, employing over 10 million people. The Government reports that promotion projects implemented under the 3rd SME Promotion Master Plan for 2012–16 contributed to an increase in the gross domestic product (GDP) of 59,442 million Thai baht (THB), representing a 0.43 per cent growth in the Thai economy. As of 2016, 173,435 SMEs had received in-depth capacity building support, exceeding by a vast margin the original target of 30,000 SMEs originally envisaged by the Master Plan. In addition, from 2012 to 2016, the number of registered SMEs increased to 312,141. In terms of business sustainability, the Government indicates that 292,956 SMEs remained in operation, representing 117.8 per cent of the target of 250,000 “sustainable” SMEs. The Committee takes note of the introduction of the Thai Labour Productivity Enhancement Programme which aims to improve business potential, boost competitiveness for Thai SME entrepreneurs and increase access to government services available to such entrepreneurs. The Government indicates that, during the period from 2013 to 2017, 73,536 workers and entrepreneurs received capacity-building training under the programme. The Committee notes that implementation of the programme continued in 2018 and that, as of June 2018, 59,502 workers had participated in training and programme-related activities. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed, up-to-date information on the nature and impact of the measures taken to generate employment through the promotion and support of sustainable small and medium-sized enterprises.

Skills development. During the period 2012–16, the Ministry of Labour, together with the Department of Skills Development, undertook a variety of skills development measures, including provision of training to improve labour productivity and support the development of the manufacturing, tourism and service industries in preparation for the social and economic integration of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) community. The Committee notes that the number of workers receiving skills development training organized pursuant to the Skills Development Promotion Act, B.E. 2545, increased from 3,227,600 persons in 2013 to 3,809,648 persons in 2016. The Government indicates that the Fund for Skill Development and the training financed by the Fund constitute an incentive measure to encourage employers to organize skills development training activities for their workers in exchange for income tax exemption eligibility. Employers who meet the criteria are exempted from income taxes in an amount equivalent to the cost of the training. The exemption prompts employers to organize training activities on their own initiative. The Government indicates that, in 2017, 4,002,284 workers received skill development training aimed at meeting labour market needs and occupation-related demands. It adds that advanced technology skill development institutes have been established in key industrial areas across the country with the objective of preparing the labour force for working in the industries of the future. Since their establishment in 2017, these institutes have provided trainings to 39,148 workers; 16,140 of which have already been employed. The Committee notes that, despite these measures, Thai labour productivity increased only slightly, from THB228,471 per person in 2012 to THB253,624 per person in 2016, owing to the low level of education of the workforce. In this respect, the Government indicates that the current 12th Social and Economic Development Plan (2017–21) focuses on human resources development that will help enlarge the pool of people with advanced skill sets with the aim of responding more rapidly and effectively to market demands. The Government further reports that training on skill development seeks to improve the employability of persons belonging to targeted groups, including victims of natural disasters, recovered drug addicts, prisoners, young persons in detention centres, injured veterans, persons with disabilities, ethnic minorities, and those in informal employment. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the nature and impact of the skills development measures taken, particularly with regard to their impact on access to sustainable productive employment. The Committee further reiterates its request that the Government provide information on the manner in which the representatives of employers and workers participate in the development of vocational training programmes and measures.

Older workers. The Government indicates that it continues to strengthen its policy frameworks to enhance the promotion of employment opportunities among older persons. The Government reports that the Ministry of Labour amended article 11(3) of the Elderly Person Act B.E. 2546 (2003), to provide that older persons shall be protected and supported in their employment and have access to appropriate occupational training. In addition, the Ministry of Labour promulgated the Labour Protection Act (No. 6) B.E. 2560 (2018) to allow greater flexibility for older workers and provided legal clarity regarding their right to compensation after retirement. The Committee notes that, on 8 November 2016, the Cabinet of Thailand approved the “Aging Society Supporting Scheme”, a tax incentive programme to stimulate the employment of older persons. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government regarding the establishment of jobseeking registration and facilitation centres across the country for older persons. The Government reports that from 2015 to June 2018, 11,652 older persons registered with these centres and 3,636 secured employment. The Committee further notes the skill development programme introduced by the Government, with the aim of developing and enhancing the skills of older jobseekers. During the 2017 fiscal year, the Department of Skills Development organized training for 7,906 older persons. In addition, the older workers employment promotion campaign of the Department of Employment offers a range of programmes, including: the Employability Enhancement Programme, the Age and Experience-based Employment Promotion Programme, the Employment Promotion Programme in the Services and Tourism Sectors; and the District One (Folk) Wisdom Programme. The Committee requests the Government to communicate information, including statistical data disaggregated by sex and age, on the results of the measures taken to increase employment opportunities for older workers and reduce the barriers they may encounter in accessing, advancing and remaining in employment.

Rural workers. In response to the Committee’s previous request, the Government indicates that, under the 11th Social and Economic Development Plan (2012–16), it undertook the “Crisis Alleviation Programme: Emergency Employment Facilitation and Skill Development Services”. The Programme is tailored for specific area-based circumstances and demands and aims to facilitate employment and ensure continued income during periods of crisis. The Department of Skills Development also undertook programmes aimed at reducing income inequalities among different groups of people in different areas of the country and strengthening the grassroots economy, creating economic opportunities and enhancing competiveness for business operators of both SMEs and community enterprises. The Committee notes the three flagship trainings organized under the program to increase knowledge and expertise in new areas with the aim of broadening opportunities for employment: skills training to enhance employability; skills training to encourage self-employment and freelance activities; and skills training for special targeted groups, including the unemployed, disadvantaged groups and people with low incomes residing in rural areas. The Government indicates that, in 2016, a total of 31,150 persons participated in the programmes. The Department of Employment also launched an employment promotion outreach campaign entitled “Employment Strengthens Communities”, through which the Provincial Employment Offices across the country and Employment Promotion Mobile Units coordinated with local agencies and organizations to provide employment services such as: registration of jobseekers; employment and self-employment consultations; and recommendations on available and suitable financial resources. The Department of Employment also promoted employment for people in rural areas through its “Labour Force Preparation Programme”, which targets the unemployed, terminated workers, seasonal workers, victims of natural disasters and home workers who had previously been registered with the Department of Employment. During the period from 2015 to 2018, 10,351 people benefited from the programme. The Committee invites the Government to continue to provide detailed updated information on the measures taken or envisaged to promote the employment of rural workers.

In order to provide a comprehensive review of the issue relating to the application of the Conventions on occupational safety and health (OSH), the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 127 (maximum weight) and 187 (promotional framework for OSH) together.

Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No. 187)

The Committee notes the Government’s first report as well as its report submitted in 2019.

Article 2(2) and (3) of Convention No. 187. Taking into account the principles set out in relevant ILO instruments. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the national OSH profile was developed and published, in accordance with the guidance in the Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Recommendation, 2006 (No. 197). The Government also indicates that it will be ready to ratify the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155) by the end of the second phase of the National OSH Agenda in 2026 according to the administrative roadmap of the Ministry of Labour. It states, that the ratification of other relevant OSH Conventions is under consideration, including through consultations with the tripartite National OSH Committee. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the consideration given to the ratification of relevant OSH Conventions, including progress made towards the ratification of Convention No. 155. It requests information on the consultations held in that respect, including in the National OSH Committee.

Articles 3 and 4(1). National policy and establishment, maintenance, progressive development, and periodical review of a national system for OSH, in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the tripartite National OSH Committee, pursuant to sections 24–31 of the Occupational Safety, Health and Environment Act B.E. 2554 (A.D. 2011) (OSH Act), functions as a body to review, develop and make recommendations for the improvement of the national OSH system, in consultation with the representatives of employers’ and workers’ organizations. It further notes that the subcommittee of the National OSH Committee or the Administrative Committee for the National OSH Agenda monitor, evaluate and review the national OSH policy and programme. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the role and the composition of the Administrative Committee for the National OSH Agenda and the subcommittees under the OSH Committee.

Article 4(2)(c). Mechanisms for ensuring compliance. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government that the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare employs over 400 OSH inspectors and carries out OSH inspections. Chapter 5 of the OSH Act defines the powers and authorities of OSH inspectors and Chapter 8 of the OSH Act contains penalty provisions. The Department of Labour Protection and Welfare has been strengthening compliance and enforcement activities at the central, regional and provincial levels through its agencies. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results of compliance and enforcement activities at the central, regional and provincial levels, as well as statistics of OSH inspection activities.

Article 4(2)(d). Cooperation between management, workers and their representatives. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, under section 23(1) of the Ministerial Regulation on the administration and management of occupational safety, health and environment, B.E. 2549 (A.D. 2006), employers in workplaces with more than 50 employees are required to establish an OSH committee comprising members representing the employer and the workers, as well as a safety officer. These committees promote cooperation between management, workers and their representatives and workplace-related prevention measures. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged, to ensure cooperation between management and workers and/or their representatives in small enterprises with fewer than 50 employees.

Article 4(3)(d). Occupational health services. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Public Health is in charge of providing occupational health surveillance and services, through its network of hospitals and healthcare centres at the provincial and local levels. Health promotion is carried out using various forms of media, in order to transfer knowledge and guidelines on occupational health among workers and the public. Occupational health services cover all employees working at registered establishments. Hospitals or health services offer annual or periodical medical examinations. The Committee also notes that according to the national OSH profile, published in 2015, there are approximately 2,000 occupational physicians and occupational health nurses, and that the Occupational Health Nursing Association and the Occupational and Environmental Diseases Association are responsible for providing information, research, and educational services in the areas of occupational health services. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the provision of occupational health services at the workplace level.

Article 4(3)(f) and (g). Mechanisms for the collection and analysis of data on occupational injuries and diseases and collaboration with social security institutions. Application in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Office of Workmen’s Compensation Fund (WCF) of the Social Security Office collects and develops data on occupational injuries and diseases through its database, based on the claims filed with the WCF. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the mechanisms for the collection and analysis of data on occupational injuries and diseases, taking into account relevant ILO instruments, and to indicate whether there are procedures for the notification of occupational accidents and diseases by employers. The Committee further requests the Government to provide statistical information related to occupational safety and health, including the number of recorded occupational accidents and cases of occupational diseases.

Article 4(3)(h). OSH in micro-enterprises, in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and in the informal economy. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the measures taken to extend OSH protection to those who work in SMEs and the informal economy. The Government indicates that according to the National Statistical Office, the majority of workers work in the informal economy, of whom 60 per cent work in agriculture. The Committee takes due note of the promotional activities (including training and guidelines) implemented by the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare (DLPW) aimed at extending OSH protection to persons working in SMEs, as well as participatory action-oriented training programmes such as the Work Improvement in Small Enterprises (WISE), the Work Improvement in Neighbourhood Development (WIND) and the Work Improvement for Safe Home (WISH), to support grassroots initiatives in informal economy workplaces. The Government also indicates that easy-to-apply training tools (such as illustrated checklists) have assisted workers in informal economy workplaces in identifying workable and low-cost solutions. The Government indicates that a review of the possibility of extending the scope of OSH laws is proposed, with a view to covering workers in the informal economy, such as in the agricultural and domestic work sectors. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken to extend OSH protection to workers in SMEs and the informal economy and on the results achieved. It also requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the review of the possibility of covering workers in the informal economy under OSH laws and regulations.

Article 5(1). Implementation, monitoring, evaluation and periodic review of the national OSH programme. The Committee notes the National OSH Agenda Decent Safety and Health for Workers – Phase II (2017–26) and the second National Master Plan on OSH and the Environment (2017–21), which are both publicly available online. It notes that the National OSH Committee and subcommittees periodically review (twice a year) the results of the implementation of the National Master Plan on OSH and the Environment. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results achieved through the implementation of the Master Plan, including relevant statistics. It also requests the Government to provide information on any evaluation carried out of the Plan, in consultation with the social partners, and on how this evaluation contributes to the formulation of subsequent plans.

Maximum Weight Convention, 1967 (No. 127)

Article 7(1) and (2) of the Convention. Maximum weight of loads that can be transported by young workers. The Committee has over the years requested the Government to take measures to raise the age limit for assignment to manual transport of loads. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government’s intention to consider raising the minimum age of young workers who may be engaged in the manual transport of loads from 15 years to 16 years, in consultation with the employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply, that the DLPW conducted a study on hazardous work for women and young workers, including those engaged in manual transport of loads. According to the survey results, the load limit under the Ministerial Regulation on maximum allowable weight of lifting, B.E. 2547 (A.D. 2004) might have certain effects on the health of young workers aged between 15 and 18 years old. The Government nonetheless indicates that the study had certain limitations. The DLPW therefore plans to gather more comparative information, including the standards on manual transport of loads at the international and in other Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries, and then hold a public hearing among stakeholders in order to determine whether the age limit for manual transport of loads shall be raised through the amendment to the ministerial regulation. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on any developments related to the age limit for the manual transport of loads, including a copy of the amended Ministerial Regulation, once adopted.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes the statistics of labour inspection activities, in reply to its previous request, according to which no violations of legal provisions related to maximum permissible weight limits were detected either in general inspections or inspections targeting child labour. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of the Convention in practice, including the number of labour inspections, the number of violations found, and the number of penalties imposed.

Article 1 of the Convention. National policy, labour inspection and application of the Convention in practice. The Committee previously noted that child labour was a problem in the country and in practice children in rural areas worked in sugar cane, cassava and corn plantations, in rice paddies, in fisheries, shrimp farms and seafood processing under conditions which are often hazardous. In urban areas, children worked in sectors such as restaurants, markets, street vending, construction and entertainment. The Committee noted that according to the information from the Ministry of Labour in December 2015, there were an estimated 10.88 million children aged between 5–17 years, of which 6.4 per cent were working (692,819) and 2.9 per cent were considered in child labour (approximately 315,520). However, the Committee observed that the number of cases of child labour identified by the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare (DLPW) was extremely low compared to the number of children considered to be in child labour. The Committee therefore requested the Government to pursue and strengthen its efforts to identify and combat child labour and to indicate the measures taken to strengthen the capacity and expand the reach of the labour inspectorate and of the relevant law enforcement agencies, as well as of the child labour monitoring system.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report on the various measures taken for the elimination of child labour. Accordingly, the Committee notes that the “World Day Against Child Labour” was held on 11 June 2019 focusing on awareness-raising on the issue of child labour and its worst forms. In addition, actions and policies under the National Child and Youth Development Plan, 2017–2021, the Family Development Policy and Strategy 2017–2021 and various national education policies from the Ministry of Education are also being implemented. Furthermore, output 2.2 of the Thailand Decent Work Country Programme (DWCP) 2019–2021 aims to reduce unacceptable forms of work, especially child labour through the effective implementation of relevant policies and programmes.

Regarding the measures taken to strengthen the capacity and expand the reach of the labour inspectorate, the Government indicates that: (i) the number of labour inspectors was increased from 1,245 inspectors in 2016, to 1,506 in 2017, and to 1,900 inspectors in 2018; (ii) the labour inspection system was integrated in sectors where child labour is more prevalent, such as in marine fishing vessels and aquaculture processing establishments; (iii) a Ministerial Regulation on Labour Protection in Marine Fisheries, 2018 was issued which authorizes the labour inspectors to issue criminal charges against persons who involve children under 18 years in child labour and hazardous work; and (iv) several training activities for labour inspectors were organized to strengthen their ability to enforce labour protection laws. The Committee further notes from the Government’s report that according to the data from the Economic-Labour Activity Report (October–December), 2018, a total of 42,685 establishments were inspected by the labour inspection of the Ministry of Labour in 2018, of which 527 establishments were found to be engaging child labour, a reduction by 378 establishments in 2017. Children under the age of 15 years were found to be working in hotel and restaurants, wholesale, retail and repairs, manufacturing, construction and real estate services. Furthermore, criminal prosecutions were carried out in 95 cases for violation of the provisions related to child labour under the Labour Protection Act, 1998, involving 206 offenders and in 53 cases offenders were penalized with fines amounting to 1,090,000 baht. These cases were related to the hiring of children under 15 years (18 cases); not notifying the hiring of children under 18 years to the labour inspectorate (64 cases); and engaging children under 18 years in forbidden work or places (13 cases).

The Committee further notes that according to the results of the National Working Children Survey of 2018, of the total number of 10.47 million children aged between 5–17 years, 409,000 children (3.9 per cent of all children) are engaged in economic activities, of which 177,000 children are involved in child labour and 133,000 children are engaged in hazardous work. Children are mostly involved in work in the agricultural sector (46.3 per cent); commerce and service sector (39.5 per cent); and in the manufacturing sector (14.2 per cent). Of these, 65.1 per cent are engaged in unpaid household businesses and 31.3 per cent in the private sector. Gender disaggregated data indicate 127,000 boys (71.9 per cent) and 49,700 girls (28.1 per cent) are involved in child labour. While taking due note of the measures taken by the Government to combat child labour, the Committee notes that the number of children involved in child labour is still significant. The Committee therefore urges the Government to continue taking effective measures to identify and combat child labour, including within the framework of the DWCP. It also encourages the Government to continue its efforts to strengthen the capacity and expand the reach of the labour inspectorate to the agricultural, commerce and service sector, marine fishing vessels and aquaculture processing establishments where child labour is more prevalent and to continue providing information in this regard. The Committee also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number and nature of violations detected by the labour inspectors and the relevant law enforcement bodies and penalties applied in child labour cases.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Articles 2(1) and 3(1) of the Convention. Scope of application and hazardous work. The Committee previously observed that self-employed children and children working in the informal economy did not benefit from the protection of the Labour Protection Act of 1998 (LPA), including provisions relating to minimum age and hazardous work. In this regard, it noted that the Home Workers Protection Act B.E. 2553 of 2010 which provides protection for informal workers in the industrial sector, prohibits assigning children below 15 years of age to carry out “home work” – that is to say, work assigned by the hirer of an industrial enterprise to a homeworker to be produced or assembled outside of the workplace – which by their nature may be hazardous to their health and safety. The Committee also noted the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Labour, through the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare, had drafted the ministerial regulation under the Home Workers Protection Act which prescribes the types of work that are hazardous to the health and safety of pregnant women and children.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Ministerial Regulation, pursuant to section 20 of the Home Workers Protection Act, 2010 has been issued on 2 May 2017. The six categories of dangerous work prescribed in this regulation have been determined by the tripartite mechanisms, including the Home Workers’ Protection Committee. Furthermore, the Committee notes that section 21 of the Home Workers Protection Act further lists four types of work prohibited to homeworkers, including children under the age of 18 years such as: (1) works involving hazardous materials; (2) works carried out with the use of tools or machines, the vibration of which may be hazardous to the persons performing the works; (3) works involving extreme heat or cold; and (4) other works which may affect the health and safety of the worker or quality of the environment. The Committee notes that the nature or types of works referred to under section 21 shall be prescribed by ministerial regulation. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether a ministerial regulation has been issued pursuant to section 21 of the Home Workers Protection Act, 2010. Noting from the National Children Working Survey of 2018 that a majority of children involved in child labour work in the agricultural sector, family enterprises, or in own-account work, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that children working in these informal sectors benefit from the protection provided by the Convention.

Article 3 of the Convention. Worst forms of child labour. Clause (b). Use, procuring or offering of a child for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances. The Committee previously noted that section 52 of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act 2008 read in conjunction with sections 4 and 6, criminalizes the offence of trafficking of children (procuring, buying, selling, bringing, detaining or receiving) under the age of 18 years for purposes of exploitation, which includes the production or distribution of pornographic materials. Moreover, section 26 of the Child Protection Act of 2003 prohibits any person to force, threaten, use, induce, instigate, encourage or allow a child under the age of 18 years to perform or act in a pornographic manner and shall be liable to imprisonment and fine (section 78). The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the above provisions.

The Committee notes from the Government’s report that from 2015 to 2018, the Thailand Internet Crimes Against Children (TICAC), the Thailand Anti Trafficking in Persons Task Force (TATIP), and the Anti-Human Trafficking Division, with partnership from government agencies and non-government agencies have dealt with 76 cases related to possession of child pornography. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of the provisions under the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act and the Child Protection Act with regard to the use, procuring or offering of children under the age of 18 years for the production of pornography and for pornographic performances.

Clause (c). Use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular, for the production and trafficking of drugs. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 83 of the Penal Code (of 1956 as amended up to 2003) makes it an offence to instigate or cause another person to commit an offence. It also noted that section 26 of the Child Protection Act, 2003 prohibits any person from: “(5) forcing, threatening, encouraging, inducing or using a child to beg or to commit crimes; or (6) using, employing or asking a child to act in a way that causes physical or mental harm to the child or affects the child’s growth or development.” The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the above sections with regard to the use, procuring or offering of a child under the age of 18 years for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that in 2018, 2,774 juvenile offenders were arrested for selling and manufacturing drugs. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that children who are used, procured or offered for the production and trafficking of drugs are treated as victims rather than offenders. It also requests the Government to provide information on the number of investigations and prosecutions carried out and penalties imposed on persons who engage children under the age of 18 years for the production or distribution of drugs.

Article 3(d) and application of the Convention in practice. Hazardous work in the agricultural sector. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Department of labour Protection and Welfare (DLPW) enacted a Ministerial Regulation concerning the Labour Protection Act in the Agricultural Sector of 2014, which prohibits children under the age of 18 years from engaging in hazardous work in agricultural work. It also noted the Government’s information the that DLPW disseminated a total of 15,000 copies of a brochure of this regulation to the public and conducted seminars in 15 provinces to convey the protection afforded to children under this regulation to concerned associations, and employers’ and workers’ organizations in the agricultural sector. Moreover, programmes to sensitize workers in the informal sector on their rights and obligations under the law were also carried out by the DLPW. The Committee encouraged the Government to pursue its efforts to protect children working in agriculture from hazardous work.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that it has continued to publish brochures and manuals on employer and employees’ rights and responsibilities under the Ministerial Regulation of 2014. Moreover, a guideline on Good Labour Practices (GLP) in the poultry and swine industry has been issued. The GLP consists of four “Nos” such as “no child labour, no forced labour, no discrimination and no human trafficking”. At present there are 18,227 GLP certified farms with a total of 1,091,995 workers under the GLP worker protection. The Committee requests the Government to continue taking measures to protect children working in agriculture from hazardous work. It also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken in this regard and on the impact of these measures, in terms of the number of children prevented or withdrawn from undertaking hazardous work in the agricultural sector.

Article 5. Monitoring mechanisms. Labour inspectorate. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to continue to provide information on the activities of the labour inspectorate in monitoring the worst forms of child labour and their impact, including the number of violations detected and penalties imposed.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that according to the data from the report on the anti-human trafficking operations in Thailand 2018, the labour inspection covered establishments that are categorized as at-risk sectors for child labour, forced labour, debt bondage and trafficking of persons. Labour inspection also covered fishing vessels and aquaculture processing establishments. Accordingly, 121,859 such establishments were inspected in 2018, of which 11,513 establishments were detected as violating the labour laws and 11,128 actions against offenders were issued. The Committee also notes the Government’s information that the labour inspection has improved the screening system of identifying victims of forced labour and trafficking using the preliminary forced labour screening exercises in the fishing and aquaculture processing establishments. The screening activities identified four workplaces and six employees as victims of trafficking. Furthermore, the inspections conducted in 60 aquaculture processing plants found no cases of worst forms of child labour.

Article 6. Programmes of action to eliminate the worst forms of child labour. 1. National Policy and Plan to Eliminate the Worst Forms of Child Labour. The Committee previously expressed the firm hope that the National Policy and Plan to Eliminate the Worst Forms of Child Labour 2015–20 would be adopted and implemented in the near future and requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken within the framework of this national plan.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that the measures taken within the framework of the Second National Policy and Plan for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour, 2015–2020 (NPP WFCL II), include strategies on prevention; assistance and protection of children from the worst forms of child labour; enacting and enforcing relevant laws; cooperation between network partners; and management, monitoring and evaluation. Accordingly in 2018, the following measures were taken:

-protection, assistance and rehabilitation activities were strengthened focussing on the elimination of forced labour of children through screening and rescue operations;
-joint and integrative actions were conducted between the administrative bodies, the armed forces and the police for special operations to combat trafficking in persons and detect and prosecute cases of worst forms of child labour in the marine fisheries sector among 22 coastal provinces;
-labour protection laws were revised in marine fisheries; and
-MoUs were signed between ten agencies to establish and maintain database on litigation and assistance to victims of trafficking in persons.

The Government further indicates that the National Committee for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour and Subcommittee on Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation which comprises representatives of all government agencies, employer and employee organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and experts on children shall monitor and evaluate the implementation of the NPP WFCL II. Moreover, in 2018, four training sessions on the NPP WFCL II were provided to 200 participants from government agencies, private sector, NGOs, employers’ and employees’ organizations and regional level general public. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken within the framework of the NPP WFCL II to combat the worst forms of child labour and to indicate the results achieved in terms of the number of children prevented and withdrawn from the worst forms of child labour and rehabilitated. Please provide data disaggregated by gender and age.

2. Ship to Shore Rights Project on Combating Unacceptable Forms of Work in the Thai Fishing and Seafood industry 2016–2019. The Committee notes the Government’s information that following the completion of the ILO–IPEC project on Combating the Worst Forms of Child Labour in Shrimp and Seafood Processing Areas in Thailand, the Government has continued its efforts to eliminate the worst forms of child labour in the fishing and seafood industry by cooperating with the ILO in the Ship to Shore Rights Project. Within the framework of this project the following activities were carried out: training activities for labour inspectors and workshops for labour inspection and supervising the fishery and seafood processing business; the Good Labour Practices (GLP) Manual focussing on “No child labour” as one of its components was issued; and labour rights promotion documents and materials for the fishery sector was developed. The Committee further notes the Government’s information that the revised version of the Thai Labour Standard Certification requires establishments not to employ children under 15 years; not to engage young workers in work that is harmful to their health and safety; and to maintain a record of young workers and their working hours for inspectors. The Government indicates that at present there are 772 establishments having T-mark certification (meaning excellent and trustworthy in business) and 4,352 GLP certification establishments, including 439 in the marine fishery industry. The Committee encourages the Government to continue taking measures to combat the worst forms of child labour in the fishery, shrimps and seafood areas. It requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken in this regard, including within the Ship to Shore Rights Project, and the results achieved.

Articles 3(a), 5 and 7(1) of the Convention. Worst forms of child labour, monitoring mechanisms and penalties. 1. Trafficking. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the establishment of a Centre for Combating Human Trafficking (CCHT) in the offices of each police commander which receive complaints and investigate offences related to trafficking in persons and One Stop Critical Centres were established to monitor all anti-human trafficking activities. It also noted the statistical information provided by the Government on the number of cases of trafficking of children registered, prosecutions carried out and penalties imposed. However, it noted that the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), in its concluding observations expressed its concerns at the increase in the trafficking of children from neighbouring countries into Thailand for sexual exploitation, contributing to the large child sex tourism industry in the country, while Thai children were often trafficked to foreign countries for sexual exploitation (CRC/C/THA/CO/3-4, paragraph 76). The Committee, therefore, strongly urged the Government to intensify its efforts to strengthen the capacity of law enforcement officials responsible for the monitoring of trafficking in children to ensure the effective implementation of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that the 2018 Emergency Decree amending the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2008 has been adopted. According to section 4 of the Decree, section 6(1) of the Act of 2008 shall be repealed and replaced as follows: Any person who for the purpose of exploitation, commits any of the offences related to procuring, buying, selling, vending, bringing, sending detaining, confining, harbouring or receiving a child shall be guilty of trafficking in persons. The term “exploitation” is defined to include a wide range of offences, including prostitution, production or distribution of pornographic materials, exploitation of other forms of sexual acts, slavery like practices, begging, forced labour services and any other forcible extortion regardless of such person’s consent. The Committee also notes the detailed information provided by the Government on the training activities, seminars and personnel development programme carried out by the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare (DLPW) from 2016 to 2018 for government officials, labour inspectors, public officials and non-governmental officials to enhance their capacity to monitor and identify child victims of trafficking and on protection of victims of trafficking, including:

-Law Enforcement Efficiency for Qualitative Labour Inspectors Training Project which was attended by over 100 labour inspectors;
-workshop for public prosecutors to strengthen the effectiveness of trafficking in persons investigations and prosecutions;
-seminars on victim identification and investigation of trafficking in persons litigation for 200 police officers;
-child safeguard training activities on the protection of child victims of trafficking for staff in Trafficking in Persons Protection Centres;
-victim specialized training activities for 711 trainees; and
-training of trainers to prevent trafficking in persons attended by 228 trainees.

Furthermore, several manuals and guidelines on the effective implementation of the Anti-Trafficking Act were issued, including: (i) the Labour Inspection Guidelines on the procedures to be followed on detecting cases of trafficking in persons including children; (ii) the operational guideline manuals for combating trafficking in persons issued by the Royal Thai Police; (iii) the Trafficking in Persons Case Management Guideline issued in collaboration with the Australia–Asia Programme to Combat Trafficking in Persons; and (iv) the Thai Internet Crimes Against Children 101 Manual issued with the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigations for inquiry officials and primary offender prosecution against online child sexual abuse.

The Committee further notes that according to the statistics from the Royal Thai Police from October 2018 to September 2019, 205 cases related to trafficking of children involving 342 victims were registered under the Anti-Human Trafficking Act, of which 172 cases were prosecuted. Moreover, in 2019 the Thailand Anti-Trafficking in Persons Task Force (TATIP) investigated six cases of trafficking of children for sexual exploitation. The Government report also refers to certain cases of criminal proceedings and disciplinary measures taken against government officials as well as asset seizure from government officials for their alleged involvement in the offences related to trafficking of persons. The Committee notes that according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) report, entitled Trafficking in persons from Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar to Thailand, August 2017, children are trafficked from Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Myanmar to Thailand for the purpose of labour and sexual exploitation and forced begging. Boys are trafficked into Thailand’s fishing, construction and manufacturing industries, while girls are trafficked for domestic services, hospitality and retail industries. The Committee further notes that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), in its concluding observations of July 2017 expressed its concern that the State party remained a source, destination and transit country for trafficking in persons, particularly women and girls, for sexual and labour exploitation. The CEDAW also expressed concern at the lack of effective identification of victims of trafficking in practice and the prevalence of corruption and complicity of officials in trafficking cases, which impede the efforts to prevent and combat trafficking (CEDAW/C/THA/CO/6–7, paragraph 24). While taking due note of the measures taken by the Government, the Committee urges the Government to continue its efforts to eliminate in practice the trafficking of children by ensuring that thorough investigations and prosecutions are carried out for persons who engage in the trafficking of children, including complicit government officials, and that sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions are imposed in practice. It requests the Government to continue its efforts to strengthen the capacity of law enforcement agencies in identifying and combating the sale and trafficking of children under 18 years of age. The Committee further requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of reported violations, investigations, prosecutions, convictions and penal sanctions imposed in cases related to the trafficking of children.

2. Children engaged in prostitution. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the CRC expressed concern at the fact that prostitution was practised quite openly, with the involvement of large numbers of children and that corruption and cases of police officers involved in the child sex trade industry contribute to the problem. The CRC also expressed concern that the existing laws, administrative measures, social policies and programmes of the State party were insufficient and do not adequately prevent children from becoming victims of these offences (CRC/C/OPSC/THA/CO/1, paragraph 21). The Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that persons suspected of procuring, using, offering or employing children under 18 for prostitution, including complicit and corrupt officials, are subject to thorough investigations and robust prosecutions and that sufficiently effective and dissuasive penalties are imposed in practice.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Royal Thai Police is undertaking genuine efforts to arrest, investigate and punish perpetrators, including government officials who are involved in the use, procuring or offering of children for prostitution. According to the information provided by the Government, in 2018 the court sentenced 12 government officials for the offences related to the use or procuring of children for prostitution. In addition, disciplinary action was taken against three military officials and one police official for procurement of child prostitution in 2014 and 2016 respectively. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement that it has strengthened law enforcement by creating a special task force consisting of officials from the Department of Provincial Administration, the Tourist Police, the Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection, the Ministry of Justice and other related agencies to patrol and inspect at-risk entertainment facilities and to investigate and arrest persons involved in the commercial sexual exploitation of children. Accordingly, in 2018, a total of 7,497 facilities were inspected, five-year closure orders were issued to 97 facilities, and seven prosecution cases related to trafficking in persons were initiated. Moreover, data from the Royal Thai Police reveals that 187 cases of trafficking of children registered in 2018 were for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation and in 160 cases involving 318 victims, prosecution proceedings were ordered. Moreover, the operations undertaken by the TATIP, the Thailand Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (TICAC) and the Anti-Human Trafficking Division have also resulted in the investigation and prosecution of several cases of trafficking of children for commercial sexual exploitation. The Committee notes from the UNODC report of 2017 that sexual exploitation is the most common form of trafficking involving girls and most migrant girls working in Thailand’s sex industry are 16–18 years old. However, boys particularly those living in tourism spots are also vulnerable to sexual exploitation. The Committee encourages the Government to strengthen its efforts to ensure that persons who use, procure or offer children under 18 for prostitution are subject to thorough investigations and prosecutions and that sufficiently effective and dissuasive penalties are imposed in practice. It requests the Government to continue to provide statistical information on the number and nature of violations reported, investigations, prosecutions, convictions and penalties imposed in this respect.

Article 7(2). Effective and time-bound measures. Clause (b). Providing the necessary and appropriate direct assistance for the removal of children from the worst forms of child labour, and for their rehabilitation and social integration. Child victims of trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government’s information concerning the measures taken to assist child victims of trafficking, including the provision of compensation and a fund for rehabilitation, occupational training and development from the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security (MSDHS). The Committee requested the Government to pursue its efforts to provide compensation and financial assistance for child victims of trafficking as well as to provide information on the number of child victims of trafficking who have been provided assistance and rehabilitated in its various protection centres.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that the victims of trafficking have the right to receive compensation from the Anti-Human Trafficking Fund and through damage compensation from offenders. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s information that in 2019, 116 victims of trafficking received a total compensation of over 77.56 million baht. The Government further indicates that the MSDHS and Save the Children ensure that child victims of the worst forms of child labour are protected under the Child Safeguarding Standard. In 2018, 186 child victims of prostitution were provided protection and assistance by the MSDHS. The Committee notes that a victim normally spends six months in government shelters where they receive rehabilitation and reintegration services which ensure that they are safe and protected from being trafficked again. The Committee requests the Government to continue its efforts to provide compensation and financial assistance for child victims of trafficking and to continue providing information in this regard. It also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of child victims of trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation who have been provided assistance and rehabilitated in its protection centres. Please provide date disaggregated by gender and age.

Article 8. International cooperation and assistance. Regional cooperation and bilateral agreements. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that in 2015, the Coordinated Mekong Ministerial Initiative against Trafficking (COMMIT), to which Thailand is a party along with Cambodia, China, Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Myanmar, adopted the draft phase four of the sub regional plan of action to combat trafficking in persons. It also noted the various activities undertaken by the Department of Social Development and Welfare of the MSDHS, in cooperation with other neighbouring countries. The Government indicated that it was in the process of initiating bilateral MoUs with the Governments of Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, United Arab Emirates, China and India. The Committee encouraged the Government to pursue its international cooperation efforts with regard to combating the trafficking of persons under 18.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that Thailand has signed trafficking in persons bilateral agreements with Laos People’s Democratic Republic in July 2017; with Myanmar in August 2018; with the United Arab Emirates in February 2018; and with China in November 2018. Furthermore, the ASEAN Regional Cooperation, an association of Southeast Asian States of which Thailand is a member, has adopted the ASEAN Convention on Anti-Trafficking in Persons, 2017 and the ASEAN Plan of Action Against Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, implemented through the Bohol Trafficking in Person Work Plan 2017–2020. Furthermore, the Regional Guidelines and Procedures to address the Needs of Victims of Trafficking in Persons have been launched in April 2019. The Committee encourages the Government to pursue its efforts to cooperate with the neighbouring countries with a view to eliminating child trafficking for labour and commercial sexual exploitation. It also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged in this regard, including through the COMMIT and ASEAN Regional Cooperation as well as the measures taken to ensure the rehabilitation, social integration and repatriation of child victims of trafficking.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

The Committee notes the Government’s first report on the application of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006). The Committee notes that the Government has not ratified any of the maritime Conventions revised by the MLC, 2006. It notes that the Government has not submitted a declaration of acceptance of the amendments to the Code of the Convention adopted in 2014 by the International Labour Conference and is therefore not bound by these amendments. The Committee notes that the amendments adopted by the Conference in 2016 entered into force for Thailand on 8 January 2019. The Committee notes the efforts undertaken by the Government to implement the Convention. Following a first review of the information and documents available, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following issues. If considered necessary, the Committee may come back to other matters at a later stage.

Article II, paragraphs 1(f) and 2 of the Convention. Definitions and scope of application. Seafarers. The Committee notes that section 3 of the Maritime Labour Act B.E. 2558, 2015 (hereafter the MLA) excludes from the definition of a seafarer a person working temporarily on board a ship without, however, specifying the time frame or indicating the criteria to determine that time frame. While noting the Government’s indication that no cases of doubt have arisen as to whether any categories of persons are to be regarded as seafarers, the Committee observes that the persons excluded by section 3 of the MLA relate to cases of doubt as to whether categories of workers are to be regarded as seafarers for the purpose of the Convention and for which an explicit determination by the competent authority is necessary under Article II, paragraph 3, of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to: (i) provide information on the criteria that are to be followed to determine if a category of person temporarily working on board is excluded from the definition of seafarer; (ii) indicate the categories of persons, if any, who have been excluded from the application of the Convention under section 3 of the MLA; and (iii) provide information on whether the above exclusion was determined after consultations with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned.

Article II, paragraphs 1(i) and 4. Definitions and scope of application. Ships. The Committee notes that section 3 of the MLA defines a “ship” as one which normally navigates in seawater for commercial purposes but shall not include: (1) a ship used for fishing or other ships with similar purposes; (2) a ship traditionally built; (3) a governmentally military ship; and (4) other ships as prescribed by ministerial regulations. While the Government indicates that no cases of doubt have arisen as to whether a ship or a particular category of ship is covered by the Convention, section 3(4) of the MLA, Ministerial Regulation B.E. 2561 states that, among others, the following will not be considered ships for the purpose of application of the requirements of the MLC, 2006: (2) a vessel of less than 200 gross tonnage with a domestic maritime area; (5) a vessel with naval area within province; (7) mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs); (8) a ship engaged on Local Trade voyage, or non-self-propelled vessel. The Committee recalls that the Convention applies to all ships as defined in Article II, paragraph 1(i), other than those excluded under paragraph 4. In the event of doubt, a determination may be made under paragraph 5 as to whether the Convention applies to a ship or particular category of ships. The Committee therefore requests the Government to specify whether the determinations with respect to the exclusion of categories of ships from the application of the Convention, as set out in the ministerial regulation prescribing ships excluded from the Maritime Labour Act B.E. 2558, B.E. 2561 were made after consultation with shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations. The Committee further underlines that the Convention does not allow for a general or overall exclusion of ships below a certain gross tonnage. Article II, paragraph 6 provides flexibility with respect to the application of “certain details of the Code”, that is, Standard and Guidelines, to a ship or particular categories of ships of less than 200 gross tonnage that do not voyage internationally. This flexibility can only be applied by the competent authority in consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned for cases where it determines that it would not be reasonable or practicable to apply certain details of the Code at the present time and that the subject matter is dealt with differently by national legislation or collective agreements or other measures. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to indicate how it ensures that the protection afforded by the Convention is guaranteed to all seafarers working on board ships under 200 gross tonnage. The Committee further requests the Government to provide detailed information about the definitions of “vessel with naval area within province” and “ship engaged in Local Trade voyage”.

Article III. Fundamental rights and principles. The Committee notes that Thailand has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). In accordance with its approach followed when a country has not ratified some or all of the ILO fundamental Conventions and thereby is not subject to supervision in respect of these fundamental Conventions, the Committee seeks concrete information on how the country has satisfied itself that its laws and regulations respect, in the context of the MLC, 2006, the fundamental rights referred to in Article III. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government that seafarers are entitled to freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining under sections 90 to 94 of the MLA. The Committee, however, notes that section 94 of this Act provides that no seafarer, agent to a seafarer, members of the committee, members of the subcommittee, or members of the seafarer organization related to such demand (relating to employment condition of seafarers) shall support or cause a lock‐out. The Committee notes that this section deprives seafarers from the right to take industrial action. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it has satisfied itself that this provision of the MLA respects the fundamental right to freedom of association provided for under Article III of the Convention.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraphs 2 and 3. Minimum age. Night work. The Committee notes that, under section 16 of the MLA, exceptions to the prohibition of night work are possible: “(a) when the seafarer is engaged in a training programme with advanced schedules; or (b) when the training requires night work to be performed due to the specific position and duty of the seafarer, with an approval of the Director‐General of Department of Labour Protection and Welfare, or a person assigned by the Director‐General who determines that it shall not negatively affect their health and good living condition”. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it ensures that the exceptions authorized by the competent authority under point (b) above, are made after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned as required by Standard A1.1, paragraph 3(b).

Regulation 1.4 and the Code. Recruitment and placement. The Committee notes that section 35 of the MLA prohibits recruitment services from charging fees to seafarers except for the following expenses: (i) an expense for the issuance of a medical certificate; (ii) fee for a seafarer documentation issued by the Marine Department; (iii) passport fee or documents used for travelling but shall not include fee for immigration stamp; (iv) other expenses as prescribed in ministerial regulations. In this regard, the Committee recalls that paragraph 5(b) of Standard A1.4 provides that a Member “shall, in its laws and regulations or other measures, at a minimum require that no fees or other charges for seafarer recruitment or placement or for providing employment to seafarers are borne directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by the seafarer, other than the cost of the seafarer obtaining a national statutory medical certificate, the national seafarer’s book and a passport or other similar personal travel documents, not including, however, the cost of visas, which shall be borne by the shipowner”. Noting that section 35 of the MLA refers to other expenses which may be borne by the seafarer, as prescribed in ministerial regulations, the Committee requests the Government to identify what the expenses may consist of and how it is ensured that seafarers are not charged, directly or indirectly, for any other costs than those provided for in Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(b).

Regulation 1.4 and Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi). Recruitment and placement. System of protection. The Committee notes that section 28 of the MLA provides for an insurance system established “to compensate job seekers and shipowners in the case where damage occurs” and that sections 38–40 provide for arrangements on transportation, accommodation, food and other necessary expenses for travel in the case where a jobseeker does not get a job as specified in the employment agreement of a seafarer and such a jobseeker does not wish to continue such work. While noting the detailed provisions adopted to protect seafarers in this case, the Committee observes that it is unclear if they also cover monetary loss seafarers may incur, once they have started working, as a result of the failure of a recruitment and placement service or the relevant shipowner under the seafarers’ employment agreement to meet its obligations to them (Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi)). The Committee requests the Government to provide clarifications in this regard.

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraphs 1(e) and 3. Seafarers’ employment agreement (SEA). Record of employment. The Committee notes that the Declaration of Maritime Labour compliance (DMLC), Part I, states that seafarers shall be given a seaman book/seafarer’s discharge book containing a record of their employment on board the ship. The Committee notes however that the Government has not provided information with respect to the requirement under Standard A2.1, paragraph 3, concerning the form of the document, the particulars to be recorded and the manner in which such particulars are to be entered be determined by national law and that the document shall not contain any statement as to the quality of the seafarer’s work or as to their wages. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on how it gives effect to this provision of the Convention as well as a sample of the approved document for the seafarers’ record of employment.

Regulation 2.2 and Standard A2.2, paragraphs 3, 4 and 5. Wages. Allotments. The Committee notes that section 51 of the MLA provides that a shipowner shall arrange for a seafarer to transfer, wholly or partly, the money received to a person specified by the seafarer in accordance with the agreed time period by which the shipowner may charge the actual expense from the seafarer. Observing the absence of more detailed information, the Committee recalls that Standard A2.2, paragraph 5, requires that allotment services, which provide seafarers with means to transmit all or part of their earnings to their families, dependants or legal beneficiaries, be charged at a reasonable amount and that the rate of currency exchange be at the prevailing market rate or the official published rate and not unfavourable to the seafarers. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate how effect is given to these requirements of the Convention, in particular in relation to the reasonable amount to be charged and the currency exchange rate to be used for allotments.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraph 3. Hours of work and hours of rest. Normal working hours’ standard. The Committee notes that the DMLC, Part I, refers to the normal working hours standard for seafarers based on an eight-hour day with a day of rest per week and rest on public holidays and not over 48 hours in any seven-day period. The Committee, however, observes that neither section 58 of the MLA which provides that working hours for each day shall not exceed eight hours and the total amount of hours for each week shall not exceed 48 hours, nor the model SEA provided by the Government, refer to weekly rest and rest on public holidays. It recalls that Standard A2.3, paragraph 3, provides that each Member acknowledges that the normal working hours standard for seafarers, like that for other workers, shall be based on an eight-hour day with one day of rest per week and rest on public holidays. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it is ensured that the normal working hours standards for seafarers include one day of rest per week and rest on public holidays, as required by this provision of the Convention.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraphs 7, 8 and 9. Hours of work and hours of rest. Drills and on-call work. The Committee notes that the Government has not specified the requirements relating to granting compensatory rest in case of call-outs to work or minimizing disturbance of rest periods during drills, in accordance with paragraphs 7 and 8 of Standard A2.3. The Committee recalls that the question of granting compensatory rest in case of call-outs to work or minimizing disturbance of rest periods during drills is left to be regulated through collective agreements and that it is only in the absence of such agreements, or if the competent authority determines that any collectively agreed provisions are inadequate, that the Government is expected to regulate these matters. Noting the Government’s indication that there are no collective agreements containing provisions on these matters, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to establish such provisions, as required by Standard A2.3, paragraphs 7 to 9.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraph 12. Hours of work and hours of rest. Records. The Committee notes that there seem to be no national provisions with respect to the requirements that records of seafarers’ daily hours of work or of their daily hours of rest be maintained, in a standardized format, and that seafarers shall receive a copy of those records pertaining to them which shall be endorsed by the master, or a person authorized by the master, and by the seafarers, in accordance with Standard A2.3, paragraph 12. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to give full effect to this requirement of the Convention.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraphs 1 and 2(a). Repatriation. Circumstances. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that clause 4 of Notification of Marine Department No. 110/2560 on Rules, Procedures and Conditions of Security to assure Repatriation provides that seafarers have the right to repatriation in all the circumstances provided for by Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 1 of the Convention. The Committee however notes that, neither section 66 of the MLA, nor the example of the SEA provided by the Government, provide for the right to repatriation at no cost to themselves when the SEA is terminated by the seafarer for justified reasons (Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 1(b)(ii)). The Committee recalls that according to Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 1(b)(ii), seafarers are entitled to repatriation when the SEA is terminated by the seafarer for justified reasons. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it ensures that seafarers are entitled to repatriation in the circumstances foreseen in Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 1(b)(ii).

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 3. Repatriation. Prohibition of advance payment and to recover costs from seafarers. The Committee notes that section 68 of the MLA provides that the shipowner shall not pay for the repatriation expenses in the case of termination of contract when a seafarer conducts an offence against the law of the flag of a State or commits a negligent offence on duty or fails to comply with an employment agreement of a seafarer. In this regard, the Committee recalls that Standard A2.5, paragraph 3, of the Convention prohibits shipowners from requiring that seafarers pay the cost of repatriation except where the seafarer has been found, in accordance with national laws or regulations or other measures or applicable collective bargaining agreements, to be in serious default of the seafarer’s employment obligations. While noting the fundamental importance of the right to repatriation, the Committee requests the Government to explain how it ensures that seafarers only pay the costs of repatriation where they have been found to be in serious default of their obligations, pursuant to the conditions set out in Standard A2.5, paragraph 3, and also to indicate the procedure to be followed and the standard of proof to be applied before a seafarer can be found to be in “serious default of the seafarers employment obligations”.

Regulation 2.7 and Standard A2.7, paragraph 3. Manning levels. Food and catering. The Committee notes that the DMLC, Part I, and Annex 6 on the minimum safe manning requirements refer to the need to take into account the requirements within Regulation 3.2 and Standard A3.2 concerning food and catering when determining manning levels. The Committee however notes the Government’s indication that the requirements on manning composition do not take into account the ship’s cook or catering staff. It recalls that, under Standard A2.7, paragraph 3, the competent authority must take into account all the requirements within Regulation 3.2 and Standard A3.2 concerning food and catering. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the requirement of Regulation 2.7, paragraph 3 is given full effect.

Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 3. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Flag State inspections. The Committee notes that the Government has not indicated, in relation to Standard A3.1, paragraph 3, whether inspections required under Regulation 5.1.4 (inspections and enforcement) are carried out when a ship is registered or re-registered and/or when seafarer accommodation is substantially altered. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure compliance with this requirement of the Convention.

Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 20. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Exemptions for ships of less than 200 gross tonnage. The Committee notes that clause 2 of Notification of Marine Department No. 112/2560 on the Standards of Accommodations, Spaces and Facilities for Seafarers excludes ships of less than 200 gross tonnage engaged in domestic voyages from its scope of application. The Committee recalls that exemptions to Standard A3.1 may be allowed, only after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations, only for ships of less than 200 gross tonnage and for certain requirements of Standard A3.1, i.e. with regard to paragraphs 7(b) (air-conditioning), 11(d) (washbasin with hot and cold running fresh water in sleeping room), 13 (laundry facilities), as well as paragraph 9(f) and (h) to (l) inclusive, with respect to floor areas only. Furthermore, such exemptions must be clearly justified on strong grounds and subject to protecting the seafarers’ health and safety. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken ensure that exemptions are only made where they are expressly permitted in Standard A3.1 and under the requirements set out under Standard A3.1, paragraphs 20 and 21.

Regulation 3.2 and Standard A3.2, paragraph 6. Food and catering. Dispensation of a fully qualified cook. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 76 of the MLA which provides that a shipowner shall ensure that a seafarer assigned to work to provide food has passed the appropriate training standard or obtains qualifications in accordance with the rules, procedures and conditions as prescribed by the Director‐General of Marine Department. While these provisions cover the requirements of Standard A3.2, paragraphs 2(c), 3 and 4, the Committee notes that the Government’s indication that section 76 allows for dispensations without specifying the circumstances under which these dispensations are permitted. While noting that the only exceptions allowed by the Convention concern ships with a prescribed manning of less than ten which may not be required by the competent authority to carry a fully qualified cook and circumstances of exceptional necessity (respectively Standard A3.2, paragraphs 5 and 6), the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether exemptions are limited to these cases.

Regulation 4.1, paragraph 3. Medical care on board and ashore. Access to on-shore medical facilities for seafarers on board foreigner ships. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that access to medical facilities on shore for seafarers on board ships voyaging in Thai waters or ports is not provided under the MLA and that the applicable national provisions will be provided its next report. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged, including how this requirement is applied in practice, to give effect to Regulation 4.1, paragraph 3, regarding the obligation as a port State to ensure that seafarers on board ships in Thai territory who are in need of immediate medical care are given access to the Member’s medical facilities on shore.

Regulation 4.2 and Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 7. Shipowners’ liability. Safeguarding of property left on board. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the shipowners’ obligation in Standard A4.2, paragraph 7, of the Convention to safeguard the personal property of sick or injured or deceased seafarers and/or to return it to them or their next of kin is currently not prescribed. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure conformity with these provisions of the Convention.

Regulation 4.4 and the Code. Access to shore-based welfare facilities. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that detailed information on seafarer welfare facilities in the country will be provided in its next report. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on progress made with respect to the development of welfare facilities.

Regulation 4.5 and the Code. Social security. The Committee notes that, in accordance with Standard A4.5, paragraphs 2 and 10, the Government has declared that the branches for which it provides protection are medical care; employment injury benefit; family benefit; invalidity benefit and survivors’ benefit. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Maritime Labour Committee established under the MLA is now in the process of revising the MLA with respect to social security protection for seafarers with the intention to allow seafarers to be registered under the Workmen’s Compensation Fund and the Social Security Fund under the same schemes with on-shore employees. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any development in this respect and to indicate how it ensures that seafarers ordinarily resident in its territory are provided social security benefits that are no less favourable than those provided to shoreworkers resident in Thailand. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that shipowners’ and, if applicable, seafarers’ contributions to relevant social protection systems or schemes are not monitored. The Committee requests the Government to provide information concerning any progress with the implementation of the required contributions to relevant social protection and social security schemes.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 4. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Intervals of inspection. The Committee notes that article 11 of Notification of Ministry of Transport on Rules, Procedures and Conditions for Competent Officials in Inspecting on a Thai Ship or Entering an Office of Shipowner or Workplace to Inspect Maritime Labour, provides that vessels which are not required to carry a Maritime Labour Certificate, are nonetheless subject to inspection on working and living conditions. While noting that there is no frequency provided for in the national provisions regarding the interval of inspections for ships that are not required to carry a Maritime Labour Certificate, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how it ensures that such inspections are conducted at least every three years as required by Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 4.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 7. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Powers of inspectors. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that no national provisions provide that flag State inspectors shall be empowered, where they have grounds to believe that deficiencies constitute a serious breach of the Convention (including seafarers’ rights), to prohibit a ship from leaving the port. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to give effect to Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 7(c), of the Convention.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 16. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Compensation in case of wrongful exercise of the inspectors’ powers. Regarding the compensation for loss or damage suffered as a result of the wrongful exercise of the inspectors’ powers, provided for under Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 16, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that there are currently no legal provisions or principles under which such compensation must be paid. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures envisaged to give effect to this requirement of the Convention.

Regulation 5.1.5 and Standard A5.1.5. Flag State responsibilities. On board complaint procedures. The Committee notes that section 89 of the MLA contains provisions with respect to the on-board complaint procedure. It notes, however, the Government’s indication that it has not developed a model for a fair and expeditious and well-documented on-board complaint procedure for ships flying Thailand’s flag. The Committee also notes that other requirements of Regulation 5.1.5 and the Code are not reflected in national legislation, such as the right of the seafarer to be accompanied or represented during the complaint procedure (Standard A5.1.5, paragraph 3) and the elements to be contained in the copy of the on-board complaint procedures to be provided to the seafarer (Standard A5.1.5, paragraph 4). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that appropriate on-board complaint procedures are in place to meet the requirements of Regulation 5.1.5 and the Code, and to provide a copy of the model for on-board complaint procedures or of typical procedures that are followed on ships once adopted.

Regulation 5.2 and the Code. Port State responsibilities. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government according to which Thailand has adhered to the Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The Committee notes that the Government refers to the Notification of Ministry of Transport on Rules, Procedures and Conditions for Competent Officials in Inspecting on a Thai Ship or Entering an Office of Shipowner or Workplace to Inspect Maritime Labour, which appears to address flag State responsibilities rather than port State obligations. The Committee recalls that Regulation 5.1 refers to port State obligations and provides that each Member shall establish an effective port State inspection and monitoring system to help ensure that the working and living conditions for seafarers on foreign ships entering a port in Thailand meet the requirements of this Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide updated information concerning the establishment of an effective port State control inspection and monitoring system of foreign ships calling in a Thai port, for the purpose of reviewing compliance with the Convention relating to the working and living conditions of seafarers on ships.

Additional documents requested. The Committee observes that the DMLC, Part II, provided by the Government is a blank form and is not an example of an approved DMLC, Part II, that has been drawn up by a shipowner to set out the measures adopted to ensure ongoing compliance with the national requirements and measures proposed to ensure that there is continuous improvement, as provided under Standard A5.1.3, paragraph 10(b), of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide one or more examples of an approved DMLC, Part II.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2022.]

Comments adopted by the CEACR: Thailand

Adopted by the CEACR in 2021

C100 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C100 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C111 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C188 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2019

C014 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C019 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C029 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

(a) Recruitment practices

(b) Employment practices

(a) Labour inspection and the application of penal sanctions

(b) Access to justice and assistance to victims

C029 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C105 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C105 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C122 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C122 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C127 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No. 187)

Maximum Weight Convention, 1967 (No. 127)

C138 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C138 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C182 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C182 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

MLC, 2006 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Comments adopted by the CEACR: Thailand

Display the list by:

Adopted by the CEACR in 2021

C100 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C100 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C111 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C188 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2019

C014 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C019 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C029 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

(a) Recruitment practices

(b) Employment practices

(a) Labour inspection and the application of penal sanctions

(b) Access to justice and assistance to victims

C029 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C105 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C105 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C122 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C122 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C127 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No. 187)

Maximum Weight Convention, 1967 (No. 127)

C138 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C138 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C182 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C182 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

MLC, 2006 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)