ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards

Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 380, October 2016

Case No 3164 (Thailand) - Complaint date: 07-OCT-15 - Follow-up

Display in: French - Spanish

Allegations: The complainant organization alleges: (i) legislative shortcomings (denial or restriction of the right to organize and bargain collectively to public sector workers, private sector teachers, agricultural workers, workers in the informal sector, migrant workers and temporary, agency or other subcontracted workers; insufficient protection against acts of anti-union discrimination; difficulty to bargain collectively; and denial of the right to strike to public sector workers); and (ii) acts of anti-union discrimination, interference, harassment and other anti-union practices in a number of enterprises and the Government’s failure to protect the workers

  1. 977. The complaint is contained in a communication from IndustriALL Global Union dated 7 October 2015.
  2. 978. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 14 March 2016.
  3. 979. Thailand has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant’s allegations

A. The complainant’s allegations
  1. 980. In its communication dated 7 October 2015, IndustriALL alleges: (i) legislative shortcomings (denial or restriction of the right to organize and bargain collectively to public sector workers, private sector teachers, agricultural workers, migrant workers, workers in the informal sector and temporary, agency or other subcontracted workers; insufficient protection against acts of anti-union discrimination; difficulty to bargain collectively; and denial of the right to strike to public sector workers); and (ii) acts of anti-union discrimination, interference, harassment and other anti-union practices in a number of enterprises and the Government’s failure to protect the workers.

    Legislative shortcomings

  1. 981. The complainant alleges that Thai labour laws and their implementation do not sufficiently protect freedom of association and are not in line with Conventions Nos 87 and 98 as they fail to provide the right to organize and bargain collectively to about 75 per cent of the 39 million workers, nearly half of whom work in the informal economy. Stating that Thailand has the lowest unionization rate – about 1.5 per cent – of any country in South-East Asia, the complainant indicates that labour relations are governed by primarily three laws, all of which fail to protect the right of workers to freely associate, organize, form trade unions and bargain collectively. The relevant laws are:
    • – Labour Relations Act, 1975 (LRA) which covers employees in the private sector;
    • – State Enterprise Labour Relations Act, 2000 (SELRA) which covers employees in state-owned enterprises; and
    • – Civil Service Act, 1992 (CSA) which covers workers in the civil service and public sector.
  2. 982. Firstly, the complainant alleges the denial or restriction of the right to organize, form trade unions and bargain collectively to various categories of workers: civil servants and public sector workers, including health-care providers, teachers, police officers, fire fighters and administrative employees at all levels of Government; teachers and professors at private schools and universities (through the passage of the Private University Act, 2003); agricultural workers; and workers in the informal economy sector, including domestic workers and homeworkers. Migrant workers, who make up around 10 per cent of the workforce, also have their rights to organize, bargain collectively and serve on trade union committees severely restricted as in line with section 101 of the LRA, only Thai nationals by birth can organize or serve on a trade union committee or office. Although migrant workers can join already existing trade unions led by Thai born nationals, these are very few, as migrant workers are concentrated in industries where not many Thai born nationals are employed, such as the shrimp and commercial fishing industries. In such industries, the LRA has in effect barred unionization and migrant workers are vulnerable to poverty, wage theft, poor health and safety standards, dangerous working conditions, exploitation, extortion by police and trafficking for forced labour.
  3. 983. The complainant states that the labour law also limits the freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively of temporary, agency and other subcontracted workers, who make up around 50 per cent of the workforce in industrial zones specialized in export. Although agency and subcontracted workers have the right to form their own trade unions and bargain with their agency employer or subcontractor employer, such negotiations do not improve their working conditions since these are established by the manufacturing firm, not the employment agency. According to the complainant, in line with sections 88 and 95 of the LRA, trade unions can either represent employees of the same employer or employees working in the same type of industry. However, when trade unions try to change their statutes to be able to represent agency and subcontracted workers, the Ministry of Labour mostly rejects these initiatives. Furthermore, when temporary workers attempt to establish a trade union or bargain collectively, they are often transferred to another workplace or lose their contracts. The complainant adds that although these workers are considered as temporary, the majority of them work in the same position for several years and perform jobs similar to those performed by permanent employees and that employers frequently increase the use of temporary workers to thwart unionization or weaken an already existing union.
  4. 984. Secondly, the complainant alleges that the laws do not sufficiently protect workers from anti union discrimination. It explains that although an employer may not dismiss or take action against a worker for joining a trade union, submitting a demand, calling a rally, filing a complaint or lawsuit, or for providing evidence to a government official and may not threaten or force a worker to resign from a trade union or to interfere with the operations of a trade union, the courts have interpreted these prohibitions to mean that a labour union must already be in existence and registered. Collective action or activities undertaken with the aim to form a trade union or discuss forming a trade union are thus only protected from the time the trade union is registered, leaving workers unprotected against anti-union discrimination and retaliation during the process of organizing and forming a trade union. According to the complainant, workers are only protected if they sign a demand and propose it to the employer, which is why, in practice, workers organizing a union generally propose a demand to the employer at the same time as they submit a request for registration. However, during the process of establishing trade unions and before submitting a demand, workers remain vulnerable especially considering that the Ministry of Labour usually contacts employers to verify whether the workers who are trying to establish a trade union actually work at the company, thus revealing their names to the employer.
  5. 985. The complainant also indicates that even once a trade union is established, trade union leaders and employee committee members are vulnerable to employer retaliation or interference in trade union affairs. Workers report that trade union leaders are often dismissed on the pretence of a lay-off or downsizing, after which they are prevented from entering the workplace and representing trade union members, in line with sections 95 and 101 of the LRA, as they are not full-time employees. Furthermore, Labour Courts and inspectors often side with employers to pressure trade union leaders and members to give up seeking reinstatement; in some cases, courts had dragged reinstatement issues for years, and even when a court order is favourable to the workers, employers often ignore the ruling without impunity. The complainant further states that while the LRA and the SELRA ostensibly protect the right to freedom of speech for trade unionists by providing that they cannot be charged with civil or criminal offences for explaining and publicizing the facts concerning a labour dispute, the provisions allow pursuits in case of criminal offence against the employer’s reputation, which can lead to fines and imprisonment and is reported to be abused by employers during union organizing initiatives or in labour disputes.
  6. 986. Thirdly, the complainant indicates that although the LRA requires the employer to begin negotiating within three days after the union submits its demands and proposals, it does not oblige the employer to negotiate in good faith. Employers often ignore trade unions and refuse to negotiate after the initial meeting, while not providing any effective avenue by which workers can collectively bargain.
  7. 987. Lastly, the complainant alleges that the SELRA prohibits all state enterprise employees from striking or engaging in industrial actions and stipulates penalties both for participating in a strike – up to one year imprisonment or a fine or both – and instigating a strike action – up to two years of imprisonment or a fine or both penalties. It further states that the Committee had previously pronounced itself on the restriction of the right to strike and expressed regret at the general prohibition of strikes in the public sector and the severe penalties imposed.

    Anti-union practices and the Government’s failure to protect workers

  1. 988. The complainant alleges that the Government fails to protect the workers who exercise their freedom of association and collective bargaining and provides the following illustrative cases.

    TRW Steering and Suspension (company 1)

  1. 989. On 30 March 2012, the employer unilaterally increased wages without negotiating with the union, in response to which the workers protested by refusing overtime and proposed wage increases in line with the industry standard. On 20 April 2012, the company announced a lockout of three trade union leaders, including the president, claiming in writing that they had led the workers to slow down the production, causing damage to the company and violating its rules. Despite many mediation meetings with the provincial labour office and Labour Court, the workers were pressured to accept an offer from the employer to drop their complaint and resign. While the locked out union president accepted the offer and resigned due to financial difficulties, the other two trade union leaders asked for reinstatement and emphasized that the labour authorities did not aim at their reinstatement but pressured them to accept the offer and resign. The case is ongoing.

    TechnoPLAS Thailand Factory (company 2)

  1. 990. On 25 December 2012, the factory trade union was registered after which the workers, most of whom are female, proposed their demands to the company but negotiations with the employer were unsuccessful. On 23 and 30 January 2013, the employer dismissed 15 trade union leaders, allegedly due to organizational restructuring, who were then pressured by the labour inspectorate to take a payout from the company and resign. On 29 May 2013, the Labour Relations Committee (LRC) called upon the employer to reinstate the remaining workers but in the meantime 14 out of 15 workers took the payout and resigned due to financial difficulties, while the remaining trade union leader is isolated and under constant surveillance.

    Nakashima Rubber (Thailand) Co. Ltd. (company 3)

  1. 991. On 17 January 2005, the Nakashima Rubber Company dismissed four trade union leaders, including the president, for having allegedly violated company rules pertaining to “union duty leave” and other issues. Immediately following their dismissal, the trade union leaders were prohibited from entering the enterprise and were unable to meet with trade union members. While two trade union leaders took a payout and resigned, the other two filed a complaint to the LRC and the Central Labour Court and, after seven years of proceedings, won their case. In 2012, the Supreme Court had to confirm the reinstatement order on two occasions before the two workers were finally reinstated. However, when the company opened a second factory in Prachinburi Province, the reinstated workers together with other trade union leaders were transferred there, before being dismissed. In November 2013, another 11 members of the employee committee were dismissed. The primary court upheld the dismissals but following the workers’ appeal, the case is currently ongoing at the Supreme Court.

    Yum Restaurant International (Thailand) Co. Ltd. (company 4)

  1. 992. On 9 May 2011, the company dismissed three trade union leaders after they had successfully registered a trade union and proposed their demands to the company. Several trade union members were called to individual or small group meetings with the employer and pressured to resign from the trade union; under financial distress, two trade union leaders accepted the company’s offer while the third one obtained reinstatement at court but was pressured by the judge to be more conciliatory, accept the money and drop the case. When she returned to work, the employer subjected her to various forms of intimidation and discrimination: isolation, lack of work, video surveillance, exclusion from bonuses and company-provided benefits with the aim to pressure her to take a payout and resign. The complainant states that both the LRC and the Labour Court claimed that they did not have the power to consider or make a decision on the specific allegations of anti-union discrimination. The company appealed against the reinstatement order and the case is currently ongoing.

    TA Automotive Parts (Thailand) Co. Ltd. (company 5)

  1. 993. On 10 February 2014, about 120 workers met, signed and submitted a set of bargaining proposals to the company while being observed and videotaped by police officers called in by the employer to intimidate the workers. Two days later, the workers submitted a request to register their local trade union at the Ministry of Labour. Although the company and the trade union met for three rounds of negotiations, the trade union was asked to withdraw its proposals as the company was unable to meet the workers’ demands. Further mediation meetings were held with no progress and on 24 March 2014, the company locked out 116 workers and replaced them with subcontracted workers, including 45 Cambodian migrant workers, before cutting benefits for all trade union members. Frustrated with the lack of progress and support from the labour inspectorate and the Ministry of Labour, the union began to demonstrate in front of the Ministry of Labour and the Thai Labour Solidarity Committee submitted a complaint to the Royal Thai Police for allowing police officers to be used to threaten workers and violate their labour rights.
  2. 994. On 23 May 2014, the employer agreed to sign a collective bargaining agreement and to reinstate all locked out workers but in reality only a few workers were allowed to come back and about 38 trade union members were forced to wait in tents set up on company grounds and were monitored by video cameras. They were required to report daily and were paid, but were not given work or allowed to use company bathrooms. Later on, the company dismissed a worker for posting a picture on social media depicting the workers in tents, claiming that the picture defamed the company’s image. On 28 June 2014, the employer dismissed seven trade union leaders who were also members of the employee committee, claiming that other workers had gathered enough signatures to remove the seven trade union leaders from the employee committee. On 8 July 2014, the company suspended the 38 trade union members sitting in tents for allegedly refusing to work overtime although they were not even allowed to work for most of the time they were in the tents. The company then held private meetings, without trade union representatives, with the 38 workers and pressured them to take a settlement and resign; 34 workers agreed to the company’s demands while the other four workers initially refused but eventually succumbed to the employer’s pressure. One of the workers was physically assaulted but the police never apprehended any suspects. On 28 November 2014, the LRC found that the dismissal of seven trade union leaders in June 2014 was illegal and ordered the company to reinstate and compensate them but the company appealed the order.

    Alpha lndustry (Thailand) Co. Ltd. (company 6)

  1. 995. On 10 March 2014, about 260 workers signed a document containing their proposals and submitted it to the company. When the company and the workers’ representatives met to negotiate, police officers were brought in to intimidate the workers and the supervisors walked around the factory to force the workers to sign an order to withdraw their proposals; those who refused were threatened with dismissal. According to the complainant, six workers and negotiating committee members refused to sign resignation letters even under pressure; the employer then called in police officers carrying rifles to intimidate them and when they again refused they were dismissed for violating company rules. The six dismissed workers reported a labour dispute to the Prachinburi Provincial Labour Office. On 21 March 2014, the company dismissed one more trade union leader for violating company rules. The workers then elected seven new trade union committee members but the employer dismissed all of them between 8 and 10 April 2014. The dismissed workers filed a complaint to the Royal Thai Police over the use of police officers to intimidate workers and another complaint to the LTRC, Ministry of Labour, and Japan Council of Metal Workers Unions. As a result, the trade union and the company reached a collective bargaining agreement but under the employer’s continued pressure, all trade union leaders eventually resigned from the trade union that has since been dissolved.

    HGST Thailand (company 7)

  1. 996. On 12 December 2014, about 1,500 workers protested against the company’s low bonuses and a decrease in other payments. Although a mediation meeting was held with the Ministry of Labour, the protesting workers became agitated, as the employer did not allow workers inside the factory to leave after their shift, as they feared they would join the protest. Other trade unions and workers from surrounding plants also rallied behind the protesting workers. The following day, an agreement on the disputed issue was reached and an amnesty clause requiring both the employer and the workers not to retaliate against each other or to file legal charges, was agreed upon. However, the company along with local political officials and the police began to pressure the workers who had led the protest and had begun to organize a trade union, to make them resign and terminate the trade union organizing drive. These workers, as well as labour leaders from supportive trade unions, received death threats. At the beginning of 2015, the company informed the workers that they could negotiate a collective bargaining agreement by March but in the meantime, it increased the number of contract workers, held meetings with the military and police to prepare for any future protests and broke off the negotiations. The national trade union federation, fearful of retaliation against the workers, advised not to protest or challenge the actions.

    Hutchinson Technology Operations (Thailand) Co. Ltd. (company 8)

  1. 997. After failing to reach a collective bargaining agreement in November 2014, the employer proposed to decrease the benefits of trade union members. The local trade union organized a protest and called for a mediation meeting that resulted in a collective bargaining agreement, which included an amnesty clause for protesting workers. However, soon after, the employer dismissed the local trade union president and began to closely monitor the workers who had been involved in the protest with security guards and video surveillance. As the trade union president was a member of the employee committee, she could only be dismissed with a court order and thus challenged her dismissal. Even when the Ayutthaya Labour Welfare and Protection Office informed the employer that the worker was a member of the employee committee, the employer refused to reinstate her. The trade union president then filed a complaint with the Labour Court but while acknowledging that the dismissal was unlawful, the employer did not offer reinstatement but compensation to resign, which the worker accepted due to continued pressure. On 1 May 2015, the company began to separate the trade union leaders from other workers and stopped giving them work while hiring short-term contract employees. The complainant further refers to a gas leak that occurred on 20 January 2015, stating that while the managers, office workers, and foremen were allowed to evacuate the company premises, the workers were held inside the plant by security guards and were told by the health and safety employee that it was safe to work. Fearful of dismissal, the workers returned to work but soon began to pass out or develop other symptoms, including swelling of the face, blackout, sore throat and high blood pressure. According to the workers, several gas leaks have occurred in the past, and workers’ health had suffered as a result.

    Michelin Siam Company (company 9)

  1. 998. On 13 February 2014, the local trade union submitted its collective bargaining proposals to the company but no agreement was reached, after which the trade union organized rallies and demonstrations. When the trade union announced that a strike would commence on 13 March 2014, several gunshots were fired at the demonstration site but no one was injured. Eventually, the strike did not take place and on 29 April 2014, the trade union and the employer reached a collective bargaining agreement. However, the company then proceeded to a lockout of 60 trade union members and although all but two of the workers were later reinstated, they were transferred to the worst positions in the plant and were regularly verbally abused and pressured to resign. The workers filed a complaint to the Labour Welfare and Protection Department but no action was taken to resolve the complaint.

    Stanley Works (company 10)

  1. 999. On 30 July 2013, the employer dismissed the president of the Stanley Thailand Workers Union (STWU) for allegedly stealing company property – a leave request form, which the trade union president had signed and took to photocopy for his own record. As a dismissed trade union leader, he was not allowed to visit the plant or meet with his members and the trade union elected a new leader. However, the company began to directly support the creation of another trade local union – the Stanley Works Workers Union (SWWU) – led by white collar employees instead of production workers. On 29 October 2013, the company locked out 44 STWU members, including the local union executive council and four pregnant women, one of whom miscarried during the lockout period, and demanded that the STWU withdraw its collective bargaining agreement and its bargaining proposals. The company and the newly created trade union then signed a new collective agreement containing wage freezes and other concessions. The STWU reported that the company pressured its members to leave the trade union and join the SWWU and presented the locked out workers with an 18 point consent letter they had to sign in order to be reinstated, which requested the workers to perform a religious ceremony to apologize to the company and repent for their actions, prohibited them from complaining about the company and required them to drop all of their complaints and cases in the Labour Court, and even required one of the trade union leaders to apologize to the company on her social media for up to one year on threat of a criminal libel case against her. Since the lockout, the STWU has been in mediation with a labour officer but due to his slowness or unwillingness to protect labour rights, no progress was made. As a result, on 11 November 2013, the STWU filed a petition to the National Human Rights Commission against the lockout but despite additional mediation meetings with the company, most of the STWU members who continue to work at the factory left the trade union to avoid employer’s pressure.
  2. 1000. In January 2014, the trade union organized demonstrations due to the employer’s refusal to negotiate but the company threatened to dismiss any worker that participated in the demonstrations. Although to end the labour dispute, the STWU offered to agree with the employer’s collective bargaining demands and requested a mediation meeting with the Chacheongsao Labour Welfare and Protection Office, the employer refused to meet unless the workers signed the 18 point consent letter. The STWU then held meetings with various public institutions and labour organizations and the Deputy Director of the Labour Welfare and Protection Department agreed to mediate between the two parties. As a result, the employer agreed to reinstate 12 out of the 44 locked out trade union members and leaders, while the others accepted a settlement and decided to resign. The employer, however, continued to threaten the reinstated workers, dismissed one of the workers for posting a picture of the management on social media and encouraged the newly created company trade union to stage a walk out against the reinstated workers. As a result, three of the reinstated workers were pressured to voluntarily resign and eight others were dismissed on 13 January 2015. According to the complainant, the company trade union filed criminal libel lawsuits against four trade union leaders from the Thai Confederation of Electronic, Electrical Appliances, Auto and Metal Workers (TEAM) who provided assistance to the STWU and all four received fines. The company is also planning to file civil lawsuits against additional TEAM leaders and the STWU for alleged damages, including “defaming” the company. On 24 June 2015, the LRC ruled in favour of the eight dismissed former STWU members stating that as the eight workers had agreed to the demands proposed by the employer with the intention to be reinstated to end the conflict, the dismissal was in breach of section 121(1)–(2) of the LRA. However, the LRC did not order reinstatement as it found that the parties could no longer work together peacefully and instead ordered the employer to compensate the workers.

    Yano Electronics (Thailand) Ltd. (company 11)

  1. 1001. On 9 December 2014, about 1,000 workers protested against the company not announcing bonuses, after which mediation with the Prachinburi Labour Welfare and Protection Office took place in the presence of police officers and the parties agreed on a bonus plan. However, soon after, the company dismissed the leaders of the protest and the workers were pressured and threatened by company-hired thugs. In response to the workers’ complaint, the Labour Welfare and Protection Officer stated that he had no power to remedy the situation.

    NTN Manufacturing (Thailand) Co. Ltd. (company 12)

  1. 1002. On 10 February 2014, the NTN Workers’ Union of Thailand submitted its proposals to the company, which led to several sessions of negotiations from February to March. When no agreement was reached, about 700 workers took sick leave from 20 to 21 March 2014 and the company retaliated by suspending 34 trade union leaders and demanded that the workers elect new leaders and representatives. Negotiations resumed but no agreement was reached and the trade union requested mediation from the Ministry of Labour. On 3 April 2014, the parties reached an agreement but the company also demanded that the trade union sign an apology letter to which the workers disagreed, as they were afraid that the employer would use the letter to file charges against them. Although several draft letters were exchanged between the employer and the trade union, one party always rejected the other’s proposal. In May 2014, eight trade union leaders and a trade union member were dismissed. In protest, the trade union attempted to organize a demonstration in front of the company but was prevented from doing so by the security officers from the Eastern Seaboard Industrial Park. The employer then dismissed 27 additional trade union members. The trade union president and two other trade union members filed complaints to the Labour Court while the other dismissed workers accepted compensation. In December 2014, the court ordered the reinstatement of the two trade union members but upheld the dismissal of the trade union president.

    Summit Laemchabang Auto Body Work Co. Ltd. (company 13)

  1. 1003. In 2013, the company dismissed 60 trade union members for incompetency, claiming that 20 trade union duty leave days that trade union leaders were entitled to under the collective bargaining agreement hindered the company’s operations. Although the workers filed a complaint to the Labour Court, the judge stated that the employers had the right to dismiss workers at any time if they were not making profit. On 11 November 2013, the employer suspended 17 members of the local union executive committee, and although later reinstated all but four of them, it filed a court order for permission to dismiss all trade union members and officers of the employee committee, rejected mediation and claimed that the workers had hostile attitudes and were incompetent because they were entitled to 20 days of leave per year for trade union duty, which hurt the company’s operations. The judge stated that the workers took too many union duty days and their actions were cause for dismissal but nevertheless refused to render a decision and ordered the workers to negotiate with the employer. No progress has been made on this issue.

    Mitsubishi Motors (Thailand) Co. Ltd. (company 14)

  1. 1004. On 16 September 2013, the company filed for a court order to dismiss the trade union president for allegedly having a hostile attitude, taking unauthorized leave and having unlawfully appointed a worker as a member of the employee committee. On 24 July 2014, the court rejected the first two accusations but upheld the third claim indicating that the trade union president interfered with the justice system as he unlawfully appointed a worker to the employee committee, while the worker was in a separate legal process with the employer. After the dismissal of the president, the trade union has been severely weakened and the company stopped transferring membership fees to it.

    Thai Sohbi Kohgei Co. Ltd. (company 15)

  1. 1005. In October 2013, the company unilaterally changed working hours without consulting the local trade union or the employee committee. When the trade union filed a complaint to the Labour Court, the company dismissed a trade union committee member in retaliation, accusing him of having a hostile attitude and not following company orders, including an order to memorize the company’s code of conduct. Taking up the worker’s complaint, the LRC ordered his reinstatement but the company rejected the order and filed a complaint to the Labour Court asking to nullify it. The company continued to apply pressure on the worker and the local trade union; on 29 June 2014, several gunshots were fired near the trade union president and on 1 August 2014, the dismissed worker was physically assaulted. After these incidents, the company’s lawyer negotiated with the trade union president to drop the complaint concerning the unilateral change of working hours and to persuade the dismissed worker to resign voluntarily, which he refused to do. On 4 September 2014, the local trade union president was physically assaulted on his way home and the LRC issued another order to the employer to reinstate the dismissed trade union committee member. The complainant indicates that the employer has yet to comply with the reinstatement order and that the assault on the local trade union president and local trade union committee member is still under investigation.

    Ricoh Manufacturing (Thailand) Co. Ltd. (company 16)

  1. 1006. On 29 November 2011, 274 workers signed a petition in support of better working conditions and increase in bonus pay and a group of 21 workers delivered the petition to the managers, who agreed to negotiate. The workers organized a trade union and developed their proposals but on 6 December 2011, the employer dismissed 41 trade union leaders and members, claiming that the workers created a “dispute between workers and management, thus inciting a rift in the company; created a bad example; defamed the company’s reputation; built mistrust among workers; showed aggressive behaviour and had bad attitude; and were unwilling to conform and could no longer be trusted”. On 7 December 2011, the company dismissed another four workers for participating in a rally and on the following day, it forced the remaining workers to sign a pledge that they would not participate in any demonstration or rally in support of the dismissed workers. A few days later, the company dismissed nine more workers claiming that they had repeatedly violated the company’s warnings.
  2. 1007. On 16 December 2011, the local trade union was registered but the employer refused to negotiate with the workers. The trade union filed several complaints, including at the Parliamentary Labour Committee and the Rayong Labour Protection and Welfare Officer but the complaint was dismissed by the former and the latter took no action at all. Although the trade union received considerable international support, the company refused to reinstate the dismissed workers or to negotiate with the trade union. Furthermore, it handed out bonuses to workers who did not support the trade union and transformed about 400 full-time permanent positions, out of a total of 724, into short-term positions to undermine trade union support. The trade union was dissolved as the workers had to find new jobs to support themselves.

    Iida Seimitsu (Thailand) Co. Ltd. (company 17)

  1. 1008. In early 2012, the workers registered a trade union and in March 2012 proposed their demands to the company. However, instead of negotiating, the employer suggested to take away many of the benefits the workers already had, an act which they believe was retaliation for organizing a trade union, and on 18 April 2012, the employer demanded that the trade union drop all its demands. Despite mediation meetings with the provincial labour officer, the dispute was not resolved and on 27 April 2012, the employer locked out 112 trade union members and leaders. After several rounds of mediation, the company agreed to reinstate all trade union members but assigned them to cleaning jobs at 75 per cent of their pay. Many of the reinstated workers resigned due to the discrimination and pressure they faced for being trade union members and soon afterward, the trade union ceased to exist. The workers did not file any further complaints for fear of retaliation.

    Electrolux (company 18)

  1. 1009. On 21 December 2012, the company representatives and the trade union met to discuss wages and short-term contracts but no agreement was reached and a few days later, the company posted the new wage schedules without negotiating with the trade union. On 9 January 2013, the company demanded each “line leader” to refrain from carrying out any trade union activity and to instruct their subordinates to do the same and repeated these instructions a day later. On 10 January 2013, the trade union again requested the management to take their concerns about wage schedule into account when calculating wage increases. The company called a meeting with trade union representatives and informed the workers that it would announce the changes to wages, use of short-term contract workers and bonuses, while also stating that it would not retaliate against trade union members. However, when the workers gathered to hear the announcement, the company director and managers grabbed the local trade union president and physically escorted him outside the meeting where he was dismissed, taken into a company van and driven off the company property.
  2. 1010. The workers refused to return to work after the meeting unless their demands were met and the trade union president was reinstated. In response, the company called in additional security guards as well as the police and barricaded about 100 workers outside the workplace. The workers, including pregnant women, were not allowed to have lunch and were detained by the company guards for up to eight hours. When the workers returned to work on 14 January 2013, the company dismissed them and others as well – up to 127 workers. On 28 June 2013, following international pressure and condemnation, the company agreed to reinstate the workers but has so far failed to honour the agreement. The complainant alleges that since its registration in February 2011, the employer ignored the trade union and refused to bargain in good faith with the workers, even though the trade union represented an overwhelming majority of the workforce.
  3. 1011. In conclusion, the complainant requests the Government to ratify Conventions Nos 87 and 98, to review the labour laws, in consultation with trade unions, in view of bringing them into compliance with the Conventions and to ensure that in the mentioned cases, employers comply with all orders for remediation and compensation and that workers’ fundamental rights are respected.

B. The Government’s reply

B. The Government’s reply
  1. 1012. In its communication dated 14 March 2016, the Government provides observations on several types of labour organizations; progress made in legislative revision; freedom of association of various categories of workers; measures to promote the right to strike and combat discrimination against migrant workers; as well as on the cases of alleged anti-union practices in numerous enterprises.

    Observations on the allegations of legislative shortcomings

  1. 1013. The Government contests the complainant’s allegation that the vast majority of Thai workers are prohibited from exercising freedom of association and that Thailand has the lowest unionization rate of any country in South-East Asia. It asserts that Thai workers are able to exercise freedom of association by participating in four main forms of labour organizations, each protecting workers’ right to organize and bargain collectively based on the LRA, the SELRA, the Thai Constitution, the Interim Constitution and other related laws. The Government refers to the following entities:
    • – Trade unions: The number of trade unions increased from 1,366 in 2012 to 1,479 in 2015, while the number of trade union members grew from 402,633 in 2012 to 450,725 in 2015. Out of the 348,692 private enterprises in existence in 2015, 1,379 (0.42 per cent) had registered trade unions. The number of trade unions also increased in state enterprises from 45 in 2012 to 47 in 2015, while the number of trade union members expanded from 166,541 in 2012 to 180,681 in 2015. Out of 64 state enterprises in existence in 2015, 47 (73.4 per cent) had registered trade unions. Representatives from labour organizations are also encouraged to nominate themselves for participation in the Tripartite Committee.
    • – Employees’ Committees: In line with the LRA, an Employees’ Committee may be established in a business that has 50 or more employees and the employer must arrange for a meeting with the Employees’ Committee at least once every three months, or upon the request of more than one-half of the total number of Committee members or the trade union. The Employee’s Committee can discuss many topics, including employees’ complaints and settlement of disputes and many actions of the employer against a Committee member, including dismissal, can only be taken with permission from the Labour Court.
    • – Welfare Committees: According to the LRA, a place of business with 50 or more employees shall arrange for the establishment of a Welfare Committee, comprised of at least five elected employee representatives. As of November 2015, there were 14,557 company-level Welfare Committees represented in businesses and Employees’ Committees.
    • – Unregistered labour organizations: Employees in private sector and state enterprises are also able to organize without any registration. There are a number of active, unregistered labour organizations, whose reputations are well recognized among the civil society, namely the Thai Labour Solidarity Committee (TLSC), Women Workers’ Unity Group (WWUG), Labour Coordinating Center (LCC), Information and Training Providing for Labour Center and State Enterprises Workers’ Relations Confederation (SERC).
  2. 1014. The Government also points out that workers not covered by the LRA or the SELRA, benefit from the right to unite and form an association guaranteed by the Constitution and the Interim Constitution. Article 64 of the Constitution states: “A person shall enjoy the liberty to unite and form an association, a union, a league, a co-operative, a farmers’ group, a private organization, a nongovernmental organization, or any other group”. Furthermore, in line with section 13 of the LRA, employees can bargain collectively, whether they are trade union members or not; they can submit a demand for an agreement relating to conditions of employment to the employer if the demand includes at least 50 per cent of the total number of the employees in the enterprise and contains their names and signatures.
  3. 1015. The Government further indicates that the Ministry of Labour, through the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare (DLPW), made progress in the revision of the LRA and the SELRA, with the purpose of expanding the ability of workers to organize and bargain collectively. Two draft acts were approved by the Office of Council of State and submitted to the Secretariat of the Cabinet for subsequent submission to the Cabinet and the National Legislative Assembly, but while the two drafts were being processed the TLSC submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Labour to halt the process of submission as it felt that the drafted acts needed revision in order to comply with the principles of Conventions Nos 87 and 98. On 24 March 2015, the Ministry of Labour convened a meeting with representatives from various labour organizations and employers’ organizations to consider the proposal and it was decided that the draft acts needed to be redrafted. On 10 August 2015, a working group comprised of six representatives from the Government and the employers’ and employees’ organizations was set up. Its role is, among others, to review the drafts prepared by tripartite actors and, using ILO Conventions as the source, elaborate a second draft of the LRA and the SELRA. The working group convened five times between July and December 2015 and the Government provides minutes of each meeting. Once its work is completed, a public hearing will be conducted to review and propose comments regarding the content of the redrafted acts and stakeholders, including an expert from the ILO, will be invited to participate. The Government states that it will ensure that the principle of freedom of association and collective bargaining, consistent with ILO standards, will be prescribed in the newly drafted LRA and SELRA in order to provide the right to organize to Thai and migrant workers, irrespective of the type of industrial trade union.
  4. 1016. With regard to freedom of association and collective bargaining of various categories of workers, the Government states that the existing legislation affords Thai workers freedom of association and collective bargaining. In particular, the Government refers to section 43 of the CSA, which states that: “Civil servants have the liberty to assemble as a group, as provided in the Constitution, provided that such assembly does not affect the efficiency of national administration and continuity of public services, and must not have a political objective”. According to the Government, the CSA intends to maintain national peace and order and does not violate the right of civil servants but the Ministry of Labour will inform the principle of freedom of association, right to organize, and collective bargaining, as set forth by the ILO, to the Office of Civil Service Commission in order to protect the rights of civil servants.
  5. 1017. Although in line with section 23 of the Private University Act of 2013, professors at private universities are not under the protection of the LRA, their right to freedom of association is protected by the Constitution and the Interim Constitution. In addition, employees of private universities must receive employment protection, benefits and compensation coverage not less than what is prescribed by the LRA and in line with the ministerial regulations. Consequently, teachers and professors at private universities are able to exercise their right to form an association, as prescribed in the Constitution and the Ministry of Labour will propose the principle of freedom of association and right to organize and collective bargaining, as set forth by the ILO, to the Ministry of Education for its consideration.
  6. 1018. The Government further states that according to the LRA, an employee defined as a person agreeing to work for an employer in return for wages, is able to enjoy the right to organize. Therefore, employees or workers in the agricultural sector, domestic workers or any kind of contract employees are able to submit their proposals for the registration of trade unions. Furthermore, workers in the informal sector are allowed to form a trade union for the sake of collective bargaining and such trade unions have played significant and active roles in collective bargaining in various aspects. The Government indicates numerous organizations of this type: the National Informal Labour Coordination Centre (LILC), which provides services to workers in the informal sector in every region in Thailand; the Foundation for Labour and Employment Promotion (Homenet) established for the purpose of promoting the trade union workers in the informal sector and enhancing their capacity; WWUG which conducts activities related to women workers’ issues in various aspects; and Women’s Movement in Thai Political Reform (WeMove) which prioritizes women’s rights and gender equality issues.
  7. 1019. With regard to the allegations concerning migrant workers, the Government indicates that throughout 2015, it took a large number of preventative measures to reduce the vulnerabilities of persons at risk of trafficking by implementing new policies that respond to gaps in the system, developing partnerships and enhancing capacity of government officials, the public and migrants. The Government also improved the process of legalization of irregular migrants and proceeded to the registration of 1,010,391 migrant workers and their dependants from Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia to allow them to stay and work within the country. The Government further states that migrant workers are protected by the Labour Protection Act; the Home Workers Protection Act; and the Occupational Safety, Health and Environment Act; that it enacted various regulations to ensure their protection and that the Ministry of Labour has considered revisions of the Labour Protection Act on issues of forced labour and debt bondage in order to combat forced labour and human trafficking. The Government also provides detailed information concerning the Kvaw Lin Naing case and the Rohingya trafficking case to demonstrate progress made in combating human trafficking, including that of migrant workers.
  8. 1020. Concerning contract workers, the Government points out that section 11(1) of the Labour Protection Act prescribes that:
    • Where an entrepreneur has entrusted any individual to recruit persons to work, which is not a business of employment services, and such work is any part of manufacturing process or business operation under the entrepreneur’s responsibility, and regardless of whether such person is the supervisor or takes the responsibility for paying wages to the persons who perform work, the entrepreneur shall be deemed as an Employer of such workers. The entrepreneur shall provide contract employees, who perform work in the same manner as employees under the employment contract, to enjoy fair benefits and welfare without discrimination.
  9. In response to the allegation that only full-time employees may serve on trade union committees and that if a trade union official loses his or her job, they can no longer be trade union members or elected officials, the Government indicates that former members of trade union committees can only serve as elected trade union officials and advisers if they are allowed and accepted by the trade unions.
  10. 1021. Concerning the obligation to bargain in good faith, the Government states that although the LRA does not contain such an obligation, section 5 of the Civil and Commercial Code provides that: “Every person must, in the exercise of his rights, and in the performance of his obligations, act in good faith”. In addition, the LRA allows employees to submit a complaint to a labour dispute arbitrator to request negotiation. Furthermore, the newly drafted LRA will prescribe the principle of good faith and training courses on negotiations in good faith will be provided to employers and employees.
  11. 1022. The Government further states that, contrary to the complainant’s allegations, both the LRA and the SELRA protect the freedom of speech of unionists, especially for libel. Section 99 of the LRA provides:
    • When a Labour Union, for the benefits of its members, carries out the following activities, not related to politics, the Employees, Labour Union, members of the Committee or Sub-committee and officials of the Labour Union shall not be liable to criminal or civil charges or actions:
      • (1) participate in the negotiation for settlement on the demand for rights or benefits to which its members should be entitled with Employers, Employers’ Associations, Employees, other Labour Unions, Employers’ Federations or Labour Federations;
      • (2) cause a Strike or assist, persuade or encourage its members to Strike;
      • (3) explain or publicise facts concerning Labour Disputes; or
      • (4) arrange for a rally or peaceful gathering for a Strike,
      • that is, except where the activities constitute criminal offences in the nature of offences endangering the public against life and body, offences against liberty and reputation, offences against property and civil infringements resulting from the commission of the said criminal offences.
  12. The Government further indicates that individuals enjoy the right to file a defamation lawsuit but the abovementioned categories constitute exemptions. Nevertheless, any defamation case will be brought to the criminal court for trial but in line with section 329 of the Criminal Code: “Whoever, in good faith, expresses any opinion or statement: by way of self-justification or defence, or for the protection of a legitimate interest; in the status of being an official in the exercise of his functions; by way of fair comment on any person or thing subjected to public criticism; or by way of fair report of the open proceeding of any Court or meeting, shall not be guilty of defamation”.
  13. 1023. The Government concludes by stating that it has seriously endeavoured to better protect labourers and eliminate forced labour, in line with international labour standards. In cooperation with the ILO TRIANGLE Project, the Government focused on the promotion of migrant workers’ rights, and under the ILO–IPEC, it focused on the prevention and the elimination of forced labour, child labour, and labour trafficking in the shrimp sector. Training courses to enhance the officials’ knowledge on labour inspection has resulted in effective law enforcement actions in the sea fishery and fish processing industries.

    Observations on allegations of anti-union practices in various enterprises and the Government’s inaction to protect workers

  1. 1024. With regard to the individual cases of allegations of anti-union practices in various enterprises, the Government provides the following observations.

    Company 1

  1. 1025. In January 2012, there was a labour dispute between the company and the trade union leader regarding the 300 Thailand baht (THB) minimum wage launched by the Government. Some of the employees requested higher wages, but the demand was not in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the labour law and the agreement on working conditions was still in force, so the employer denied the demand. As a result, some dissatisfied employees refused to complete their work assignments and despite warnings from the employer, the trade union leader continued to persuade the employees to stop working, causing business losses to the company. Eventually, the employer ordered two trade union committee members and one member of the employee committee, to stop coming to work, although they would still receive pay. According to the Government, the company did not lockout the labour leaders but asked permission from the Labour Court to punish the member of the employee committee. During reconciliation by the Labour Court, the worker resigned with compensation. The trade union continues its activities and the two trade union committee members continue to work at the company at the same wages and retain their role as trade union officials. The Government states that they had not submitted any further demands and the labour dispute was thus settled.

    Company 2

  1. 1026. In December 2012, the employees submitted a demand to the employer to change working conditions but an agreement could not be reached. The labour dispute was submitted to the Government office in charge and successfully settled on 18 December 2012, with mutual agreement of both sides. On 23 January 2013, the employer announced a scheme of the company reengineering as a result of which 15 employees, including ten trade union committee members, were laid off with compensation, as prescribed in the labour law. On 7 March 2013, the ten committee members submitted a complaint to the LRC, which conducted an investigation and issued reinstatement and a compensation order. The employer submitted an appeal to the Labour Court to revoke this order, but later withdrew the appeal as it reached an agreement with the ten employees, who did not wish to continue working in the company and voluntarily resigned with compensation. The labour dispute was thus settled and the trade union continues to conduct its activities.

    Company 3

  1. 1027. In 2006, the company requested the Labour Court to stand down the leader of the trade union and another four employees because they participated in trade union activities beyond those, which are stated in the law and without having been granted permission to do so by the employer. The Labour Court provided conciliation and the employees agreed to cease their employment commitment with compensation. In 2012, the company faced high losses from the severe flooding of 2011 and submitted an application to the Labour Court to lay off the leader of the trade union and another 11 employees who were members of the employee committee and the trade union. The Labour Court gave permission to the employer to lay off the employees and pay compensation in accordance with the law. Although the employer obtained the right to unilaterally lay off the employees, they can appeal such a court order. On 27 April 2015, the trade union submitted its demand concerning working conditions to the employer and after two rounds of discussions an agreement was reached and was registered on 28 May 2015 with validity for two years.

    Company 4

  1. 1028. When the company laid off three trade union members, they submitted a complaint to the LRC, which made an order to rehire the workers but the employer, submitted a legal action aimed at revoking it. The Central Labour Court provided conciliation that resulted in two employees accepting the employer’s compensation while the third employee was rehired in a different position but one of equal rank and pay. Moreover, labour officers also supported the labour relations between both sides so as to promote good labour relations and partnerships. As for the allegation of discrimination, the employer indicated that the employee did not receive a bonus payment, as he was not eligible due to his unqualified working performance when compared with other employees of the same rank, while other forms of welfare, such as uniforms and shuttle buses, were already provided to all employees. The Government points out that employees can submit complaints on discrimination and unfair treatment to the Labour Court or to labour officers.

    Company 5

  1. 1029. On 3 February 2014, a trade union was registered, on 10 February 2014, it submitted its demands to the company and negotiations proceeded from February to March 2014. However, agreement could not be reached and on 21 March 2014, the employer locked out 104 employees who had participated in the demand submission. On 2 April 2014, the employer submitted its grievance to the Government and on 10 April 2014, it locked out all members of the trade union. On 22 May 2014, the labour dispute between the employer and the trade union was settled at the Ministry of Labour but on 8 July 2014, the employer imposed temporary suspension of employment to 38 trade union members on the basis that they had not done overtime work during the bargaining period and had caused losses to the company. On 14 July 2014, the company invited the 38 employees to discuss the situation, as a result of which 34 employees decided to resign and received compensation to the extent of 30 per cent of their salary, while the other four employees were rehired and continue to work at the company.
  2. 1030. In August 2014, the company laid off seven employees who were trade union committee members, claiming that they had not done overtime work during the bargaining period and had caused losses to the company. The employees submitted a grievance to the LRC asking to let them return to work and receive compensation and accusing the employer of persecuting them in contravention of section 121 (1) and (2) and 123 of the LRA because they signed up their names for the grievance and participated as negotiators and trade union members. The company appealed to the Labour Court and sued both the Committee and the trade union. The LRC issued an order to pay damages to the employees but the employer requested the Labour Court to revoke the order. Eventually, both sides reached an agreement at the court and the employees accepted to receive compensation of THB470,000.

    Company 6

  1. 1031. On 10 March 2014, a total of 261 employees submitted a demand to the company to change working conditions but an agreement could not be reached and the labour dispute was submitted to a labour officer for conciliation. On 13 March 2014, both sides reached an agreement but the company laid off 14 employees who had led the negotiations. The employees submitted their grievance to the LRC asking to be rehired. After conciliation by the LRC, the company agreed to compensate the laid-off employees instead of rehiring them. The Government indicates that the labour dispute did not result in the laying off of the leader of the trade union.

    Company 7

  1. 1032. On 12 December 2014, 800 employees took part in a strike to demand the company to pay four-month salary bonus and other benefits. Although the labour officers visited the workplace and advised the employees to appoint a leader for labour negotiations, they preferred to negotiate jointly. On 13 December 2014, an agreement was reached and the labour dispute was settled. The employees did not submit any further grievance to the labour officers, the company rehired all employees without any punishment and did not use subcontracted workers to replace the current employees. Concerning trade union establishment, there was no grievance submitted to the labour officers and the police officers were present at the workplace to act as safety guards and not to confront the employees.

    Company 8

  1. 1033. In September 2014, the company laid off trade union committee members because they had violated company regulations. The employees submitted a grievance to the LRC, which ordered the company to rehire the employees, but the employer appealed to the Labour Court requesting conciliation and both sides eventually agreed to cease the employment relationships with compensation. On 20 November 2014, the trade union submitted a demand to the employer concerning the working conditions and the employer submitted a counter demand to the employees. Despite four bilateral negotiation meetings no agreement was reached and the employees gathered in front of the worksite during the negotiation and verbally assaulted the employer. On 26 November 2014, both sides submitted grievances to the labour officers requesting conciliation, after which an agreement was reached and was registered on 9 December 2014 with validity for three years. After the labour dispute had been settled, the employer laid off the chairperson of the trade union as the employer found evidence that he had persuaded other employees to stop working during working hours thereby causing losses to the company. After conciliation at the Labour Court, the employment relationship was terminated and the employee received compensation. In July 2015, the company transferred four trade union committee members from one subsection to another within the same manufacturing section, on the basis that there were no jobs in the former subsection available. While one of the trade union committee members agreed to be transferred, the other three are still undergoing the process at the Labour Court. A further four employees agreed to a transfer requested by the employer and three more are undergoing a process at the Labour Court.
  2. 1034. Concerning the gas leak incident, the Phranakorn Sri Ayutthaya Labour Protection and Welfare Office assigned an occupational safety and health officer to investigate the workplace, who found fluorine gas leaking at a level that did not exceed that which was prescribed by the law. No employees were injured in the accident and no grievances were submitted to the labour inspectorate regarding the security guards’ misconduct resulting from not allowing employees to leave the area of the gas leak. The labour inspector subsequently conducted another inspection and found no evidence of misconduct.

    Company 9

  1. 1035. On 13 February 2014, the trade union submitted its grievance to the employer but the two sides were unable to reach a final agreement. The trade union then claimed the right to strike and on 13 March 2014, the employer locked out the workplace by erecting a barrier at the front part of the workplace and did not allow any employee to access the area, claiming it was rented for the purpose of car parking. As a result, a total of 1,500 employees gathered and occupied one lane of the road for a strike. After the strike, the employer did not rehire two employees and applied pressure on those who returned to work by assigning some of them to different offices and jobs. As a result, the employees submitted a grievance to the LRC, which ordered the employer to rehire two employees to their former positions. By virtue of the labour officers’ efforts in promoting sound labour relations, the employer rehired all employees without laying off any trade union members.

    Company 10

  1. 1036. The trade union and the employer submitted proposals to change working conditions but could not reach an agreement. From 29 October to 7 November 2014, the employer locked out 44 employees; 33 employees decided to resign, while 11 employees remained locked out. The Labour Court decided against the employees but the labour officer conducted conciliation talks on several occasions. On 8 November 2015, the employer terminated the lockout and reinstated 11 employees to their former positions before dismissing them with the claim that other groups of employees were not satisfied with their behaviours and did not want to work with them. The employees received dismissal benefits as well as special monetary benefit but they filed a complaint to the LRC, which ordered the employer to pay dismissal benefits to the employees as the parties could not continue working together. In relation to the issue of a defamation lawsuit, the employer filed a complaint against a person who used an amplifier microphone to insult him, and the court, having concluded that he had acted in violation of criminal law, fined the worker.

    Company 11

  1. 1037. On 9 December 2014, a total of 500 employees went on strike and gathered in the company’s premises to demand four months of salary as a bonus payment. Although the labour officers conducted conciliation talks and advised the employees to appoint a representative to negotiate with the employer, the employees did not wish to appoint one and the Welfare Committee thus offered to be their representative in the negotiations to resolve the strike. The labour officers promoted good labour relations between both sides and on 22 December 2014, the employer agreed to pay the four-month salary bonus payment and the labour dispute was settled by mutual agreement. The Government indicates that no grievance has been submitted by the employees regarding the issue of being laid off.

    Company 12

  1. 1038. On 10 February 2014, the trade union submitted its demand to the company but after negotiations, the demand was withdrawn. However, the employer did not allow the trade union leaders to go back to work unless they provided a written apology letter regarding a work stoppage during negotiations, which had caused losses to the company. Several draft letters were exchanged between the employer and the trade union, one party always rejecting the other’s proposal. The employer then gave a written order to lay off the trade union members and committee members and asked for permission from the Labour Court to lay off the trade union committee claiming that it did not pursue the working conditions agreement by refusing to sign the apology letter. On 16 December 2014, the Labour Court stated that the trade union chairperson had acknowledged that sick leave taken by all company employees had caused the company losses and the court permitted the employer to lay off the trade union chairperson without compensation, while the cases of two other trade union members were dismissed. The trade union chairperson appealed against the judgment.
  2. 1039. At the beginning of 2015, the trade union submitted its demand to the employer who submitted a counter demand on two issues. In late June 2015, the employer gradually asked for permission of the Labour Court to lay off some of the new trade union leaders, announced long-term overtime work and hired more than 300 temporary workers to support the workforce. The conciliation process is still ongoing as the employer is suing all trade union leaders for having caused company losses.

    Company 13

  1. 1040. At the end of 2013, the trade union submitted its demand to the company but agreement was reached only once the labour officers provided conciliation. On 11 April 2014, the employer issued a temporary employment suspension for four trade union committee members stating that it was in the process of asking permission from the Labour Court to dismiss the employees owing to their poor working capacity and their acting as opponents of the employer thus causing damage to the company. In May 2014, several sessions of informal negotiations took place at the Labour Court and once the labour officers from the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare provided conciliation, the employer agreed to discontinue the case. Two of the trade union committee members had not been allowed to return to work but still receive wages from the company. In March 2015, a total of 1,800 temporary workers submitted a grievance to the labour inspectorate asking the employer to comply with section 11(1) of the Labour Protection Act in relation to wage and welfare payments without discrimination. The labour inspectorate issued an order to the employer to pay the stipulated benefits to the employees but the employer submitted an appeal to the Governor of Chonburi Province. Although the Governor confirmed the labour inspectorates’ order, the employer submitted a grievance to the Labour Court to revoke the order. The Government indicates that both sides consented to labour conciliation talks conducted by the Labour Court.

    Company 14

  1. 1041. The employer filed a suit against the trade union chairperson claiming that he had seriously infringed the company regulations by abandoning working, rejecting supervisors’ commands and appointing an employee committee without having the authority to do so. On 24 July 2014, the Labour Court permitted the company to lay off the employee, who then appealed against the decision, which is now under consideration of the Supreme Court.

    Company 15

  1. 1042. On 10 October 2013, the company announced a new working time and the trade union called a meeting among members of the employee committee, trade union committee and the employer to find solutions but the employer refused to negotiate and claimed that it had the authority to manage the company. The trade union submitted a grievance to the Labour Court as the working time shift change was unfair to the employees and on 28 May 2014, the LRC issued an order to re-employ the trade union committee members who had been laid off by the employer for violating company regulations. However, the employer refused to comply with it and submitted a grievance to the Labour Court to revoke the order. By virtue of conciliation provided by the Labour Court, the trade union committee received compensation of THB430,000. Concerning the case of intimidation, the labour officer advised the relevant employee to submit a complaint to the inquiry officers.

    Company 16

  1. 1043. In November 2011, there was a labour dispute about bonus payments equivalent to 2.9 months of salary and the employees blocked the entrance to the workplace, requesting the company to increase the bonus to the equivalent of three months’ salary, meaning an extra THB20,000 per person. On 2 December 2011, the employer made an extra payment of THB5,000 per person but the employees were not satisfied with the increase and continued to block the entrance to the company. Since the employees’ actions were not in accordance with the law, on 6 December 2011, the employer laid off 41 employees with compensation and notice payments. A further nine employees were laid off because they failed to comply with a warning. Although labour officers tried to provide conciliation, the employer confirmed unwillingness to continue to employ the workers. On 26 January 2012, the employees submitted a complaint to the LRC requesting to be rehired in the same positions with compensation payment for the time they had spent being laid off. The LRC considered that the strike was not in compliance with the labour law and consequently, laying off the employees did not contravene section 121 of the LRA.

    Company 17

  1. 1044. On 18 April 2012, the company and the employees could not reach an agreement concerning wage increases and bonus payments, as a result of which both sides submitted grievances to the labour officer and requested conciliation talks. However, the employer did not agree with the employees’ demand and locked out the employees from 27 April 2012. On 18 May 2012, both sides reached agreement, withdrew their grievances and the labour dispute was settled. The employees were able to return to work, accepted their wage increases and bonus payments and the trade union was able to run its activities as usual. Another labour dispute occurred when the company closed down some parts of its production temporarily because of a slowdown in purchase orders. The action was conducted in accordance with the law, taking measures such as informing competent officers in advance and paying 75 per cent of wages as compensation, which is not considered as a wage deduction or a form of ill treatment. After proceeding with the investigation, the labour officer decided to close the case and explained the decision to the employees involved.
  2. 1045. The Government further provides information on Case No. 3022 relating to State Railway of Thailand which is before the Committee as well as on another situation involving Thai Airways International Public Company that was not invoked by the complainant.

The Committee’s conclusions

The Committee’s conclusions
  1. 1046. The Committee notes that in the present case the complainant alleges: (i) legislative shortcomings (denial or restriction of the right to organize and bargain collectively to civil servants and public sector workers, private sector teachers, agricultural workers, workers in the informal sector, migrant workers and temporary, agency or other subcontracted workers; insufficient protection against acts of anti-union discrimination; difficulty to bargain collectively; and denial of the right to strike to public sector workers); and (ii) acts of anti-union discrimination, interference, harassment and other anti-union practices in a number of enterprises and the Government’s failure to protect the workers.
  2. 1047. The Committee firstly notes the complainant’s general allegation that Thai labour law and its implementation do not sufficiently protect freedom of association as around 75 per cent of the workforce do not have the right to organize and bargain collectively and only around 1.5 per cent of the total workforce is unionized. The Committee observes that the Government contests the complainant’s allegations and states that national legislation guarantees the right to organize and bargain collectively, that Thai workers are able to exercise their freedom of association by participating in four main forms of labour organizations and that even non-unionized workers can bargain collectively. The Committee welcomes the statistical information provided by the Government and notes with interest that since 2012 the number of unions and unionized workers increased both in private and state enterprises, but observes that only 0.42 per cent of private enterprises have a registered trade union. The Committee further notes with interest the Government’s statement that the Ministry of Labour made progress in the revision of the LRA and the SELRA, that the Government set up a tripartite working group to further align the draft texts with Conventions Nos 87 and 98 and that the principle of freedom of association and collective bargaining, consistent with ILO standards, will be prescribed in the newly drafted LRA and SELRA in order to provide the right to organize to Thai and migrant workers, irrespective of the kind of industrial trade union they are part of. While noting the positive developments in the revision process of the LRA and the SELRA, especially the establishment of a tripartite working group and the Government’s engagement to align these texts with the relevant international standards, the Committee recalls that it has been examining the conformity of the LRA and the SELRA with the principles of freedom of association in Case No. 1581 for a number of years and had previously expressed concern at the prolonged period of revision of the relevant legislation [see 333rd Report, para. 137]. The Committee, therefore, urges the Government to take concrete measures to speed up the revision process of the LRA and the SELRA in order to align the applicable legislation with the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining and to ensure that all issues raised by the Committee in this case as well as in Case No. 1581 are properly addressed. The Committee reminds the Government that it can avail itself of ILO technical assistance in this regard and requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect and to provide it with the text of the amendments to the LRA and the SELRA.
  3. 1048. Secondly, the Committee observes a divergence of views between the complainant and the Government with regard to freedom of association of various categories of workers. On the one hand, the complainant alleges that either the law or its application deny or restrict the right to organize, form trade unions and bargain collectively to specific categories of workers, on the other hand, the Government asserts that all workers enjoy freedom of association, either through specific labour legislation or by virtue of the Constitution and the Interim Constitution.
  4. 1049. As regards public sector workers, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that the CSA does not allow civil servants and public sector workers, including health care providers, teachers, police officers, fire fighters and administrative employees at all levels of the Government, to organize or form trade unions and negotiate collective bargaining agreements, and the Government’s statement that the CSA intends to maintain peace and order and that its section 43 allows civil servants to assemble as a group in line with the Constitution. The Committee observes, however, that according to the CSA, such assembly may not affect the efficiency of national administration or the continuity of public services and must not have a political objective. Furthermore, the Committee notes that neither the Constitution nor the CSA contain any provisions giving effect to the right to organize and form trade unions and that the CSA does not provide any guarantees of collective bargaining. In this regard, the Committee wishes to point out that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, including without discrimination in regard to occupation, should have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. Public employees (with the sole possible exception of the armed forces and the police, by virtue of Article 9 of Convention No. 87) should, like workers in the private sector, be able to establish organizations of their own choosing to further and defend the interests of their members [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 5th edition, 2006, paras 216 and 220]. With regard to collective bargaining of civil servants, the Committee recalls that a distinction must be made between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly engaged in the administration of the State (that is, civil servants employed in Government Ministries and other comparable bodies), as well as officials acting as supporting elements in these activities and, on the other hand, persons employed by the Government, by public undertakings or by autonomous public institutions. Only the former category can be excluded from the scope of Convention No. 98 [see Digest, op. cit., para. 887]. Bearing in mind the complainant’s concerns that the applicable legislation does not sufficiently protect the right to organize and bargain collectively of civil servants, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which civil servants enjoy freedom of association and collective bargaining in practice and to indicate the specific measures taken or envisaged to ensure that all civil servants, including health care providers, teachers, fire fighters and Government employees, with the sole possible exception of the armed forces and the police, can organize and form trade unions to defend their interests, and that only those civil servants who are directly engaged in the administration of the State can be excluded from collective bargaining.
  5. 1050. The Committee further notes with concern the complainant’s allegation that by virtue of section 23 of the Private University Act of 2013, private schools and university teachers are effectively excluded from the scope of the LRA and are thus prevented from organizing, forming trade unions and bargaining collectively. While noting the Government’s statement that teachers can exercise their right to form an association as prescribed by the Constitution and the Interim Constitution and must receive employment protection, benefits and compensation coverage not less than what is prescribed by the LRA, the Committee recalls that teachers should have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, without previous authorization, for the promotion and defence of their occupational interests [see Digest, op. cit., para. 235]. The Committee considers that these rights must be effectively ensured for teachers in both the public and the private sector and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that, in line with the mentioned principle, teachers can fully enjoy, in law and in practice, the right to organize, form trade unions and bargain collectively.
  6. 1051. Concerning the complainant’s allegation that agricultural employees and workers in the informal sector, including domestic workers and homeworkers, have no guaranteed rights to form unions or bargain collectively, the Committee notes the Government’s reply stating that since the LRA gives every employee, defined as a person agreeing to work for an employer in return for wages, the right to organize, employees or workers in the agricultural sector, domestic workers and contract employees can submit their proposals to register a trade union. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that workers in the informal sector can organize with the purpose of collective bargaining but observes that the entities enumerated by the Government seem to be non-governmental organizations active in the protection of informal workers, rather than trade unions of workers in the informal sector. In this regard, the Committee considers it useful to point out that workers in the agricultural and informal sectors are often subjected to untraditional employment relationships, work without contracts or are self-employed and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that despite these circumstances they are effectively afforded the full protection of their rights to organize and bargain collectively under the LRA.
  7. 1052. The Committee also notes the complainant’s allegation that the restriction on the right to form a labour trade union based on nationality effectively bars unionization in those industries where migrant workers prevail, such as the shrimp and commercial fishing sectors. The Committee considers that such restriction prevents migrant workers from playing an active role in the defence of their interests, especially in sectors where they are the main source of labour and recalls that Article 2 of Convention No. 87 is designed to give expression to the principle of non-discrimination in trade union matters, and the words “without distinction whatsoever” used in this Article mean that freedom of association should be guaranteed without discrimination of any kind based on occupation, sex, colour, race, beliefs, nationality, political opinion, etc., not only to workers in the private sector of the economy, but also to civil servants and public service employees in general [see Digest, op. cit., para. 209]. The Committee regrets that the Government does not provide any concrete observations on these specific allegations but notes with interest the Government’s indication that the ongoing revision of the labour legislation will ensure the right to organize and serve on a trade union committee to migrant workers. In light of these considerations, the Committee requests the Government to eliminate, without delay, the restrictions placed on the freedom of association rights of migrant workers and trusts that the revised labour legislation will properly address this issue. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of any developments in this regard.
  8. 1053. The Committee notes that while the complainant indicates that agency and subcontracted workers can only bargain with their employing agency or subcontractor but not with the manufacturing company, the Government states that even where an entrepreneur entrusts another individual to recruit a person to work for him or her, the entrepreneur is considered as the employer of the worker. The Committee understands the Government’s indication to mean that subcontracted or agency workers are allowed not only to bargain with their employment agency or subcontractor, but also with the entrepreneur-employer. Bearing in mind the complainant’s concerns, the Committee requests the Government to provide further details on the manner in which, in practice, agency and subcontracted workers may bargain with the entrepreneur-employer.
  9. 1054. Furthermore, noting with concern the complainant’s allegation that employers retaliate against temporary workers if they attempt to exercise their trade union rights and repeatedly use short-term contracts over several years to thwart union activity, the Committee regrets that the Government does not provide its observations on this point and recalls that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, whether they are employed on a permanent basis, for a fixed term or as contract employees, should have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing [see Digest, op. cit., para. 255]. The Committee further wishes to point out that fixed-term contracts should not be used deliberately for anti-union purposes and that, in certain circumstances, the employment of workers through repeated renewals of fixed-term contracts for several years can be an obstacle to the exercise of trade union rights [see for instance 377th Report, Case No. 3064 (Cambodia), para. 213; 375th Report, Cases Nos 3065 and 3066 (Peru), para. 482 and 374th Report, Case No. 2998 (Peru), para. 723]. In light of these principles and the complainant’s concerns, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the repeated use of short-term contracts is not deliberately used to obstruct trade union formation and that temporary workers fully benefit from freedom of association and collective bargaining, and inform the Committee of any developments in this regard.
  10. 1055. The Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that since the LRA does not require the employer to negotiate in good faith, as a result of which employers often refuse to negotiate after the initial meeting, the Government fails to provide any effective avenue by which workers can bargain collectively, and observes that this issue was raised in several cases described in detail above. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement that although there is no obligation to negotiate in good faith in the LRA, the Civil and Commercial Code provides an obligation to exercise rights and perform obligations in good faith, that this obligation will also be prescribed by the newly drafted labour legislation and that training courses on good faith for negotiations will be provided to employers and employees. Recalling the importance which it attaches to the obligation to negotiate in good faith for the maintenance of the harmonious development of labour relations [see Digest, op. cit., para. 934], the Committee trusts that the Government will take all necessary measures to encourage and promote negotiations in good faith, and requests the Government to provide a copy of the new labour legislation once it has been drafted.
  11. 1056. While noting with concern the complainant’s allegation that the SELRA prohibits all state enterprise employees from engaging in strike or industrial actions and stipulates harsh penalties both for participating in a strike and instigating it, the Committee observes that the Government does not provide its observations on this point. Recalling that it had previously examined this issue in Case No. 1581 where it had noted with regret that section 33 of the Act imposed a general prohibition of strikes and that penalties for strike action, even when peaceful, were extremely severe: up to one year of imprisonment or a fine, or both for the participation in a strike action; and up to two years of imprisonment or a fine, or both for its instigation [see 327th Report, para. 111], the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the SELRA, without further delay, in order to eliminate the general prohibition of strikes in state enterprises and the corresponding penalties and to bring the legislation fully into conformity with the principles of freedom of association on this and other relevant points. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect.
  12. 1057. Finally, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that the laws and their implementation do not sufficiently protect workers from anti-union discrimination: (i) the courts interpret the law to mean that protection against anti-union discrimination only starts once a trade union is registered, which makes the workers vulnerable to dismissal during the setting up of trade unions; (ii) even where a trade union is established, workers are vulnerable to interference and employer retaliation, especially dismissals on the pretence of layoff or downsizing, as well as pressure from the courts to accept compensation instead of reinstatement which is coupled with long delays in judicial proceedings; and (iii) despite ostensible protection of freedom of speech, workers often report that employers file civil and criminal charges for libel against trade union leaders for allegedly harming the employer’s reputation during trade union organizing initiatives or in labour disputes. The Committee notes that to illustrate its points, the complainant provides detailed information on alleged anti-union practices in a number of companies and denounces the Government’s failure to protect the workers. The Committee notes that these allegations can be summarized as follows:
    • – lockout, suspension, transfer, layoff and dismissal of trade union leaders and members; prohibition to enter factory premises and represent trade union members after dismissal; regular refusal of employers to comply with reinstatement and compensation orders;
    • – intimidation and harassment exerted by employers, police and security officers with the aim of forcing trade union leaders and members to accept compensation and resign or to halt trade union formation; these incidents include verbal abuse, physical assaults, forced resignation letters, filing of criminal and civil lawsuits against trade union leaders, threat of dismissal and death threats; pressure from the labour inspectorate, the Labour Court or the Labour Officer to drop pending cases, resign and accept compensation;
    • – intimidation and discrimination of trade union members and reinstated workers, including through isolation, separation from other workers, lack of work, monitoring by video surveillance, reduction of benefits and increase of bonuses to non-unionized workers, employer’s support for the formation of a new trade union and pressure to join the trade union and obstruction of a demonstration by security officers;
    • – replacement of dismissed workers by subcontracted workers; increase in the use of contract workers and transformation of permanent positions into short-term contracts to halt trade union formation;
    • – use of police officers and video surveillance to intimidate workers during collective bargaining and employer’s refusal to negotiate; and
    • – inaction of the LRC, the Labour Welfare and Protection Department and the Labour Court on certain complaints of anti-union discrimination; delays in judicial proceedings; inaction of the police on complaints of physical assaults.
  13. 1058. The Committee takes due note of the Government’s detailed observations to the complainant’s general and case-specific allegations of anti-union practices. The Committee notes that, with a few exceptions, the Government’s factual interpretation of the circumstances of each case broadly conforms to that provided by the complainant. The Committee notes, in particular, that the Government acknowledges the numerous incidents of lockout, suspension, transfer, layoff and dismissal of a large number of trade union leaders and members, often for seemingly anti-union purposes, as well as the employers’ regular refusal to implement reinstatement or compensation orders of the labour inspectorate, the Labour Court or the Labour Welfare and Protection Offices. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that while its labour authorities significantly contributed to solving the majority of the described labour disputes through repeated conciliation, mediation and promotion of harmonious labour relations, other cases are still ongoing. The Committee also notes that the Government indicates that, contrary to the complainant’s allegations, both the LRA and the SELRA protect freedom of speech of trade unionists and that although all defamation lawsuits are brought to criminal court for consideration, the legislation sufficiently protects trade unionists who express their opinion in good faith against accusations of defamation. Taking due note of these observations, the Committee regrets that the Government does not address a number of other serious allegations, in particular: erroneous judicial interpretation of the beginning of protection against anti-union discrimination; inaction by the police against complaints of physical assaults; use of police and security officers to intimidate workers; delays in judicial proceedings; inaction of labour authorities in some cases of anti-union practices; and pressure on workers from labour authorities to drop their case, resign and accept compensation.
  14. 1059. With regard to the allegation that Labour Courts interpret the protection against anti-union discrimination to begin only after registration of trade unions, the Committee considers that such interpretation would considerably restrict the scope of protection against anti-union discrimination, as it would not afford sufficient protection to workers during the period of establishment of workers’ organizations, when workers are especially vulnerable to anti union practices and employer retaliation. Emphasizing that the establishment of trade unions is a legitimate trade union activity within the scope of protection against anti-union discrimination and recalling that anti-union discrimination is one of the most serious violations of freedom of association, as it may jeopardize the very existence of trade unions [see Digest, op. cit., para. 769], the Committee considers that this restrictive interpretation of the scope of protection, as alleged by the complainant, would not be in line with the principles of freedom of association and could have a severe curtailing impact on workers’ organizational rights. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that workers are effectively protected against acts of anti union discrimination at all times, both in law and in practice, and that this protection covers all legitimate trade union activities, including those relative to the establishment of workers’ organizations.
  15. 1060. While acknowledging that in expressing their opinions, trade unions should respect the limits of propriety and refrain from the use of insulting language, the Committee expresses its concern at the allegation that employers often file civil and criminal charges against trade union leaders for allegedly harming employers’ reputation when such workers try to organize trade unions or during labour disputes. The Committee finds it important to recall that the right to express opinions through the press or otherwise is an essential aspect of trade union rights [see Digest, op. cit., para. 155] and that allegations of criminal conduct should not be used to harass trade unionists by reason of their trade union membership or activities [see Digest, op. cit., para. 41]. In light of these principles, the Committee expects the Government, within its review of the existing legislative framework, to ensure that the freedom of expression of trade union leaders and members is effectively protected.
  16. 1061. The Committee further notes with concern the numerous incidents of lockout, suspension and dismissal of trade union leaders and members, as described by the complainant and the Government, and the fact that although these allegations were in many cases confirmed by the labour authorities through reinstatement and compensation orders, employers generally refused to comply with them. In this regard, the Committee also notes the allegations that trade union leaders and members were often dismissed for allegedly economic reasons, were replaced with subcontracted workers and that dismissed trade union leaders were not allowed to enter company premises and represent trade union members. The Committee further expresses its concern at the serious allegations of pressure, intimidation, harassment and discrimination of trade union leaders and members, including through verbal abuse, physical assaults, reduction of benefits, threat of dismissal, isolation, death threats and video surveillance, and observes that where the complainant asserts that these incidents were aimed at forcing workers to resign and accept compensation or halt union formation, the Government simply states that the workers decided to resign voluntarily and accept compensation as a result of negotiations, and that the labour disputes were thus successfully resolved. The Committee further notes with concern the allegation that some of this pressure was exerted by the police and the labour authorities. Taking into account these considerations, the Committee considers that the situation raises serious concerns as to the environment for free exercise of trade union rights and recalls that the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of these organizations, and it is for the governments to ensure that this principle is respected [see Digest, op. cit., para. 44]. In relation to the variety of matters raised, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the following principles: the requirement of membership of an occupation or establishment as a condition for the eligibility for trade union office are not consistent with the right of workers to elect their representatives in full freedom; no person should be dismissed or prejudiced in employment by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, and it is important to forbid and penalize in practice all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of employment; acts of harassment and intimidation carried out against workers by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, while not necessarily prejudicing workers in their employment, may discourage them from joining organizations of their own choosing, thereby violating their right to organize; granting bonuses to non-union staff – even if it is not to all non union workers – and excluding all workers who are trade union members from such bonuses during a period of collective conflict, constitutes an act of anti-union discrimination contrary to Convention No. 98; subcontracting accompanied by dismissals of trade union leaders can constitute a violation of the principle that no one should be prejudiced in his or her employment on the grounds of trade union membership or activities; the application of staff reduction programmes musts not be used to carry out acts of anti-union discrimination; the Committee has drawn attention to the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135) and Recommendation (No. 143), 1971, in which it is expressly established that workers’ representatives in the undertaking shall enjoy effective protection against any act prejudicial to them, including dismissal, based on their status or activities as workers’ representatives or on trade union membership, or participation in union activities, in so far as they act in conformity with existing laws or collective agreements or other jointly agreed arrangements; trade union representatives who are not employed in the undertaking but whose trade union has members employed therein should be granted access to the undertaking. The granting of such facilities should not impair the efficient operation of the undertaking concerned (see Digest, op. cit., paras 407, 771, 786, 787, 790, 796, 800 and 1105)
  17. 1062. In light of the circumstances of this case and the abovementioned principles, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to: ensure that, in cases where remediation and compensation have been ordered by the courts, employers comply with such orders and decisions without further delay; provide it with the outcome of all ongoing proceedings, as well as the measures taken to ensure their implementation by the employers; ensure that, in the future, staff reduction programmes and economic measures are not used to discriminate against trade union leaders and members; ensure that when dismissed, trade union leaders can continue to serve as union officials and are provided with access to trade union members; and conduct independent inquiries on all pending allegations of intimidation, harassment, pressure and physical assaults against trade union leaders and members in this case, and inform it of the outcome and the measures taken as a result.
  18. 1063. Further noting with concern the allegations of inaction of labour authorities in relation to some complaints of anti-union practices and the considerable delays in judicial proceedings, the Committee points out that the Government is responsible for preventing all acts of anti union discrimination and it must ensure that complaints of anti-union discrimination are examined in the framework of national procedures which should be prompt, impartial and considered as such by the parties concerned. Cases concerning anti-union discrimination contrary to Convention No. 98 should be examined rapidly, so that the necessary remedies can be really effective. An excessive delay in processing cases of anti-union discrimination, and in particular a lengthy delay in concluding the proceedings concerning the reinstatement of the trade union leaders dismissed by the enterprise, constitute a denial of justice and therefore a denial of the trade union rights of the persons concerned [see Digest, op. cit., paras 817 and 826]. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that, in the future, complaints of anti-union discrimination against trade union leaders and members are dealt with promptly and efficiently by the competent authorities.

The Committee’s recommendations

The Committee’s recommendations
  1. 1064. In light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
    • (a) The Committee urges the Government to take concrete measures to speed up the revision process of the LRA and the SELRA in order to align the applicable legislation with the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining and to ensure that all issues raised by the Committee in this case as well as in Case No. 1581 are properly addressed. The Committee reminds the Government that it can avail itself of ILO technical assistance in this regard and requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect and to provide it with the text of the amendments to the LRA and the SELRA.
    • (b) With regard to the allegations of insufficient protection against anti-union discrimination and anti-union practices in various enterprises, as well as the Government’s failure to protect the workers, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that workers are effectively protected against acts of anti-union discrimination at all times, both in law and in practice, and that this protection covers all legitimate trade union activities, including those relative to the establishment of workers’ organizations.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer