Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 356, March 2010

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 180. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns acts of anti-union discrimination – including dismissal, threats of termination to pressure employees to resign from the union, and other acts intended to frustrate collective bargaining – at its March 2009 meeting. On that occasion the Committee, noting that the employer’s appeal to the Supreme Court of the Central Labour Court’s March 2006 decision (upholding Order No. 54–55/2006 of the Labour Relations Committee finding that the union President and Treasurer had been unfairly dismissed) was still pending, once again requested the Government to transmit a copy of the Supreme Court judgement as soon as it was handed down. The Committee also once again requested the Government to secure, without delay, the reinstatement with back pay of the two other dismissed union officials and ensure that those employees who had resigned from the union may resume their membership in the union free of the threat of dismissals or any other form of reprisal [see 353rd Report, paras 280–282].
2. 181. In a communication dated 18 June 2009, the Government indicates that the Vice-President of the union was dismissed without severance pay on 14 December 2004 due to a complaint of sexual harassment, which the police had examined and confirmed. The VicePresident had then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labour Relations Committee on 1 February 2005 and the latter concluded that his dismissal was not due to union membership; he subsequently decided not to appeal the decision before the Labour Court. As concerns union organizer Ms Petcharat Meejaruen, the Government indicates that she did not submit a petition to the Labour Relations Committee or to the labour inspector. The Department of Labour Protection and Welfare of the Ministry of Labour (MOL) conducted a follow-up investigation and, according to the information gathered from the union, the union organizer was reinstated in her previous position in the company, was satisfied with the compensation offered by the company and decided not to file a complaint. The Government further indicates that according to the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare (DLPW) of the MOL all employees who resigned from the union in fear of dismissal can resume their membership in the union, free from intimidation and that, since the DLPW’s intervention, the union has over 300 members and resumed normal operations.
3. 182. In a communication dated 23 September 2009, the Government states that the two dismissed trade unionists had been reinstated in accordance with the orders of the Labour Relations Committee on 18 September 2006 and 1 October 2006 and have not filed more complaints. The Government therefore suggests that the case be closed.
4. 183. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government. In particular it notes with interest that, pending the Supreme Court decision, the union President and Treasurer had been reinstated in accordance with the Labour Relations Committee’s 2006 orders. It further notes that union organizer Meejaruen had also been reinstated, while the union VicePresident was found to have been dismissed without severance pay on grounds of sexual harassment by the Labour Relations Committee. Noting that the union VicePresident has not appealed the Labour Relations Committee’s decision, the Committee will not pursue its examination of this matter. Finally, the Committee takes note of the Government’s statement that since the intervention of the DLPW the union has resumed normal operations with over 300 members.