Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 233, Mars 1984

1. 449. The Committee already examined this case at its May 1983 Session when it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body. [See 226th Report, paras. 181 to 191 (May-June 1983).] Since then, the Government has supplied supplementary observations in a communication dated 24 October 1983.
2. 450. Thailand has not ratified either 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 451. The complaint related to the killing of two trade union leaders of the Saha Farm Labour Union allegedly by assassins hired for that purpose by the management of the Saha Farm Company Limited. The Saha Farm Company is a chicken farm raising poultry for export. Because of the poor working and living conditions, its workers had organised themselves into a union and joined the National Congress of Thai Labour, which is affiliated to the WCL. The union had allegedly submitted a list of grievances to the company but the management refused to negotiate. According to the complainant, the union's action displeased the owner of the company who set out to stifle the labour movement at the outset.
2. 452. The management dismissed the leaders of the union and the case was referred to the Labour Relations Committee. On the night of 14 October 1981, two of the leaders, Jamrong Samrong Napashote and Son Kitjawart, were shot dead and a third, Somsak Bonsomphong, was injured. The local police were able to arrest two of the persons who were involved in the case on 9 December 1981. They were later charged, tried and convicted of the murder of the two above-named trade union leaders.
3. 453. The Committee noted that in an initial reply the Government had stated that an inquiry was being conducted by the police and that it could not yet be concluded whether the crime had been committed by the employer. The Government observed that, if the incident originated out of a dispute or conflict between the victims and third persons without the involvement of the employer, the case could hardly be considered as an infringement of trade union rights. In a later communication, the Government explained that on 13 December 1982, the Thai Criminal Court passed the death sentence on the two accused, Prasutr Pianetre and Payao Ketkhuang, who were found guilty of murder. The court found that the accused had received payment from the owners of the Saha Farm Company Limited to murder Samrong Napashote and Son Kitjawart, as they were displeased with the victims' leading role in the establishment of a trade union so as to demand from the company an increase in wages to meet higher costs of living, as well as other improvements in the welfare of the workers.
4. 454. At its May-June 1983 Session, the Governing Body, on the Committee's recommendations, reached the following interim conclusions:
   • (a) The Committee deeply deplored the murder of the trade union leaders Samrong Napashote and Son Kitjawart; the Committee expressed its indignation at the events which should have called for extremely severe measures also being taken against the employers who were originally responsible for them.
   • (b) While noting that the perpetrators of the crime had been punished according to the law, the Committee observed that, in the Government's own words, the murder was paid for by the owners of the Saha Farm Company Limited to prevent the establishment of a trade union movement in their undertaking. The Committee therefore strongly urged the Government to supply information on the legal proceedings instituted against the owners of Saha Farm Company Limited and to communicate the text of any judgment handed down against them.

B. Further developments

1. 455. In a communication dated 24 October 1983, the Government draws attention to its previous observation that there were grounds to believe that in committing the murder of Mr. Samrong Napashote and Mr. Son Kitjawart, members of the Saha Farm Trade Union, the two accused received payment from the owner of Saha Farm Company Limited who was displeased by the victims' leading role in the establishment of a trade union to demand from the company higher wages to meet higher costs of living as well as provision of other welfare to workers.
   • The Government stresses that such an observation should not be taken as the "Government's own words" as understood by the Committee on Freedom of Association, because it was merely an observation based on circumstantial evidence gathered by the Thai authorities.
2. 456. The Government further states that the Labour Department of Thailand is not in a position to undertake any action against the Saha Farm Company Limited, as it is beyond the scope of its authority. According to the Government, the responsibility for the case rests entirely upon the police authorities and the court and, since no suit has been filed by any party against the Saha Farm Company Limited, further legal action cannot be pursued by the police authorities and the court.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 457. The Committee has taken note of the information provided by the Government to the effect that its previous observation - according to which there were grounds to believe that in committing the murder of the two named trade union leaders, the two accused persons who were ultimately tried and convicted received payment from the owner of Saha Farm Company Limited - was merely an observation based on circumstantial evidence gathered by the Thai authorities.
2. 458. The Committee also notes the Government's statement that the Labour Department of Thailand is not in a position to undertake any action against the Saha Farm Company Limited since this would be beyond the scope of its authority. The Government has also stated that the responsibility for the case rests entirely upon the police authorities and the court, and that since no civil suit has been filed by any party against the Saha Farm Company Limited, further legal action cannot be pursued by the police authorities and the court. Given the contradiction between the Government's various statements, the Committee requests the Government to send it the text of the judgment dated 13 December 1982 relating to the murders. In addition, it requests the Government to examine further the steps that are available to prosecute the instigators of this crime.
3. 459. The Committee can only express again its deep concern and regret at the seriousness of the case which concerns the murder of the two trade union leaders Samrong Napashote and Son Kitjawart and the injury caused to a third trade union leader; the Committee is of the firm opinion that the events which occurred should have called for extremely severe measures being taken not only against the perpetrators of these crimes but also against the instigators if, according to the Thai Criminal Court itself, there were grounds for believing that the owner of the Saha Farm Company Limited had hired and paid the criminals to eliminate the trade union leaders in question with the object of preventing the establishment of a trade union in that enterprise.
4. 460. The Committee would draw the Government's attention to the principle that freedom of association can only be exercised in conditions in which fundamental human rights, and in particular those relating to human life and personal safety, are fully guaranteed and respected. It requests the Government to take appropriate measures to ensure that the right to personal safety of trade unionists is fully guaranteed.
5. 461. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the results of any further inquiries that may be carried out by the police or the courts in connection with the deaths of these trade unionists, and also of any action taken by the Labour Department to ensure that the trade union rights of the workers in the Saha Farm Company Limited are fully respected.