Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 344, Mars 2007

1322. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Thai Industrial Gases Labor Union (TIGLU) dated 10 September 2005. The complainant submitted additional information in a communication of 19 June 2006.

1. 1323. The Government submitted its observations in communications dated 17 July and 27 October 2006.
2. 1324. 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

1. 1325. In its communication of 10 September 2005, the complainant states that the employer, Thai Industrial Gases (Public) Co. Ltd, committed several acts to destroy the union and frustrate collective bargaining, including the following:
2. – On 13 and 25 November 2004, the employer prohibited the union leaders from carrying out union-related activities and prevented nine union representatives engaged in the negotiation of a collective agreement from entering the company. As a result, negotiations came to a halt.
3. – On 25 November 2004, the employer chose not to pay bonuses to union members and those involved in negotiating a collective agreement. Consequently, some representatives resigned from the negotiation team in order to receive the bonus, and negotiations were suspended.
4. – On 14 December 2004, the employer terminated the union’s President, Vice-President, Treasurer, and one union organizer; the employer later accused the President, Treasurer and organizer of theft for having photocopied union documents to be used in the collective agreement negotiations. Members of the negotiating team lost confidence following the firing of the union President, and negotiations collapsed. The complainant states that membership declined and recruitment had become almost impossible due to fears of dismissal. It also indicates that, due to the termination of their Treasurer, the union was forced to suspend recruitment as memberships could not be completed until workers paid their union dues.
5. – On 7 December 2004, a request was made to the National Human Rights Committee for justice and urgent help. On 28 January 2005, the union President and Treasurer filed a complaint with the Labour Relations Committee; the union’s Vice-President filed a similar complaint with the Labour Relations Committee on 1 February 2005. The National Human Rights Committee issued its report on 25 April 2005, concluding that the dismissal of the President and Treasurer was wrong and unfair. The Labour Relations Committee dismissed the Vice-President’s complaint by an order of 3 June 2005, but ordered reinstatement with compensation pay for the President and Treasurer by an order of 13 June 2005.
6. – On 1 July 2005, the employer filed a lawsuit against the union President and Treasurer on charges of theft. The employer had commenced this action, the complainant states, in order to derail the decisions of the Labour Relations Committee and the National Human Rights Commission, which had handed down decisions finding that employees whose contracts were terminated by the employer were unfairly dismissed and ordering reinstatement. On the same date the employer also appealed the 13 June 2005 decision of the Labour Relations Committee to the Central Labour Court.
7. – On 11 July 2005, the union President and Treasurer received a notice from the employer indicating that they could not be reinstated, as per the Labour Relations Committee’s order, until a decision on the employer’s appeal to the Central Labour Court was handed down.
8. 1326. TIGLU provides additional information in support of its complaint in a communication of 19 June 2006, which includes the following:
9. – On 19 December 2005, the provincial Criminal Court of Sara Buri dismissed the case brought by the employer against the union President and Treasurer for theft; the employer appealed the Court’s decision.
10. – On 14 March 2006, the Central Labour Court dismissed the charge filed by the employer to revoke the order of the Labour Relations Committee. The judgement called for the employer to comply with the Labour Relation Committee’s order, but the employer instead lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court on 20 March 2006. On 8 May 2006, the union filed a request to oppose the appeal lodged by the employer.
11. – From 14-17 March 2006, employees in three of the employer’s branch operations were told to quit the union upon pain of dismissal. A total of four employees subsequently gave up membership in the union.
12. – On 22 May 2006, the complainant submitted a list of 19 demands to the employer. Negotiations over these demands took place on 25 May 2006, but no agreement was concluded; the next round of negotiations was to be held on 23 June 2006.
13. B. The Government’s reply
14. 1327. In its communication of 17 July 2006, the Government indicates that, with respect to the complaint filed by the union President and Treasurer – Mr Chatchai Paiyasen and Mr Chatri Jarusuvanwong, respectively – on 28 April 2005 the Labour Relations Committee of the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare issued Order No. 54-55/2005; the said Order found that the two union officers had been unfairly dismissed in violation of section 121 of the Labour Relations Act (and, in particular, for having been collective bargaining representatives and founders of the union) and called for their reinstatement, with back pay, as well as the granting of their annual salary raises and bonuses in keeping with the normal conditions of employment.
15. 1328. In its 27 October 2006 communication, the Government states that, on 18 March 2006, the employer appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the 14 March 2006 decision of the Central Labour Court upholding Order No. 54-55/2005 of the Labour Relations Committee. The Government adds that the appeal was still before the Court and that it was unable to specify when a decision would be handed down.
16. 1329. As regards the charges of theft brought against Mr Paiyasen and Mr Jarusuvanwong, the Government states that the provincial Criminal Court of Sara Buri dismissed the case and that the employer had appealed the Court’s decision; the case was still under appeal.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1330. The Committee recalls that the present case involves allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination, including dismissal, threats of contract termination to pressure employees to resign from the union, and other acts intended to frustrate collective bargaining. According to the complaint, four union officials were dismissed due to their membership in the union, whereas four other employees were pressured by the employer into withdrawing their union membership upon pain of termination. The complainant is of the view that these acts demonstrate the employer’s intent to destroy the union and adds that they have had the further effect of making recruitment in the union virtually impossible. The Committee notes that the Government does not refute these allegations and, with respect to the dismissal of the union’s President and Treasurer, confirms that the Labour Relations Committee found, on 28 April 2005, that the two union officials had been unfairly dismissed; the Labour Relations Committee’s order of reinstatement with back pay was subsequently upheld by the Central Labour Court on 14 March 2006.
2. 1331. In the light of the above information, the Committee cannot but conclude that the dismissal of the union’s President and Treasurer, as well as the seeking of union resignations on pain of termination, constitute acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee recalls in this regard that no person should be dismissed or prejudiced in his or her 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 [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, para. 770]. Noting that the dismissals referred to above concern four union officials (the President, Vice-President, Treasurer and a union organizer), the Committee stresses that one of the principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in their employment, such as dismissal, demotion, transfer or other prejudicial measures. This protection is particularly needed in the case of trade union officials because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they should have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions. The Committee considers that the guarantee of such protection in the case of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is given to the fundamental principle that workers’ organizations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom [see Digest, op. cit., para. 799]. Recalling that the Government is responsible for preventing all acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee accordingly requests the Government to take steps to ensure the reinstatement of these union officials, with the payment of back wages, as well as to ensure that those employees who had resigned from the union may resume their membership in the union free of the threat of dismissal or any other form of reprisal. While observing that the employer has appealed the 14 March 2006 decision of the Central Labour Court which upheld Order No. 54-55/2006 of the Labour Relations Committee finding that the union President and Treasurer had been unfairly dismissed, the Committee expects that the Government will ensure the reinstatement of these two union officials. It requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard and to transmit a copy of the Supreme Court judgement as soon as it is handed down.