Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 218, Noviembre 1982

1. 42. The complaints of the World Confederation of labour (WCL) and the International Federation of Textile and Garment Workers were contained respectively in two communications both dated 6 July 1982. The Government sent its reply in a communication dated 10 September 1982.
2. 43. 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 complainants' allegations

1. 44. Both communications of 6 July 1982 refer to the alleged prosecution and imprisonment of Mr. Saman Vongsurthee, President of the National Congress of Thai Labour, after he had supported strike action by workers in the textile industry in July 1982.

B. The Government's reply

1. 45. The Government explains in its communication that Mr. Vongsuthee was summoned by the police authorities for interrogation concerning alleged acts of treason and not because of his support for strike action by workers in the textile industry. He appeared before the Metropolitan Police on 29 June 1982 but was not arrested The Government claims that Mr. Vongsuthee has telephoned the WCL to clarify the facts regarding his personal well-being.

C. The conclusions of the Committee

1. 46. The Committee notes that the Government denies that the trade union leader to which the complainants refer was arrested, and claims that the person involved has contacted one of the complainant organisations to explain his situation. The Committee notes, on the other hand, that the complainants, despite the invitation to submit additional information, have not substantiated their claim that the alleged arrest was connected with trade union activities. In view of the fact that, according to the Government, Mr. Vongsuthee has neither been prosecuted nor imprisoned, and that the complainant organisations have failed to supply information in support of their complaint, the Committee considers that this case does not call for further examination.