Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 356, Mars 2010

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

1. 184. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns obstruction and violation of the right to organize and bargain collectively, at its March 2009 session. On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government to review the situation of the 178 trade unionists who had resigned from their jobs and, if the allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination influencing their resignation were found to be true, to take the necessary measures for their reinstatement, should they still so desire. If the competent court found that reinstatement was not possible, the Committee requested the Government to ensure that they were provided with adequate compensation, so as to constitute sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against anti-union discrimination. It further requested the Government to ensure that the Labour Court, in its hearing of the dismissal of the ten trade unionists, was in full possession of all the material facts referred to in the Committee’s conclusions, including the report of the NHRC, and trusted the Court would take due account of its conclusions, particularly as concerns the need for effective protection – including the remedy of reinstatement – against acts of anti-union discrimination, and requested the Government to transmit a copy of the judgement once handed down. Finally, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the union and the employer engaged in good faith negotiations, with a view to concluding a collective agreement on terms and conditions of employment [see 353rd Report, paras 1274–1309].
2. 185. In a communication dated 18 June 2009, the Government states that on 11 June 2008, the Labour Court handed down judgement No.780-787/2008 concerning the case of eight of the ten trade unionists. The Labour Court ruled that evidence showed that the employees violated work rules and intentionally caused damage to their employer by neglecting their work and participating in the union’s activities again without reporting any reason to do so to their employer. Thus, their dismissal was legal and the trade unionists were not entitled to severance pay. The Government repeats the same information in a communication dated 23 September 2009. A copy of the judgement in Thai is attached to the Government’s communication.
3. 186. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government. With respect to the ten dismissed trade unionists, the Committee notes that in judgement No. 780-787/2008 the Labour Court upheld their dismissals for having violated work rules and intentionally caused damage to their employer by neglecting their work and participating in union activities. The Committee nevertheless recalls from its previous examination of the case that the ten dismissed trade unionists were earlier found by the Labour Relations Committee to have been dismissed for having deserted work, as they had earlier given their consent to return to work but subsequently failed to appear without notifying the employer of their cancellation of the consent forms. The Committee further recalls that in its investigation of the matter, NHRC Subcommittee on Labour Rights found that the dismissed trade unionists were informed by their supervisors that signing the consent to return to work forms did not entail any obligations, and that, once they realized the potential consequences of their actions, they had verbally cancelled their consent forms to their respective supervisors. The NHRC also found that the MOL official who had acted as a mediator between the company and the union had informed the latter that it was not necessary to cancel the signed consent forms, as the demands were submitted by the union and individual members were not entitled to withdraw them; it concluded that the real reason for the dismissal of the ten trade unionists was their union membership, and was therefore unjustifiable. Observing that these dismissals occurred within the context of other alleged acts of anti-union discrimination by the employer, the Committee had also stated that it was inclined to consider the dismissals of the ten trade unionists to be discriminatory in nature.
4. 187. In view of the above, the Committee regrets that the Government provides no indication as to whether the Labour Court, in its judgement, was in full possession of all material facts – including those set out in the NHRC report – or whether the Labour Court gave due consideration to the Committee’s previous comments concerning this matter in its judgement. Further noting that the Government provides no information respecting the two other dismissed trade unionists, the Committee requests the Government, in the light of its previous comments on this matter, to initiate discussions in order to review the possible reinstatement of the ten workers who were found by the NHRC to have been dismissed on the basis of union membership or, if reinstatement is not possible, the payment of adequate compensation.
5. 188. Observing that no information has been provided with respect to its other recommendations, the Committee once again requests the Government to review the situation of the 178 trade unionists who had resigned from their jobs and, if the allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination influencing their resignation were found to be true, to take the necessary measures for their reinstatement, should they still so desire. Moreover, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the union and the employer engage in good faith negotiations, with a view to concluding a collective agreement on terms and conditions of employment. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard.