Definitive Report - Report No 59, 1962

Case No 269 (Myanmar) - Complaint date: 26-JUN-61 - Closed

1. 31. The complaint of the Myint Mo Textile Printing, Dyeing and Weaving Factory Workers' Union (Rangoon) is contained in a communication addressed directly to the I.L.O on 26 June 1961. The Government of Burma forwarded its observations on the complaint in a communication dated 31 October 1961.
2. 32. Burma has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has not ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 33. The complainants allege that their union was formed by the workers of the factory concerned, and duly registered according to law, because they did not enjoy the conditions of employment prescribed by the Government, and that, as a reprisal, the employers unlawfully dismissed from their employment the president, vice-president and two other members of the union. The union demanded the reinstatement of these workers and the establishment of statutory working conditions. As the employers did not agree a token strike was called on 19 June 1961 and, it is alleged, on the same day the employers unlawfully dismissed the secretary of the union and nine other workers for taking part in the strike.
2. 34. The Government states that the origin of the dispute lay in the notice of discharge given to four workers on 1 June 1961, which claimed that the discharge was a measure of retrenchment; the employers had previously explained to a meeting of the workers the reasons why they would have to reduce the number of personnel. The union demanded the reinstatement of the four workers, alleging that the retrenchment was a violation of freedom of association and represented discrimination against the four persons concerned because they had been instrumental in the formation of the union. Nine of the 29 employees of the factory went on strike on 19 June 1961, as no settlement of the dispute had been reached, and these nine workers were dismissed on the same day because, according to the Government, they threatened both the employers and the non-strikers. At this point the Directorate of Labour intervened and, after several conciliation meetings, the dispute was amicably settled. According to the agreement reached, states the Government, seven of the nine dismissed strikers were to be reinstated, the other two-who chose to leave the factory's employment-being given one month's pay in lieu of notice, plus one-and-a-half months' pay as an ex gratia payment; the four workers dismissed on 1 June 1961 were to receive the same compensatory payments. The Government declares that the dispute " terminated, more or less, to the satisfaction of both the parties ".

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 35. Two essential issues are raised in the present allegations. Firstly, the four founder members of a works union were dismissed-according to the complainants because they founded the union; according to the employers as a necessary measure of retrenchment. It is not disputed that the president and vice-president of the union were among the four dismissed. Secondly, in protest, nine other workers, including the union secretary, went on strike and were promptly dismissed-according to the complainants this was an unlawful dismissal for having taken part in a justifiable strike; according to the Government they were dismissed for having made threats.
2. 36. On both these issues there is a direct conflict of evidence between the versions given by the complainants and the employers of the facts, on which it would be difficult, or even impossible, for the Committee to express an opinion. It would seem, however, that the Government was successful in conciliating the parties and that, in the end, a compromise settlement was reached which settled the dispute.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 37. In these circumstances the Committee, while emphasising the importance which it has always attached to the principle that workers should enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, including acts calculated to cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice a worker by reason of union membership or because of participation in union activities, recommends the Governing Body, having regard to the settlement of the dispute between the workers and the employers announced by the Government, to decide that, subject to the observation made above, no useful purpose would be served by pursuing further its examination of the case.