Display in: French - Spanish
Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body
Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body- 63. The Committee last examined this case concerning alleged dismissal of trade union activists after their participation in the submitting of demands for collective bargaining to the employer, the refusal by the employer to reinstate the workers despite the decisions to that effect of the Labour Relations Committee (LRC) and the Central Labour Court (CLC), the demotion of the SMTWU President and prohibition imposed on him to access the company’s premises, at its October 2017 meeting [see 383rd Report, paras 626–667]. On that occasion, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 383rd Report, para. 667]:
- (a) The Committee therefore requests the Government to review the situation of workers whose reinstatement was ordered by the LCL and the CLC to see how they may be efficiently supported pending the final decision of the Supreme Court and to keep it informed of all measures taken in this respect. It further requests the Government to provide a copy of the Supreme Court decision once it had been handed down.
- (b) The Committee expects that the court will pronounce on the dismissal of the SMTWU President without delay and that the union and its President can exercise fully their freedom of association rights and trade union activities. It requests the Government to provide a copy of the judgment once it has been handed down.
- (c) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of all measures taken in this respect of the recommendations above.
- 64. In its communication dated 5 February 2018, the Government provides a copy of the CLC decision of 21 December 2017 pronouncing the dismissal of the SMTWU President for having caused a slowdown in his unit between 1 and 11 December 2015, which resulted in damages to the company.
- 65. In its communication dated 28 September 2018, the Government provides copies of the Supreme Court and CLC decisions, dated 27 October 2017 and 26 April 2018, respectively, regarding the dismissal of nine trade union activists. The Supreme Court revoked the Order of the LRC concerning the reinstatement of nine trade unionists and replaced it with compensation. It also ordered the CLC to determine the amount of compensation.
- 66. The Committee takes note of the CLC judgment pronouncing, on 21 December 2017, the dismissal of SMTWU President for having caused a slowdown, resulting in damages to the company, and violating the work rules and regulations set forth by the management.
- 67. With regard to the nine dismissed trade unionists, the Committee recalls from the previous examination of the case that: on 17 December 2013, a group of the company’s employees had submitted the demands and negotiated with the employer; as no agreement was reached, on 21 December 2013, the employees notified a conciliation officer of the labour dispute; on 25 December 2013, an agreement was reached by both parties. On 26 December 2013, the SMTWU was registered. On the same day, ten workers were dismissed. In January 2014, the SMTWU filed a complaint of unfair practice (wrongful termination) to the LRC. On 9 April 2014, the LRC issued an order of reinstatement of nine labour leaders in their former positions without loss of pay and benefits. The employer appealed the order to the CLC. On 25 May 2015, the CLC upheld the LRC order. On 7 July 2015, the employer appealed the CLC decision to the Supreme Court. The Committee notes that the Supreme Court, while recognizing that an agreement was signed with the employer on 25 December 2013 pursuant to which, the company had agreed not to take any disciplinary action against the nine trade unionists, it considered that the fact that they were working at a supervisory level when they led the work stoppage, and thereby violated the law and intentionally caused damages to the company, justified the revision of the LRC order from reinstatement to compensation. The Committee notes that the CLC decided on the financial settlement payable to the workers concerned as follows: 84,000 Thai baht (THB) (approximately US$2,725) to co-defendant No. 1; THB270,000 (approximately US$8,760) to co-defendant No. 2; THB30,000 (approximately US$975) to co-defendant No. 3; THB50,000 (approximately US$1,625) to co defendant No. 4; THB50,000 to co-defendant No. 5; THB55,000 (approximately US$1,785) to co-defendant No. 6; THB50,000 to co-defendant No. 7; THB50,000 to co defendant No. 8 and THB50,000 to co-defendant No. 9. While acknowledging that in this case, specific allegations have been examined by the national judiciary, including the Supreme Court, which has rendered a final decision, the Committee wishes to emphasize that agreements should be binding on the parties [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 1334]. In light of the above, the Committee will not pursue the examination of this case.
