Bangkok/Berlin (epo.de). - Thailändische Gewerkschafter haben die deutschen Konzerne Triumph und LINDE dazu aufgerufen, in ihren Unternehmen dieselben Maßstäbe bei den Menschenrechten und bei der Gewährung gewerkschaftlicher Freiheitsrechte an den Tag zu legen wie in Deutschland. In einem Interview mit Entwicklungspolitik Online fordern Wanpen Wongsombat und Rattiporn Chantarasri von der Triumph Labour Union sowie Chatchai Phaiyasen, Führer der Industriegas-Gewerkschaft, die Konzernleitungen auf, den gegenwärtigen Arbeitskonflikt in Thailand zu untersuchen und dafür zu sorgen, dass das lokale Management "die fortwährende Unterdrückung von Arbeiterrechten" beendet. Mehrere Tausend gewerkschaftlich organisierte Arbeiterinnen und Arbeiter waren am 6. August vor die deutsche Botschaft in Bangkok gezogen und hatten gegen Versuche der "Zerschlagung der Gewerkschaft" protestiert (epo.de berichtete). In einem per E-Mail geführten Interview mit Entwicklungspolitik Online erläutern Wanpen Wongsombat und Rattiporn Chantarasri von der Triumph Labour Union ihre Beweggründe:
epo.de:
You have been on strike for more than ten days, demanding the reinstatement of your leader Jitra Kotchadej, who was fired on Apr. 24. BFT argues that the company had "suffered damage to its reputation and its business resulting from the employee?s public behavior, which had linked Triumph to her personal political beliefs". BFT stated that the "employment has been terminated legally" and refers to a labor court rule. Was BFT action against your union legal?
Wanpen Wongsombat (Committee Member of Triumph Labour Union) & Rattiporn Chantarasri (Women Committee of Textile and Garment Unions’ Federation of Thailand and Committee Member of Triumph Labour Union):
No. And the reasons are as follows:
1. The victimized union leader had never received a court summon and thus had no chance to defend herself because she did not know about the court hearing. The court summons was posted on a house she rented eight years ago, but she no longer lived there and so did not receive the summons. Actually the company could have informed the court to send the summons to the house specified on her house registration, or to the factory.
2. The company filed a case to the court to seek a court order to dismiss the union leader on 2 May, 2008. The court verdict came out on 8 July. The company executive called her in for a meeting to inform her about the court order and the company’s decision to terminate her on 29 July and the termination took effect on 30 July. By the time she was informed by the company executives, the dateline for making appeal to court had already passed (in Thailand, an appeal against court’s ruling could be made within 15 days after the court verdict has been issued).
3. The ruling of the court was done on the basis of the criminal code, not the labour law, while the victimized person is a trade union leader who is entitled for labour law protection
4. The court verdict refers to the case of Mr Chotisak who was charged for lese majeste; that Ms Jitra was supporting or helping Mr Chotisak in his action. The problem is until today the case of Mr Chotisak has not even been preceded to court. How could it be then that Ms Jitra was involved in supporting the ‘wrong’ action of Mr Chotisak. The court’s consideration in this case is therefore unlawful in itself.
5. In the last page of the court verdict, the court refers to the threat on boycotting the company products unless the company carries out an action against the union leader – such threat was posted on a certain website in Thailand. However the boycott action did not happen yet when the company preceded this case against Ms Jitra to the court. Which means the court ruled the case based on something which had not happened. In other words, the ruling was done without due cause. This would not be any different from judging someone based on rumours.
epo.de:
In Germany, court rules are usually accepted as arbitration coming from an independent institution that is not dominated by the government. Can we see courts in Thailand as independent from governmental influence?
Wanpen Wongsombat/Rattiporn Chantarasri:
In Thailand, there is no mechanism to check and balance the power of the court; criticism is not allowed and any person who dares to criticize the court would be subject to ‘Contempt of Court’ in which the penalty is imprisonment. Under this circumstance, the court in Thailand has no accountability. Moreover, the court in Thailand has conservative view and attitude, not understanding and not promoting human rights and freedom of the people. In the case of Ms Jitra, it is quite clear that the court’s ruling is far from being neutral; and the court is under the influence of political atmosphere in Thailand where freedom of speech has been severely suppressed.
epo.de:
Striking workers see BFT action as an attempt to undermine the union, aimed to damage worker's rights in Thailand in general. BFT and Triumph International, even the German foreign ministry, are speaking of a conflict inside the factory between a single employee and the management. What is true?
Wanpen Wongsombat/Rattiporn Chantarasri:
In the union’s point of view, this is another case of union busting. Prior to the dismissal, these are the sequence of what happened at Body Fashion factory in Thailand:
Union submitted a collective bargaining proposal to the management on 9 June 2008. The company executives tried to persuade the union members to accept the company’s offer of working conditions without talking to the union representatives. The union openly opposed such practice and demanded the management to stop such practice. This even led to an incident in the canteen of the factory: the union president and MD had a roll over the issue (management’s practice of bypassing the trade union at the company’s attempt to alter working conditions)
To counter such practice seen by the union as the management’s tactic to undermine the union, the union proposed a motion on strike action. This led to some improvement in the dialogue between the union and the management and finally both sides could reach an agreement on the new collective bargaining agreement. And the union did not pursue a strike action.
Apart from that, the union activists especially the president had made several attempts to inform and discuss with the management on the corruption problems inside Body Fashion. But the management appeared to ignore the problems and was not interested to tackle the issues.
Meanwhile, MD had threatened the union the company might consider using contract and agency labour instead of regular employment if the union demands too much.
epo.de:
BFT and Triumph stated: "BFT and Triumph International fully respect the right of its workers to organize and to bargain collectively and the individual right of freedom of expression." You organised a protest campaign and marched to the German embassy to adress a letter to the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, stating "that the labour practices of German MNCs particularly Triumph and LINDE are by far below the acceptable standards". What are your accusations against the German companies?
Wanpen Wongsombat/Rattiporn Chantarasri:
Unfair dismissal against union activist/president without talking to the union; under this situation, 3000 workers who were engaged in direct voting system to choose their union president found the company’s practices unacceptable and this explains why 3000 workers participate in the collective action to demand for reinstatement of their union leader.
The Body Fashion’s practices constitute violation of the constitutional law, human rights charter and the Code of Conduct of Triumph.
The television broadcasting on 24 April 2008 at 23.00 when Ms Jitra was invited to speak on the issue of unwanted pregnancy and abortion right was a mere expression of her thoughts on the issue of women rights; a basic human right and freedom of speech. The expression of her thoughts was even carried out outside the working hour.
The management’s action of court case against Ms Jitra on such issue is clearly seen as company taking advantage of the current political chaos in Thailand where freedom of expressions is severely suppressed, and loopholes of the laws are working in favour of the company to oppress trade unionists.
The Body Fashion MD called Ms Jitra for a meeting on 28 April, four days after she appeared on NBT Television. The management discussed with her about the talk she had on the TV programme and told her that the management did not have any problem with it but in order for other workers at Body Fashion to understand, the management suggested her to explain the situation by using the company’s loud speakers. Ms Jitra followed the management’s suggestion and spoke about the invitation to the TV programme and the T-shirt she was wearing (the said T-shirt is worn by social activists in Thailand who campaign for the end of Lese Majeste law which is a criminal code in Thailand that has been used as political tool to suppress freedom of speech). While she was explaining, the management managed to record what she said and used the tape against her in the court.
Chatchai Phaiyasen (General Secretary of Thai Industrial Gases Labour Union):
At LINDE/TIG production facilities in Thailand, workers have suffered from many violations including victimization of union activists, discriminatory practices of the management on union members including discrimination of wage and social benefits and union members are subject to disciplinary actions even on very small issues. Contract and agency workers who have been employed for a long period are also experiencing unfair treatment and their contracts become shorter when the workers spoke about the problems.
Apart from the hostilities against union workers, the local management has engaged in the violation of the workers’ collective bargaining right guaranteed by the international organizations including ILO and OECD, for example:
- MNC should provide facilities to workers representatives for collective bargaining
- MNC should provide appropriate information for constructive bargaining. The relevant information includes the pay of key managers, MNC activities, structure, financial situation and performance, main affiliates, its percentage ownership, direct and indirect in these affiliates, shareholding, employees and other stakeholders
- MNC should allow workers representatives to consult with management representatives who have the final right to decide
All the above have been violated.
epo.de:
How is LINDE involved in this case? LINDE's press department did not react to our questions...
Chatchai Phaiyasen:
Our unions are organised at the German owned companies: Triumph and LINDE Group. Violation of workers rights including trade union rights are occurring at both companies in Thailand so we decided to come together so that our voices become louder.
epo.de:
There have been negotiations with BFT and Labor Ministry officials. Is there any outcome?
Wanpen Wongsombat/Rattiporn Chantarasri:
No. According to the management in Thailand, Triumph in Europe informed that the company might consider reinstating Ms Jitra but she would be transferred to work in another factory called Dika – the name of which we have never heard before.
The company management also suggested Ms Jitra to file another court case and wait until the final verdict comes out; and that the company would take care of the lawyer’s fee for her.
epo.de:
Some voices belonging to oppositional circles in Bangkok mentioned that worker's rights have been derogated in recent government laws. Do you complain about more pressure on union action on the political and economic level?
Chatchai Phaiyasen:
There has been a series of meetings and conference organised by the labour movement to discuss the contents of the new law. As the unions discovered far too many loopholes in the new law which would make protection of workers very difficult, the union movement has decided to pursue the union’s draft of labour law and will campaign for enactment of the labour movement’s draft labour law.
epo.de:
In your letter to the German Chancellor you acknowledged that "Germany is well known as a champion of democracy and a country which promotes peace and social dialogue", but accused LINDE and Triumph of "unfair labour practices". Triumph even has its own rules for Corporate Social Responsibility. The German public is observing fairness and accurancy of MNCs in Germany and abroad with very much concern. Apart from the BFT case: How do you asses or judge German economic behaviour in Thailand?
Chatchai Phaiyasen:
The union movement in Thailand believes in the accountability and corporate social responsibility of German MNCs. The unfair labour practices which are occurring are likely to be caused by local management, and therefore we ask the MNC headquarters to look into the situation and the ongoing suppression of workers rights in Thailand and ensure that basic human rights and trade union rights are applied and practiced at the company facilities in Thailand as they are applied to workers in Germany.
