Afficher en : Francais - Espagnol
Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body
Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body
- 280. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns acts of anti-union discrimination – including dismissal, threats of termination to pressure employees to resign from the union, and other acts intended to frustrate collective bargaining – at its June 2008 meeting. On that occasion, the Committee, while noting with interest that union President Paiyasen and Treasurer Jarusuwanwong had been reinstated with back pay, regretted that the Government provided no information on the two other union officials dismissed by the employer, or any information concerning those employees who had resigned from the union upon pain of termination. It once again requested the Government to secure without delay the reinstatement with back pay of the two other dismissed union officials and ensure that those employees who had resigned from the union may resume their membership in the union free of the threat of dismissals or any other form of reprisal. Further noting that the employer’s appeal to the Supreme Court of the Central Labour Court’s March 2006 decision (upholding Order No. 54–55/2006 of the Labour Relations Committee, which found that the union President and Treasurer had been unfairly dismissed) was still pending, the Committee requested the Government to submit a copy of the Supreme Court decision once it was handed down [see 350th Report, paras 208–210].
- 281. In a communication of 23 September 2008, the Government indicates that the employer had withdrawn its appeal to the Supreme Court of the Central Labour Court’s March 2006 decision. As concerns the two other dismissed union officials, the Government indicates that they had been informed by the labour inspector to submit an unfair labour practices complaint, but decided not to exercise their right to do so.
- 282. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the employer had withdrawn its appeal of the Central Labour Court’s March 2006 decision (which in turn upheld Order No. 54–55/2006 of the Labour Relations Committee ruling that the union President and Treasurer had been unfairly dismissed). However, the Committee regrets that, as concerns its previous recommendations respecting the two other dismissed union officials, the Government confines itself to stating that the latter were invited to file a complaint, but declined to do so. Noting that it has now been over four years since the dismissals occurred, the Committee, recalling once again that justice delayed is justice denied, urges the Government to ensure the reinstatement of the two union officials without loss of wages, if they still so wish. If reinstatement is not possible, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the two union officials are provided with adequate compensation so as to constitute sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination. Finally the Committee, regretting that the Government has again failed to provide any information respecting those employees who were pressured to resign from the union, once again requests the Government to ensure that those employees who had resigned from the union may resume their membership in the union free of the threat of dismissals or any other form of reprisal. The Committee requests to be kept informed of developments in this regard.
