There has been a series of victimization on union activists since 2006 beginning with the dismissal of four activists including the union president after the activists were found to be wearing Buddhist charms inside the factory. The company argued the activists failed to observe the new work rule which banned the workers from wearing any ornament inside the factory. Several requests for dialogue to resolve this case were rejected by the company.

In early 2007, the company locked out all the 200 union members during the CBA negotiation. After 33 days of staying outside, the unionists returned to work on 14 May following the order issued by the Industrial Relations Tribunal which arbitrated the dispute.

Another dismissal happened in July 2007: 3 members of the Employee Committee were dismissed by which the company alleged that they left their duties for more than 3 days – prior to that the 3 employee committee members were requested by the company to sign a paper and accept the company’s offer and alteration of working conditions. They refused to sign and the plant manager ordered them to stay outside. The three then joined the union’s rally which was held during the lockout. When the union members returned to work on 14 May of which they had to sign certain document as they reported back to work, the three employee committee members also signed together with the union members.

On 27 July, the three employee committee members were called by the management and they were given dismissal notice. The three had just finished their term as members of the employee committee the day before the termination notice. The three workers then filed unfair dismissal case to the industrial court. The court ruled in favour of the workers and ordered the company to pay the dismissed workers damages amounted 500,000 baht but the company made an appeal and now the case is pending in the Supreme Court.

In January 2008, the union president, Bro Sompong Patpoom, was called by the management a number of times to discuss the possibility of company terminating his employment. After a series of tense discussions, the company suggested a namelist of 26 union activists whom the top management was interested to have them fired.

14 union activists were at the point of exhaustion and decided to take the severance pay and left.

The company continued to put pressure on the union by threatening to file a court case under criminal code against the union president for ‘submitting artificial documents’ to the company when the union gave the company the document containing namelist of union members who reported back to work on 14 May. Based on the management, the said document was artificial because the namelist contained in addition to the union members the three names (of the employee committee members) who were not union members at the time.        

In February 2008, the company issued an internal order requesting the supervisor and line leaders to check whether the workers complied with the company’s work rules on working hours – starting time, finishing time, rest time, overtime etc. These work rules and the changes made to them were done by the management unilaterally and the union was never consulted. Over the past years, the management allowed some flexibility – for example, workers could stop work 5 minutes before the finishing time/hour stated in the work rules. And there’s a good reason for that. Workers have to go through a scanning/checking before they can leave the factory. With many hundred workers waiting in queue at the checkpoint, this process could take up to 30 minutes while many workers have to rush to pick up their children from school. The new order issued by the management therefore agitated the workers especially union members and they refused to comply. More than 100 union members were then given warning papers.

A resolution was passed at the union’s annual meeting of 24 February 2008 in which union members requested the union committee to file a legal case against the company for unilateral alteration of working conditions. The company responded by filing a court case under criminal code against the union president. The first court hearing will take place on 11 October, 2008.

As for the legal case against the company on unilateral alteration of working conditions, the court issued a ruling in favour of the union on 10 June, 2008.  The court orders the company to withdraw the ‘internal order’ and requests that the same working conditions be maintained. Union members follow the court order and adhere to the old working conditions and practices; non-union members follow the company’s order as they feel insecure. Despite the court order, the management continues to put pressure on the union by giving more warning papers to union members who do not comply with the management’s order. Moreover the management tried to discuss with union members individually at the same time tried to discredit the union president.

On 20 June, 2008 the management gave the union a company proposal containing 11 points. The content of the proposal is reduction of social benefits. 

The union has not given the company their CBA demands this year.

There have been 4 rounds of meeting held at the Ministry of Labour but no agreement could be reached due to the inconsistency of the management and lack of sincerity. The sticky point in the negotiation is related to the company attempt to alter working conditions involving working hours, starting time, finishing time, overtime and shift work.  On this issue, the court has given a ruling but the company still tries to go against the court order by way of putting it in the company’s proposal. Earlier the management said it would accept the court ruling on this issue.  

During the third round of negotiation on 14 July, the management told the labour official who mediated the dispute the company had no lock out plan. But on 16 July (forth round of meetings), when both sides could not reach an agreement, the management announced ‘no more negotiation’. The labour official however tried to set up another meeting on 22 July. The management in the meantime announced it would lock out the union on 21 July.

And indeed the company issued a lock out notice on 19 July to take effect 21 July.

We need all your support to save our union…

In solidarity,

Almond Union