Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare

30 March 2001

Between Yuthasart Sopitacha and 45 friends The plaintiffs
and Almond Thailand Limited By Mr. Somchai Sahachaiseri The defendant

On unjust practice.

On 8 January 2001, Mr. Yuthasart Sopitacha and 45 friends, the plaintiffs, employees of Almond (Thailand) Company Limited filed suit whereas Mr. Somchai Sahachaiseri. officer with Almond (Thailand) Company is called defendant. The company is located at 81 Moo 4, Serithai Road, Minburi District, Bangkok. The company produces jewelry and has 500 employees.

The Plaintiffs filed a suit with the Labour RelationsCommittee, claiming that plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 6 to 9 were dismissed because they were the negotiators in the Collective Bargaining Process. Plaintiffs 1 to 45 claimed of being dismissed because they are union members. Plaintiffs 1 to 22 and 24 to 41 claimed of being dismissed during the CBA negotiation process, which is unjust according to Articles 121 and 123 of Labour Relation Act of 1975. The plaintiffs requested that the Labour Relation Committee rule on the case and order the defendant to reinstate all 45 workers and pay the unpaid salary at the rate of the last payment they received from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement.

The Labour Relations Committee agreed to take the suit and has given notice to the defendant, including investigation through both examining document and witnesses. The Labour Relations Committee has set a team to investigate the situation and comment. Both parties have provided documents and witnesses of the investigation as follow;

[The detail of investigation in total of 12 pages follows......]

The judgement:

Referring to the article 4 (4) of the Labour Relation Act of 1975, the Labour Relations Committee rules that Almond (Thailand) Limted by Mr. Somchai Sahachaiseri, the officer with authority, the defendant, dismissed Mr. Yuthasart Sopitacha and 45 friends, the plaintiffs [see the list of names attached] that the dismissal is not an unjust act according to the article 121 of the Labour Relation Act A.E. 1975. However, the dismissal of the plaintiffs 1 to 22 and 24 to 41 is an unjust act and violates Article 123 of the Labour Relations Act of 1975. The committee makes a judgement as follow.

1. The defendant reinstate plaintiffs 1 to 22 and 24 to 41 and pay back wages equivalent to the last payment since the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement.
2. To withdraw the case of plaintiffs 23 and 42 to 45.

The defendant must follow this order within 10 days of receiving it.

Signed:
Pramoon Chantornjamnong The chairman of the committee

Prachid Pradabsuk Committee
Narong Chimthanu Committee
Thamrong Kunoprakarn Committee
Prasarn Thongtip Committee
Phanas Thailuan Committee
Thawee Tachateerawat Committee
Saengchai Soteeworakul Committee

Prachid Pradabsuk The Labour Relations Committee