|
The Piyavat Workers' Union
The experience of the Piyavat Workers' Union demonstrates
that corporate codes of conduct do not guarantee workers the right
to freedom of association or collective bargaining. Piyavat Rubber
Co.Ltd. was one of the first manufacturers of the Wongpaitoonpiya
family. Piyavat started manufacturing in 1976, and at that time
employed over 3,000 workers. The Piyavat Workers Union was established
in 1981. The Wongpaitoon Group were and still are very scared
of the words "trade union," because the Piyavat Workers
Union had been quite active since it was established. Piyavat
produced sportswear for Reebok and Converse. The production capacity
was 8,000 to 10,000 pairs of shoes per day. [1]
The factory closed on 7 March 1996, laying off 730 workers without
compensation. Before the closing down of the factory there were
2,300 workers employed at Piyavat. By law, retrenched workers
are entitled to six months' salary for the completion of three
years of work, three month's salary for completion one year of
work, and one month's salary for fewer than one year of work.
[2]
The Piyavat factory was in very poor condition,
one of the main buildings, a five-story structure had little fire
protection equipment and had caught fire on several occasions.
On these grounds, Piyavat closed the factory. However, before
closing, the management had started transferring 800 mostly non-union
workers to the Wongpaitoon manufacture for almost 4 months. After
they announced the closure, applications were taken from other
staff to work at Wongpaitoon. However, the Wongpaitoon rejected
the 730 applicants who had been on the union committee or who
had been active union members. Piyavat also refused to pay any
compensation to the dismissed workers. These workers called a
strike to demand compensation. According to a former employee,
the Piyavat factory was not closed down because
of the poor condition of the building. The management wanted
to destroy the Piyavat workers union. The Piyavat building
is still being used to produce supplies for the Wongpaitoon
factories without any repair of the building. [3]
On 8 March 1996, the 730 laid-off workers joined
the union committee members to protest against the Wongpaitoonpiya
family and to demand compensation. The workers demonstrated continuously
at the Parliament House, where they camped from 12 March 1996
until the case was settled on 5 April 1996. These 48 days ended
after nine negotiation sessions when the Wonpaitoonpiya family
agreed to pay full compensation to every worker in accordance
with the law.
The case was not easily settled. The workers had
been seeking support from the Prime Minister, the Minister of
Labor and Social Welfare, and from labor organizations to help
pressure the Wongpaitoonpiya family to come to the negotiating
table. The American Federation of Labor-Confederation of Industrial
Organizations (AFL-CIO) also sent a letter of complaint to Reebok,
but there was no response from Reebok. According to Boonphen Saengrung,
a former Piyavat workers' union committee member, "no one
from Reebok helped or visited us at all during the period of our
demonstration." [4]
After the settlement, the former union committee
members had great difficulty finding new work. This was not just
because they were over 30 years old. Most factories will not hire
staff over 25 years. Wongpaitoon sent their details including
photographs to all manufactures in their industry. Many times
their applications for work were rejected because of this. A former
Piyavat worker described her experience since being dismissed.
I have changed jobs 10 times in the last year,
because I can only find jobs in heavy industry or in the department
stores, and I am not familiar with that type of work. I can't
work in the apparel industry anymore because I have been blacklisted
at all factories after our demonstration at Piyavat. [5]
Another former worker agreed:
Since it is difficult to get a job,
nine of us have pooled our savings to buy sewing machines and
organized to do subcontract work. We have nothing left after
nine years of working for Piyavat. We used all the money we
had earned from the past two years to buy the sewing machines.
[6]
Reebok states that they "seek business partners
that share its commitment to the right of employees to establish
and join organizations of their own choosing," however they
still trade with the Wongpaitoon group. Because they violate the
rights of the workers, producers such as Wongpaitoon fear trade
unions. Therefore, they suppress the union movements at any cost.
The Piyavat workers' union was the only union in
the entire sportwear industry. Shutting down this union and not
employing ex-union members has caused workers throughout the footwear
and apparel industries to shy away from forming unions or even
participate. Wongpaitoon started to transfer 800 workers who were
not union members from Piyavat to work in the Wongpaitoon Footwear
Company several months before the announcing the closure of Piyavat.
This strongly suggests that the Wongpaitoon Footwear Company planned
to close the factory in an effort to break the union and get rid
of the union members. Wongpaitoon rejected the 730 applicants
who were former union members that applied for Wongpaitoon Footwear
Company after they closed Piyavat. Piyavat only paid compensation
after the workers demonstrated for 48 days in front of the Government
House in Bangkok. Wongpaitoon Footwear Company sent photographs
and names of the former union committee members to all other organizations
in the industry. The workers were effectively blacklisted and
have not been able to continue working in the industry in which
they were trained. Reebok officers, in contradiction to the principles
professed in their code, kept quiet about the violation of their
right to freedom of association.
|
Previous Section:
|
Return to:
|
Next Section:
|
Footnotes:
- Arom Pongpangan Foundation, "Workers' Rights
in Thailand's Sportwear Industry," October 1995.
- Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare, Government
Gazette, volume 112, special issued part 18d, 1 June 1995. Labor
Protection Law (no. 14), article 46.
- Former Piyavat workers' union committee member,
interview, 9 April 1999.
- Former Piyavat workers' union committee member,
interview, 9 April 1999.
- Former Piyavat workers' union Secretary, interview,
25 April 1999.
- Former Piyavat workers' union committee member,
interview, 9 April 1999
Top
|
