Dec 17 2004

The MSP Sportswear company gives its workers half a day off and leads them in an anti-union protest.

After the three union executive leaders were fired in October 2004 for founding a trade union within the MSP factory, they filed their grievances with NIKE, since the dismissals were considered a violation of Nike's code of conduct. NIKE subsequently summoned factory owner Mr. Peter Krautler for talks at the NIKE offices in Bangkok. On the very same day, the MSP Sportswear company in Korat organised its workers to demonstrate at the City Hall of Nakornrachasima province. The details are as follows:

Around 8 a.m. the company made an announcement via their public address system that all workers should gather in front of the factory at 8.15 a.m. There were five buses waiting there. The workers were ordered to board the buses without being informed about their destination. Before the buses left the factory, Mr. Ekachai, a company mechanic, made an announcement through the public address system that 'the company wanted to keep only workers who loved the company, and that the company did not want to employ the three fired unionists'. Then he ordered all the union executives to get out of the buses. As soon as the unionists got out of the buses, the buses left the factory.

The 400 workers were driven from the company to gather in front of the Provinicial city hall of the province. Some of them were holding signs on which it was written "Protect us from External Force, Why Centre for Labour Information Service And Training (CLIST) go to USA and Europe, why not come to talk with Korat…." One worker said she had to join in the demonstration because it had been ordered by the company, She said she did not hate the unionists but she was afraid that she would be persecuted if she did not follow the company's orders.

Ms. Samai Kongthaley, one of the dismissed workers and a target of the 'demonstration' said it was very strange that all workers could take half a day off from work and were even transported free of charge to protest against her. The text on the placard was written in English, a language that no workers in the factory would be able to formulate. The company claimed that she had to be dismissed because she was disliked by many workers who had asked the company to dismiss her and the other unionists. She wondered how that could be, as she worked in the line I sewing section for two years, having no occasion to walk to other sections within the company. How was she then able to create trouble to workers in other sections. A one hour break per day was too short to create any trouble for anyone in the factory. She was very stunned by such false charges against her and the other unionists. She stated that she was willing to create a better understanding among workers if she would be given the chance. She also pleaded with the company not to discredit the union and create misunderstanding about the union among the workers.

"We are very disappointed that NIKE did not investigate and clarify the case, but let it be settled instead by the legal proceedings of the labour court. We made an attempt to set up a union, knowing very well that we would face dismissal, but we were confident that the NIKE code of conduct would protect our legal rights of freedom of association. That fact that NIKE did nothing to ensure that its code of conduct is upheld and allowed the termination of our employment to come into effect, shows clearly that the NIKE code of conduct is just a part of trade propaganda without any real intention to have it practised in reality."