(More om Par Garment)

May 17th 2000
Par Garment - Endless Struggle

Junya Yimprasert & Suthasini Kaewleklai Thai Labour Campaign

The situation of Par Garment workers has been the concern of many labour movements both national and international for many years.

Firstly, the courageous young women who struggled for their rights to form a union in 1990 have gone through many struggles, protests, and strikes. Many union committee members for instance have been dismissed one after another and have gone through many battles in court since the formation of their union.

Secondly, the company, on the other hand, has always utilized and continues to utilize many strategies to weaken and destroy the workers' union not only by directly asserting their power as employer but by using the legal system to their advantage. Many union leaders have been subjected to death threats, dismissal, and prohibited from factory premises. The company also set up subcontract factories to distribute its work orders and in effect, laid off many workers from the Par Garment factory. Only about 200 workers are presently employed at Par Garment.

Thirdly, the Par Garment Manufacturer produces for nearly 20 leading brand names such as the Gap, Nike, Adidas, Fila, Old Navy and Gymboree. Many of these transnational corporations (TNCs) have promoted labour codes of conduct that supposedly protects labour rights but they have failed to respond to the case of Par Garment workers.

In the case of labour violations at Par Garment, these TNCs would terminate their orders with Par Garment but would continue to maintain their work orders at Par Garment subsidiaries. Simply terminating work orders with a manufacturer that has labour disputes between the employer and employee however is not the solution. It only makes the employer want to lay off those workers. Instead, TNCs should pressure the producers to stop violating labour rights and not just terminate their work orders with the manufacturers.

Fourthly, Par Garment Company is using the same method as other Apparel manufacturers by distributing its orders to subcontractors and sweatshops where the company will not be held responsible for the equipment costs and welfare to the workers. These workers earn their wages from what they produce (piece-rate) which is lower than the minimum wage.

The Par Garment workers remaining in the factory have no job security since they are working under constant fear of uncertainty, not knowing when they will be laid off. They also work under deteriorated conditions in a poor working environment with cracked walls, no fire alarm system, no emergency lights, locked emergency exits, an electricity controller that occasionally explodes, dirty toilets, and the constant stench of animals near the factory area that permeates into the work area. Being confined inside a solid block building with poor ventilation makes the work environment unbearably hot, dusty and stuffy. The factory does not even provide clean and cold drinking water to the workers.

Besides the dangerous working environment, there is also a problem with employment. The company violates many of the written and signed agreements between the company and the Par Garment Workers Union: the company refused to pay agreement bonuses since 1997; no uniforms were provided to workers since 1998; the company cancelled its transportation services to some areas; the company reduced award payments to 40%; the company has consistently postponed the due dates of workers' bi-monthly salaries; the company stopped the joint meetings between the management and the employee committee and the safe and healthy environment in the workplace committee; and in 1998, the company dismissed 77 workers who have been working for the company for many years and who are too old to get any employment elsewhere.

At present, the Par Garment union members and the committee have three court cases against the Par Garment Company: 1) having lost their case in the labour court on October 1999, the six union committee members have appealed their lawsuit against Par Garment for wrongful dismissal and are claiming for compensation; 2) 24 union committee members have also filed a case in the Central Labour Court against Par Garment for wrongful dismissal and are also claiming for compensation; and 3) 137 union members have filed a lawsuit to claim for two years of unpaid bonuses (from 1997-1999).

The union demands made on March 11, 1999 are still pending since the company refused to sit in the negotiations. In fact, the union's only demand was for the company to abide by its previous agreement of 1996 and 1998 between the company and the union, and that the union committee sits in any decision-making regarding dismissal.

The union committee is now concerned that since there are only 200 workers left in the company, the company will present demands to reduce all work benefits such as welfare, bonuses, grade money, etc. Therefore the union is only demanding that the company stick to its previous agreement and are not asking for more.

The company has also filed a lawsuit against the labour attaches for ordering the company to pay unpaid 50% wages for 45 days to the employees for temporary closing down the factory which workers claim is not legitimate under the labour protection law article 75.

On February 15, the Par Garment representatives attended their first trial on the Bonuses case at the Thanya Buri Labour Court. The judge teams were Kulwadee Fangsanoh, Siriluck Yirong, the employers' jury representative, and Aporn Sangkhawattana, the employees jury representative. All the judges tried to convince the Par Garment workers to receive only 40% unpaid bonus claiming that the company is in financial crisis. The workers representative refused this offer and explained that they are in a crucial situation as well because the company stopped distributing uniforms for two years now and that their income is very small. The judges, however, became aggressive towards the workers' representative saying that they are "stupid and hard-headed" and were angrily trying to convince the workers to take the employers' offers. The judges went so far to say, "if we were the employers, we would not only dismiss all of you but we would get someone to hit you in the head or have you killed!" The judges then asked the employees again what they wanted to do. The workers' representatives still insisted on their initial demands. The judges then declared that since they are the judges, they have the power to make the decisions and that the workers should prepare "to be buried in their coffins!" The representatives argued back during their rebuttals which stirred up the tension in the court room. At the end the judge believed that both Suthasini Kaewlaklai and Karuna Durian had already been blacklisted since they had not been able to find a job elsewhere. The trial end without any solution.

Since Thailand entered the economic turmoil in July 1997, the state authorities and the government have been complicit and lax with employers. Many manufacturers have used the unstable economic situation as an opportunity to reduce wages and welfare to its workers and to weaken the bargaining power of the labour unions. The state authorities have tried to convince employees to compromise with employers. A clear indication of this was made in the speech of Mr. Narong Chimthanu, the Deputy Director of the Labour Protection and Welfare Department who spoke at the tripartite conference on April 4, 2000. Mr. Narong claimed that, at present, official authorities have been very lenient with many manufacturers and would go to investigate the plants only if there was a request and that the authorities have also been very flexible with the labour protection laws as they look in favour of the employers given the economic crisis. Surveys carried out by the department reflect the complicity between state officials and the employers. Subsequently, this has resulted in a significant reduction in the protection and welfare of workers and the outright violation of employer and union written agreements. Par Garment case is therefore one very good example of the lack of concern on the part of state authorities and their indifferent attitude on labour dispute cases in general.

On the other hand, the company does not pay any attention to the suffering of their workers. The Par Garment Company still produces for many transnational corporations, especially Nike. The company continues to neglect the health and welfare of its employees and continues to disregard safety and environmental concerns. The company also refuses to negotiate with the union representative. In a nutshell, the company has never thought of the workers as the ones largely responsible for the company's wealth and profits.

When will these Par Garment workers receive fair treatment from their employer without having to ask or protest?