Company profile
The Par Garment Co. Ltd. is located in Bangkok at 9/4 Phaholyothin Rd. Km. 34, Phatumthani. Par Garment Co. Ltd is a medium size manufacturer that subcontracts to produce shirts and sportswear for nearly 20 brand names, including Nike, adidas, the Gap, Old Navy, Champion, Karet Francisca, Chicago, Brittania, London Fog, Fila and Gymboree. The company was established in 1987 with a capital of 14 million baht, and employed over 800 workers. In 1998, Par Garment was valued at over 288 million baht - excluding the company's four subsidiaries. Over the last ten years, the company acquired Par M Co. Ltd. in 1991, Par Consortium Co. Ltd. in 1992, and Montini Co. Ltd. in 1992.

Working conditions before trade unions
In 1988-1990, Par Garment employed about 500 workers, mainly women, and operated two shifts:8.00 to17.00 and 17.00-02.00. It paid the legal minimum wage and no other benefits. Workers were forced to work 3 hours' overtime in that they were locked in the factory compound without being allowed to go out - not even to eat. They worked in a hot and dusty environment; toilets were dirty and smelly and there was no first-aid room and no canteen. The company did not provide enough buses to transport the workers, a problem for the night shift. It did not give overtime pay, which was illegal.

Overtime should have been paid at 1.5 time the minimum wage rate of 9.5 Baht per hour (ie 14.25 Baht), but was instead paid at 10 Baht per hour. The company then adopted a system of payment of wages through bank transfers to reduce operational costs and forced workers to apply for automatic cash machine cards (ATM) in order to cash money. Workers had to pay an annual fee of 100 Baht for ATM cards. The company then charged workers for this 'service', deducting an additional 20 Baht from their monthly wages 'for maintenance of the card'.

Women workers were forced by a personnel officer to have sexual relation with him. Sexual abuse occurred frequently. Any woman worker who refused to submit to this personnel officer would be threatened with dismissal.

Organising a trade union
A full-time worker of YCW (Young Christian Workers Movement) then began to organise the workers of Par Garment. This could not be done openly: YCW contacted and met with the workers at their homes, providing education on their basic rights. As a result, workers became aware of the extent to which their rights were being denied in the workplace. It took two years for them to form a small group of the YCW at the factory. During that period, they prepared materials on working conditions with which to raise the awareness of their fellow workers and put up posters drawing attention to the behaviour of the personnel officer as well as other problems. They distributed these materials to workers queuing to cash money at the ATM. Through these activities, awareness grew and workers got together to discuss their common problems. They were keen to take collective action to improve their situation.

The management, aware of these developments, tried to intimidate workers with daily threats of dismissal and even death threats. The first collective action to be taken up by the majority of workers was to return their ATM cards to the company. As a result, the company had to resume cash payments. Workers then demanded that overtime pay should be increased in accordance to the law, and this was also agreed. Then, through the YCW group, workers prepared demands for improvement of working conditions and employment contracts which they submitted to management.

Management closed the factory down for nine days but, as they reopened it, granted a number of benefits. This success was due partly due the support of neighbouring trade unions, partly to the fact that workers had contacted the media to publicise their working conditions. At that stage, having succeeded in their demands, workers set up a trade union (June1990).

Continuous struggle
In 1991-2, Par Garment expanded its business and set up two new companies in the Northeast of the country: Montini Garment in Khorat and Par Consortium in Ubol. Whilst in the past, Par Garment was involved in the whole production process - cutting, stitching and packing the finished products - it now only cut patterns and sent the cut fabric to the two factories for sewing, a form of internal sub-contracting.

Workers at the two new factories were paid only the minimum wage, making clear that the real reasons behind expansion had been to avoid paying additional benefits to the workers. The management of the two factories maintained strict control of the workers, which it could no longer do at Par Garment since the creation of the trade union. Given their poor working conditions and aware of a strike at Par Garment, the mother company, over working conditions, workers at Montini Garment and Par Consortium also decided to strike. They were immediately dismissed. When the trade union at Par Garment came to know about this, it and other neighbouring unions together immediately started a strike in front of Par Garment, which lasted almost 3 months. Their victory, however, was not total: of the 400 workers dismissed, only about half were re-employed. The rest were dismissed with redundancy pay.

After the end of the Montini strike in 1995, four union leaders - Sri Pai Nontri, Nora Putuchon, Saneh Hongton and Vacharee Sangsuk - were dismissed from Par garment after the company had obtained an order from the labour court. All four filed lawsuits against their employer and won. The company appealed however, and Sripai and Saneh this time lost their case in the high court while Nora and Vacharee settled their case out of court.

Common agreements
In 1997, the trade union lodged demands with the management for improved benefits and working conditions. Immediately, the company struck back by declaring that, due to economic recession, it had to cancel all existing benefits such as annual bonuses, high quality bonuses, transport payments, etc. Whilst in the past, in the case of a labour dispute, there would have been several rounds of negotiation between management, workers and trade union, there were this time only 3 rounds. On 27 October 1997, day of negotiation between union representatives and management, the management handed the union a letter announcing the closure of the factory as from 29 October. 449 of the 500 remaining workers of Par Garment called a sit-in and assembled in front of the factory, where the company kept its machines. The strike lasted several months. Fellow workers from neighbouring factories contributed resources to support Par Garment workers as well as directly taking part in their struggle. There was also encouraging international support in the form of urgent appeals sent to the company and the government. Workers at some stage had to lie down on the road to block trucks from moving machines off the factory site. At this stage, the company recruited an army of young men to force the workers, mainly young women, off the site. Finding that they were facing women, the young men refused to carry out their orders and went away. A few months passed and employers still would not negotiate with the union committee. In March 1998, in the 5th month of the protest, the union committee sought the help of the Prime Minister who ordered the Minister of Labour Affairs to help settle the case urgently. On 13 March 1998, the employers attended a meeting with the union and the case was settled; it was agreed to re-open the factory on 22 April, and that the employer would not take any action against the workers who had taken part in the protest. However, only 318 workers were allowed to return to work when the factory reopened.

But the same problems remained: pay was delayed and management did not keep to past agreements. When workers decided to prevent management from leaving their office, 24 workers and 6 union leaders were dismissed (June 1998) in a case which has been taken to the High Court and still has not been resolved. The 30 workers dismissed were told they had lost their employment on account of their antagonism to the company, of having persuaded fellow workers to stand against the company and of having broken company rules. They were dismissed without compensation. Another 74 workers were told there was no work for them and were dismissed with redundancy pay. At the same time, the management ordered a decrease of 6 to 3 working days a week.

Law suits
With the help of Mr. Chat Jittipong, a lawyer from the Union for Civil Liberty (a legal aid NGO in Thailand), the 24 workers and six union committee members filed a lawsuit demanding compensation and the return of their deposit money and any remaining unpaid bonuses - approximately 53,000 baht per worker in total. In the first trial of the 24 workers on 17 December 1998, the judge tried to persuade the workers to settle the case out of court and accept 50% of their claim. The workers rejected the judge's advice. Two court trials later, the case is still not resolved. By early 1999, some had found new jobs, where working conditions are worse. Some find that they are turned down wherever they apply for work. Some who are getting older work from home and earn about 50 Baht a day.The 6 trade unionists dismissed have gone through five trials, but the case is not yet concluded.

Working conditions worse than before
Of the other dismissed workers, many have found work with sub-contractors where they knew they would be exploited and wages would be lower than in the factory. They are paid according to piece rate, ie below the legal minimum wage. They work longer hours, without the protection of the country's labour laws. They live each day in uncertainty.

At Par Garment itself, workers are afraid of losing their work. The employer still uses the argument of economic recession to threaten workers and claims that the company is facing serious liquidity problems due to lack of orders. After the reopening of the factory, all past benefits were cancelled and health and safety deteriorated.

Economic recession has made it easy for manufacturers to use clause 75 to stop production and keep the workforce on 50% pay. Clause 75 states that "in the event that an employer has to stop production, permanently or temporarily, for unexpected reasons, the employer is allowed to pay employees not less than 50 % of their wage at the rate received before the date of notice of closure and for the whole period that the employee is not working.The employer must inform the employees and the labour office before the day of closure." Many manufacturers have been abusing this law, announcing a temporary closure when orders are low and therefore paying workers only 50% of their wages. The management of Par garment announced on 13 September 1998 that they were going to stop production for four days from 26 - 29 September, and then again every Saturday till Tuesday in October and November - ie26 days in total. Since the basic wage is already low, it has been very hard for workers to survive.

At the beginning of 1999, the company announced that it had more orders and workers were therefore required to work six days a week as before. The trade union has filed the case in the central labour court to order the company to pay the 50% wage back to the workers. In March 1999, the employer lodged a demand for a change to the employment contract but did not show up at the negotiations.

Break down of union power
At the beginning of 1999, Par Garment employed 202 workers of whom 180 were trade union members. Despite problems, workers remain well aware of the importance of their trade union in protecting their rights and continue to take an active part in its activities. Yet, the trade union at Par Garment has been considerably weakened: its new generation of leaders have to face regular threats of factory closure. The employers have been applying many strategies to divide and break down union power. Many committee members have been sued by the employers, are prevented from going into factories and from working themselves. Those Par Garment union leaders who were dismissed sell children's clothing in front of factories.

At present, the trade union is negotiating with the company on two issues:

• that they be involved in the decision making process when the company is considering laying off workers;
• that employers apply the employment contract of 1996.

The company says it will apply the employment contract of 1998, which provides lower benefits.

Workers also plan to file a complaint to force the company to pay 1997-1998 bonuses to 137 workers. The workers themselves are paying for this legal action, contributing 40 bath a month to a legal action fund.

MNCs
It is very hard for workers to talk to representatives of MNCs. Management usually inform workers of the arrival of an MNC representative the day before the visit, saying that " workers are not to look customers in the eye or speak to them because they are an important customer and the factory stands to receive a big order. The management have the factory cleaned up and tell workers not to leave anything lying around on the day of the visit, though it is not a practice in any case." [Karuna & Suthasinee, an interview conducted on 11 December 1998]

Since factories in the garment sector produce for many brand names, it is very difficult to put pressure on suppliers to follow a particular code of conduct. The objective of the MNC on the other hand is to find the cheapest labour costs rather than select a supplier who will treat the workforce fairly. MNCs do not want to increase labour costs by pressurising suppliers into following codes of conduct. Instead, they tend to turn a blind eye to violations of workers' rights.

The way MNC labour standards are implemented in Thailand is highly questionable. Codes of conduct state that workers have rights, such as freedom of association and collective bargaining. Par Garment demonstrates that workers have no such rights.

If MNCs are not willing to pay higher labour costs and ensure that codes of conduct are adhered too, workers in these industries will continue to struggle to find enough money for food and clothing, their children's education will suffer and the workers health will continue to deteriorate.

Wages
Initially, Par Garment paid the legal minimum wage but did not pay the legal rate for overtime. While it should have paid 1.5 time the legal hourly wage rate (ie 14.25 Baht), it paid only 10 Baht per hour. It then adopted a system of paying wages through bank transfers - to reduce operational costs - which forced workers to apply for automatic cash machine cards (ATM). These cards cost workers an annual membership fee of 100 Baht, in addition to which the company charged them 20 Baht per month "for maintenance of the card". Once they had begun to organise themselves, the workers' first collective action - taken by almost everyone - was to return their ATM cards to the company. As a result, the company had to resume paying wages in cash. The workers also succeeded in obtaining that they be paid the legal hourly rate for overtime.

In 1991-2, Par Garment expanded its business and set up two new companies in the Northeast of the country: Montini Garment in Khorat and Par Consortium in Ubol. Whilst in the past, Par Garment would have been responsible for the whole production process - cutting, sewing and packing the finished products - it now only cut the cloth and sent it to the two new factories for sewing. Workers at the new factories,however, were paid only the minimum wage, making clear that the real reasons behind expansion had been to avoid paying additional benefits to the workers.

A large number of workers has been laid-off, gradually, since 1995. Many of those laid-off have had to turn to sub-contracting for work, where wages are lower than in factories. Pay is based on piece rate, which makes it possible to pay workers less than the legal minimum wage. They work longer hours, without the protection of labour laws, and live each day in uncertainty.

Economic recession has made it easy for manufacturers to use clause 75 to stop production and keep the workforce on 50% pay. Clause 75 states that "in the event that an employer has to stop production, permanently or temporarily, for unexpected reasons, the employer is allowed to pay employees not less than 50 % of their wage at the rate received before the date of notice of closure and for the whole period that the employee is not working.The employer must inform the employees and the labour office before the day of closure." Many manufacturers have been abusing this law, announcing a temporary closure when orders are low and therefore paying workers only 50% of their wages. The management of Par garment announced on 13 September 1998 that they were going to stop production for four days from 26 - 29 September, and then again every Saturday till Tuesday in October and November - ie26 days in total. Since the basic wage is already low, it has been very hard for workers to survive.

"Now my elder brother has to bring rice from our field and some money to give to me because I haven't been working fully since May 1998. I can not even afford 200 baht for a bus to go home for this coming new year holiday. I was very strong before I came to work in this industry, and could handle hard work in the field. Since working for Par Garment for almost ten years, I can no longer work in the field. Not because I do not try to, I have tried, but I have no energy left for this hard work any more. My health is getting weaker now." [Karuna Durian, 28 years old, Chairwoman of the Par Garment Workers Union interviewed on 11 December 1998].

At the beginning of 1999, the company announced that it had more orders and workers were therefore required to work six days a week as before. The trade union has filed a case in the Central Labour Court to order the company to pay the 50% wage back to the workers.

Sources:

• The Violation of Codes of Conduct in the Apparel Manufacturing industry producing for Nike and adidas. The Case of the Par Garment Factory, Junya Yimprasert, 9 March 1999
• The working conditions and struggle of women workers in the garment industry. The story of Par Garment. Thailand, Saneh Hongthong, January 99