Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 1994, Publicación: 81ª reunión CIT (1994)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report and the discussion which took place in the Conference Committee in 1993.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. The Committee noted previously that penalties of imprisonment may be imposed under sections 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Anti-Communist Activities Act B.E. 2495 (1952) on anyone who engages in communist activities, or who conducts propaganda or makes any preparation with a view to carrying on communist activities, who is a member of any communist organization, or who attends any communist meeting unless he can prove that he did so in ignorance of its nature and object. Similarly, under sections 9, 12 and 13 to 17 of the same Act, inserted by the Anti-Communist Activities Act (No. 2) B.E. 2512 (1969), penalties of imprisonment may be imposed on whoever assists any communist organization or member of such organization in a variety of ways, who propagates communist ideology or principles leading to the approval of such ideology, or who contravenes restrictions imposed by the Government on movements, activities and liberties of persons in any area classified as a communist infiltration area.

The Committee notes the Government's indication that the Anti-Communist Activities Act of 1952 was adopted to protect the democratic system of the country suitable to its socio-economic development. The penalty of imprisonment in the Act was considered necessary to prevent any activity which would endanger the peace and security of the nation and the people; only those had been imprisoned who were proven to have been engaged in actions to bring about disasters to the nation or the people. The Government refers to two policy documents on combating and achieving victory over communists (Orders of the Office of the Prime Minister No. 66/2523 (1980) and 65/2525 (1982) adopted to eliminate conflicts between the pro-communist activists and the Government with a view to creating a peaceful situation in the country; as a result of these measures a great number of pro-communists surrendered; the Government provided them with help, and the number of pro-communists had decreased considerably.

While noting that the stated aim of these policies is to foster democracy, the Committee can only observe once more that the above-mentioned provisions are not limited in scope to the punishment of violence or incitement to violence, but may be used as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for holding or expressing, even peacefully, certain political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, and are accordingly incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention in so far as the penalties provided involve compulsory labour. The Committee expresses again the hope that the necessary measures will be adopted in this regard to ensure the observance of the Convention.

Article 1(c). 2. The Committee previously noted that sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Act for the Prevention of Desertion or Undue Absence from Merchant Ships, B.E. 2466 (1923), provides for the forcible conveyance of seamen on board ship to perform their duties.

The Committee noted the Government's indication that a committee to review seamen's legislation had been established.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that, according to the Juridical Council, Act B.E. 2466 (1923) was never promulgated. The Government adds that the Committee referred to is the Committee to review the seafarers' legislation and its draft legislation is now pending consideration. Language problems have raised some confusion in this respect. The Committee also notes the indication by the Government representative to the Conference Committee that the Government would report on the reasons for the misunderstanding.

The Committee notes that the Act for the Prevention of Desertion or Undue Absence from Merchant Ships appears to have been promulgated on 31 August B.E. 2465 (1923); the Committee also notes that in previous information the Government has stated that the Act remained in force.

The Committee expresses the hope that the Government will take action in relation to the Act of 31 August B.E. 2465 (1923) and provide information on measures adopted or envisaged to ensure that no forced or compulsory labour be imposed on a seaman as a means of labour discipline to perform his service.

3. The Committee noted previously that under sections 131 and 133 of the Labour Relations Act, B.E. 2518 (1975), penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employee who, even individually, violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18, paragraph (2), 22, paragraph (2), 23 to 25, 29, paragraph (4) or 35(4) of the Labour Relations Act. The Committee noted that sections 131 to 133 of the Labour Relations Act were incompatible with the Convention in so far as the scope of sanctions involving compulsory prison labour is not limited to acts and omissions that impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services, that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, the personal safety or the health of the whole or part of the population, or which are committed either in the exercise of functions that are essential to safety or in circumstances where life or health are in danger. The Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will indicate the action taken or contemplated in this regard to ensure the observance of the Convention.

Article 1(d). 4. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that penalties of imprisonment may be imposed for participation in strikes under section 140 of the Labour Relations Act read together with section 35(2), and under section 139 read together with section 34(4), (5) and (6).

The Committee noted that the provisions referred to provide for binding awards or ministerial decisions in a wide range of circumstances where their enforcement with penalties involving compulsory prison labour is contrary to Article 1(d) of the Convention.

The Committee noted the Government's indication that the penalty of imprisonment under section 35 was seldom used. The Committee accordingly again expresses the hope that the Government will indicate the measures taken or envisaged to bring legislation in this regard into conformity with the Convention.

5. The Committee previously noted that under section 117 of the Criminal Code participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people was punishable with imprisonment. The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that section 117 aims to ensure the security within the country; it is used in practice in respect of persons whose intentions are to overthrow the Government by unconstitutional means. The Government adds that nobody has been prosecuted under this section.

The Committee notes that section 116 of the Criminal Code relates to advocating change of laws or causing disorder or disaffection among the people, while section 117 addresses work stoppages. The Committee also notes a certain contradiction in the indications by the Government in relation to the practical application of section 117. The Committee consequently expresses the hope that the Government will continue to provide information on the application in practice of section 117, as well as on measures taken or contemplated in this connection to ensure the observance of the Convention.

6. The Committee noted previously that section 19 of the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act, enacted on 15 April 1991, provided that workers of state enterprises shall not in any case stage a strike or undertake any activity in the nature of a strike. Under section 45, paragraph 1, of the Act a person who violates this prohibition may be punished by imprisonment for a term up to one year; this penalty is doubled in the case of a person who "incites, or aids or abets the commission" of the offence under paragraph 1.

Referring to paragraph 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, the Committee recalled that the imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour would only be compatible with the Convention in the case of essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government's information in a communication of 27 September 1993 according to which the revised State Enterprise Labour Relations Act, examined by the Ministry of the Interior and the National Advisory Council for Labour Development, was approved by the Cabinet and is under consideration by the Office of the Juridical Council. After approval by that office it would be resubmitted for approval to the Cabinet and then submitted to Parliament. (GB.258/4/6, 291st Report of the Committee on12reedom of Association, paragraph 21.)

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken in this regard and expresses the hope that provisions to be adopted will be in conformity with the Convention.