Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 101, 1968

1. 122. This case, already considered by the Committee at its 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st, 33rd, 34th, 40th and 42nd Sessions (February 1960, May 1960, November 19603, February 1961, May 1961 s, November 19616, February 1962, May 19628, February 1963, May 19636, May 1965 and February 1966), was again examined by the Committee at its 44th Session (November 1966), when it submitted a further interim report in paragraphs 162 to 168 of its 93rd Report, which was approved by the Governing Body at its 167th Session (November 1966).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 123. Paragraph 168 of the Committee's 93rd Report, which contains the recommendations of the Committee as adopted by the Governing Body, reads as follows:
   • In all the circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
     • (a) to draw the attention of the Government once again to the finding in the 87th Report of the Committee that the situation of the workers of Thailand, who since the dissolution of all the trade unions in Thailand in October 1958 have been unable to form and join trade unions for the protection of their interests, is contrary to the generally recognised principles relating to freedom of association;
     • (b) to request the Government to be good enough to keep the Governing Body informed as to further developments with regard to the proposed Labour Protection Bill and to furnish the text thereof when it has been finalised;
     • (c) (i) to note that the proposed law to guarantee the right to form trade unions has not so far been enacted;
     • (ii) to regret the delay in giving legal effect to this guarantee of the workers' fundamental rights, and to urge the Government once again to take steps in the meantime to enable the workers to form trade unions to protect their interests;
     • (iii) to request the Government to be good enough to inform the Governing Body of the measures taken or intended to be taken in this connection;
     • (d) (i) to reaffirm once again the importance which the Governing Body has always attached to the principle of prompt and fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary in all cases m which trade unionists are charged with political or criminal offences which the Government considers have no relation to their trade union functions;
     • (ii) to take note of the Government's statement that charges against Mr. Thongbai Thongpound have been withdrawn and that the Court ordered his release, which took effect on 9 September 1966, and that the cases pending in the Bangkok Martial Court against the six other trade unionists still in detention who are named in paragraph 167 above have already been expedited;
     • (iii) to express the hope that the proceedings in question will be concluded at an early date, and to request the Government to be good enough to inform the Governing Body as a matter of urgency as to the outcome of these proceedings and to furnish copies of the judgments given and of the reasons adduced therein.
   • 124. The conclusions listed above, with the request to furnish further information, were brought to the notice of the Government on 23 November 1966, and the Government replied by a communication dated 25 May 1967, which was supplemented by a communication dated 2 November 1967. The Government has also forwarded to the I.L.O the text of the Labour Protection Bill referred to in subparagraph (b) of paragraph 168 of the Committee's 93rd Report quoted in the previous paragraph.
2. 125. First of all, with regard to the Labour Protection Bill, it deals in some detail with hours of work and rest periods, leave and work done during leave periods, wages, welfare, termination of employment, the employment of women and children, labour inspection and benefits in cases of occupational diseases and industrial accidents; it does not, however, deal with questions of trade union rights.
3. 126. In its observations proper the Government indicates that the Bill was approved in principle by the Council of Ministers on 27 December 1966 and that the text has been sent to the Juridical Council for its consideration.
4. 127. With regard to the other questions raised by the Committee and the Governing Body in the paragraph quoted in paragraph 123 above, the Government, in its communication of 25 May 1967, states firstly that it has never ceased to concern itself with the question of helping workers to form trade unions to protect their interests. The Government points out that, nevertheless, before steps can be taken to this end, " education has to be given first of all to workers to enable them to understand clearly systems and procedures of trade unions ".
5. 128. With regard to the six former trade unionists whose cases have not yet been settled finally by the Bangkok Martial Court, the Government, in its communication of 25 May 1967, gave the following details: 63 witnesses for the prosecution had been heard by the Court since 22 August 1966; the Court was at the time hearing witnesses for the defence; ten of these witnesses had already finished their evidence but several witnesses for the defence had yet to appear; everything therefore now depended on the length of time taken to hear the defence witnesses who have yet to appear.
6. 129. In its communication dated 2 November 1967 the Government gives the following information on the subject. On 21 September 1967 Mr. Prasert Khamplumchitr was found guilty by the Bangkok Military Court of engaging in Communist activities and of offences against the security of the Kingdom; he was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment, which was subsequently reduced to eight years, and he was released on the ground that he had already been detained for that period. Mr. Chamnong Harith and Mr. Yunfa Sae Lau were found guilty of offences against the security of the Kingdom; they were sentenced to six years' imprisonment, which was subsequently reduced to four years, and they were released on the ground that they had already been detained for that period. Mr. Vichitr Mahasin and Mr. Prakob Tolaklam were released because of insufficient evidence of their guilt. Finally, Mr. Karuna Kuslasai was released on the ground of mental incapacity.