Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2019, publiée 109ème session CIT (2021)

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - Thaïlande (Ratification: 1969)

Autre commentaire sur C105

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. Political Parties Act. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to section 95(3) and section 120 of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550 (2007), a penalty of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) may be imposed for using the name, initials or emblem of a political party that has been dissolved by the Constitutional Court, for political activities or to receive any benefit. Pursuant to section 97 and section 120 of the Law, penalties of imprisonment may also be imposed on a person who was previously a member of the Executive Committee of the dissolved political party who, within a period of five years from the date of the dissolution, applies for the formation of a new political party, becomes a member of an Executive Committee of a political party, or promotes a new political party. Section 94 of the Law states that the Constitutional Court may issue an order to dissolve a political party if it has committed one of five acts, including “an act which may be harmful to the democratic regime of the Government with the King as Head of State under the Constitution” (section 94(3)) and “an act, either inside or outside the Kingdom, which may endanger the security of the State, or be contrary to the law, public order, or good morals” (section 94(4)). Recalling that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour (including compulsory prison labour) as a punishment for holding or expressing political views, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the above-mentioned provisions of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550 (2007) into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that an investigation was conducted in 2017 to assess the violations under the Organic Law on Political Parties. It was found that the Constitutional Court had ordered the dissolution of 16 political parties, but no violations under sections 95(3), 97 or 120 were found. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550 has been repealed and a new Law has been promulgated in October 2017 to enable individuals the freedom to form political parties through the democratic governance, with the King as Head of State. The Committee notes, however, that the Government does not provide any information on whether the penalties (involving compulsory prison labour) prescribed under sections 95(3), 97 and 120 of the Organic Law on Political Parties BE 2550, have been repealed or replaced or still remain in force. The Committee once again recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour (including compulsory prison labour) as a punishment for holding or expressing political views and that the prohibition to express political views as a consequence of the prohibition of political parties or associations (subject to penalties involving compulsory labour) is incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention (see General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 307). The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the penalties prescribed for the violations of sections 95(3), 97 and 120 of the 2017 Organic Law on Political Parties include imprisonment involving compulsory labour.

Article 1(c) and (d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline and for participation in strikes. The Labour Relations Act and the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to sections 131–133 of the Labour Relations Act BE 2518 (1975) (LRA of 1975), penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employer or employee who violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18, 19, 22–24, and 35(4) of the Act. The Committee observed that such provisions were contrary to the provisions of the Convention in providing for sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. The Committee also noted that both the LRA and the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act BE 2543 (2000) (SELRA) contain provisions permitting the imposition of penalties of imprisonment for participation in strikes. Pursuant to the LRA, penalties of imprisonment may be imposed if: (i) the minister orders the strikers to return to work, being of the opinion that the strike may affect the national economy or cause hardship to the public or endanger national security or be contrary to public order (section 140 read in conjunction with section 35(2)); and (ii) the matter is awaiting the decision of the Labour Relations Committee, or a decision has been given by the minister or the Labour Relations Committee (pursuant to section 139 read in conjunction with section 34(5)). SELRA prohibits strikes in state enterprises (section 33), and a violation of this prohibition is punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to one year. This penalty is doubled in the case of a person who instigates this offence (section 77). The Committee noted the Government’s statement that sections 131–133 and sections 139 and 140 of the LRA, as well as sections 33 and 77 of SELRA were being repealed. The Government indicated that the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare, under the Ministry of Labour, was responsible for this task, and a draft amendment had been developed that did not contain penalties of imprisonment. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the draft revision of the LRA, repealing sections 131–133 and sections 139 and 140, and the draft revision of SELRA, repealing sections 33 and 37, would be adopted in the near future.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Working Group on Labour Relations Draft Legislation, a tripartite working group under the Department of Welfare and Labour Protection and the Ministry of Labour has proposed the following amendments to the LRA of 1975:

-exercising the right of employers to lock out and employees to go on strike under section 34 shall not be punishable as per section 139;
-the penalties laid down under section 140 shall be revised and no penalties shall be imposed for the offences laid down under section 35 (2).

With regard to sections 131 to 133 of the LRA, the tripartite working group pointed out that the provisions were intended to enforce compliance by employers of the terms of employment agreed upon with the employees and that the law does not intend to penalize employees. No employee has ever been prosecuted so far for violating this provision.

The Committee further notes that with regard to the provisions of SELRA, the Working Group proposed amendments to section 33, thereby cancelling the sanctions laid down for violations related to strikes. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the proposed amendments to sections 139 and 140 of the LRA of 1975 and section 33 of SELRA which cancel the penalties for the violations related to participation in strikes under sections 34 and 35(2) of the LRA will be adopted in the near future. It requests the Government to continue providing information on any progress made in this regard.

Article 1(d). Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. Criminal Code. For a number of years the Committee has been referring to section 117 of the Criminal Code, under which participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people is punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). It previously noted the Government’s indication that this section had not been applied in practice. It also noted the Government’s statement that the elements of criminal liability in section 117 concern a strike, lockout or cessation of trade or business that aims to bring about a change in the laws of the country or coerce the Government to act in a way which would suspend its administration. The Government reiterated that this provision is not related to restrictions on freedom of association regarding social and economic benefits of workers in their work. The Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal section 117 of the Criminal Code, to ensure that no sanction of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed as a punishment for peaceful participation in strikes.

The Committee once again notes that the Government, while acknowledging the Committee’s concerns on this issue, reaffirms that, section 117 does not apply to a strike, lockout or concerted cessation of trade or business with any person in general. It is only strictly applicable to the act of bringing about any change in the law of the country, for political purposes, or for political bargaining, such as a strike to demand the change of a government or to intimidate the Government or the public to initiate a specific action by threats or use of force. The provision is not intended to deprive freedom of expression but to maintain stability and public order in the country. The Government further indicates that this provision has not been applied in practice. Taking note of the Government’s statement, the Committee must once again recall that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits recourse to sanctions involving any form of compulsory labour “as a punishment for having participated in strikes”. In this connection, the Committee also recalls the principle laid down under paragraph 315 of the 2012 General Survey on fundamental Conventions that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of organizing or peacefully participating in strikes. Observing that the Committee has been raising this issue for over two decades, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal section 117 of the Criminal Code, to ensure that no sanction of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed as a punishment for peaceful participation in strikes. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken in this regard.