INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE GB.295/8/1
295th Session
Governing Body Geneva, March 2006
EIGHTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA
Reports of the Committee on
Freedom of Association
340th Report of the Committee
on Freedom of Association
[extracts on the Myanmar case]
Contents
Paragraphs
**************************************************************************************
Case No. 2268 (Myanmar): Interim report
Complaint against the Government of Myanmar presented by the International
Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU)............................................................ 1064-1112
The Committee’s conclusions ..................................................................................... 1082-1111
The Committee’s recommendations...................................................................................... 1112
*************************************************************************************
GB.295/8/1
340 GB295-8-1-2006-03-0351-1-(Web)-En.doc
CASE NO. 2268
INTERIM REPORT
Complaint against the Government of Myanmar presented by
the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU)
Allegations: (1) allegations relating to legislative
issues: unclear legislative framework on
freedom of association; serious discrepancies
between legislation and Convention No. 87;
repressive texts, in particular military orders
and decrees, detrimental to freedom of
association and which contribute to a climate of
denial of fundamental freedoms and annihilate
and destroy any form of labour organization;
(2) allegations relating to factual issues: total
lack of legally registered workers’
organizations; systematic practice of repression
by public authorities of any form of labour
organization; the Federation of Trade Unions of
Burma (FTUB) cannot function freely and
independently on the Myanmar territory and its
General Secretary has to face criminal
prosecution because of his legitimate trade
union activities; murder, detention and torture
of trade unionists; continuing repression of
seafarers for the exercise of their trade union
rights; arrest and dismissal of workers in
connection with collective labour protests and
claims, in particular at the Unique Garment
Factory, the Myanmar Texcamp Industrial Ltd.
and the Myanmar Yes Garment Factory;
intervention of the army in labour disputes
1064. The Committee examined this case at its May-June 2005 meeting and submitted an interim
report to the Governing Body [see 337th Report, paras. 1058-1112, approved by the
Governing Body at its 293rd Session (June 2005)].
1065. The Government sent new observations in communications dated 1 and 14 September
2005.
1066. Myanmar has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise
Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has not ratified the Right to Organise and Collective
Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).
A. Previous examination of the case
1067. At its May-June 2005 meeting, the Committee made the following recommendations in
relation to this case [see 337th Report, para. 1112]:
(a) The Committee strongly urges the Government to enact legislation whereby the respect
for, and the realization of, freedom of association is guaranteed for all workers, including
seafarers, and employers; to include in that legislation specific measures whereby other
legislation, including Orders Nos. 2/88 and 6/88, will be abolished so as not to
undermine the guarantees relating to freedom of association and collective bargaining; to
explicitly protect workers’ and employers’ organizations from any interference by public
authorities, including the army; and to ensure that any such legislation so adopted is
made public and its contents widely diffused. The Committee further urges the
Government, once again, to take advantage of the technical assistance of the Office to
remedy the legislative situation and to bring it into line with Convention No. 87 and
collective bargaining principles. The Committee requests the Government to keep it
informed of all developments in respect of legislation enacted or envisaged.
(b) Recalling that the right of workers and employers to freely establish and join
organizations of their own choosing cannot exist unless such freedom is established and
recognized in both law and practice, the Committee once again requests the Government
to refrain from any acts preventing the free operation of any form of organization of
collective representation of workers, freely chosen by them to defend and promote their
economic and social interests, including seafarers’ organizations and organizations
which operate in exile since they cannot be recognized in the prevailing legislative
context of Myanmar. The Committee further requests the Government to issue
instructions to that effect to its civil and military agents as a matter of urgency and to
keep it informed.
(c) The Committee once again firmly requests the Government to convene as a matter of
urgency an independent and impartial panel of experts to investigate the death of Saw
Mya Than and to keep it informed in this regard.
(d) Expressing its deep concern at the paucity and nature of the evidence provided by the
Government aimed at proving that the criminal charges brought against the General
Secretary of the FTUB were unrelated with his trade union activities, the Committee
once again requests the Government to provide copies of the decision by which the
General Secretary had been found guilty under section 122 of the Penal Code, and any
documentation relating to the case the Government explained had been filed against him
under the Public Preservation Law, 1947.
(e) Deploring the Government’s failure to take any steps to ensure the immediate release of
Myo Aung Thant and Khin Kyaw, the Committee urges the Government to do so as a
matter of urgency and to keep it informed in this regard.
(f) The Committee once again requests the Government to submit a detailed reply on the
allegations of anti-union discrimination relating to Shwe Tun Aung’s case and, in
particular, the allegations that before taking his first position as a seafarer, the Seaman
Employment Control Division (SECD) obliged Shwe Tun Aung to sign a document
warning against union membership; that other M/V Great Concert crew members who
returned to Myanmar were forced by the SECD to refund wages increased by the union
action, fined heavily and forbidden to leave the country for three years; and that,
following his trade union activities, Shwe Tun Aung’s name was on a Government
“blacklist”. The Committee further requests the Government to provide a copy of any
contract or document that Myanmar seafarers in general are currently obliged to sign
prior to taking up their first work assignment. If these allegations relating to anti-union
harassment are found to be true, the Government is requested to take immediate
measures so that Shwe Tun Aung and all Myanmar seafarers are free to join the trade
union of their own choosing.
(g) Pending the adoption of legislation that protects and promotes freedom of association,
the Committee requests the Government to take measures to ensure the freely chosen
representation of employees and employers in cases conciliated by the various disputes
resolution committees operating in Myanmar and to keep it informed of the measures
taken in this regard.
(h) Taking account of the figures contained in the table provided by the Government for the
Motorcar tyre factory, the Committee requests the Government to provide due
explanations of the differences in the total workforce on 9 and 31 March 2001 and, in
particular, to provide details concerning the cases of those three workers whose
employment at the factory ceased during that period of time as well as an indication as to
whether any other workers left their employment at the factory during this period, but
were replaced. If it is found that the dismissals in question were due to legitimate trade
union activities, the Committee requests the Government to take the appropriate steps
with a view to their reinstatement or, if reinstatement is not possible, that they are paid
adequate compensation so as to constitute sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.
(i) The Committee once again requests further details in relation to the case of 77 night shift
workers who were dismissed from the Unique Garment Factory following a dispute on
10 July 2001 during their probationary period and following a conciliation by the TWSC
including, in particular, a copy of the conciliation agreement reached under the authority
of the TWSC to which the Government referred to in its previous observations. If it is
found that the dismissals in question were due to legitimate trade union activities, the
Committee requests the Government to take the appropriate steps with a view to their
reinstatement or, if reinstatement is not possible, that they are paid adequate
compensation so as to constitute sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.
(j) The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the agreement to which it
referred to in its previous observations concerning a dispute between 300 workers and
the Myanmar Texcamp Industrial Ltd. that arose on 5 July 2003 and that was conciliated
by the Department of Labour, as well as information indicating the criteria upon which
the 340 workers who were laid off for economic reasons on 1 August 2003 were chosen
from the total workforce of 581 workers. If it is found that the dismissals in question
were due to legitimate trade union activities, the Committee requests the Government to
take the appropriate steps with a view to their reinstatement or, if reinstatement is not
possible, that they are paid adequate compensation so as to constitute sufficiently
dissuasive sanctions.
(k) The Committee requests the Government to establish an impartial investigation into this
matter and to keep it informed in this regard. It further requests the Government to
provide a copy of the agreement at the Myanmar Yes Garment Factory dated
16 September 2002 and any further information that the Government may have in
relation to the dismissal of Mg Zin Min Thu.
B. The Government’s new observations
1068. The Government submitted further information in response to the Committee’s
recommendations in communications dated 1 and 14 September 2005.
Legislative issues
1069. With regard to the issues raised in point (a) of the Committee’s recommendations, the
Government indicated that the basic principles for the social sector, including the rights of
the workers, would provide the framework under which detailed provisions would be
developed in drawing up the new Constitution. According to the Government, the National
Convention was convened for the first time from 17 May to 9 July 2004. Concrete
measures have been taken to achieve success in the implementation of the Seven-Point
Road Map for the emergence of a peaceful, modern, developed and discipline-flourishing
democratic nation. The National Convention had adopted by consensus a total of 104 basic
principles and laid down that “the State shall enact necessary laws to protect the rights of
the Workers”. This first National Convention also laid down the detailed basic principles
for the social sector to be embodied in the union legislative list as regards the sharing of
legislative power. The second National Convention laid down the detailed basic principles
for the social sector to be embodied in the union legislative list. The third National
Convention would be held in December 2005 and, after that, the detailed basic principles
of the social sector to be embodied in the union legislative list would be adopted. Thus, the
Government assured that after the Seven-Step Road Map was implemented, the legislative
issue would be definitely solved in the very near future. Moreover, during the transitional
period the workers were well protected by the existing labour laws.
Factual issues
Death of Saw Mya Than
1070. With regard to the issue raised in point (c) of the Committee’s recommendations, the
Government indicated that it had already replied on this issue and that it had never
neglected or ignored any person who had the right to get compensation under the
prevailing labour laws. The Government reiterated that it had already made systematic
consultations and investigations about the case and that a thorough investigation had been
conducted with the concerned ministries and departments. Saw Mya Than’s family
themselves had already accepted the compensation with satisfaction.
Conviction of the General Secretary of the FTUB
1071. With regard to the issues raised in point (d) of the Committee’s recommendations, the
Government attached the untranslated text of certain legal documents, including a police
complaint and the decision of the respective court.
Response concerning the imprisonment of
Myo Aung Thant and Khin Kyaw
1072. With regard to the issues raised in point (e) of the Committee’s recommendations, the
Government indicated that it always tried to follow all the requests of the Committee but if
the issue was a serious one involving the security of the country, it could not fulfil the
request. As a result, Myo Aung Thant was still in prison. As already indicated in the
Government’s previous report, Khin Kyaw had received a conditional pardon since 1997
according to section 337 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), under the order of the
Additional Divisional Judge of the Western District Court.
Discrimination against Shwe Tun Aung
1073. Concerning the issues raised under point (f) of the Committee’s recommendations, the
Government indicated that according to the latest information in Shwe Tun Aung’s file in
the SECD, this person had left Myanmar since 14 March 1996 on assignment as a deck
cadet on M/V Haitum Ocean, owned by the Petrolserve company. From that date, he had
never come back to Myanmar. He had been assigned as an oiler and had signed his
contract with M/V Great Concert owned by CTM Trading Co., Ltd., in Bangkok. The
agreement was neither related to the Department of Marine Administration nor the
Government, but only to the individual parties.
1074. The Government also recalled the communication it had sent to the Committee in the
framework of Case No. 1752 based on allegations by the International Transport Workers’
Federation (ITF), concerning the treatment of Myanmar maritime workers serving aboard
foreign vessels. At that time, the Department of Labour had held discussions with high
officials of the concerned ministries and the following steps had been taken so as to
implement the recommendations of the Committee in this case. (1) The SECD (under the
Ministry of Transport) had promptly revoked the requirement for Myanmar seafarers to
sign an affidavit before leaving the country with effect from 9 February 1995.
(2) Necessary measures had already been taken so that Myanmar seafarers were free to
take care of their own affairs and interests. The Government had no anti-union
discrimination practices whatsoever against seafarers. (3) The SECD formally issued a
departmental instruction dated 1 February 1995, mentioning that there would be no more
deduction of 25 per cent out of family remittances of Myanmar seafarers in exchange for
local currency with effect from 1 December 1994. (4) The Constitution of the Myanmar
Overseas Seafarers’ Association (MOSA) was legislated after consultations, coordination
and cooperation with the seafarers and responsible officials from the ITF. The outcome
was the establishment of MOSA in May 2002. This showed the goodwill and good
intentions of the Myanmar Government. Since 1995, the Government had thus already
implemented the recommendations of the Committee reached in Case No. 1752 in relation
to the obligation to sign a contract with the company concerned before seafarers could take
up their first work assignment. The Government attached a model contract between the
SECD and shipping companies.
1075. Concerning the seafarers from M/V Great Concert, the Government indicated that only
three had come back to Myanmar. No one had been forced by the SECD to refund wages
increased by union action nor fined heavily and forbidden to leave the country. The
Government never forbade the seafarers who made complaints to any union. If any union
gave a salary in excess of that contained in the contract, the Government had no objection
to its citizens enjoying a better wage. But if anyone violated the provisions under the
contract, for example, holding of false documents, then he would be punished.
Response concerning alleged labour unrest and dismissals of workers
(a) Disputes resolution
1076. With regard to the issues raised in point (g) of the Committee’s recommendations, the
Government drew attention to the existence of detailed instructions in the guide book of
the Township Workers’ Supervisory Committees (TWSC) with regard to the scope and
nature of the guide book, the duties and functions of the TWSC, the power of conciliation,
the procedures to follow in the respective sectors and the activities of the TWSC. The
Government also drew attention to the existence of detailed instructions in the 1976
directive of the Central Trade Dispute Committee (CTDC) issued by the Ministry of
Labour. The directive included the instructions of the CTDC on the methods of solving
disputes, the various trade disputes on which committees are formed under the existing
labour laws, the responsibilities and the activities of the head office of the CTDC in
solving the disputes smoothly, the establishment of the CTDC, the State/Division Appeal
Dispute Committees, and the Township Trade Dispute Committees, the duties and
functions of these committees, the duties and functions of their secretaries, their
procedures, the references to be provided and general provisions. Detailed instructions
were also included in the procedures of the State/Division Trade Dispute Committees and
Township Trade Dispute Committees, issued by the CTDC under the Ministry of Labour.
(b) Motorcar tyre factory
1077. With regard to the issue raised in point (h) of the Committee’s recommendations, the
Government indicated that the payroll of February 2001 showed a decrease of three
persons and an increase of one which can be explained as follows. Min Than Win, work
register No. Ta-2/1187, was working in the payment category 5400-100-5900. He was
absent from the factory without prior permission and without leave for over 21 days. He
was dismissed on 27 February 2001 because of continuous absence from work for more
than 21 days without leave under the provisions of the Fundamental Rules and the Services
Rules. Worker Aung Myo Win, work register No. Ta-2/1098, was working under the
payment category 3000-100-3500. He had stolen three goats from the Workers’ Welfare
Animal Husbandry Compound. He was sentenced under section 379 of the Penal Code to
prison for one month with hard labour. Because of the sentence passed by the Township
Justice Court, he was removed from work on 18 January 2001. This kind of action was
taken on any service man from the government sector under the Fundamental Rules and
the Services Rules. As these two persons were dismissed from work according to the
provisions of the existing laws, there was no way they could be reinstated. According to
the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, they were not entitled to any
compensation either. In February 2001, Daw Cho Cho Win, work register No. Ta-2/0547,
was promoted and was included in the payment category 5400-100-5900. She was
transferred from the head office of the Myanmar Tyre and Rubber Industries to the
Motorcar tyre factory, Thahtone.
(c) Unique Garment Factory
1078. With regard to the issues raised in point (i) of the Committee’s recommendations, the
Government attached the agreement of 10 July 2001 reached under the authority of the
TWSC and added that, because of unexpected problems, part of the production of the
Unique Garment Factory was stopped and the workers who worked in that part of the
production during their probation period were retrenched. Seventy-seven of the night shift
workers who were working during their probation period were retrenched and received the
payable compensation. On 31 August 2003, the Unique Garment Factory was closed
because of the suspension of orders from buyers (as a result of trade sanctions) originating
in the United States, Germany and Mexico (the main export products were children’s
jackets and polo shirts). The Government added that the employers of the Unique Garment
Factory had compensated the workers according to the provisions of the existing labour
laws. The Government attached the document of agreement dated 1 September 2003 and
the receipt of the compensation signed by the workers.
(d) Myanmar Texcamp Industrial Ltd.
1079. With regard to the issue raised in point (j) of the Committee’s recommendations, the
Government indicated that a complaint was made by approximately 300 workers on 5 July
2002 and an agreement was reached on 1 August 2002 (not 5 July 2003 as previously
indicated). The Government attached the text of this agreement adding that although the
complaint involved 300 workers, the employer gave compensation not only to these
workers, but to all 504 workers in the factory.
1080. The Government added that in July 2003, the Myanmar Texcamp Industrial Ltd., sent
letters (dated 24 and 30 July 2003) to all departments concerned, mentioning that due to
the suspension of orders from buyers (due to trade sanctions) part of the production would
be stopped and inevitably they would have to retrench the workers in that line of
production. The untranslated text of these letters was attached to the Government’s
response. After the said communication had been sent to the concerned departments and
organizations, an agreement was signed between the employer and 340 workers on
1 August 2003 (and not 1 August 2002 as previously indicated). The Government attached
the said agreement.
(e) Myanmar Yes Garment Factory
1081. With regard to the issues raised in point (k) of the Committee’s recommendations, the
Government indicated that Maung Zin Min Thu’s service was just five months and he was
still on probation. Within the framework of the employment contract, it was mentioned that
a worker who was undergoing the probation period could be dismissed. Moreover, a
worker could be dismissed if he breached the discipline rules laid down by the factory and
the provisions of the employment contract. The worker in question was entitled to
compensation of one month under articles 6(1)(8) and 68(6)(8) of the Law of 1964
defining the fundamental rights and responsibilities of workers, and Notification No. 55
issued by the Ministry of Labour dated 31 December 1976. The employer gave him
compensation for two months but the worker in question refused to accept it. The
Government added that on 16 September 2002, Maung Zin Min Thu sought advice on his
case and went to the Labour Office at 9.40 a.m. as he wished to make a complaint. On that
very same day at 12.15 p.m., Min Min Htwe and five other workers made a complaint
against the employer concerning their own grievances. The complaint by Min Min Htwe
and five other workers had nothing to do with that of Zin Min Thu. It was moreover pure
coincidence that Min Min Htwe and five other workers received compensation (on the
basis of the agreement of 16 September 2002).
C. The Committee’s conclusions
1082. The Committee recalls that this case concerns the absence of freedom of association both
in law and in practice in Myanmar. It includes allegations regarding legislative issues, in
particular, the absence of a legislative basis for freedom of association in Myanmar, as
well as factual allegations concerning the total absence of recognized workers’
organizations, opposition by the authorities to the organized collective representation of
seafarers and to the exiled Federation of Trade Unions of Burma (FTUB), the arrest,
imprisonment and death of trade unionists, and threats against, and dismissals and arrests
of, workers who pursue labour grievances.
Legislative issues
1083. The Committee recalls that its previous recommendations on this issue concerned the need
to both elaborate legislation guaranteeing freedom of association and to ensure that
existing legislation which impedes freedom of association would not be applied. In
particular, the Committee had noted that the absence of any legislative guarantee on
freedom of association as well as the existence of Order No. 6/88 that subjects the
establishment of unions to previous authorization by the Ministry of Home and Religious
Affairs and bans organizations on broad terms, gives rise to a situation which is clearly in
breach of Convention No. 87 as it renders the exercise of the right to organize impossible.
The Committee thus requested the Government: (i) to enact legislation guaranteeing
freedom of association rights to all workers, including seafarers, and employers;
(ii) abolish existing legislation which undermines the guarantees related to freedom of
association and collective bargaining, including Orders Nos. 2/88 and 6/88; (iii) explicitly
protect workers’ and employers’ organizations from interference by the authorities,
including the army; (iv) ensure that any such legislation so adopted is made public and its
contents widely diffused. The Committee also urged the Government to take advantage of
the technical assistance of the Office so as to remedy the legislative situation.
1084. The Committee notes with deep regret, that in reply to this long list of recommendations,
the Government has confined itself to an update of the steps taken with a view to adopting
“basic principles for the social sector, including the rights of the workers”, which, it
states, would eventually constitute a framework under which detailed provisions would be
developed in drawing up the new Constitution. The Committee notes in particular, that
according to the Government, the National Convention was convened for the first time
from 17 May to 9 July 2004 in the framework of the implementation of the Seven-Point
Road Map which is to eventually lead to the adoption of a new Constitution. The National
Convention adopted by consensus a total of 104 “basic principles” and laid down that
“the State shall enact necessary laws to protect the rights of the workers”. The third
National Convention was to be held in December 2005 and after that, the detailed basic
principles of the social sector to be embodied in the union legislative list would be
adopted.
1085. While taking due note of the Government’s assurances that once the Seven-Step Road Map
is implemented the legislative issue will be definitely solved in the very near future, the
Committee must also note that the Seven-Step Road Map process goes as far back as 1993
and has yet to render any concrete results. In the meantime, the right to organize remains
subject to severe measures of repression both in law and in practice. The Committee notes
moreover that the “detailed principles” adopted so far are no more than generic phrases
such as “labour disputes” and “labour organizations” which provide no indication
whatsoever as to the concrete content and scope of any future legislation or the timetable
for its adoption. The Committee must also reiterate that the absence of a new Constitution
should not prevent the adoption of legislation in conformity with Convention No. 87 as it
has apparently not prevented the Government from adopting legislation (like Order
No. 6/88) which directly contradicts this Convention.
1086. Given the above, the Committee is bound to deplore once again the fact that despite its
previous detailed requests for legislative measures guaranteeing freedom of association to
all workers in Myanmar, there has been no progress whatsoever in this regard. The
Committee deeply regrets that the Government has still not given any concrete indication
of steps taken or contemplated so as to establish a legal basis enabling workers to exercise
the right to organize as requested by the Committee. The Committee must recall that this
persistent failure to take any measures to remedy the legislative situation constitutes a
serious and ongoing breach by the Government of its obligations flowing from its
voluntary ratification of Convention No. 87 50 years ago.
1087. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government in the strongest of terms to
enact legislation guaranteeing freedom of association to all workers, including seafarers,
and employers; to abolish existing legislation, including Orders Nos. 2/88 and 6/88 so as
not to undermine the guarantees relating to freedom of association and collective
bargaining; to explicitly protect workers’ and employers’ organizations from any
interference by the authorities, including the army; and to ensure that any such legislation
so adopted is made public and its contents widely diffused. The Committee once again
urges the Government to take advantage in good faith of the technical assistance of the
Office so as to remedy the legislative situation and to bring it into line with Convention
No. 87 and collective bargaining principles. It requests the Government to keep it informed
of all developments in this respect.
Factual issues
Workers’ welfare associations and Myanmar Overseas Seafarers’ Association
1088. In its previous recommendations, the Committee had requested the Government to refrain
from any act preventing the free operation of any form of organization of collective
representation of workers, freely chosen by them to defend and promote their economic
and social interests, including seafarers’ organizations and organizations which operate in
exile and which cannot be recognized in the prevailing legislative context of Myanmar.
The Committee had further requested the Government to issue instructions to that effect to
its civil and military agents as a matter of urgency and to keep it informed of all measures
taken in this regard.
1089. The Committee notes with regret that the Government does not provide any information in
this respect. It recalls from the previous examination of the case the Government’s own
submission that no trade unions exist in Myanmar which fulfil the requirements of
Convention No. 87. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to issue
instructions to its civil and military agents as a matter of urgency so as to ensure that the
authorities fully refrain from any act preventing the free operation of all forms of
organization of collective representation of workers, freely chosen by them to defend and
promote their economic and social interests, including seafarers’ organizations and
organizations which operate in exile and which cannot be recognized in the prevailing
legislative context of Myanmar. The Committee requests the Government to keep it
informed of all measures taken in this regard.
Death of Saw Mya Than
1090. The Committee recalls that in its previous recommendations, it had requested the
Government to convene as a matter of urgency an independent and impartial panel of
experts to investigate the death of Saw Mya Than who was an FTUB member and an
official of the Kawthoolei Education Workers’ Union (KEWU) allegedly murdered by the
army in retaliation for a rebels’ attack. The Committee regrets to note that the Government
provides no new information in this respect and has once again limited its reply to a
repetition of its earlier comments. The Committee emphasizes once again that serious
cases such as the alleged murder of a trade unionist require the institution of independent
judicial inquiries in order to shed full light, at the earliest date, on the facts and the
circumstances in which such actions occurred and in this way, to the extent possible,
determine where responsibilities lie, punish the guilty parties and prevent the repetition of
similar events. It also recalls that the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations can
only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind
against the leaders and members of these organizations, and it is for governments to
ensure that this principle is respected [see Digest of decisions and principles of the
Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 47 and 51]. The Committee
therefore once again urges the Government to institute an independent inquiry into the
alleged murder of Saw Mya Than, to be carried out by a panel of experts considered to be
impartial by all the parties concerned. The Committee requests the Government to keep it
informed of measures taken in this respect.
Criminal charges against the General Secretary of the FTUB
1091. The Committee recalls that in its previous recommendations, it had expressed deep
concern at the paucity and nature of the evidence provided by the Government in order to
prove that the criminal charges brought against the General Secretary of the FTUB,
Maung Maung, were unrelated to his trade union activities and had requested the
Government to provide copies of the decision which found the General Secretary guilty of
high treason under section 122 of the Penal Code, and any documentation relating to the
case filed against him under the Public Preservation Law, 1947. In this regard, the
Committee takes note of certain untranslated legal documents provided by the
Government, which it will examine once a translation is available. Given that this case
was brought against Maung Maung in absentia, the Committee has also provided the
relevant documents to the complainant for any comments or observations they may wish to
make thereon.
Imprisonment of Myo Aung Thant and Khin Kyaw
1092. In its previous recommendations the Committee deplored the Government’s failure to take
any steps to ensure the immediate release of Myo Aung Thant and Khin Kyaw, who had
allegedly been convicted to heavy prison sentences for their trade union activities pursuant
to a secret trial without freely chosen legal representation and confessions obtained under
torture, and urged the Government to do so as a matter of urgency. The Committee notes
that according to the Government, Khin Kyaw received a conditional pardon by order of
the Additional Divisional Judge of the Western District Court under section 337 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. While taking due note of the Government’s latest indication
that Khin Kyaw has been pardoned, the Committee is deeply concerned about the
vacillation of the information provided by the Government in this regard as in its last
communication it had indicated that there was no record of Khin Kyaw’s imprisonment.
1093. The Committee also notes with regret from the Government’s reply that it refuses to
consider the release of Myo Aung Thant for national security reasons (according to
information previously provided by the Government, he has been convicted to 20 years’
imprisonment under the Penal Code, the Emergency Provision Act and the Unlawful
Association Act). The Committee notes with regret that the Government has still not given
any specific response to the allegations that Myo Aung Thant was persecuted because of
his trade union involvement, that his trial was unfair and devoid of basic guarantees of due
process and that his conviction relied on a confession obtained under torture.
1094. The Committee recalls that the detention of trade union leaders or members for reasons
connected with their activities in defence of the interests of workers constitutes a serious
interference with civil liberties in general and with trade union rights in particular. A
genuinely free and independent trade union movement can only develop where
fundamental human rights are respected [see Digest, op. cit., paras. 35 and 71]. It also
wishes to emphasize that as regards allegations of the physical ill-treatment and torture of
trade unionists, the Committee has recalled that governments should give precise
instructions and apply effective sanctions where cases of ill-treatment are found, so as to
ensure that no detainee is subjected to such treatment. It has also emphasized the
importance that should be attached to the principle laid down in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights according to which all persons deprived of their
liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the
human person. Moreover, detained trade unionists, like anyone else, should benefit from
normal judicial proceedings and have the right to due process, in particular, the right to
be informed of the charges brought against them, the right to have adequate time and
facilities for the preparation of their defence and to communicate freely with counsel of
their own choosing, and the right to a prompt trial by an impartial and independent
judicial authority [see Digest, op. cit., paras. 59 and 102]. In these circumstances, the
Committee once again deeply deplores that the Government refuses to consider the release
of Myo Aung Thant and strongly urges the Government to take the necessary steps to
ensure his immediate release from prison and to keep it informed in this respect.
Seafarer Shwe Tun Aung
1095. In its previous recommendations, the Committee requested the Government to: (1) submit
a detailed reply on the serious allegations of anti-union discrimination relating to Shwe
Tun Aung’s case and, in particular, the allegations that before taking his first position as a
seafarer, the SECD obliged Shwe Tun Aung to sign a document warning against union
membership; that after Shwe Tun Aung initiated trade union action aboard the M/V Great
Concert which led to the payment of outstanding fair wages to the crew, the SECD forced
those crew members who returned to Myanmar to refund wages increased by the union
action, fined them heavily, and forbade them to leave the country for three years; and that,
following his trade union activities, Shwe Tun Aung’s name was on a government
“blacklist” which prevented him from obtaining a passport for some time; (2) provide a
copy of any contract or document that Myanmar seafarers in general were currently
obliged to sign prior to taking up their first work assignment; (3) if the allegations of antiunion
harassment were found to be true, to take immediate measures so that Shwe Tun
Aung and all Myanmar seafarers were free to join the trade union of their own choosing.
1096. The Committee notes with deep regret that in reply to the above request, the Government
once again confines itself to general information confirming that Shwe Tun Aung had left
the country in 1996 and never returned, and that the agreement signed between Shwe Tun
Aung and M/V Great Concert pertained to the individual parties and not the Government.
The Government also indicates that pursuant to the conclusions and recommendations
reached in Case No. 1752 [see 295th Report, paras. 87-119], it has revoked with effect
from 9 February 1995 the requirement for Myanmar seafarers to sign an affidavit before
leaving the country. In response to the Committee’s request for a copy of any contract or
document that Myanmar seafarers in general may be obliged to sign prior to taking up
their first work assignment, it attaches a copy of a model agreement between the SECD
and shipping companies.
1097. The Government also indicates that it took steps to ensure that seafarers may take care of
their own affairs, in particular, by enacting the Constitution of the Myanmar Overseas
Seafarers’ Association (MOSA) after consultations, coordination and cooperation with
responsible officials from the ITF. The Committee recalls, however, that the ITF
categorically refuted, in a communication dated 14 April 2004, the Government’s
statement already made in previous communications, that the Department of Marine
Administration had reached an agreement with the ITF and that MOSA was affiliated to
the ITF [see 333rd Report, para. 716, and 337th Report, para. 1059].
1098. Finally, the Committee notes with regard to the allegations of anti-union discrimination
against the M/V Great Concert crew who returned to Myanmar, that the Government
generally refutes that it has a policy of anti-union discrimination and that it took measures
of retaliation against the three seafarers who returned to Myanmar. The Committee notes
that the Government’s additional statement concerning other reasons for punishment
implies however, that these seafarers might have been punished for the holding of false
documents.
1099. The Committee recalls the conclusions and recommendations reached in Case No. 1752 in
which it had requested the Government: (1) to withdraw the SECD requirement that
Myanmar seafarers must sign an affidavit restricting their right to affiliate with or contact
the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) for assistance; (2) to end the
practice of double payroll (on each pay day the seafarers were given two lists to sign, an
official ITF salary list, and the SECD salary list with considerably lower wages) which
was according to the Committee a reprehensible way of evading the terms of collective
agreements; (3) to guarantee and respect the right of seafarers to form an independent
trade union in Myanmar for the defence of their basic rights and interests if they so wish;
(4) finally, to refrain in the future from having recourse to acts of anti-union
discrimination against Myanmar seafarers who pursue their legitimate grievances through
the ITF and/or its affiliated trade unions (revocation of seafarers’ registration,
confiscation of their passports, threat of imprisonment, in the event that seafarers accepted
or received an ITF settlement and refused to hand back their back-pay settlements to the
SECD). The Committee notes that during the follow-up to this case, the Government had
indicated that it had abolished the requirement for seafarers to sign an affidavit restricting
their right to affiliate with or contact the ITF for assistance. The Committee notes
however, that the Government never reported on any measures conducive to genuine trade
union representation, steps taken to end the practice of double payroll so as to stop
evading the terms of collective agreements, and concrete action taken to prevent
anti-union discrimination in case seafarers accepted or received a settlement. As for the
establishment of MOSA as a way to ensure the representation of seafarers’ interests, the
Committee once again recalls that this entity, which is an example of a workers’ welfare
association, is not a substitute for free and independent trade unions since it is by law the
sole association representing seafarers and paragraph 5 of Chapter 4 of its rules explicitly
limits seafarers’ right to establish and join associations of their own choosing [see 333rd
Report, para. 741; 337th Report, para. 1089].
1100. As for the text of the model agreement between the SECD and shipping companies
forwarded by the Government, the Committee notes with concern that the provisions of this
agreement, under which the SECD agrees to supply and the company agrees to employ
Myanmar seafarers who are registered with the SECD: (i) exclude the possibility of
introducing improvements to the terms and conditions of employment of seafarers through
negotiations or the conclusion of a collective agreement; (ii) prevent trade unions from
representing Myanmar seafarers in case of grievance; and (iii) do not afford guarantees
against acts of anti-union discrimination and retaliation in case seafarers engage in trade
union activity. In particular, the Committee notes that section C.1 of the model agreement
provides that “the wages and remuneration for Officers and ratings who have entered into
this agreement shall be as mentioned against their names in the agreement and stated
herein, and it has been clearly understood that they shall not be entitled to any other
payment or compensation whatsoever, except as stated in this agreement. Deck cadets
and junior engineers may be required to sign articles in other ranks or occupations as
required by the Company or by the national requirements of the registry. Such changes in
capacities shall not entitle them to any additional wages and/or terms of employment”.
Section B.2 provides that “this agreement may be extended by mutual agreement for a
further period of six months at the discretion of the Company and written application by
the seaman, not later than two months before expiry in which case, officers/ratings will be
entitled to 10% of basic wages as Extension Allowance with effect from the date of
completion of the initial agreement, if the extension is requested by the Company and
Extension Allowance will not be paid if requested by Crew”. Section E.2 provides that
“the Seamen agree to carry out all works on board as required by the Company, the
Charterers and the Master … They shall be paid for such extra work in accordance with
agreements in charter parties or at rates laid down by the Company from time to time”.
With regard to the procedure for complaints and grievances, the Committee notes that
section E.3 provides the following: “The Seamen agree to represent to the Master through
respective head of department, any complaint or grievances including any alleged breach
of this agreement, in a quiet and orderly manner. If the Seaman is unsatisfied with the
decision or action of the Master, he may forward his complaint through the Master to the
Company, with a copy to the SECD Yangon. The Company will advise its decision to the
Master and to SECD, Yangon. If the Seamen (sic) is still unsatisfied with the decision of
the Company, he may forward his views to the SECD, Yangon through the Company, who
will refer to SECD, Yangon. The Company shall not take any action concerning any
complaint from the Seaman which is not represented through the Company.”
Section E.9 adds: “The Company reserves the right to discharge any of the Seaman at
any port due to insobriety, misconduct, neglect of duty, insubordination of a criminal
act, failure to rejoin, and unruly behaviour detrimental to maintaining discipline
onboard, in which case the Seaman shall forfeit all claims to balance of wages and
savings as well as any other rights under this agreement. The Company will advise
SECD, Yangon full particulars of such cases duly supported by extracts from official
ship’s log book and other evidence.”
1101. Finally, with regard to the Government’s statement that it did not take anti-union
measures against the crew of M/V Great Concert who returned to Myanmar after having
received a settlement, but might have punished them if they were holding false documents,
the Committee recalls that in Case No. 1752, the Government had stated that four of the
seafarers concerned by the complaint were carrying fake passports and CDCs [see
295th Report, para. 105]; however, according to the allegations in that case, it was the
Myanmar authorities that confiscated the passports of the seafarers concerned (after they
had accepted back-pay as a result of a settlement and signed off the ship to return to Asia)
upon their arrival to Bangkok, prompting the Thai authorities to declare them illegal
immigrants and to request that they be returned to Myanmar as soon as practicable [see
295th Report, para. 98].
1102. The Committee therefore notes with deep regret that the allegations made in the case of
Shwe Tun Aung and the other crew of M/V Great Concert exemplify all the elements of
anti-union harassment and denial of freedom of association found in the earlier Case
No. 1752 and that the Government’s reply does not provide any specific information
indicating that the allegations are unfounded. On the contrary, the text of the model
agreement furnished by the Government contains provisions which are in blatant violation
of seafarers’ freedom of association and collective bargaining rights as it prevents any
negotiation over the terms and conditions of employment of Myanmar seafarers and any
representation by trade unions in case of a grievance, leaving open the possibility of antiunion
reprisals in case of trade union action. The Committee deplores the fact that more
than ten years after the filing of the complaint in Case No. 1752 no steps have been taken
to guarantee genuine freedom of association to seafarers so as to enable them to defend
their occupational interests notably through collective bargaining. The Committee
therefore once again requests the Government to adopt legislative measures which fully
guarantee the right of seafarers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing
and afford them adequate guarantees against acts of anti-union discrimination. It further
requests the Government to issue appropriate instructions without delay so as to ensure
that the SECD authorities immediately refrain from all acts of anti-union discrimination
against seafarers who engage in trade union action and immediately revise the text of the
model agreement concerning Myanmar seafarers (in particular, sections B.2, C.1, E.2, E.3
and E.9) so as to bring it into conformity with Convention No. 87 and collective
bargaining principles. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of all
developments in this respect.
Disputes resolution mechanisms
1103. In its previous recommendations, the Committee requested the Government, pending the
adoption of legislation that protects and promotes freedom of association, to take
measures to ensure the freely chosen representation of employees and employers in cases
conciliated by the various disputes resolution committees operating in the country. The
Committee notes with regret that the Government does not provide any information on this
point, and confines itself to a general reference to the existence of detailed instructions in
the guidebook concerning the Township Workers’ Supervisory Committee, in the 1976
directive of the Central Trade Dispute Committee, and in the procedures of the
State/Division Trade Dispute Committees and Township Trade Dispute Committees. The
Committee once again recalls that a disputes resolution process that exists within a system
with a total absence of freedom of association in law and practice cannot possibly fulfil the
requirements of Convention No. 87 and urges the Government to take all necessary
measures so as to ensure the freely chosen representation of employees and employers in
cases conciliated by the various disputes resolution committees operating in the country,
and to keep it informed in this respect.
Motorcar tyre factory
1104. The Committee recalls from the previous examination of this case that factory workers had
allegedly been dismissed, arrested or threatened for pursuing their labour grievances in
four instances, namely, the Motorcar tyre factory and three garment factories in the
Hlaing That Ya industrial zone. With regard to the Motorcar tyre factory, the Committee
had noted that the Government had refuted the allegations that 19 workers were arrested
on 9 and 10 March 2001 and that arrests at the factory continued on 11 March 2001. The
Committee had also noted however, from a list indicating the number of employees on
9 and 31 March 2001 that the total number of workers had fallen by three and increased
by one during that period. The Committee had therefore requested the Government to
provide due explanations of the differences in total workforce on these two dates and, in
particular, to provide details concerning the cases of those three workers whose
employment at the factory ceased during that period of time, as well as an indication as to
whether any other workers left their employment at the factory during this period, but were
replaced. If it were found that the dismissals were due to legitimate trade union activities,
the Government was requested to take the appropriate steps with a view to the workers’
reinstatement or if reinstatement was not possible, the payment of adequate compensation
so as to constitute sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.
1105. The Committee notes that the Government provides information on two of the dismissed
workers, Min Than Win and Aung Myo Win, indicating that their dismissal was due to
their own conduct (absence without permission for over 21 days and conviction for theft
respectively). Given these grounds, the Government indicates that their reinstatement or
the payment of compensation is not possible. The Government also provides information
on another person who was promoted to the plant in question during the same period.
While taking note of this information, the Committee also notes that the conduct of these
two workers should normally be reflected in public records, for instance, the absence
records of the company and the court decision which convicted Aung Myo Win. The
Committee therefore requests the Government to investigate this matter further and if it is
found that the dismissals were due to legitimate trade union activities, to take the
appropriate steps with a view to the workers’ reinstatement or if reinstatement is not
possible, the payment of adequate compensation so as to constitute sufficiently dissuasive
sanctions. The Committee requests to be kept informed in this respect.
Unique Garment Factory
1106. In relation to the Unique Garment Factory, the allegations concerned the alleged
dismissal of workers involved in a workers’ movement in November 2001 in relation to
overtime. Although the factory closed on 31 August 2003 (at which point all 272 workers
were laid off) the Committee had taken note of the case of 77 night shift workers who had
been dismissed two years earlier, on 10 July 2001, during their probationary period
following a dispute, and requested further details in relation to these dismissals, including
in particular a copy of the conciliation agreement reached under the authority of the
TWSC. It requested the Government to take the appropriate steps (reinstatement or if not
possible, adequate compensation constituting sufficiently dissuasive sanctions) if it was
found that the dismissals in question were due to legitimate trade union activities. The
Committee notes that the Government attaches to its reply a copy of the agreement of
10 July 2001 according to which the workers agreed to their retrenchment with
compensation because of unexpected problems which led to the stoppage of part of the
production. While taking note of this information, the Committee observes that the
Government does not indicate the exact criteria for the selection of the workers who were
dismissed. The Committee therefore requests the Government to inquire into the specific
part of the production of the Unique Garment Factory which was stopped in July 2001 and
the exact criteria for the selection of the 77 night shift workers who were retrenched. If it is
found that the dismissals were due to legitimate trade union activities, the Committee
requests the Government to take the appropriate steps with a view to the workers’
reinstatement or if reinstatement is not possible, the payment of adequate compensation so
as to constitute sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee requests to be kept
informed in this respect.
Myanmar Texcamp Industrial Ltd.
1107. In relation to the Myanmar Texcamp Industrial Ltd., the Committee had taken note of
information provided by the Government on a dispute at the factory that apparently arose
on 5 July 2003 and involved 300 workers, and the subsequent stoppage of certain parts of
Texcamp’s production, due to economic sanctions, which led to the dismissal of 340 out of
581 workers on 1 August 2003 with due compensation paid. The Committee expressed
concern at the number of workers laid off for economic reasons at the Myanmar Texcamp
Industrial Ltd. which seemed approximately equal to the number that had been involved in
a labour dispute three weeks earlier. The Committee therefore requested the Government
to provide a copy of the agreement which emerged from the conciliation by the
Department of Labour, as well as information indicating the criteria upon which the 340
workers who were laid off for economic reasons were chosen from the total workforce of
581 workers. It also requested the Government to take the necessary measures
(reinstatement or where not possible payment of adequate compensation constituting
sufficiently dissuasive sanctions) if it was found that the dismissals in question were due to
legitimate trade union activities.
1108. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its reply that a complaint was made
by approximately 300 workers on 5 July 2002 and an agreement was reached on 1 August
2002 and not 5 July 2003 as previously indicated. It adds that in July 2003, the Myanmar
Texcamp Industrial Ltd. sent letters to all departments concerned mentioning that part of
the production would be stopped due to trade sanctions and workers in that line of
production would have to be retrenched. The Government attaches a copy of an agreement
signed between the employer and 340 retrenched workers on 1 August 2003. The
agreement indicates that part of the production will be stopped because of unexpected
problems and compensation will be given to 340 workers who agree to their retrenchment.
While taking note of the text of the agreement and the information provided by the
Government, the Committee also observes that the Government provides no information as
to the specific criteria on the basis of which 340 workers were selected for retrenchment as
previously requested by the Committee. The Committee therefore requests the Government
to conduct an inquiry in this regard and if it is found that the dismissals were due to
legitimate trade union activities, to take the appropriate steps with a view to the workers’
reinstatement or if reinstatement is not possible, the payment of adequate compensation so
as to constitute sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee requests to be kept
informed in this respect.
Myanmar Yes Garment Factory
1109. In relation to the Myanmar Yes Garment Factory, the Committee had noted the
information provided by the Government concerning a dispute of 16 September 2002
which had apparently resulted in an agreement concluded under the TWSC; the dispute
had apparently commenced with the dismissal of Mg Zin Min Thu for disciplinary reasons
on 16 September 2002; on the same day, he had apparently “organized” five other
workers to submit a complaint about which an agreement was reached under the authority
of the TWSC with which all workers were satisfied; according to the Government, Mg Zin
Min Thu did not attend those negotiations nor had he since been to the factory to receive
his dismissal compensation. The Committee requested the Government to establish an
impartial investigation into this matter to provide a copy of the agreement dated
16 September 2002 reached under the authority of the TWSC.
1110. The Committee notes that the Government provides in its reply a copy of the agreement of
16 September 2002 which indicates inter alia that it concerns the administration of the
factory, workers’ hours, overtime, welfare, lunch time, etc. without however indicating the
substance of the agreed terms. Moreover, the Committee notes that the Government does
not provide any information in its reply as to whether an impartial investigation has taken
place into the dismissal of Mg Zin Min Thu and the specific reasons which led to his
dismissal. Furthermore, the Government seems to give a different version of the facts than
the one given in its last communication concerning the organizing of five workers by
Mg Zin Min Thu so as to submit a complaint to the TWSC. The Government emphasizes in
its latest report that the filing of complaints against the Yes Garment Factory on the same
day by both Mg Zin Min Thu and Min Min Htwe along with five other workers, was pure
coincidence; so was also the fact that Min Min Htwe and the five workers received
compensation on the basis of the agreement of 16 September 2002. The Committee
requests the Government once again to establish an impartial investigation into this
matter, in particular as regards the substance of the complaints filed by Mg Zin Min Thu
and Min Min Htwe along with five other workers, the substance of the agreement reached
on the basis of these complaints, and the specific reasons for which Mg Zin Min Thu was
dismissed. If it is found that the dismissal of Mg Zin Min Thu was due to legitimate trade
union activities, the Committee requests the Government to take appropriate steps with a
view to his reinstatement or if reinstatement is not possible, the payment of adequate
compensation so as to constitute sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee requests
to be kept informed of developments in this respect.
1111. As a final and overall point, the Committee once again observes with deep concern the
paucity and obscure nature of the information provided by the Government which renders
any in-depth examination of the complaint virtually impossible. The Committee observes
that most of the information submitted by the Government fails to address the substance of
the Committee’s recommendations and elucidate the matters brought before it. The
Committee deeply regrets that very little can be gleaned from the Government’s reply to
indicate that it intends to take any steps to implement the Committee’s recommendations in
this very serious and urgent case. The Committee deplores once again the fact that the
Government has felt it appropriate to put the blame for workers’ dismissals on the
imposition of economic sanctions aimed at combating practices of forced labour in
Myanmar. The Committee once again urges the Government in the strongest terms to
undertake real steps towards ensuring respect for freedom of association in law and in
practice in Myanmar in the very near future and reminds the Government that it may avail
itself of the technical assistance of the Office in this respect.
The Committee’s recommendations
1112. In light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the
Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
(a) The Committee once again urges the Government in the strongest of terms
to enact legislation guaranteeing freedom of association to all workers,
including seafarers, and employers; to abolish existing legislation, including
Orders Nos. 2/88 and 6/88 so as not to undermine the guarantees relating to
freedom of association and collective bargaining; to explicitly protect
workers’ and employers’ organizations from any interference by the
authorities, including the army; and to ensure that any such legislation so
adopted is made public and its contents widely diffused. The Committee once
again urges the Government to take advantage in good faith of the technical
assistance of the Office so as to remedy the legislative situation and to bring
it into line with Convention No. 87 and collective bargaining principles. It
requests the Government to keep it informed of all developments in this
respect.
(b) The Committee once again urges the Government to issue instructions to its
civil and military agents as a matter of urgency so as to ensure that the
authorities fully refrain from any act preventing the free operation of all
forms of organization of collective representation of workers, freely chosen
by them to defend and promote their economic and social interests,
including seafarers’ organizations and organizations which operate in exile
and which cannot be recognized in the prevailing legislative context of
Myanmar. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of
all measures taken in this regard.
(c) The Committee once again urges the Government to institute an
independent inquiry into the alleged murder of Saw Mya Than, to be carried
out by a panel of experts considered to be impartial by all the parties
concerned. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of
measures taken in this respect.
(d) As regards the case of high treason brought against the General Secretary of
the FTUB, the Committee will examine the legal documents provided by the
Government as soon as a translation is available, along with any comments
or observations made by the complainant in this case.
(e) The Committee once again deeply deplores that the Government refuses to
consider the release of Myo Aung Thant and strongly urges the Government
to take the necessary steps to ensure his immediate release from prison and
to keep it informed in this respect.
(f) The Committee once again requests the Government to adopt legislative
measures which fully guarantee the right of seafarers to establish and join
organizations of their own choosing and afford them adequate guarantees
against acts of anti-union discrimination. It further requests the
Government to issue appropriate instructions without delay so as to ensure
that the SECD authorities immediately refrain from all acts of anti-union
discrimination against seafarers who engage in trade union action and
immediately revise the text of the model agreement concerning Myanmar
seafarers (in particular, sections B.2, C.1, E.2, E.3 and E.9) so as to bring it
into conformity with Convention No. 87 and collective bargaining principles.
The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of all
developments in this respect.
(g) The Committee once again recalls that a disputes resolution process that
exists within a system with a total absence of freedom of association in law
and practice cannot possibly fulfil the requirements of Convention No. 87
and urges the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure the
freely chosen representation of employees and employers in cases
conciliated by the various disputes resolution committees operating in the
country, and to keep it informed in this respect.
(h) The Committee requests the Government to further investigate the dismissals
of Min Than Win and Aung Myo Win from the Motorcar tyre factory and if
it is found that the dismissals were due to legitimate trade union activities, to
take the appropriate steps with a view to the workers’ reinstatement or if
reinstatement is not possible, the payment of adequate compensation so as to
constitute sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee requests to be
kept informed in this respect.
(i) The Committee requests the Government to inquire into the specific part of
the production of the Unique Garment Factory which was stopped in July
2001 and the exact criteria for the selection of the 77 night shift workers
who were retrenched; if it is found that the dismissals were due to legitimate
trade union activities, the Committee requests the Government to take the
appropriate steps with a view to the workers’ reinstatement or if
reinstatement is not possible, the payment of adequate compensation so as to
constitute sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee requests to be
kept informed in this respect.
(j) The Committee requests the Government to conduct an inquiry into the
exact part of the production of the Myanmar Texcamp Industrial Ltd. which
was stopped and the criteria for the selection of the 340 workers who were
retrenched in August 2003; if it is found that the dismissals were due to
legitimate trade union activities, the Committee requests the Government to
take the appropriate steps with a view to the workers’ reinstatement or if
reinstatement is not possible, the payment of adequate compensation so as to
constitute sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee requests to be
kept informed in this respect.
(k) With regard to the filing of complaints against the Yes Garment Factory on
the same day by both Mg Zin Min Thu and Min Min Htwe along with five
other workers, the Committee requests the Government once again to
establish an impartial investigation into this matter, in particular as regards
the substance of the complaints filed by Mg Zin Min Thu and Min Min
Htwe along with five other workers, the substance of the agreement reached
on the basis of these complaints, and the specific reasons for which Mg Zin
Min Thu was dismissed; if it is found that the dismissal of Mg Zin Min Thu
was due to legitimate trade union activities, the Committee requests the
Government to take appropriate steps with a view to his reinstatement or if
reinstatement is not possible, the payment of adequate compensation so as to
constitute sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee requests to be
kept informed in this respect.
(l) The Committee once again urges the Government in the strongest terms to
undertake real steps towards ensuring respect for freedom of association in
law and in practice in Myanmar in the very near future and reminds the
Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office
in this respect.