Untitled Document

On August 17 Goodyear Thailand Ltd. fired union activist Anan Pol-ung in an effort to silence the union. During the last two years Anan has been fighting for the rights of the short term contract workers in the factory. The official reason for dismissing him is that he gave “misleading information” about a visit to his mother who was in the hospital. But when dismissing him, the local management at the 1000-worker factory made it clear that the real reason was his union activities.

The story begins two years ago when Anan was elected union president of the Tyre Makers Union at the Goodyear plant. Anan was already then aware of Goodyear discriminating against several of its workers, especially the 26 workers in the warehouse and rubber stock area of the plant. Many of these employees had worked at the factory for over ten years, but were employed under one-year, fixed-term contracts that deny them the same benefits as permanent employees. It also means that even though they are union members, they have not been included in the collective bargaining agreement and only receive minimum wage.

When the management of Goodyear Thailand after negotiation refused to include these workers in the collective bargaining agreement in 2004, 18 of the workers decided to file a labour suit at the Labour Court in February 2005. This was the first time the system of using short term contract labour to deny workers their rights would be tried in court. This also makes the case is very important, since many employers in Thailand use short term contracts to avoid their responsibility as employers.

Inside the factory, Anan continued to inform the other union members about the labour practices of Goodyear. This led the managers to fire Anan on March 14 2005 for putting up a notice inside the factory informing about the struggle to include the 18 warehouse workers in the collective bargaining agreement. Goodyear motivated the dismissal with accusing Anan for defamation.

The International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM) now became actively involved in the situation at Goodyear Thailand Ltd. and started pressuring the management to have give back Anan his job. The ICEM launched a website campaign, distributed flyers to Goodyear workers around the world. Goodyears unions' network passed a resolution calling for Anan to be reinstated and the secretary general of ICEM pressuredthe Goodyear management in Thailand.

After several months of struggle the ICEM managed to get Goodyear to reinstate Anan, who could return to work on September 26 2005. But with the court case pending on the use of short term contract labour, the management was not happy to have Anan back.

The same year in November the company fired the workers on short-term contracts and brought in a labour agency to do the work. The agency offered to employ the dismissed workers, but under even worse conditions then they had as short term con tract workers. 18 of the warehouse workers who were also union members refused and instead decided to file a complaint at the Industrial Relations Committee (IRC) to get their jobs back.

In mid-April 2006 the IRC came to a ruling regarding the dismissal of the warehouse workers. The court commission ruled that the workers should be reinstated, because the dismissal had constituted unfair practice. Tragically two of the 18 contract workers cited in the victory had passed away in the meantime, one due to heart disease in 2005, the other of cancer the day before the IRC issued its ruling. One of them had worked for Goodyear for over 20 years.

The company responded to the IRC’s ruling by filing papers in Thailand’s central labour court to reverse the decision. This process will take about two years time, during which the remaining 16 workers have no employment and have to try to support them selves on casual labour.

On August 17 2006 A nan was called into the office of the human resource manager, Mr. Prasarn Luetra Koon, where he was told that he was being dismissed. In the meeting Mr. Prasarn made it clear to Anan that he was being fired because of his union activities. He was told they had received instructions to discharge him from the US head office because of his efforts to stop the discrimination of short term contract workers in the factory.

Officially the reason given to Anan in writing is that he had given the company misleading information about his absence on June 19 2006. On this date Anan had been given permission to be away from work to attend a union meeting. But on the same day the doctor called and said that his mother, who had been sick for long period, had gotten worse and might not survive the day. The doctor asked that a close relative would come to be by her side. Anan then decided to go and visit his mother in the hospital, but first he called the union meeting and told them he would not be able to attend the meeting.

According to the company this was reason enough to have him fired. They claim that since he has given them misleading information they can discharge him without giving him any right to compensation at all. Anan had been working for the company for eleven years when he was dismissed. Between the years 2001 and 2005 he was rewarded “perfect performer” at the factory five years in a row. He is now being supported by his wife and also tries to do some casual work himself to be able to support their two children.