The Supreme Court’s Labor Division ruled to confirm that migrant workers, former employees of the men’s underwear manufacturing company Rosso, who filed petitions with both the labor inspector and the Labor Relations Committee in the case of being terminated in the same incident, were not considered to be exercising duplicate rights.
|
22 January 2025
Press Release
The Supreme Court’s Labor Division ruled to confirm that migrant workers, former employees of the men’s underwear manufacturing company Rosso, who filed petitions with both the labor inspector and the Labor Relations Committee in the case of being terminated in the same incident, were not considered to be exercising duplicate rights.
On 3 December 2024, the Labor Court Region 6 operating from the Mae Sot Provincial Court read the Supreme Court’s verdict No. 3110-3113/2567 in the case where four migrant workers were the plaintiffs suing the Labor Relations Committee as the first defendant and Rosso Company Limited as the second defendant. In the case where four migrant workers from Myanmar used to work for Rosso Co, Ltd, and were allowed to temporarily work for no more than 3 months at a time and had their work permits renewed by the company. The workers always expressed their wishes to have their work permits renewed at the Tak Provincial Employment Office, Mae Sot Branch. It was until the last time that the company did not renew work permits of the four migrant workers and terminated all of them on 15 July 2019. Before the termination on 1 March 2019, the four plaintiffs and other employees gathered to sign and submit a request to the company to change the employment conditions and were able to negotiate and reach an agreement at the labor dispute conciliation officer level according to the memorandum of agreement on employment conditions dated 14 March 2019. Therefore, the four plaintiffs filed a petition to:
1. Accuse the company to the Labor Relations Committee (LRC), the first defendant in the case, that the company’s practice violated the Labor Relations Act and constituted an unfair treatment. They also requested the company (the second defendant) to act on two matters: reinstate the four plaintiffs to their work and pay damages equal to the final wage rate from the termination date until the day they were reinstated. However, the LRC, the first defendant, dismissed the petition of the four plaintiffs according to the Labor Relations Committee Order No. 102-106/2562 dated 12 December 2019.
2. On 13 August 2020, the four plaintiffs filed a petition with the labor inspector requesting the company to pay compensation and wages in lieu of advance notice, citing the same reason for termination. The labor inspector ordered the company, the second defendant, to pay compensation plus interest to the four plaintiffs, in accordance with the order of the labor inspector of the Tak Provincial Labor Protection and Welfare Office, No. 26/2563, dated 12 October 2020. The four plaintiffs have already received full compensation plus interest (as for wages in lieu of advance notice, the four workers have received all of them when the case was being reviewed by the Labor Court, Region 6).
The Supreme Court’s Labor Division held that:
1. The Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 and the Labor Relations Act B.E. 2518 provide different remedies for employees who have been terminated and they are two separate legislations. Therefore, the employees have the right to file a petition with the labor inspector or the Labor Relations Committee for the same reason due to the termination. This is not considered a duplicate exercise of rights.
2. Although the four plaintiffs have received compensation under the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541, which is the money that employers pay to employees when they terminate their employment, it is considered that the four employees no longer wish to work with the company and do not want to benefit from the reinstatement. However, the four employees still retain the right to claim for damages resulting from the unfair practice of the company, the second defendant of the case, according to the Labor Relations Act B.E. 2518, which is a separate law. And the Labor Relations Committee has the authority to issue an order in response to the complaint filed by the four workers due to the unfair practice. Therefore, the Supreme Court confirmed that the Labor Court Region 6 should consider whether the company has violated the Labor Relations Act B.E. 2518’s Sections 121 and 123, which concern an unfair practice or not, in order to pave the way to the decision that “there is a reason to revoke the order of the Labor Relations Committee, the first defendant and the company, the second defendant, and that the company is obliged to pay for damages resulting from the unfair practice toward the four migrant workers or not.” and then issue a new verdict according to the case.
“Mr. Chalit Meesidhi,” a lawyer in the case, is of the opinion that the verdict of the Supreme Court’s Labor Division in this case affects the intent of the Labor Relations Act of 1975 regarding the protection against unfair practice in cases where employees request for a reinstatement. If employees wish to exercise their right to file a complaint with the Labor Relations Committee to request for a reinstatement, they are required to not exercise their right to claim compensation under the Labor Act B.E.2541, even though the intent of the Labor Protection Act stipulates that employers must immediately pay compensation to employees upon termination. Therefore, it is necessary to amend the Labor Relations Act in the part on the protection against unfair practice to have the authority to issue orders according to the law even if the employer has already paid compensation, or the employee has already exercised the right to claim and received compensation.
In addition, Mr. Chalit also called on the government, through the Ministry of Labor, to urgently amend the Labor Relations Act and sign the International Labor Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 to ensure all workers in the country have the right to form labor unions, consistent with the intent of promoting mutual understanding between employers and employees, creating social justice in line with the liberal democratic regime, and creating an investment atmosphere as the country enters into negotiations for an international trade framework agreement, such as with the European Union, which has set a framework for trade regarding sustainable development.