CUEPACS Wants Contract Employees Be Absorbed To Permanent Posts

Malaysian workers have lost the right to regular employment - permanent employment until retirement, when this Malaysian government abandoned the rights and welfare of Malaysian workers and their families...A perusal of our labour laws in Malaysia clearly indicate that the employment relationship should be a permanent employment relationship. Entitlements to annual leave, medical leave, and even termination lay-off benefits also indicate clear increases in entitlement based on the number of years of service... Retirement Age - and, even now the government's move, to increase retirement age all underlies the entitlement to permanent employment

AS SUCH, we must campaign for:-

an end of short-term contract employment, and 

an end of any other forms of employment agreements or arrangements - that completely destroy direct employment relationship between workers and the principal (being the owner/operator of workplaces). And this means, the contractor for labour need to be abolished, and all workers who work at any workplace, especially those involved in the core operations must be all be employees of the said principal. No more 'contract labour', 'agency workers', 'outsourced workers',....

CUEPACS wants this and is calling for all contract employees to be absorded to permanent status - and this must also be the case for all other workers...including those in private sector. [One permissible exception may be migrant workers - whose contract must be for the full 3-5 years, agreed period that migrant workers come to work in Malaysia - and no longer these short year to year employment contracts based on the duration of their current work passes. No migrant worker agree to come to work in a foreign country for just 1 year.]

Why we do not want short-term contracts?

- because it is UNJUST to workers, and even employers

- A worker is a human being with families/dependents - and as employment security is essential - when a worker gets employed, it is a factor that affects many personal/family decisions - i.e. where should he stay or settle down? (usually close to where he/she works), Should he rent a house or buy a family home?, Where should his/her spouse find employment?, Where should he sent his children to school?, Which temple/surau/church community should he/she join? Should he buy a car/motorbike? .....With a short-term contract for 1 year, months before the end of the contract period, there will be a lot of stress...and mental anguish - will he still be employed and be earning wages at the end of the contract period? Of course, for the employer, it is beneficial because a worker WORRIED about his employment future would more easily be oppressed - and will be compliant/submissive in the face of persecution...If he/she loses the employment, it would cause great difficulties for the worker and the family for the next employment maybe in some other town and state.... and loans all need to be paid every month...

- For the employer, there is no more PROBATION - and they are bound by their agreement to keep the said worker for the full duration of the contract period. With probation, the employer (and also worker) have a 'trial period' to determine suitability of the worker - which if found to be suitable will be converted to a permanent employment relationship until retirement age...

- Current laws of retrenchment and lay-off - do not cover short-term contracts at all - so an early termination of a short-term contract should result in having to pay the worker possibly normal monthly wages for remaining contractual period. (The present retrenchment lay-off benefits entitlement does not arise until after the worker has worked for a period of 12 months, and our current Malaysian government has failed to make clear laws to deal with this early termination of workers by reason of economic slow-down/closure of business when it comes to workers on fixed short-term contracts..)

- WOMEN will be discriminated - because if they are pregnant (even 1-2 months pregnant), no employer is logically going to employ them on a short-term employment contract. Why? To avoid maternity leave and maternity benefits, and all the other special treatment/leave that usually is a right to women as pregnancy advances. Those even on a contract, when it ends - will find that they will NOT be offered any new contract...

- Workers who maybe disabled partly, even by reason of some occupational related accident at that very same workplace, may find that employers will just let them off without offering them any new contracts..

- Now, even if the work is still there and workers are needed to do the work, most Employers to avoid the rise of the presumption of  a permanent employment relationship will just not RE-NEW contracts but just choose to get some other NEW workers... This is so WRONG - again good Malaysian government has not made any laws to prevent this and protect workers..

WHAT THEN IS THE USE OF TALKING ABOUT INCREASING RETIREMENT AGE, MATERNITY RIGHTS AND BENEFITS, ETC... WHEN THERE IS NO RIGHT FOR PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT FOR WORKERS IN MALAYSIA. YES - ABOLISH SHORT-TERM CONTRACTS & RESTORE PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT AS A GUARANTEED RIGHT FOR THE GOOD AND WELFARE OF WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES IN MALAYSIA. 

CUEPACS LEADS THE WAY ....MTUC MUST ALSO COME OUT AND DEMAND THIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT FOR ALL MALAYSIAN WORKERS...

CUEPACS Wants Contract Employees Be Absorbed To Permanent Posts

TEMERLOH, June 19 (Bernama) -- The Congress of Unions of Employees in the Public and Civil Service (CUEPACS) is hoping the government could absorb the 60,000 contract staff in the public service to permanent and pensionable posts.

Its deputy president, Azih Muda, believed that the move, besides, ensuring their future benefits, would also help to further improve the quality of the public service.

"The role of the contract staff should be appreciated as they also help in realising the government's development agenda and country's growth," he told reporters after calling on the Temerloh Municipal Council (MPT) president, Datuk Tariff Abdul Rahman, here today.

Azih said the congress also supported the suggestion by Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob recently for contract workers to be recruited through the economic stimulus package and be absorbed into permanent posts.

-- BERNAMA - 19/6/2012, CUEPACS Wants Contract Employees Be Absorbed To Permanent Posts

Congratulation to 323 Burmese workers who were victorious in their struggle for wages in accordance to Thailand’s Minimum Wage Law.

Media Statement

Congratulation to 323 Burmese workers who were victorious in their struggle for wages in accordance to Thailand’s Minimum Wage Law. 

 

323 Workers at  M APPAREL CO.LTD , Mae  Sot, Tak, Thailand  have been working with MAP Foundation and Yaung Chi Oo Worker Association to negotiate wages with their employer  at the Labour Protection Office. On June 5^th , they were successful in their negotiations, and are now be paid wages at the rate of the new minimum wage for Mae Sot, as must be the case for all workers, including migrant workers. However, migrant workers are often denied this right and are paid much lower than at the operative minimum wage rate, as set by the government of Thailand.

Workers claimed victory in this struggle against their employer to be paid wages, in accordance with the minimum wage law, and for improved living and working conditions. When the workers were not being paid wages in accordance with the law, following the 1st April increase in Thailand‘s minimum wages for this region, the  workers demanded their rights and on 15^th May, went on a strike that lasted 21 days. According to the law, they were entitled to minimum wages of 226 Baht per normal working day of 8 hours, not including overtime .Prior to this date; workers in this region were entitled in law to minimum wages of 162 Baht per day.

Before this, the said 323 workers were only earning 60-100 baht in total, which included overtime, per day, in a 8:00 am to 11:00 pm shift, with no day off (rest day). The overtime rate of the factory was 8-10 baht an hour.  

Since 10^th April, the employer failed to pay the workers’ wages. This caused great hardship to the workers, for without wages, they did not have money to buy food and other daily necessities. The workers wanted to be paid wages in accordance with the new minimum wage, as set by law. They also were demanding for better housing rights – that the employer repairs their living quarters, and provide clean water and electricity. The wanted the same rights as other workers.

On 10^th May,   which was the usual pay day, the factory announced that they will only be paying wages  on 12^th May. On 12^th May, the factory again postponed payment, citing the reason was because the employer was sick, and that payments will be made on 14^th May. On 14^th May, again they were told that the employer was sick, and wages due will be paid on 17^th May.  On this day, the manager offered 85 baht for each worker as a loan, but workers refused the loan and demanded their full wages.

Workers could not tolerate this situation any longer, and on 15^th May, began a strike in front of the factory demanding increased wages and improved living and working conditions.

The factory manager told them that if they did not work then they need to get out from the factory compound.  209 workers were forced to leave their living quarters, and went to stay at Wat Ban Song Kwae, a temple.

After becoming aware of  their  rights under the  Labour protection  and Labour Relations  Act  from  MAP and Yaung Chi Oo, they then selected  7 worker representatives who wrote a letter to their employer stating that the employer  had violated  the law, including Labour  protection and  labour Relations Act, regarding wages and day  off.  The workers demanded that:-

1.  The employer complies with Labour Protection act 1998, and pay daily minimum wages of 226 baht. That every employee be given at least one day off (rest day) each week, public holidays, etc.

2. The employer pay employee’s wages not later than the 5th of every month.

3. That the employer allows migrant workers to change  employer  if the current employer cannot agree on the demanded employment terms, and in such cases, to immediately return all the worker’s documentations.

4. To pay workers double wages when they work on rest days (their weekly day off).

 5. That the employer stops intimidations or dismissal of workers when they are no errors or failings that are directly linked to work done by the said employee.

6.  That the employer stops their supervisors from verbally abusing workers.

On 16^th May, the workers,  together  with MAP Foundation  and Yaung  Chi Oo Worker Association, sent a formal letter of complaint to the Mae Sot Labor Protection Office,  and  the workers demanded that the employer to  enter into negotiations with them by 17^th May, failing which they will re-commence the  strike.

On 17^th May, workers enter into negotiations with employer facilitated by the Mae Sot Labour Protection Officer. The employer agreed to comply with demands 2 to 6, but did not want to agree with the Demand No1.

On 29^th May, the employer still did not want to pay minimum wages.  The workers reasonably proposed that the employer pay only 160 baht per day, the rest being taken as deductions for   water, accommodations and food, but the employer still did not agree and no agreement was reached.

On that day, 323 workers (mostly women) moved to stay in  Wat Song Kaew as the temple had graciously allowed them to stay there. They also received support from community groups in Mae Sot.

 On 5^th June, the workers were victorious, when the Labor Protection Office stipulated that the employer shall pay the workers wages at the rate of 226 baht/day for the said 323 workers, with a condition that the workers will have to seek their own lodgings by 10^th June. The agreement was signed.

They are still another 60   workers, who were not part of this negotiations, and they can continue to stay at the accommodation provided by the factory, and they  still do not receive wages equivalent to the legal minimum wages .

MAP Foundation would like to congratulate all 323 workers who stood up for their rights and bravely continued to struggle until the employer was forced to comply with the Legal Minimum Wages law.

M APPAREL CO.LTD will  the first factory in the Mae Sot area to pay wages in accordance to the new legal minimum wage for Tak Province, without any wrongful deductions,  but we are  concerned that  the remaining 60  workers  work in this same factory,  as well  as another  hundred thousand  factory ‘s workers in Mae Sot, who still do not receive wages as per the stipulated legal minimum wage.

Therefore, we demand:-

1.         That the Thai government and relevant authorities ensure  that  the  employer of at M APPAREL CO.LTD , Mae  Sot will fulfill the agreement,  especially with regard to wages in accordance with the  legal minimum wages law, with regard to the said workers  who  work in their factory, and do not try to use lame reason to  terminate or discriminate against these workers who claimed their rights and were successful also by reason of the intervention and decision of the Labour Protection Officer.

2.         That the Ministry of Labour send more labour inspectors  to  inspect  all factories in Mae Sot, to ensure that all employers are following Thai law, and are paying all their employees as least the legal minimum wages

 For more information please contact:

Contact Person Ms Jacqueline Pollock Mob Tel: 66 860904118 Email: Jackie_pollock@yahoo.com

Aye Salam for Thai and Burmese language:  Mob Tel   +66869367275 

Pranom Somwong   : Mob Tel+ 66831887600 Email p_somwong@yahoo.com

เราขอแสดงความยินดีกับแรงงานพม่า 323 คนที่ได้รับชัยชนะในการต่อสู้เพื่อให้ได้ค่าแรงตามกฎหมายค่าจ้างขั้นต่ำ

แรงงานพม่า 323 คนที่ทำงานในโรงงาน เอ็มแอพพาแรล จำกัด ได้ร่วมกับมูลนิธิแมพและสมาคมแรงงานยองชีอูเพื่อเจรจากับนายจ้างโดยผ่านทางสำนักงานสวัสดิการและคุ้มครองแรงงาน สาขาอำเภอแม่สอด  เมื่อวันที่ 5 มิถุนายนที่ผ่านมา แรงงานได้ประสบความสำเร็จในการเจรจาและขณะนี้ได้รับการจ่ายค่าจ้างตามอัตราค่าจ้างขั้นต่ำอัตราใหม่ของแม่สอด  ซึ่งจริงๆแล้วแรงงานทุกคนต้องได้รับการจ่ายค่าจ้างขั้นต่ำ โดยต้องรวมถึงแรงงานข้ามชาติด้วย อย่างไรก็ตามแรงงานข้ามชาติส่วนใหญ่ไม่ได้รับการจ่ายค่าจ้างขั้นต่ำตาม กฎหมายและค่าจ้างจริงๆที่ได้รับมักจะต่ำกว่าที่รัฐบาลไทยกำหนดทางกฎหมายมาก

แรงงานได้รับชัยชนะในการต่อสู้เพื่อให้นายจ้างจ่ายค่าจ้างตามกฎหมายค่าจ้างขั้นต่ำ และเพื่อให้นายจ้างปรับปรุงสภาพการทำงานและสภาพความเป็นอยู่ เมื่อแรงงานไม่ได้รับการจ่ายค่าจ้างตามกฎหมาย ตามที่รัฐบาลกำหนดอัตราใหม่เพิ่มขึ้นในวันที่ 1 เมษายนที่ผ่านมา แรงงานได้เรียกร้องสิทธิของตนและได้ดำเนินกระบวนการเพื่อนัดหยุดงานจำนวน 21 วัน เริ่มเมื่อวันที่ 15 พฤษภาคม ซึ่งตามกฎหมายแรงงานควรมีสิทธิได้รับค่าแรง 226 บาทในเวลาทำงาน 8 ชั่วโมงของวันทำงานปกติ ก่อนที่จะมีการกำหนดอัตราค่าแรงงานขั้นต่ำใหม่นี้ แรงงานในพื้นที่นี้ควรจะได้รับค่าแรงขั้นต่ำตามกฎหมาย วันละ 162 บาท

ทว่าก่อนที่แรงงานจะเรียกร้องสิทธิพวกเธอและเขา แรงงานได้รับค่าแรงจริงเพียงแค่ 60-100 บาท ซึ่งในเงินจำนวนนี้ได้รวมค่าทำงานล่วงเวลาและการทำงานในวันหยุดแล้ว แรงงานต้องทำงานโดยไม่มีวันหยุดตั้งแต่ 8.00 เช้าถึงห้าทุ่ม โดยโรงงานจ่ายค่าล่วงเวลาแค่ชั่วโมงละ 8-10 บาท

เหตุเกิดจากการนายจ้างไม่จ่ายค่าแรงตั้งแต่วันที่ 10 เมษายน ส่งผลให้แรงงานประสบความยากลำบาก ต้องอยู่โดยไม่มีเงิน ต้องอดอยากไม่มีเงินซื้ออาหารกินและไม่มีเงินใช้จ่ายในสิ่งของพื้นฐานที่จะเป็นต่อการดำรงชีวิต แรงงานเริ่มที่จะเรียกร้องให้นายจ้างจ่ายค่าแรงขั้นต่ำอัตราใหม่ตามที่กฎหมายกำหนด และอยากให้นายจ้างซ่อมแซมที่พัก จัดให้มีน้ำดื่มที่สะอาดและมีไฟฟ้าใช้ และได้รับสิทธิที่พึงมีพึงได้เหมือนแรงงานคนอื่นๆ

วันที่ 10 พฤษภาคม ซึ่งเป็นวันกำหนดจ่ายเงินเดือน  โรงงานได้ประกาศว่าจะเลื่อนไปจ่ายวันที่ 12 พอถึงวันที่ 12 พฤษภาคม โรงงานได้ประกาศว่านายจ้างป่วยจะเลื่อนไปจ่ายวันที่ 14 พอถึง 14 พฤษภาคม โรงงานแจ้งว่านายจ้างยังป่วย ผู้จัดการสามารถให้แรงงานยืมเงินก่อนคนละ 85 บาท ส่วนค่าแรงจะเลื่อนไปจ่ายวันที่ 17 พฤษภาคม  แรงงานปฏิเสธไม่ยืมเงินและยืนยันให้โรงงานจ่ายค่าแรงเต็มจำนวน

ที่เป็นเช่นนี้เพราะแรงงานไม่สามารถทนการกดขี่ต่อไปได้อีก ดังนั้นวันที่ 15 พฤษภาคม แรงงานได้เริ่มนัดหยุดงาน โดยได้เริ่มจากรวมตัวหน้าโรงงานและเรียกร้องให้นายจ้างเพิ่มค่าแรงและปรับปรุงสภาพการทำงานและสภาพความเป็นอยู่

ผู้จัดการโรงงานแจ้งว่าหากแรงงานไม่ทำงานก็ต้องออกไปจากบริเวณโรงงาน แรงงานจำนวน 209 คนถูกบังคับให้ออกนอกบริเวณโรงงานและต้องไปอาศัยวัดสองแควอยู่

หลังจากที่แรงงานได้เรียนรู้สิทธิของตนตามกฎหมายจากมูลนิธิแมพและสมาคมแรงงานยองชีอู แรงงานได้เลือกตัวแทน 7 คนเพื่อดำเนินการเจรจาและเขียนข้อเรียกร้องส่งถึงนายจ้าง ระบุว่าที่ผ่านมาแรงงาน 209 คน ได้พิจารณาแล้วเห็นว่านายจ้างและทางบริษัทจ่ายค่าจ้างผิดนัดและไม่ได้ปฎิบัติตามพระราชบัญญัติคุ้มครองแรงงาน พ.ศ.2541 โดยเฉพาะที่เกี่ยวเนื่องกับค่าแรงและวันหยุดในการทำงาน รวมถึงการเรียกร้องเรื่องสภาพการทำงานและมีข้อเรียกร้องต่อนายจ้างดังนี้

1.  ให้นายจ้างปฏิบัติตามกฎหมายคุ้มครองแรงงาน พ.ศ. 2541 และจ่ายค่าจ้างขั้นตำวันละ 226 บาท และลูกจ้างต้องมีวันหยุดอย่างน้อยหนึ่งวันต่อสัปดาห์ รวมถึงวันหยุดตามประเพณี และวันหยุดอื่นๆที่กฎหมายกำหนด

2. นายจ้างต้องจ่ายค่าจ้างไม่เกินวันที่ 5 ของทุกเดือน

3 ให้ลูกจ้างสามารถเปลี่ยนย้ายนายจ้างได้และบริษัททำการแจ้งออกแรงงานพร้อมกับคืนเอกสารให้กับแรงงานด้วย

4.ในการทำงานในวันหยุดนั้นนายจ้างต้องจ่ายค่าจ้าง 2 เท่าในวันทำงานปกติ

5.ห้ามนายจ้างกลั่นแกล้งหรือเลิกจ้างในกรณีที่ลูกจ้างไม่มีความผิด

6.หัวหน้าแผนก หรือหัวหน้างานไม่มีอำนาจดุด่า ว่ากล่าว ยกเว้นตักเตือนเรื่องของงาน

วันที่ 16 พฤษภาคม แรงงานร่วมกับมูลนิธิแมพและสมาคมแรงงานยองชีอู ได้ยื่นหนังสือเรียกร้องให้สำนักงานสวัสดิการและคุ้มครองแรงงาน สาขา แม่สอด ระบุถึงข้อเรียกร้องดังกล่าวและขอให้ทางบริษัทดำเนินการและเจรจากับตัวแทน แรงงาน ภายในวันที่17พฤษภาคม2555 หากไม่ดำเนินการภายในกำหนดทางแรงงานจะดำเนินการแจ้งการหยุดงานตามลายมือชื่อแนบท้ายเอกสาร

วันที่ 17 พฤษภาคม แรงงานได้ทำการเจรจากับนายจ้างโดยผ่านทางสำนักงานสวัสดิการและคุ้มครองแรงงาน สาขา แม่สอด นายจ้างยินยอมดำเนินการตามข้อรียกร้อง 2-6 แต่ไม่สามารถตกลงกันได้ในข้อเรียกร้องข้อหนึ่งเรื่องค่าแรง

วันที่  29 พฤษภาคม นายจ้างยังคงไม่ปฏิบัติการตามข้อเรียกร้องค่าจ้างขั้นต่ำตามกฎหมาย แรงงานได้ใช้เหตุผลและเสนอว่าให้นายจ้างจ่ายค่าแรงวันละ 160 บาทได้ และค่าจ้างที่เหลือให้เป็นการหักจ่ายค่าน้ำ ค่าที่พักและอาหาร แต่นายจ้างยังคงไม่ยอม วันเดียวกันนั้น แรงงานส่วนใหญ่ที่เป็นผู้หญิงได้ย้ายไปอยู่ที่วัดสองแคว ซึ่งทางวัดเมตตาให้ที่พักอาศัยระหว่างที่ประสบปัญหาและไดรับการช่วยเหลือบางส่วนจากองค์กรชุมชนในแม่สอด

วันที่ 5 มิถุนายน   แรงงานประสบชัยชนะเมื่อสำนักงานสวัสดิการและคุ้มครองแรงงาน สาขา แม่สอด มีคำสั่งให้นายจ้างต้องจ่ายเงินค่าจ้างขั้นต่ำตามกฎหมายแรงงาน วันละ 226 บาทกับแรงงาน 323 คน ให้มีวันหยุดวันอาทิตย์ หากมีล่วงเวลาให้จ่ายตามกฎหมายแรงงานและให้จ่ายทุกวันที่ 10 ของเดือน และแรงงานต้องย้ายไปพักอาศัยข้างนอกโรงงาน ภายในวันที่ 10 มิถุนายน 2555  พร้อมทั้งมีการลงลายมือชื่อในข้อตกลงนั้นจากทุกฝ่าย  แต่หลังจากข้อตกลงฉบับนี้ยังมีแรงงานที่เหลือ 60 คนที่ไม่ได้รับค่าจ้างขั้นต่ำตามกฎหมาย และแรงงานกลุ่มนี้ยังพักอาศัยและทำงานตามปกติในโรงงาน 

มูลนิธิแมพของแสดงความยินดีกับแรงงานจำนวน 323 คนที่ลุกขึ้นต่อสู้เพื่อสิทธิของตนและมีความกล้าหาญอย่างต่อเนื่องในกระบวน การต่อสู้จนกระทั่งทำให้นายจ้างต้องปฏิบัติตามกฎหมายค่าจ้างขั้นต่ำตาม กฎหมายได้

โรงงาน เอ็มแอพพาแรล จำกัด จะเป็นโรงงานแห่งแรกในแม่สอดที่จ่ายค่าจ้างตามกฎหมายค่าจ้างขั้นต่ำในจังหวัดตาก โดยไม่มีการหักค่าใช้จ่ายที่กฎหมายไม่อนุญาต  แต่เรายังคงมีความห่วงใยต่อแรงงานอีก 60 คนและแรงงานในโรงงานอื่นๆอีกนับแสนคน ที่ยังคงได้รับค่าจ้างในอัตราเก่าที่ตำกว่าค่าจ้างขั้นต่ำตามกฎหมาย

ดังนั้นเราจึงขอเรียกร้องให้

1.         ให้รัฐบาลไทย และเจ้าหน้าที่ที่เกี่ยวข้องมีมาตรการที่มั่นใจได้ว่านายจ้าง โรงงาน เอ็มแอพพาแรล จำกัด จะทำตามบันทึกข้อตกลงและคำสั่งของสำนักงานสวัสดิการและคุ้มครองแรงงาน โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งการจ่ายค่าจ้างขั้นต่ำตามกฎหมายให้แรงงาน และไม่หาเหตุผลที่ไม่ชอบธรรมใดๆในการเลิกจ้างหรือเลือกปฏิบัติแรงงานที่ ต่อสู้เพื่อสิทธิของตนผ่านทางกระบวนการทางกฎหมายและผ่านกระบวนการของเจ้า หน้าที่สวัสดิการและคุ้มครองแรงงาน

2.         ให้ กระทรวงแรงงานส่งพนักงานตรวจแรงงานไปตรวจทุกโรงงานในแม่สอดเพื่อตรวจสภาพการ ทำงานของลูกจ้างและสภาพการจ้างงานเพื่อให้มั่นใจว่านายจ้างจะปฏิบัติตาม กฎหมายแรงงานและจ่ายค่าจ้างขั้นต่ำตามกฎหมาย

สอบถามข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมได้ที่

คุณ สุทธิศักดิ์ รุ่งเรืองผาสุก   โทร    +66869367275

คุณ แจ๊คกี้ พอลล๊อก           โทร     +66860904118

คุณ ปรานม สมวงศ์              โทร    +66831887600

 

AEC bad for Thai farmers, workers: NGOs (Nation, 29/5/2012)

 

AEC bad for Thai farmers, workers: NGOs

Supalak Ganjanakhundee
The Nation May 29, 2012 1:00 am

Poor farmers and unskilled labourers would feel a negative impact and no benefits from the 2015 launch of the Asean Economic Community (AEC), a forum of non-governmental organisations said yesterday.

Thailand was set to open its borders to almost all farming products from Asean members, meaning its major products such as rice would no longer be competitive, said Witoon Lianchamroon, director of BioThai.

Thailand's standing as a regional powerhouse in rice production was misunderstood, he said. Under the AEC, Thai farmers would get hurt in the long run as their production costs were increasing while yield was reducing, he said.

Thailand has the region's highest production cost but near lowest productivity, he said. Vietnam has the region's highest yield, of 862.4 kilograms per rai, against Thailand's 448kg per rai, he said. Myanmar's 427.2kg per rai is the region's lowest.

Asean members Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines have maintained high import tariffs for rice of 25, 20 and 40 per cent respectively ahead of 2015, he said.

Thailand's cassava production also was badly placed, with a yield of 2 tonnes per rai against Cambodia's 5 tonnes, said Witoon, adding that Thai farmers were facing difficulty in competing with the lower-cost produce from other Asean countries.

Thailand's unskilled labourers would also face difficulty as cross-regional movement of their counterparts from other Asean members increased over the next three years, said Pranom Somwong of Asean Watch.

Asean members have agreed to allow skilled workers - doctors, dentists, nurses, engineers, architects, accountants and surveyors - free movement by 2015.

The group, however, has no agreement for movement of the huge number of unskilled workers in the region, she said.

Though Asean has issued a declaration to protect and promote the rights of migrant workers, it only covered registered migrant workers, while ignoring the millions of undocumented workers, she said.

Asean members have been reluctant to receive unskilled migrant labourers despite demand for them. Thailand has only 851,830 registered migrant workers - from Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar - with more than 1.5 million of them working here undocumented and thus lacking proper protection for their rights and lives, she said.

Pranom urged Asean to pay more attention to undocumented and unskilled labourers as the group steered toward 2015 integration in the AEC. - Nation, 29/5/2012, AEC bad for Thai farmers, workers: NGOs

Complaint against the Government of Malaysia presented by the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) Report No. 353, Case(s) No(s). 2637

Complaint against the Government of Malaysia presented by the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) Report No. 353, Case(s) No(s). 2637

Description:(Freedom of Association Case)
Country:(Malaysia)
Report:353
Case number:2637
Subject classification: Freedom of Association
Document:(Vol. XCII, 2009, Series B, No. 1)
Sitting:1
Type:SINGLE
Phase:INFO * keep informed of developments
Display the document in:  French   Spanish
Document No. (ilolex): 0320093532637

COMPLAINANT
1. Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC)

Introduction

Allegations: The complainant alleges that the Government refuses to allow migrant domestic workers to establish organizations to defend their interests

 

1039. The complaint is set out in a communication of 10 April 2008 from the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC).

1040. The Government submitted its observations in a communication of 29 October 2008.

1041. Malaysia has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). It has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

Background

A. The complainant's allegations

1042. In its communication of 10 April 2008, the complainant states that foreign domestic workers are the most marginalized group of migrants in the country: they are not recognized as workers in the labour legislation; they do not receive standardized contracts, apart from Filipino domestic workers, and work in isolated conditions for very long hours without holidays. The complainant states that migrant workers are entirely at the mercy of their employers and have no access to mechanisms for their protection, leaving them vulnerable to violence and abuse.

1043. The complainant indicates that following several widely reported cases of abuse of Indonesian domestic workers, it decided to organize domestic workers by registering an association of domestic workers under the Societies Act. The aims and objectives of the association were to obtain reasonable wages, hours of work and other conditions of employment; to promote a spirit of mutual respect and understanding between the association and employers; to aid domestic workers in investing their earnings; and to organize educational activities and professional trainings on skills, safety, and the labour law. The complainant further states that it held an inaugural meeting, formed a committee, drafted a constitution and submitted the requisite documents for registration of an association of migrant domestic workers to the Registrar of Societies on 8 May 2006. On 23 July 2007, the Registrar rejected the application without providing any reason for doing so.

1044. With respect to migrant workers in general (apart from migrant domestic workers), the complainant states that the Department of Trade Union Affairs has ruled that they may join trade unions representing other workers at their respective enterprises. However, the work permits issued by the Immigration Department stipulate, as a condition of employment, that migrant workers may not join a "persatuan", or association, which is interpreted by employers to also mean a "kersatuan" - or trade union. Most employers consequently prevent migrant workers from joining trade unions. In this regard, the complainant annexes copies of an employment contract where it is stipulated that the migrant worker shall not participate in any activity connected with a Malaysian trade union. Furthermore, migrant workers supplied by labour contractors are not treated as employees of the workplace where they physically work and therefore may not join a trade union, and, since unions are only permitted to organize workers employed within similar industries or at the enterprise level, migrant workers employed by labour suppliers cannot join any of the existing 600 trade unions in the country.

B. The Government's reply

1045. In its communication of 29 October 2008, the Government states that the rights of foreign workers, including their right to join a trade union, are protected under the same law that applies to all workers - the Employment Act, 1955, the Industrial Relations Act, 1967, and the Trade Unions Act, 1959. However domestic workers, whether foreign or local, are exempted from the scope of the Employment Act.

1046. As concerns the 23 July 2007 rejection of the complainant's application by the Registrar of Societies, the Government states that the Registrar reached its decision for the following reasons: (1) existing laws and guidelines on foreign workers, especially domestic workers, are adequate to accommodate their needs and concerns; and (2) migrant domestic workers may bring their concerns to their respective embassies, the Malaysian Association of Foreign Maid Agencies (PAPA) or other relevant authorities, which serve as platforms for addressing their needs and for fostering harmony.

1047. The Government indicates that all applications before the Registrar of Societies are referred to other agencies, including the Royal Malaysian Police, for further recommendation, in order to ensure that the national interest is ensured. Furthermore, regular meetings and workshops are conducted, in concert with the social partners, in order to improve the existing policies to promote decent work for all - including foreign domestic workers. To date more than 20 meetings have been held between the Government and the social partners on labour issues, including those pertaining to migrant workers.

Conclusions

C. The Committee's conclusions

1048. The Committee notes that the present case involves allegations of the refusal of freedom of association rights to migrant workers, including migrant domestic workers, in law and in practice. The complainant alleges, firstly, that various stipulations in the labour legislation lead to the effective exclusion of migrant workers from its coverage. In particular, the complainant asserts that, while the Department of Trade Union Affairs had ruled that migrant workers may join trade unions representing other workers at their respective enterprises, the work permits issued by the Immigration Department stipulate, as a condition of employment, that migrant workers may not join a "persatuan", or association, which is interpreted by employers to also mean a "kersatuan" - or trade union. Most employers consequently prevent migrant workers from joining trade unions. In addition, since migrant workers supplied by labour contractors are not treated as employees of the workplace where they physically work, they are unable to join any of the existing 600 trade unions in the country - which may only organize employees within similar industries or at the enterprise level. Moreover, the right to organize has been further obstructed for migrant domestic workers who are excluded from the minimum working conditions set out in the Employment Act and who have recently been denied the exercise of their organizational rights due to the refusal by the Registrar of Societies to register the newly created association for migrant domestic workers that had been constituted by the Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC).

1049. The Committee notes the Government's statement that the freedom of association rights of migrant workers are protected under the same laws that apply to all workers - the Employment Act, 1955, the Industrial Relations Act, 1967, and the Trade Unions Act, 1959, while domestic workers, whether foreign or local, are excluded from the Employment Act. In this regard, migrant workers would, according to the Government, be guaranteed the right to form and join a trade union under the Trade Unions Act. The Committee recalls, however, that in previous cases concerning Malaysia spanning nearly 20 years, the Committee has commented upon a number of fundamental deficiencies in the legislation and, in particular, recommended that the Trade Unions Act and the Industrial Relations Act be amended so as to bring them into conformity with freedom of association principles. The serious matters previously highlighted concern, in particular: restrictions on the right of workers to establish and join organizations at all levels, including the primary and other levels; the excessive discretion of the registrar authority to refuse registration in violation of the principle of the right to organize freely chosen workers' organizations without previous authorization; and restrictions on the right of workers' organizations to adopt their rules and elect their representatives in full freedom (see e.g. Case No. 2301, 333rd Report, paras 586-594, and 349th Report, paras 165-173).

1050. As for the more specific allegation relating to the refusal to register the association of migrant domestic workers, the Committee notes the Government's reply that: (1) existing laws and guidelines on foreign workers, especially domestic workers, are adequate to accommodate their needs and concerns; and (2) migrant domestic workers may bring their concerns to their respective embassies, the PAPA or other relevant authorities, which serve as platforms for addressing their needs and for fostering harmony.

1051. The Committee recalls that Article 2 of Convention No. 87 is designed to give expression to the principle of non-discrimination in trade union matters, and the words "without distinction whatsoever" used in this Article mean that freedom of association should be guaranteed without discrimination of any kind based on occupation, sex, colour, race, beliefs, nationality, political opinion, etc. (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 2006, fifth edition, para. 209). On numerous occasions, the Committee has interpreted this right to include migrant workers and has further stated that domestic workers are not excluded from the application of Convention No. 87 and should therefore be governed by the guarantees it affords and have the right to establish and join occupational organizations (Digest, op. cit., para. 267). The Committee has further emphasized that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, whether they are employed on a permanent basis, for a fixed term or as contract employees, should have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing (Digest, op. cit., para. 255).

1052. The Committee considers that the arguments put forward by the Government to explain the Registrar's refusal to register the association of migrant domestic workers can in no way justify the denial of the fundamental right to organize these workers. The Committee therefore expects that the Government will take the necessary measures, including legislative if necessary, to ensure in law and in practice that domestic workers, including contract workers, whether foreign or local, may all effectively enjoy the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. It further requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure the immediate registration of the association of migrant domestic workers so that they may fully exercise their freedom of association rights. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress made in this regard.

Recommendations

The Committee's recommendation

1053. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendation:

The Committee expects that the Government will take the necessary measures, including legislative if necessary, to ensure in law and in practice that domestic workers, including contract workers, whether foreign or local, may all effectively enjoy the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. It further requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure the immediate registration of the association of migrant domestic workers so that they may fully exercise their freedom of association rights. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress made in this regard.

 

Cross references
Conventions: (C087) Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948
Conventions: (C098) Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949
Case reference:0320043332301 Report=333 Case=2301 * Malaysia
Digest reference:2006_03_01
Digest reference:2006_03_03 

Source: -  http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/pdconv.pl?host=status01&textbase=iloeng&document=4896&chapter=3&query=Malaysia%40ref&highlight=&querytype=bool&context=0

Abolish the ‘Contractor for Labour’ system, says 89 (now 90)

Joint Statement – 3/5/2012

Abolish the ‘Contractor for Labour’ system

Withdraw the 2012 amendments to Employment Act 1955.

We, the undersigned 89 trade unions, civil society groups and organizations object to the actions of the government of Malaysia in destroying direct employment relationship between the principal, as employer, and their workers, as employees, with the latest amendments to the Employment Act 1955.

The Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC) , which not only represents the about 800,000 unionized workers but also the over 12 million workers in Malaysia,  have strongly and consistently opposed the proposed amendments since it was first tabled in Parliament vide Bill No: D.R.25/2010 in July 2010, which the government later withdrew. The government re-introduced the Bill with minor changes in June 2011 vide Bill No: D.R.15/2011. MTUC came out even more strongly and also picketed at the Parliament House on 3^rd October 2011 and in spite of strong resistance from many quarters, including on the Dewan Rakyat  floor, the controversial Bill was passed on  6^th October 201, did finally come into effect on April 1^st 2012. 

We would like to address just one of several aspects of the new amendments that is the main bone of contention, i.e. the introduction of the new provision for the definition of “contractor for labour”.

With the amendment, the contractor for labour will be the third party (or the middleman) who will come in between the now direct employment relationship between the owner-operator of trade or business (defined as the “principal”) and their worker-employee.

BACKGROUND

The Employment Act 1955 was introduced before independence (Merdeka) by the British Administration effectively abolishing indentured labour, bonded labour and the “kanggani” system in Malaya. (collectively then known as the “contract system”). The Act also did establish two very important principles of law which are considered sacrosanct to this day. They are, security of tenure – ensuring permanence of employment, and proprietary right to the job – where termination of worker, shall be only with just cause and excuse and by due process.

The employment scenario in the country began to change in the early 1990s. In 1992 the government allowed migrant workers for the construction and plantation sector. In 2000, it was extended to manufacturing and service (hotel and restaurants) sectors and in 2002, it was extended to all sectors.

Originally migrant workers were employed directly by the principal employer but this started to change in 2005, when the Cabinet Committee on Foreign Workers in its meeting on 5-July 2005 agreed to the recruitment of foreign workers through outsourcing companies (now known as ‘Contractor for Labour’ in the amended Act). The issuance of these outsourcing licenses was strangely done by the Ministry of Home Affairs, not the Ministry of Human Resources. There are today about 277 registered labour outsourcing companies in the country today. (The Star, 23-Feb 2010).  

This establishment of the outsourcing companies allowed for the re-emergence of the old ‘contract system’. It opened doors resulting in a direct assault on the basic foundation of labour rights, the undermining dignity of labour, perpetuating the establishment and operation of dehumanized and bonded labour. The practice, which started with migrant workers, was then extended to local workers.

These outsourcing companies recruited local workers and migrant workers, some on fix term contracts, with terms and conditions usually less favourable than that of workers directly employed by principals. 

The incidence of principals using workers supplied by outsourcing companies is growing. The principal company pays the outsource company an agreed sum of money for the number of workers supplied, whether they be local or migrant workers. The principal company effectively is able to avoid the employer’s duty and obligation to ensure their workers’ rights and welfare are protected. This practice also saved principal company money that would have ordinarily been expended for workers like medical cost, insurance, bonus, wage increments, retirement benefits, transportation and accommodation, service awards, and several other benefits. It also allows them to evade statutory contributions to the Employees Provident Fund and for social security schemes. The principal company also evades all obligations and safeguards in law when workers are hired or terminated, including domestic inquiries and lay-off and termination benefits. If the principal wants to now get rid of workers, it now merely have to inform the outsource company. 

To convert the workforce from permanent employees to short-term contract employees, and now outsourced workers, most principals either retrenched their workers, used “voluntary separation schemes” or other methods, or simply terminated their employees substituting them now with workers supplied by the outsourcing companies.

REASON FOR THE AMENDMENT

These outsourcing companies have been allowed to operate outside the law with no law regulating them. Even though they were manpower/labour suppliers, they were not created under and/or regulated by the Private Employment Agencies Act 1981, which would have also ensured these manpower/labour suppliers would only provide workers and not become employers of workers supplied.  

The recent amendment to the Employment Act is to give these outsourcing companies statutory recognition under the Employment Act, and at the same time institutionalize and legitimize employment through the outsourcing companies, which  now legally will be legally known as the “contractor for labour”.  

A primary reason for the creation of the ‘contractor for labour’ and the introduction of labour outsourcing is to stifle workers and trade unions capacity to demand and negotiate for better rights and benefits. The MTUC Memorandum to the HR Minister dated October 7, 2008 refers to an interview with Datuk Ishak Mohamed, the Enforcement Director of the Immigration Department that was published in New Straits Time, July 20, 2008, where he, amongst others, said, ‘…outsourcing is good as it will attract foreign direct investment. Investors do not want unions to be formed in their establishments. Through outsourcing, it would be difficult for unions to be formed as outsourcing company, and not the factory, would be the employer…’ is indicative of the intention of the government.

SUB-CLASS OF WORKERS. 

The creation of this new sub-class of workers, who are not considered employees of the principal, also jeopardizes existing employment relationship between the principal and their current worker-employees, likewise the relationship with their trade unions. Today, these new sub-class of workers, made up of both local and migrant workers, are found in most workplaces, including even government-linked companies, whereby in some factories they currently make up about  50% of the total workforce. Trade unions are being weakened, and their bargaining powers for better rights and benefits for workers are slowly eroding by the increasing presence of workers who are not employees of the principal, and also by the loss of security of tenure created by short-term contracts.

‘Contractor for labour’ is actually outsourcing of labour which is very different from outsourcing of work. Outsourcing of work is when principal employer outsources some specified work or operations which are not their core operation, to another company who carries out the work for the principal using their own employees under their own control and supervision. For example, in several manufacturing companies, cleaning, turf/gardening, canteen and security services are examples of outsourced work. This outsourcing of work is legal, and the workers of those who are doing outsourced work are protected by the Employment Act.

Contrary to the principle that workers doing core operation work should be employees of the principal, this amendment to the Act now allows the ‘contractor for labour’ to supply workers to perform the core operation under the control and supervision of the principal’s supervisory staff and managers. The ‘contractor for labour’ merely collects the salary of the labour supplied and apportions a part to himself  and pays his workers, usually less than the workers who are under the direct employment of the principal, though they do the same work. The principle of equal pay for equal work is thus breached. 

The principal, who is considered not the employer of the workers supplied, absolves himself of all liabilities and employer’s obligations with regard these workers supplied by ‘contractor for labour’ who are working for the principal’s benefit,

EMPLOYMENT (EXEMPTION) ORDER 2012

The MOHR Minister, in an attempt to placate the MTUC, trade unions, civil society groups and workers issued an exemption order, effective April 1^st 2012, which, amongst others, stated:-

 “…Any person who enters into contract for service with a principal to supply employees required by the principal for the execution of the whole or any part of any work for the principal in any industry, establishment or undertakings other than the agriculture undertakings, is exempted from sections 31, 33A, 69 and 73 of the Act...”

However, the words used in the said exemption order, which by the way also did not include the amendment in section 2, which was the very amendment that gave statutory recognition to the ‘contractor for labour’ and its practices, only further affirms the contractor for labour and their practices. The exempted sections referred to in the said Order merely dealt with ancillary matters like registration of employees when supplied to principal and priority of debt. The exemption order also would deny access to justice for workers now being supplied by these ‘contractor for labour’ in all the exempted sectors.

MTUC and all groups that opposed the amendments were not appeased by this exemption order, and continue their objections to the ‘contractor for labour’.

PROTEST

We strongly object to the ‘contractor of labour’ system. All workers that work under the control and supervision of the principal must be the employees of the said principal not some third party. The Malaysian government’s action is in breach of article 8 of the Federal Constitution. In 1998, Malaysia also ratified the ILO Declarations on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work but this amendment is in  contravention of the said Declaration. Further, it also is in contravention of the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda which Malaysia has committed to.

The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), many trade unions and civil society groups, also opposed, and still oppose this amendment. The Malaysian Bar also recently passed unanimously a resolution on March 10^th 2012, amongst others, calling for the maintenance of existing 2-party employment relationships, and also that labour suppliers and/or contractors of labour should never be or continue to be employers of workers after they are supplied, accepted and start working at the workplaces of principals.

The contractor for labour and their practices should not be allowed in any sectors including the plantation and agricultural sector.

DEMAND

We, therefore, demand for the repeal of all amendments to the Employment Act 1955, in particular the amendments to section 2, 31, 33A, 69, 73 brought about by Employment (Amendment) Act 2012 [ACT A1419] relating to the ‘contractor for labour’ and their practices,  and pending repeal for an immediate stopping operation of the said amendments.

We call for the abolition of the contractor for labour and their practices and that all workers, currently supplied by these 3^rd party manpower/labour suppliers (contractor for labour) who are still not direct employees of the principal employer be immediately made employees of the said principal and be accorded same benefits and treatment as accorded to all other employees without discrimination, including the right to form/join trade unions or afford protection and entitlement to the benefits accorded through their respective Collective Agreements.

We call for the abolition of precarious employment, and for retention of a just 2-party employment relationship between principals and workers, and for the respect of worker and trade union rights.

Charles Hector

Pranom Somwong

Bruno Pereira

For and on behalf,

ALIRAN (Aliran Kesedaran Negara), Malaysia

Amalgamated Union of Employees in Government Clerical and Allied Services(AUEGCAS )
Amalgamated Union Employees Tenaga Nasional Berhad (AUETNB )

Anak Muda Sarawak (AMS)

Asian  Migrants Center (AMC)

Asia Monitor Resource Centre(AMRC)

Asia  Pacific  Forum on Women , Law and Development  (APWLD)

Asian Network for the Rights of Occupational and Environmental Victims (ANROEV)

Association for Community Development -ACD, Bangladesh

BASF Asia Pacific Network

BASF-PETRONAS Malaysia

Burma Campaign Malaysia (BCM)

Burma Partnership

Centre For Reflection And Action On Labour Rights (Cereal Guadalajara), Mexico

Center for Indonesian Migrant Workers-CIMW

Center for Migrant Advocacy, Philippines (CMA-Phils)

Centre des travailleurs et travailleurs immigrants / Immigrant Workers' Centre (Montréal, Québec)

Centre d'appui aux Philippines - Centre for Philippine Concerns (Montréal, Québec)

Christian Development Alternative (CDA)-Bangladesh

Clean Clothes Campaign

Communication Workers Union Victoria,Australia

Community Action Network (CAN), Malaysia

Democratic Party for a New Society (DPNS), Burma

Dignity International

Ecumenical Institute for Labor Education and Research (EILER), Philippines

Electronic Industry Employees Union Western Region Peninsular Malaysia (EIEUWRPM)

FAIR (Italy)

Families Against Corporate Killers, UK

Federation Independent of Trade Union (GSBI) Indonesia

FSPMI ( Federasi Serikat Pekerja Metal Indonesia)

Future In Our Hands, Norway

Garment and Allied Workers Union, India

Hsinchu Catholic Diocese Migrants and Immigrants Service Center (HMISC), Taiwan

Institute for Occupational Health and Safety Development (IOHSAD),

International Metalworkers' Federation (IMF)

International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF)

Jaringan Rakyat Tertindas (JERIT), Malaysia

Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Polyplastics Asia Pacific (KPPAP)

Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Selatan

Kesatuan Sekerja NUTEAIW Isuzu Hicom (M) Sdn Bhd, Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia

Kesatuan Industri Elektronik Wilayah Timur Semenanjung Malaysia

Konfederasi Serikat Nasional (National Union Confederation)[KSN] , Indonesia.

Labour Behind the Label, UK

Lal Zenda Coal Mines Majdoor Union (LZCMMU), India

Lembaga Informasi Perburuhan Sedane-Sedane Labour Resource Centre Bogor-Indonesia

LHRLA - Lawyers for Human Rights & Legal Aid (Pakistan)

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Malayan Nurses Union(MNU)

MTUC (Malaysian Trade Union Congress)

Migrant CARE, Indonesia

Migrant Forum in Asia(MFA)

Migrante International

National Domestic Workers Movement- AP Region

National Hazards Campaign of UK

NLD-LA (National League for Democracy-Liberated Areas), Malaysia

National Union of Banking Employees (NUBE)

National Union of Petroleum & Chemicals Industrial Workers (NUPCIW), Malaysia

National Union of Transport Equipment and Allied Industries Workers (NUTEAIW), Malaysia

Network of Action for Migrants in Malaysia (NAMM)

Occupational and Environmental Health Network of India (OEHNI)

Pakistan Rural Workers Social Welfare Organization (PRWSWO)

Paper & Paper Products Manufacturing Employees Union(Reg No 444), Malaysia

Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM)

Perak Women for Women Society (PWW)

Persatuan Masyarakat Selangor dan Wilayah Persekutuan (PERMAS)

Persatuan Sahabat Wanita, Selangor (PSWS)

PINAY - The Filipino Women's Organization in Quebec

Public Services International, Malaysian Affiliates National Coordinating Committee

Pusat Komunikasi Masyarakat (KOMAS)

RightOnCanada.ca, Canada

Sarawak Medical Services Union (SMSU)
Solidarity of Cavite Workers, Philippines

Tenaga National  Berhad Junior Officers Union (TNBJOU)

Tenaganita, Malaysia

Thai Committee for Refugees Foundation (TCR)

Thai Labour Campaign, Thailand

The Live And Livelihood Foundation, Bangladesh

The Women's Caucus (Southeast Asia Women's Caucus on ASEAN)

Think Centre – Singapore

United Filipinos In Hong Kong (UNIFIL-MIGRANTE-HK)

United Students Against Sweatshops,  US

University of Malaya General Staff Union (UMGSU)

WARBE Development Foundation, Bangladesh

Women's Legal and Human Rights Bureau, Inc.(WLB),Philippines

WOREC Nepal

Workers Assistance Center, Inc., Philippines

Workers Hub For Change (WH4C)

Yayasan LINTAS NUSA Batam-Indonesia

Yokohama Action Research (Japan)

Clean Clothes Campaign, the Netherlands