Chronology of the case....

Due to constantly increasing quotas with no pay increase, compulsory overtime, poor quality of drinking water, verbal abuse from supervisors and daily body searches that at times amounted to sexual harassment, five workers met on 9 November 2003 to form a union at the factory. One of the organisers, Samai Kongtalei was dismissed by management due to a 'reduction in orders' but she was later rehired. On 24 November 2003, Ms. Kongtalei and another activist worker, Ms. Atchara Sophon were dismissed for submitting worker's demands to management. Nike monitors were also contacted by local organizations and asked to intervene on behalf of the workers, with positive results. After intervention by the National Human Rights Commission the dismissed workers were reinstated in February 2004. There were some improvements such as the company provided lockers, clean drinking water for workers and a food allowance of 5 Bath per day. Workers continue their efforts to form a union to address the other issues.

On 12 October 2004 the union was registered. When the union launched a campaign for new members and on 29 October 2004, three union executives were dismissed.

On November 23 CLIST contacted Nike, as well as the Fair Labour Association (FLA). Upon CLIST's request CCC also contacted Nike directly, and urged them to discuss the matter directly with CLIST and the fired workers. On the 26th a press release on the case was put out by CLIST. Meanwhile, the French CCC contacted Decathlon and confirmed that the company subcontracts with MSP.

The three dismissed union activists, together with CLIST, met with Nike's regional coordinator and a local FLA representative on 8 December to attempt to find a solution. After talks were held, CLIST reported that another member of the union executive, Mr. Pragun Boonluom, was being harassed by factory management. On 13 December a letter was sent to Nike's regional coordinator calling for an end to this harassment and for a swift resolution to this dispute.

A follow-up meeting was held on 14 December 2004 where a conciliator from the Welfare and Labour Protection Department of the Ministry of Labour Thailand , two company representatives, the three dismissed workers, CP Nonthong Union and Nike representatives were in attendance.

The conciliator stated that in his opinion, the company had clearly violated the right to organize, and attempted to destroy the labour union by dismissing the three workers because of their union activities. The owner, Mr. Peter Krautler, stated in a letter that he had no intention to reinstate the dismissed workers. Instead, he offered them money equaling ten months salary in an attempt to induce them to drop their demands. All three workers refused to accept this money and stated they would continue fighting for their rights. In the meantime, the mother of one of the union activists who was working at the same factory was also dismissed. This appeared to be a continuation of the company's intimidation tactics at the factory while talks with management and Nike were taking place.

CLIST wrote a letter to Nike on 15 December asking for a meeting to take place before 20 December 2004 with all parties concerned to present their information regarding the violations of Nike's Code of Conduct, and once more submitted their demands.

1. Reinstatement of the 3 dismissed workers with back wages from the first day of dismissal until their reinstatement.
2. The company must reinstate the mother of one of the committee members of the trade union, who was also working at the factory and whom the union members believe got fired because of her family connection.
3. The company must rescind warning letters issued to Mr. Pragun Boonluom, a union activist who was arbitrarily transferred from his sewing line to the cutting line without being given adequate training for his new duties. He was therefore unable to meet quotas and received a warning letter.
4. The company must stop all actions against the union and cease distributing misleading information about the union.
5. The company must allow the union to give leaflets and union membership application forms freely in the work place without intimidation or any form of interference to prevent workers from joining the union.

Nike reported on 15 December 2004 that they were discussing with factory management how follow-up the conciliator's recommendation that the workers would be rehired. In the subsequent email exchanges, the company indicated that the Austrian management strongly opposed this, and that Nike wanted to ultimately follow the governments ruling on the case. CLIST and CCC made it clear to Nike that, although the dismissed union members will file against their dismissal with the relevant authorities if the case is not resolved by the end of December, the legal framework as such has failed many times in the past to ensure that freedom of association is genuinely respected, and that though we expect Nike to work with the authorities, they can't and shouldn't wait for the authorities to solve the problem. Nike's code of conduct has been violated, so Nike has a responsibility to act directly itself.

On the 23d of December Nike informed CLIST that they'd requested the conciliator to identify appropriate next steps. The conciliator, after being contacted by CLIST, stated that there are two options, a higher amount of compensation can be discussed and negotiated, or, the workers can follow the standard legal procedure through the Labour relations committee.

This has been a great disappointment to the union's executive and to CLIST: as outlined above, the confidence in the existing legal procedures is very low as it offers loopholes to avoid genuine freedom of association, and it is likely that this process will take a long time and not result in rehiring of the workers, but rather in paying them off with an amount probably lower then what was on offer earlier. If at the end of the day workers get referred back to the existing legal procedures then what is the use of having a Code of Conduct? If this means that Nike's Code of Conduct has no relevance if the legal procedure is followed, then why bother having a code at all?

Furthermore, A request was made in the December 15 letter to set up a meeting with all parties concerned where also the results of Nike's own investigation could be shared, to which no reaction has been given.

The workers have filed against their dismissal on the 23d, but meanwhile strongly believe that Nike should share the results of their investigation and their conclusions, and implement its code without waiting for the outcome of the legal process. They have informed the FLA that they wish to file an official complaint with them as well.

Meanwhile Decathlon have done less, as they've only agreed to look into matters as part of its regular audit process, which was scheduled anyway for the end of December. No contact has been made by Decathlon with CLIST or with the union, despite repeated requests.