Five members of the Coalition of Cambodian Apparel Workers Union were summoned to Phnom Penh Municipal Court on Thursday to be questioned for their involvement in a strike that owners of the New Orient Garment Factory say caused the factory to lose money, union officials said Thursday.
Judge Ham Meng Se allowed the five defendants to return home to await another summons because the plaintiff lacked the appropriate documentation to try the case, CCAWDU President Chhorn Sokha said.
The factory sued six CCAWDU members for conducting a strike last November after workers reached an agreement with the New Orient Garment Factory, the factory’s lawyer, David Chanaiwa, said. The strike led to the workers’ eventual termination, Chhorn Sokha said.
Chanaiwa said that he sent a petition to municipal court to question six people about how their actions contributed to the factory’s loss of profits.
Only five workers appeared in court, since one of the laborers was wrongly identified, Chhorn Sokha said.
The factory demanded that each union member pay the factory $4,000 worth of compensation, for a sum comparable to what the factory lost during the November strike, Chanaiwa said.
“When a strike happens, the factory loses money that no one is responsible for. The union federation should be responsible for the losses if the strike is illegal,” Chanaiwa said. He accused the union of inciting the workers to strike so that they could demand money from the factory.
Chhorn Sokha said her union members should not be summoned to court for holding strikes. She regarded the case as another example of the intimidation factories use to prevent workers from demanding their rights.
“We held the strike because the factory doesn’t respect the labor law. The factory forced the workers to strike,” Chhorn Sokha said. She added that workers would prefer not to strike, but factories often lower worker salaries and withhold bonuses.
“The court never punishes factories when they don’t respect the labor law. The court intervenes in cases only when factories sue unions,” Chhorn Sokha complained.
She argued that the strike was legal and said she sent a letter to inform all relevant ministries that the factory’s conditions were what incited the strike.
“The labor code prohibits this kind of discrimination, but the ministry refuses to enforce the law,” said Jason Judd of the American Center for International Labor Solidarity.
Hou Vudthy, deputy director of the Department of Labor and Vocational Training at the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labor, said that both the union and the factory were entitled to sue each other.
A rash of subpoenas have broken out within the past year, calling workers into court for questioning over their participation in strikes and demonstrations.
Chhorn Sokha failed to appear before a judge in December after being summoned to respond to allegations of defamation. She was accused of insulting the president of the Sino Nature Garment Factory, a charge she denied. She said she did not go to court because she feared being unjustifiably arrested as union members allegedly were earlier this year.
