It
was a Sunday afternoon when I went to the Laowei law firm in Shenzhen. I hadn’t
expected them to call a meeting on a Sunday afternoon as my British preconception
had kicked in, that Sunday should be a day of rest, not a working day.
Nevertheless, when I entered the lawyers’ office at two o’clock on that Sunday afternoon,
there was already a group of workers from the Japanese-owned Li Guang factory, and
lawyer Meng from the Laowei law firm, in the meeting room. The motive for these
workers to come to Laowei for a discussion on a Sunday is their grievance about
their dismissal from work, a controversial case concerning whether their
dismissal is legal or not.
The
Li Guan workers’ strike took place in November 2011. They went on strike for a
simple reason: their salaries hadn’t gone up since 2002. However, their strike
was not successful. Its weakness was that it wasn’t a united action. The whole
factory has 4,000 workers, but the number of workers who agreed to strike was only
fifty-five. In the end, the actual number of workers who were on strike was
thirty-eight. It was only a half-day strike, and the manager finished the
strike efficiently by firing the workers’ representatives.
Former
workers from Li Guan told me that there were several reasons for the failure of
their strike. First and foremost, the number of people who went on strike was
too small, involving just one section of the whole factory’s workforce who
decided to go on strike. More importantly, this section is not involved in production
but in machinery maintenance, so even if this section stopped working, the
impact on the whole factory would not be as great as if a production line went
on strike. Secondly, the manager was very tactically astute in dividing the
workers. The culture of a Japanese factory is that they recruit the whole
family to work for them. Therefore, it’s not only the individual who works in
the factory, but also his wife, his cousin, and so on; in other words, the
kinship network is very strong in the Li Guan factory. When this group of
workers decided to go on strike, the manager started to persuade or threaten
members of their families who also worked in the factory. Thirdly, at the bottom
of their hearts those workers who went on strike didn’t want to leave the
factory. Most of them have worked for Li Guan for more than seven years and
their families also work there, so the reason that they stopped working was
purely to gain some more salary. They never thought of resigning from the
factory until the moment that they received the factory’s ultimate notice of
dismissal because ‘their action (strike) was illegal and causing disruption to
the factory’s production’. Therefore this group of workers decided to sue the
factory because the manager had ‘dismissed them from their jobs illegally’. The
lawsuit started in October 2012, and until now it has been blocked by the intermediate
court in Shenzhen, but those workers said: We want to pursue this case to the
Supreme People’s Court!
According
to the Chinese labour contract law of 2008, there is no specific regulation to
define whether a strike is legal. In other words, there is a void in the legal
system around workers’ strikes, not to mention the protection of workers’
representatives during a strike. Clause 39 of the labour contract law stipulates
only that ‘if the employee is violating the instructions of the employer, or guilty
of misconduct, or causing severe damage to the employer, the employer may dismiss
the employee’ (author’s own translation; original text at http://bj.9ask.cn/hetongjiufen/hetongfaquanwen/200909/231626_4.html).
Therefore the basis of the Li Guan workers’ case against their management is that
asking for a salary increase is not violating the instructions of the employer.
This has great implications: workers would have the right to negotiate over their
wages, as in the Li Guan workers’ case, they didn’t damage any machinery in the
factory, they merely stopped working as a means of negotiation. If the court found
in favour of the workers in the lawsuit, it could be interpreted as meaning that
the Chinese legal system recognised workers’ rights, as an equal party to their
employer. This is why those workers wish to pursue their case to the Supreme
court: because it might make a revolutionary change to the whole legal
understanding and recognition of workers’ rights; it might introduce some
fairness into the employee–employer relationship in China.
The
reason that this post is only ‘part one’ is because pursuing a lawsuit to the Supreme
Court takes a long time. I was very moved by the workers’ determination, and I obtained
their agreement for me to post this blog to people outside China, for them to
know that there is a small group of workers who are trying to use their own
case to change the Chinese labour system, not only from a legal perspective,
but more importantly to win wider recognition of workers’ rights. Workers told
me: ‘We are not afraid that the lawsuit is time-consuming, we only want the
court to give us a justified answer.’ Lawyer Meng from Laowei, who is in charge
of this case, also told me: ‘There will be many failed attempts to change the
labour law system, but we keep our hope, fight until the last moment!’ If they
don’t give up, why should we feel despondent about the labour situation in
China? I am hoping, in the future, that part two of the Li Guan workers’s blog will
bring more positive news; if not, at least those workers will have tried and
fought to the end!
No comments:
Post a Comment