Myanmar has experienced the rapid changes including legislations. In relation to the
legal changes, there are several serious criticisms. First one is the process of promulgation.
The laws are introduced without social consensus or open discussion. The laws have been
drafted by the government and passed by the parliament secretly. Public society cannot
access the contents of the laws until the government officially releases them. People who Table. Industrial Dispute Settlement Mechanismmay be influenced by the changes do not have a chance to be involved to the process.
Even the parliament members do not have enough time to review the drafts, which makes
them rubber stampers for the new laws.
This weak formation process leads to creating another problem: the new law is promulgated
without correcting controversies or weaknesses, which may not reflect actual situations
and even hamper the objectives of laws. The Labour Organisation Law provides a
good example: making it a difficult process to form the industrial level resulting in factorylevel
small unions such as requiring permission for strikes, which forces workers to organise
“demonstrations” rather than legally protected strikes. In these cases, the law may not
have effect enough to secure the workers’ rights to organise and to improve their working
conditions collectively.
The last but most important issue is implementation of the laws. Let alone violation of
labour rights at the workplaces, employers frequently disregard of the reinstatement orders
from arbitration bodies and council, which do not have effective penalties (Pathak, 2013).
Even with these problems, workers in Myanmar have been actively utilizing the new
laws and built labour movements. It is reported that there are more than 670 labour organisations
with 200,000 workers registered under the law in less than two-year legalization of
trade unions (Wilson, 2013). They have raised their voices and demanded their shares as
workers and as members of society, which were suppressed under the 50-year dictatorship.
The experiences of Myanmar may be a case to show how laws can stimulate and faComposition
Issues Roles Working
duration
workplace
coordinating
committee
4 members
- 2 from employer
- 2 from union or
elected by workers
individual /
collective dispute
- settling grievances
- negotiating/concluding
collective agreement
5 days for
grievance
Township
Conciliation
Body
11 members
- 3 from government
- 3 from employers
- 3 from unions
- 2 from public interests
individual /
collective dispute
- determining the types
of disputes (individual/
collective)
- conciliating the issues
- concluding agreement
if the case settled
3 days
Regional/
State
Arbitration
Body
11 members
- 3 from government
- 3 from employers
- 3 from unions
- 2 from public interests
collective dispute
- making a decision on
the case
7 days
Arbitration
Council
15 members (experts)
- 5 from government
- 5 from employers
- 5 from unions
- hearing by 3 members
on the issues
- forming a tribunal
Tribunal - having a trial
- making a decision
- 7 days
(essential
service sectors)
- 14 days for
nonessential
service sector
Table. Industrial Dispute Settlement Mechanism
6
cilitate social changes when it is combined with active agents