More than 2,500 workers protest planned end of $2 transport benefit

By Tom Whitfield

More than 2,500 garment workers protested outside Bright Flushing Co., Ltd. in Cambodia’s Takeo province on November 4, 2026, after the factory announced plans to withdraw an additional $2 monthly transportation allowance.

The case raises two employer questions: whether the $2 counts as an established employment condition, and whether management must consult worker representatives before removing it. Neither question had a formal answer, and the report gave no effective date for the withdrawal.

What changed at Bright Flushing?

Workers described the previous transportation-related package as $11.50 per month. It consisted of:

• A $7 allowance.
• An additional $2.50 under an existing arrangement with the Ministry of Labour and Vocational Training (MLVT).
• A further $2 from Bright Flushing, described by workers as an incentive to attract and retain workers.

A worker, who requested anonymity because of fear of workplace repercussions, told Kiripost: “They told us that they could no longer provide the $2 transportation allowance, even though they had been giving it to us for almost 10 years.” The worker said workers would otherwise cover more of their commuting costs from their own pockets.

According to that worker, management cited an inability to afford the payment amid declining profits. Bright Flushing could not be reached for comment, so no company explanation appeared in the report.

For affected workers, the immediate issue is a $2 monthly increase in commuting costs.

Can the company withdraw the benefit?

Seang Rithy, president of the Cambodian Youth Power Union Federation, said regular provision over an extended period could have made the allowance an established workplace practice or part of workers’ employment conditions. He called the withdrawal a unilateral reduction, cited Articles 10 and 66 of Cambodia’s Labour Law, and argued that more favorable employment conditions should be maintained.

Rithy said the change immediately reduced workers’ actual income, although the report gave no formal effective date. The ministry and courts had announced no interpretation of the legal provisions, leaving the status of the long-running payment unsettled.

Rithy called on factory management to reconsider the decision and resume bilateral negotiations with workers’ representatives, with the goal of peaceful resolution and stable labor relations.

No government body or court had yet decided whether Bright Flushing could remove the allowance.

What is the ministry doing?

Seng Mesa, an MLVT spokesperson, said: “The ministry officials were listening to workers’ concerns and demands, and will hear from all relevant parties to ensure workers’ rights were respected in accordance with the Labour Law.” The ministry was facilitating the case between Bright Flushing and the workers.

That is a procedural assurance, not evidence that the $2 payment has been restored or that the parties have reached an agreement. The report gave no decision date, settlement terms or response from Bright Flushing.

Mediation has begun, but no restored allowance or final agreement has been announced.

How significant is the wider labor dispute?

The Centre for Alliance of Labour and Human Rights recorded 26 strikes, protests and labor disputes involving 34,455 workers across Cambodia between January and September 2026. About 73 percent of the cases involved the garment and footwear sector, according to the alliance.

CENTRAL said economic grievances drove the protests, including disputes over wages, bonuses and legally mandated benefits. The data do not isolate allowance withdrawals as a separate cause, so the Bright Flushing protest does not by itself prove a broader increase in action over this particular benefit.

The national data place benefit disputes alongside wage and bonus grievances in the garment and footwear sector.

The next test is whether Bright Flushing restores the $2 allowance or reaches a negotiated resolution with worker representatives. Until MLVT announces an outcome, workers’ commuting costs and the legal status of the long-running benefit will remain unsettled.