Industrial Court - Minister has misunderstood his role
J SolomonPublished: Jan 26, 2010 4:56 PM | Updated: Jan 26, 2010 5:00 PM
We refer to the Malaysiakini report HR Ministry denies it supports union busting.
The Human Resources Ministry's secretary-general, in response to the union-busting fiasco, is regrettable and further lends credence to the claim that the ministry is working hand-in-glove with the employers to destroy unions and usurp the rights of workers in this country.
The statement by the ministry's secretary-general that the ministry considers the facts and merits of a dispute before deciding whether it needs to be sent for arbitration by the industrial court clearly shows that the ministry has taken the law into its own hands to decide on the merits of a case.
This is a blatant disregard to the Industrial Relations Act 1967 and the established precedents set by the superior courts of this country. It is well-established that the Industrial Court is the only body that possess the powers to decide on the facts and merits of cases.
In this regard, the minister must refer a case to the Industrial Court when there are serious disputes of facts and laws involved.
The statement by the ministry's secretary-general thus reveals that the minister has misunderstood his role in this dispute-resolution machinery and his senior officials have aggravated the problem at hand by further misdirecting him (deliberately?) of his powers when making such decisions.
The statement by the ministry's secretary-general thus begs the question as to why senior officials in the ministry have advised the minister to not refer the three cases from the National Union of Bank Employees (Nube) to the Industrial Court?
In all three cases, the facts clearly disclose that the complaints were neither frivolous nor vexatious and the cases involved a serious question of law which the lndustrial Court, being the only competent body, should decide upon.
The reason provided by the ministry's secretary-general (which is not found in the letter carrying the minister's decision) clearly shows that the ministry and its officials have arbitrarily taken it upon themselves to decide on the merits of the case.
Apart from these three cases, there was an earlier decision of the ministry to not refer even a collective agreement dispute between the union and AmBank (M) Berhad to the Industrial Court. The minister's decision is currently pending review by the High Court. Why can’t even a CA not be referred?
This inevitably leads to the conclusion that the ministry and its officials are deliberately frustrating the dispute-resolution machinery that has been provided by Parliament to unions and workers to safeguard their interests and livelihoods.
These decisions go against the intent and purpose of the lndustrial Relations Act and the ministry has clearly lost sight of the fact that a social beneficent legislation like the IRA 1967 should be used to protect the unions and workers - not frustrate their legitimate rights.
It is under such circumstances that we can only be led to one conclusion - that the ministry practices union-busting and is frustrating the workers’ attempts to pursue their legitimate complaints/grievances via the Industrial Relations Department.
We urge the Human Resources Ministry to apprise itself of its role in the industrial relations process apart from educating its officials on the definition of a ‘trade dispute’ as well the purport and intent of Section 13 of the lndustrial Relations Act 1967.
The writer is general-secretary, Nube.
The Human Resources Ministry's secretary-general, in response to the union-busting fiasco, is regrettable and further lends credence to the claim that the ministry is working hand-in-glove with the employers to destroy unions and usurp the rights of workers in this country.
The statement by the ministry's secretary-general that the ministry considers the facts and merits of a dispute before deciding whether it needs to be sent for arbitration by the industrial court clearly shows that the ministry has taken the law into its own hands to decide on the merits of a case.
This is a blatant disregard to the Industrial Relations Act 1967 and the established precedents set by the superior courts of this country. It is well-established that the Industrial Court is the only body that possess the powers to decide on the facts and merits of cases.
In this regard, the minister must refer a case to the Industrial Court when there are serious disputes of facts and laws involved.
The statement by the ministry's secretary-general thus reveals that the minister has misunderstood his role in this dispute-resolution machinery and his senior officials have aggravated the problem at hand by further misdirecting him (deliberately?) of his powers when making such decisions.
The statement by the ministry's secretary-general thus begs the question as to why senior officials in the ministry have advised the minister to not refer the three cases from the National Union of Bank Employees (Nube) to the Industrial Court?
In all three cases, the facts clearly disclose that the complaints were neither frivolous nor vexatious and the cases involved a serious question of law which the lndustrial Court, being the only competent body, should decide upon.
The reason provided by the ministry's secretary-general (which is not found in the letter carrying the minister's decision) clearly shows that the ministry and its officials have arbitrarily taken it upon themselves to decide on the merits of the case.
Apart from these three cases, there was an earlier decision of the ministry to not refer even a collective agreement dispute between the union and AmBank (M) Berhad to the Industrial Court. The minister's decision is currently pending review by the High Court. Why can’t even a CA not be referred?
This inevitably leads to the conclusion that the ministry and its officials are deliberately frustrating the dispute-resolution machinery that has been provided by Parliament to unions and workers to safeguard their interests and livelihoods.
These decisions go against the intent and purpose of the lndustrial Relations Act and the ministry has clearly lost sight of the fact that a social beneficent legislation like the IRA 1967 should be used to protect the unions and workers - not frustrate their legitimate rights.
It is under such circumstances that we can only be led to one conclusion - that the ministry practices union-busting and is frustrating the workers’ attempts to pursue their legitimate complaints/grievances via the Industrial Relations Department.
We urge the Human Resources Ministry to apprise itself of its role in the industrial relations process apart from educating its officials on the definition of a ‘trade dispute’ as well the purport and intent of Section 13 of the lndustrial Relations Act 1967.
The writer is general-secretary, Nube.
View Comments0