Oil palm workers contest 'unfair' award
Hafiz YatimPublished: Jan 3, 2011 10:22 AM | Updated: Jan 3, 2011 11:37 AM
Some 45,000 oil palm workers are seeking a judicial review of portions of an award by the Industrial Court on Nov 26 last year, in their action against the Malaysian Agricultural Producers Association (Mapa).
Some 45,000 oil palm workers are seeking a judicial review of portions of an award by the Industrial Court on Nov 26 last year, in their action against the Malaysian Agricultural Producers Association (Mapa).
Employed by 142 companies including government-linked Sime Darby Bhd, they filed an application at the Kuala Lumpur High Court's Appellate and Special Powers division today.
The workers, represented by the National Union of Plantation Workers (NUPW), named Mapa and the Industrial Court as respondents.
Some 200 workers from Malacca and Negri Sembilan were in the court compound today to lend support. Among those affected are workers who earn a minimum monthly wage of RM350.
In NUPW's accompanying affidavit, general secretary G Sankaran said the issue centres on a collective agreement dated Aug 18, 2005 and which expired on June 30, 2008. It covers palm oil mill employees, harvesters, kangani (supervisors) and loaders.
Sankaran said the plaintiff had submitted a statement of claim to the Industrial Court in 2009 and that hearings were held between December 2009 and early last year. Various documents were submitted during the proceedings by the plaintiff and respondents.
In delivering its decision, the court said that the collective agreement should be reviewed every five years instead of three.
However, the workers said this favoured Mapa and dismissed portions of their statement of claim.
The court, in determining Article 2 of the agreement - ‘Effective date and duration’ - had decided that the dispute does not fall within the exception to Section 30(7) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967.
“The court recognises the difficulties involved .....as the union is seeking a fundamental change in the wage system already in existence for more than 30 years,” said court chairperson Ong Geok Lan.
“Section 14(2) of the Act makes it mandatory for a minimum period of three years for a collective agreement from the date of commencement. No maximum period is stipulated and therefore a collective agreement may continue to be in force for more than three years.
“If the award is for a period of three years from July 1, 2008 as proposed by the union, it would expire on June 30, 2011 which is less than a year away.
“If it is for a period of four years from July 1,2008, the award would expire on June 30, 2012 which is less than two years away. It will still be too short a period for all the member-companies to implement the new terms of the collective agreement.”
‘Decision wrongly made’
Ong said that, after considering the facts, the court took the view that it would be fair and equitable that the effective date of commencement of the award should be Nov 1, 2010 and that it should remain in force for a continuous period of three years.
“There will, therefore, be sufficient time for the parties to work out and implement the revised terms and feel the full effect before they meet to re-commence negotiations for a new collective agreement,” she said.
Sankaran (left) said he believes the decision was based on the wrong facts and was not made according to the law, as it did not consider the Industrial Relations Act 1967.
He said the court had failed to consider relevant facts, thus denying the workers a wage review for five years.
“The court failed to (consider that the) new collective agreement will only benefit employers and will result in their delaying negotiations...,” he said.
Met outside the High Court, Sankaran said the Industrial Court decision is against the spirit of 1Malaysia as the workers would not get their fair share of profits by the companies, despite the hike in palm oil prices.
Mapa’s member-companies have 113 oil mills between them and employ 44,500 workers.
Sankaran said Sime Darby, a government-linked corporation, is the largest of the Mapa employers and that it should have the workers’ welfare at heart.
Klang MP Charles Santiago, who was present this morning, said the ruling shows that the government does not look after the welfare of Malaysians, as low-income workers are being shortchanged.
Employed by 142 companies including government-linked Sime Darby Bhd, they filed an application at the Kuala Lumpur High Court's Appellate and Special Powers division today.
The workers, represented by the National Union of Plantation Workers (NUPW), named Mapa and the Industrial Court as respondents.
Some 200 workers from Malacca and Negri Sembilan were in the court compound today to lend support. Among those affected are workers who earn a minimum monthly wage of RM350.
In NUPW's accompanying affidavit, general secretary G Sankaran said the issue centres on a collective agreement dated Aug 18, 2005 and which expired on June 30, 2008. It covers palm oil mill employees, harvesters, kangani (supervisors) and loaders.Sankaran said the plaintiff had submitted a statement of claim to the Industrial Court in 2009 and that hearings were held between December 2009 and early last year. Various documents were submitted during the proceedings by the plaintiff and respondents.
In delivering its decision, the court said that the collective agreement should be reviewed every five years instead of three.
However, the workers said this favoured Mapa and dismissed portions of their statement of claim.
The court, in determining Article 2 of the agreement - ‘Effective date and duration’ - had decided that the dispute does not fall within the exception to Section 30(7) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967.
“The court recognises the difficulties involved .....as the union is seeking a fundamental change in the wage system already in existence for more than 30 years,” said court chairperson Ong Geok Lan.
“Section 14(2) of the Act makes it mandatory for a minimum period of three years for a collective agreement from the date of commencement. No maximum period is stipulated and therefore a collective agreement may continue to be in force for more than three years.“If the award is for a period of three years from July 1, 2008 as proposed by the union, it would expire on June 30, 2011 which is less than a year away.
“If it is for a period of four years from July 1,2008, the award would expire on June 30, 2012 which is less than two years away. It will still be too short a period for all the member-companies to implement the new terms of the collective agreement.”
‘Decision wrongly made’
Ong said that, after considering the facts, the court took the view that it would be fair and equitable that the effective date of commencement of the award should be Nov 1, 2010 and that it should remain in force for a continuous period of three years.
“There will, therefore, be sufficient time for the parties to work out and implement the revised terms and feel the full effect before they meet to re-commence negotiations for a new collective agreement,” she said.
Sankaran (left) said he believes the decision was based on the wrong facts and was not made according to the law, as it did not consider the Industrial Relations Act 1967.He said the court had failed to consider relevant facts, thus denying the workers a wage review for five years.
“The court failed to (consider that the) new collective agreement will only benefit employers and will result in their delaying negotiations...,” he said.
Met outside the High Court, Sankaran said the Industrial Court decision is against the spirit of 1Malaysia as the workers would not get their fair share of profits by the companies, despite the hike in palm oil prices.
Mapa’s member-companies have 113 oil mills between them and employ 44,500 workers.
Sankaran said Sime Darby, a government-linked corporation, is the largest of the Mapa employers and that it should have the workers’ welfare at heart.
Klang MP Charles Santiago, who was present this morning, said the ruling shows that the government does not look after the welfare of Malaysians, as low-income workers are being shortchanged.
View Comments0