Friday, March 23, 2012

Gaji Minima adalah HAK pekerja - bukan satu 'hadiah' dari PM dan kerajaan

India sudah ada gaji minima sejak awal 50an - dan banyak lagi negara termasuk negara jiran, Thailand, sudah lama ada gaji minima - PM dan Kerajaan Malaysia gagal dalam isu ini - dan kini PM seolah-olah memberikan 'hadiah' atau 'bonus' kepada pekerja - di mana ianya hanyak tindakan membetulkan kesilapan yang lama sudah wujud yang telah membawa ketidakadilan kepada kaum pekerja begitu lama...MTUC dan pekerja Malaysia sudah bertahun-tahun berjuang untuk 'gaji minima'...

The Malaysian Trades Union Congress, an umbrella for private sector unions, has threatened a nationwide strike if its request for a minimum monthly wage is ignored. It had earlier proposed that the minimum wage be fixed in the range of 600-1,200 ringgit ($157 to $316). - Inter-Press Services, 11/5/2000, RIGHTS-MALAYSIA: MINIMUM WAGE ROW SPLITS WORKERS, GOV'T
 
PM dijangka umum gaji minimum Mei ini
Wartawan Sinar Harian
21 Mac 2012
Najib Tun Razak
KUALA LUMPUR - Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Razak dijangka akan mengumumkan kadar gaji minimum, yang dinanti-nantikan sejak tahun lalu, pada majlis sambutan Hari Pekerja Mei ini.

"Nantilah, saya umum... tengok Hari Pekerja," kata beliau hari ini.

Dalam pada itu, Bernama melaporkan, takrif berbeza diberikan oleh pihak majikan dan pekerja mengenai apa yang dimaksudkan dengan gaji minimum.
Pihak majikan mentakrifkannya gaji bulanan yang termasuk gaji pokok, elaun sara hidup (COLA) dan bayaran kerja lebih masa.

Bagaimanapun, interpretasi pihak pekerja pula mengenai gaji minumum bermakna hanya gaji asas tidak termasuk elaun-elaun lain yang diterima.

Pada pandangan pihak majikan, sekiranya gaji minimum ialah RM1,000, dengan itu gaji yang dibawa pulang oleh pekerja sepatutnya RM1,000, ditolak caruman Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja (KWSP) dan Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial (Perkeso), manakala pekerja menjangkakan membawa pulang gaji bersih sekurang-kurangnya RM1,300, oleh kerana RM300 itu adalah elaun termasuk bayaran lebih masa jika ada.
Presiden Kongres Kesatuan Sekerja Malaysia (MTUC), Khalid Atan, memberitahu Bernama hari ini, sangatlah mustahak kerajaan memberi penjelasan mengenai perkara ini apabila mengumumkan dasar berkenaan nanti.

Khalid berkata, masih lagi terdapat banyak salah faham mengenai isu gaji minimum ini.

Khalid berharap kerajaan akan meluluskan minimum RM1,000 dengan bayaran COLA RM300.

Beliau berkata dasar berkenaan tidak akan membabitkan pekerja sedia ada yang sudahpun memperoleh pendapatan melebihi jumlah tersebut, Ia akan hanya membabitkan pekerja baru dan mereka yang mendapat gaji kurang daripada gaji minimum yang dicadangkan.

MTUC sudah memperjuangkan gaji asas ini sejak 1990.

Sementara itu naib presiden MTUC, A. Balasubramaniam berkata gaji minimum pengawal keselamatan masih lagi belum dipatuhi sepenuhnya oleh industri berkenaan.

Walaupun kerajaan telah meluluskan paras gaji minimum mereka mulai 15 Februari tahun lepas antara RM500 ke RM700 bergantung pada lokasi, golongan pekerja berkenaan masih lagi belum dibayar jumlah berkenaan, katanya.

Beliau menggesa Jabatan Tenaga Kerja meningkatkan penguatkuasaan bagi memastikan pengawal keselamatan dibayar gaji sepatutnya oleh pihak majikan mereka. - Bernama  - Sinar Harian, 21/3/2012, PM dijangka umum gaji minimum Mei ini

MTUC dakwa kementerian rosakkan kesatuan sekerja (Harakah Daily - 22/3/2012)

Jangan kita silap menyatakan hanya Menteri ini atau Kemernterian ini yang merosakkan kesatuan sekerja - yang bersalah adalah kerajaan Malaysia - iaitu kerajaan Barisan Nasional yang kini dipimpin PM Najib. Kadang-kadang kita silap menyatakan bahawa yang bertanggungjawab adalah hanya PM - tetapi ini juga salah, kerana yang bertanggungjawab adalah semua dalam kabinet, semua MP/ADUN dan juga semua parti komponen BN - tambahan pula bila mereka secara terbuka tidak menyatakan bahawa mereka tidak bersetuju, atau melakukan apa perlu untuk menunjukkan kepada rakyat bahawa mereka tidak bersetuju.

Adakah kamu boleh memberitahu rakyat bahawa kamu tidak bersetuju dengan tindakan kerajaan mengenai sesuatu polisi, undang-undang atau tindakan - sememangnya boleh tetapi mesti BERANI, di mana dalam BN, kita ada beberapa orang MP atau Menteri yang telah berbuat demikian.

MTUC dakwa kementerian rosakkan kesatuan sekerja

Salmiyah Harun, 22 Mac 2012
KUALA LUMPUR, 22 Mac: Kongres Kesatuan Sekerja Malaysia (MTUC) mendakwa Kementerian Sumber Manusia antara yang bertanggungjawab merosakkan kesatuan sekerja di dalam sesebuah organisasi sehingga menimbulkan pelbagai masalah.

Presiden MTUC, Mohd Khalid Atan berkata, pelbagai masalah sedang menyelubungi pekerja termasuk mereka dihalang untuk berkesatuan.

"Apa sistem perundangan yang ada dalam negara ini? Semua ini perbuatanKementerian Sumber manusia," katanya ketika ditemui di lobi Parlimen.

Ekoran itu, MTUC hilang kepercayaan kepada Menteri Sumber Manusia kerana dia seolah-olah hendak menghapuskan pekerja yang berkesatuan.

"Apabila pekerja dihalang berkesatuan, bukan sahaja merosakkan hubungan pekerja dengan majikan bahkan akan mengundang kemerosotan mutu kerja," kata beliau.

Jelasnya, pekerja yang tidak berkesatuan khususnya dalam sebuah organisasi besar seperti syarikat GLC sudah tentu tiada siapa yang akan membela mereka sekiranya majikan bertindak sewenang-wenangnya terhadap pekerja.

"Kalau kita tengok masalah ini juga berlaku dalam MAS di mana MAS juga mempunya kesatuan dalam masa yang sama ada pula kesatuan lain seolah-olah majikan hendak melaga-lagakan antara pekerja," katanya.

Ini juga katanya terjadi kepada pekerja WestPorts Sdn Bhd ternyata majikannya adalah anti pekerja.

Khalid berkata, kerajaan yang tidak serius terhadap masalah pekerja kerana tidak ada sebarang pindaan terhadap undang supaya lebih adil kepada pekerja dan majikan.

"Malangnya, kerajaan membiarkan majikan yang ada hari ini menyusahkan, sistem penubuhan kesatuan dalam mana-mana syarikat yang memihak kepada mereka, benar pula tubuh union dalam syarikatnya," ujarnya.

Keadaan itu juga, katanya berlaku di dalam syarikat British Tobacco yang di mana kesatuan BATIU yang mewakili 40 tahun pekerja di situ turut dipertikaikan majikannya akhirnya kesatuan itu mati begitu sahaja.

"Inilah masalah besar yang sedang dihadapi oleh kesatuan-kesatuan di dalam sebuah syarikat besar yang mempunyai ribuan pekerja, inilah kerisauan yang menghantui pekerja," jelasnya. - Harakah Daily, 22/3/2012, MTUC dakwa kementerian rosakkan kesatuan sekerja

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Himpunan Pekerja pada 30 Mac, 3 Petang - MTUC - hari Jumaat, mengapa bukan Sabtu?

Mengapa adakan protes ini pada hari Jumaat(30 Mac) - lebih baik pada hari Sabtu(31 Mac) atau hari Ahad supaya lebih ramai dapat turun padang pada hari yang bukan hari kerja? Bukan senang dapat cuti atau keluar protes pada hari Jumaat - adakah MTUC hanya mahu pekerja penuh masa 'union' yang hadhir - lebih praktikal apa-apa protes atu Himpunan Pekerja di Malaysia diadakan pada hari Sabtu, Ahad atau Cuti Umum. Pasti juga ramai pekerja yang mahu datang dari luar bandar - dan protes hari Jumaat adalah tidak praktikal - dan kalau diteruskan akan kita dapat lagi bilangan kecil sahaja...bukan beribu-ribu, puluhan atau ratusan ribu...
 
Himpunan MTUC protes menteri 30 Mac
Wartawan Sinar Harian
7 Mac 2012
Dr S. Subramaniam
SHAH ALAM - Kongres Kesatuan Sekerja Malaysia (MTUC) akan mengadakan Himpunan Pekerja pada 30 Mac ini membantah pendirian Kementerian Sumber Manusia dalam beberapa isu berkaitan dengan Akta Kerja dan masa depan kesatuan sekerja.

Himpunan Pekerja bagi melahirkan pendirian protes itu akan diadakan di pekarangan Kementerian Sumber Manusia di Putrajaya.
Tarikh mengadakan perhimpunan itu diputuskan pada mesyuarat jawatankuasa tindakan yang dipengerusikan oleh Awang Ibrahim, petang semalam.

Awang, yang juga Setiausaha Kewangan MTUC berkata, Himpunan Pekerja itu selaras dengan ketetapan sudah hilang keyakinan dengan kepimpinan Menteri Sumber Manusia, Datuk Seri Dr S. Subarmaniam, yang dicapai oleh badan induk kesatuan sekerja itu dua minggu lalu, berikutan siri isu berkaitan dengan penubuhan kesatuan sekerja dalaman di beberapa syarikat berkaitan kerajaan dan pindaan Akta Kerja yang diluluskan Parlimen tahun lalu.

"Kami tidak menamakan piket, tetapi beri nama Himpunan Pekerja, bertujuan membantah tindak tanduk Kementerian Sumber Manusia dan Menteri Sumber Manusia dalam isu-isu seperti pindaan Akta Kerja, penubuhan kesatuan sekerja dalaman dan beberapa isu lain," kata beliau ketika dihubungi.

Awang berkata perhimpunan itu, yang akan disertai oleh ahli dan penyokong MTUC dari seluruh negara, akan diadakan jam 3 petang.

Baru-baru ini, Presiden MTUC Khalid Atan memberitahu Sinar Harian bahawa pihaknya mengambil pendirian hilang kepercayaan ke atas kepimpinan Dr Subramaniam sebagai Menteri Sumber Manusia berikutan sikap beliau yang didakwa tidak menunjukkan keseriusan dalam menyelesaikan beberapa perkara berkaitan dengan pekerja-pekerja negara ini.

Sehubungan itu kata beliau, MTUC akan menulis surat kepada Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak bagi mendapatkan kerjasama beliau dan campur tangan menyelesaikan perkara-perkara berbangkit dengan segera agar ia tidak memburukkan kepentingan rakyat khususnya pekerja negara ini.

Semalam, Dr Subramaniam selepas mempengerusikan mesyuarat Majlis Penasihat Buruh Kebangsaaan mengumumkan pengecualian semua sektor selain perladangan daripada pemakaian peruntukan berkaitan kontraktor tenaga kerja, salah satu peruntukan baru dalam Akta Kerja yang dipinda tahun lalu.

Ia susulan protes dan siri piket MTUC sejak akhir tahun lalu.

"Perkara ini akan dilaksanakan menerusi Perintah Pengecualian mengikut Seksyen 2B Akta Kerja 1955 yang mana ia merupakan cadangan daripada pihak MTUC," katanya

Dr Subramaniam berkata, keputusan itu diambil bagi menyelesaikan kemelut berikutan bantahan MTUC terhadap pindaan melibatkan Rang Undang-Undang Kerja (Pindaan) 2011. Ia diluluskan Parlimen pada Disember 2011.

Menjawab perubahan pendirian Kementerian Sumber Manusia itu, Awang berkata:

"Jawatankuasa Tindakan membuat keputusan berdasarkan apa yang telah diputuskan sebelum ini, dalam mesyuarat Majlis Am. Bermakna tindakan protes terhadap Menteri Sumber Manusia dan Kementerian Sumbe Manusia akan diadakan 30 Mac ini."

"Melainkan Majlis Am atau Jawatankuasa Eksekutif mahu mengubah pendirian ini. Itu diserahkan kepada Majlis Am dan Jawatankuasa Eksekutif," katanya.

Dalam pada itu, Setiausaha Agung MTUC Abdul Halim Mansor berkata, beliau belum laporan daripada Jawatankuasa Tindakan.

"Jawatankuasa Tindakan akan menyerahkan laporan dan kami akan mengambil kira perkembangan terbaru termasuk pengumuman Menteri Sumber Manusia semalam dalam menentukan tindakan-tindakan susulan," katanya lagi. Sinar Harian, 7/3/2012, Himpunan MTUC protes menteri 30 Mac

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Restricting employment amendments to certain sectors not enough - No to 'outsourced workers' at workplaces

Restricting employment amendments to certain sectors not enough - No to 'outsourced workers' at workplaces

'Contractor for Labour' - well, the government introduced the amendment to the Employment Act to 'introduce' the 'contractor for labour' only in 2010 (then again 2011), and it was passed on 22/12/2011 - BUT the TRUTH is that they have already existed in practice since about 2005, allowed and permitted by the Government of Malaysia.... and they have been supplying workers to factories and other workplaces, and these workers that they supply has not been treated as employees of the 'principal or owner of the workplace', rightfully the true Employer - the term that many workers give these workers are 'OUTSOURCED WORKERS' or contractor's workers - and they are not employees of the workplace, and cannot become or join unions at the workplace... (In some factories in Malaysia, these 'outsourced workers' (pekerja outsourced) supplied by 3rd parties is now about 50% or more of the total workforce in the factories...effectively weakening unions and their bargaining powers)

NO GOOD IF THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THAT THE RECENT AMENDMENT WILL ONLY APPLY TO THE PLANTATION OR AGRICULTURAL SECTOR - THIS IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

What we need is:-

1) Immediately stop the practice of using workers of 3rd parties at the workplace - NO MORE 'Outsourced Workers' - All workers at the workplace must be employees of the principal or owner of the workplace, and as such is able to join unions and benefit from existing CAs. All these 'outsourced workers' and/or 3rd party supplied workers must be immediately made into worker-employees of the principals or owners of the workplaces.

2) The government must immediately withdraw and repeal the provisions added to the Employment Act vide the recent amendments. Remember, while one objection is about the 'contractors for labour', there are many other objections to the new amendments, including but not limited to objections to the amendment that will allow employers to pay workers overtime, work on rest day, etc done for a particular month to delay payment by a wage period (overtime in January now can be paid by employer not when they pay January salary - but only when they pay worker's February salary, and the objection to the sexual harassment provisions (see Why 'Sexual Harassment' proposed amendments to Employment Act must be withdrawn?....JAG :- Employment Act amendments piecemeal and unjust)

 

Amendments apply only to plantation and agricultural sectors (Updated)

PUTRAJAYA (March 6, 2012): In a move to placate angry trade unions, the government has decided the contentious “contractor for labour” amendment in the Employment Act (EA) 1955 will now only apply to the plantation and agricultural sector.

Human Resource Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam announced today all other sectors will be exempted from the amendments which were passed in the Dewan Rakyat last year. 

Thus the sections 31, 33(a), 69 and 73 under the EA on the contractor for labour, he said, will only apply to plantation and agriculture workers.

He said the decision was made according to Section 2 of the Act which gives power to the minister to exempt any sectors from following an amendment.

Subramaniam made the announcement after chairing the National labour Advisory Council meeting at his ministry here today.

“This is a win-win situation where we give one sector that wants the amendment and we exempt all other sectors that do not want the amendments.

“The Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC) has agreed to this at the meeting and from now I hope the issues and problems surrounding the contractor for labour (clause) will be resolved and erased,” Subramaniam said.

MTUC had objected to and organised several pickets against the amendments to the EA, especially on the clause for contractor for labour.

The union contends that this clause would alter employer-employee relationship in situations where outsourced workers supplied by ‘contractors of labour’ are used.

There are concerns that without a clear cut provision in the EA on the clause, workers’ rights may be jeopadised as it is not clear who the real employer is – the contractor of labour (company supplying the workers to a particular party), or the company where the workers are sent to?

Another worry is that in the event of any contravention of the EA, it will be difficult to charge the contractor for labour for the offence and the real culprit who ill-treats the worker will escape punishment, as they are not deemed to be his employer.

Subramaniam reiterated that the National Union of Plantation Workers (NUPW) had requested the government to implement the contractor for labour policy in order to protect their rights and welfare.

It was reported that NUPW had, in 1997, suggested at the International Labour Organisation-Asia Pacific Regional seminar in New Delhi that contractors be licensed and registered.

However, MTUC had objected to this as it would regard the contractor rather than the factory owner as the employer. 

Its concern was that this may result in factory owners washing their hands off their traditional responsibility to the workers, and the workers’ right to unionise would be undermined.

Subrmaniam had reportedly said the original term “sub-contractor for labour” was amended to “contractor for labour” to widen the definition of the word, and that it was not a new idea. - The Sun Daily, 6/3/2012, Amendments apply only to plantation and agricultural sectors (Updated)

Friday, March 2, 2012

TNBJOU - masalah ketidakpatuhan CA - Notis Pertikaian Perusahaan dikeluarkan

TNBJOU melakukan perkara baik dengan berkongsi dengan semua masalah yang mereka menghadapi dengan pihak majikan, di mana ini bukan sahaja boleh menambahkan kesedaran dan pengetahuan pekerja dan union lain, tetapi juga akan menarik solidariti dan sokongan pekerja dan union lain serta orang ramai yang prihatin, untuk perjuangan hak pekerja. Contoh ini harus diikuti pekerja/union lain di mana  dengan ini kekuatan dan solidariti pekerja di Malaysia akan bertambah kuat.

 

Harap TNBJOU terus memberikan 'update' supaya kita semua tahu sentiasa perkembangan dan kesudahan perjuangan ini. Harap TNBJOU akan berjaya dalam perjuangan mereka ini.

 

Perbincangan 

Outsourcing - persoalan adalah sama ada ini betul-betul 'outsourcing' di mana syarikat akan 'outsourcing' sesuatu aspek kerja kepada syarikat/entiti lain, di mana syarikat/entiti itu akan melakukan kerja tersebut di bawah kawalan sepenuh syarikat/entiti tersebut dengan pekerja mereka sendiri biasanya atau sewajarnya di premis syarikat/entiti tersebut. Arahan dan kawalan sepenuh pekerja adalah oleh syarikat/entiti tersebut bukan TNB. - ini adalah Outsourcing Kerja (Outsourcing of Work).

 

Sebaliknya, jika apa yang di lakukan oleh TNB adalah hanya mengunakan pekerja yang di bekalkan oleh syarikat/entiti lain, di mana pekerja itu kerja dibawah kawalan dan arahan TNB mengunakan premis dan/atau alatan TNB, tanpa menjadi employee TNB sendiri, ini adalah sebenarnya isu 'contractor for labour' tak kira sama ada syarikat/entiti itu memakai gelaran 'outsourcing agent', manpower/labour supplier, employment agency atau perkara lain. Inilah intipati protest MTUC, pekerja, union lain, dan mereka yang prihatin di mana inilah yang cuba dihalalkan oleh kerajaan Malaysia dengan pindaan kepada Akta Kerja 1955 baru-baru ini. 

 

Tindakan ini salah kerana apa yang patut adalah TNB harus mengambil semua pekerja ini sebagai pekerja(employee) TNB sendiri. Tindakan tidak mengambil pekerja sebagai employee TNB sendiri akan secara otomatis menghakis kuasa union dan pekerja TNB. Kerisauan besar adalah kini semua majikan sebenar (principal atau pemilik tempat kerja) akan cuba melarikan diri daripada obligasi selaku majikan, dan pada masa yang sama akan melemahkan dan menghancurkan kuasa union sendiri dan pekerja TNB sendiri. 

 

Kini kerana sudah ada pengambilan pekerja untuk jangka pendek melalui kontrak jangka tetap (satu lagi isu yang harus kita bantah kerana kita mahu kembalikan hak kerja tetap sehingga bersara), tak ada sebab mengapa TNB harus mengambil dan mengunakan pekerja pihak lain selain daripada sebab mahu mengelakkan employment relationship, serta obligasi majikan berkenaan hak pekerja dan union, dan untuk tujuan melemahkan menghancurkan union dan kuasa pekerja.

 

NOTIS PERTIKAIAN PERUSAHAAN (Trade Disputes)


NOTIS PERTIKAIAN PERUSAHAAN (Trades Disputes) DI BAWAH AKTA PERHUBUNGAN PERUSAHAAN 1967 ANTARA TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD JUNIOR OFFICERS UNION DAN TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD.

Berikutan dengan keputusan mesyuarat Pegawai-Pegawai Utama TNBJOU yang diadakan pada 8 Februari 2012, TNBJOU memutuskan memajukan 9 isu Pertikaian Perusahaan dengan TNB pada 29/2/2012. 9 Isu tersebut merangkumi 3 isu berkaitan ketidakpatuhan terhadap Perjanjian Kolektif dan 6 isu Operasi.

Berikut adalah antara isu-isu yang telah dimajukan iaitu :-

1. KETIDAKPATUHAN – INDUSTRIAL RELATION ACT 1967, SECTION 56 (Non-compliance with award or collective agreement).

i. ARTIKEL 5 - BIDANG KUASA PERJANJIAN
a) Penyumberluaran (Outsourcing) - Pengurusan telah melakukan kerja-kerja penyumberluaran (outsourcing) iaitu melalui perkhidmatan agensi pekerjaan luar bagi jawatan Pembantu Tadbir dan Telefonis untuk kerja-kerja Juruwang di Perkhidmatan Kaunter, Pusat Khidmat Pelanggan dan Operator Talipon di Pusat Panggilan Pelanggan (Call Management Center).
b) Kedua-dua jawatan tersebut telah termaktub dalam Artikel 5, Perjanjian Kolektif antara TNBJOU dan TNB seperti di Lampiran 5-1 iaitu jawatan-jawatan yang diwakili oleh Kesatuan dan diiktiraf oleh Syarikat. Keputusan melaksanakan penyumberluaran (outsorcing) terhadap jawatan dan kerja-kerja tersebut adalah bertentangan dengan persetujuan pengiktirafan yang telah dimuktamadkan dengan Kesatuan.

ii. ARTIKEL 18 - TEMPOH PERCUBAAN APABILA DIAMBIL BEKERJA
a) Pengurusan telah melaksanakan tempoh percubaan (Pengambilan Baru) untuk jawatan tetap Pembantu Tadbir dan Telefonis melebihi tempoh yang ditetapkan dalam persetujuan Perjanjian Kolektif.
b) Pekerja yang memohon jawatan Pembantu Tadbir dan Telefonis telah diambil bekerja secara kontrak tetap berpenggal oleh Syarikat dan dihantar mengikuti program pendidikan tetapi hanya akan ditimbangkan untuk diserapkan ke jawatan tetap setelah mereka menamatkan kontrak tersebut.
c) Tempoh kontrak tetap berpenggal tersebut tidak diambikira sebagai tempoh perkhidmatan bila diserapkan sebagaimana amalan lazim sebelum ini. Perjanjian Kolektif tidak memperuntukkan perlantikan pekerja atas dasar kontrak tetap berpenggal sebelum dilantik ke jawatan tetap.
d) Tempoh kontrak tetap berpenggal tidak pernah dirundingkan dengan Kesatuan dalam terma dan syarat perkhidmatan seperti yang termaktub dalam Perjanjian Kolektif.

iii. ARTIKEL 19 - PERLETAKAN JAWATAN
a) Pengurusan telah melaksanakan syarat tambahan terhadap perletakan jawatan dengan mensyaratkan ‘kelulusan Naib Presiden Sumber Manusia Kumpulan’ melalui edaran pekeliling Bil. 3 Tahun 2007 bertarikh 16 Januari 2007.
b) Perkara ini adalah bertentangan dengan persetujuan yang dicapai dalam Perjanjian Kolektif dalam Artikel 19 – Perletakan Jawatan yang menyebut ‘Seseorang Pekerja yang telah disahkan yang meletakkan jawatan daripada Syarikat dikehendaki memberi satu (1) bulan notis secara bertulis atau satu (1) bulan gaji sebagai ganti’.


2. ISU-ISU OPERASI DAN PELAKSANAAN

i. PEMBAYARAN BONUS TAHUNAN MUKTAMAD
a) Syarikat telah mengeluarkan pekeliling Pengurusan Sumber Manusia Bil.2 Tahun 2012 bertarikh 20 Januari 2012 – Pembayaran Bonus Muktamad Prestasi Individu Tahunan Bagi Tahun Kewangan 2010/2011 untuk Pekerja-Pekerja TNB yang memaparkan dalam Jadual 1 kuantum bonus tersebut di tolak kuantum Bonus Syarikat.
b) Amalan dan pelaksanaan tersurat dan tersirat sejak pembayaran Bonus Tahunan Muktamad Prestasi Individu Tahunan diujudkan tidak pernah ditolak pembayaran Bonus Syarikat. Kesatuan turut berpegang kepada prinsip bayaran bonus muktamad dengan merujuk surat Kesatuan bertarikh 11/11/2011 dan 9/12/2011 kepada Pengerusi dan CEO yang tidak ditolak bonus syarikat.
c) Tafsiran Bonus Syarikat berdasarkan Pekeliling Pengurusan Sumber Manusia Bil.11/2011 bertarikh 28 Julai 2011 adalah sebagai ganjaran tambahan untuk menghargai sumbangan pekerja-pekerja TNB dan sebagai insentif untuk menggalakkan pekerja-pekerja TNB terus berkhidmat dengan lebih cemerlang. Ianya tidak berdasarkan kepada prestasi Syarikat dan individu sebagaimana prinsip dan amalan pembayaran Bonus Muktamad Prestasi Individu Tahunan.

ii. PELAKSANAAN POSTED ‘E’ BILL
Pelaksanaan Posted ‘E’ Bill telah menjejaskan ahli-ahli Kesatuan kerana ianya menimbulkan persepsi yang negatif dikacamata pelanggan terhadap mutu perkhidmatan yang diberikan.
Pelbagai masalah dan aduan pelanggan turut memberi kesan negatif terhadap kejatuhan imej dan moral pekerja di bahagian Bacaan Jangka dan barisan hadapan (Front Liners). Antara masalah utama yang dikesan Kesatuan adalah seperti berikut :-
a) Pelanggan tidak menerima bill
Ramai pelanggan yang tidak menerima bill yang dihantar oleh pihak Pos Malaysia hingga menyebabkan pemotongan bekalan kerana bill tidak dibayar.
b) Bil-bil dikembalikan di stesen
Banyak bil-bil dikembalikan ke stesen asal kerana tidak diserahkan oleh pihak Pos Malaysia walaupun alamatnya lengkap. Pembaca Jangka terpaksa menghantarnya semula pada bulan berikutnya kerana bill lewat dikembalikan semula oleh pihak Pos Malaysia.
c) Bil lambat diserahkan
Bill lewat diserahkan oleh pihak Pos Malaysia sehingga apabila Pembaca Jangka membuat bacaan, pelanggan baru sahaja menerima bill dari Pos Malaysia beberapa hari sebelum bacaan bacaan normal dibuat oleh Pembaca Jangka.
d) Pelanggan tidak dapat rebat dari kerajaan walaupun layak
Terdapat Pelanggan yang sepatutnya menikmati rebat dari kerajaan kerana penggunaan di bawah RM20.00 tetapi tidak dapat menikmatinya kerana bacaan posted ‘E’ bill dibuat tidak mengikut kitaran tempoh masa yang ditetapkan.
e) Bil anggaran tidak menentu
Sebagai contoh bill anggaran (O Bill) bagi bulan Januari 2012, bacaan sebenar menunjukkan peningkatan 3 kali ganda. Ini berlaku gara-gara anggaran yang rendah dan dicampor dengan penggunaan semasa musim Perayaan seperti Tahun Baru Cina.
f) Pelanggan mahu bil bacaan normal
Majoriti pelanggan mahukan bacaan normal dan pihak stesen terpaksa mengarahkan bacaan normal dibuat semula oleh Pembaca Jangka. Hal ini mengganggu kelancaran kitaran bacaan dan menambahkan beban kerja yang tidak sepatutnya berlaku dan tidak produktif kerana kerja berulang terpaksa dilakukan.

Kesatuan dengan ini menolak sepenuhnya pelaksanaan posted ‘E’ bill setelah mengkaji kesan buruk pelaksanaannya terhadap pekerja, pelanggan dan syarikat dan mahukan supaya ianya dihentikan segera. Ianya juga menjadikan beban kerja yang terpaksa ditanggung oleh pekerja meningkat atas faktor yang tidak produktif.


iii. PROSEDUR TATATERTIB TNB
a) Kesatuan telah memberikan maklumbalas berhubung draft cadangan pindaan Prosedur Tatatertib TNB Edisi ke 6 (2010) melalui surat bertarikh 24/1/2011 dengan rujukan JOU/2/13.
b) Tujuan maklumbalas tersebut adalah untuk penambahbaikan terhadap Prosedur Tatatertib TNB dalam usaha meningkatkan prinsip Keadilan Asasi tetapi sehingga kini masih belum mendapat maklumbalas positif.
c) Kesan pelaksanaan Prosedur Tatatertib TNB Edisi Ke Lima 2006 yang sedang digunapakai telah menjejaskan pekerja TNB secara berterusan.
d) Prosedur Tatatertib kini lebih bersifat menghukum berbanding dengan matlamat asalnya untuk langkah pembetulan tanpa mempedulikan faktor-faktor pemaafan (condonation). Proses Salahlaku Ringan seperti dinyatakan dalam Prosedur Tatatertib tidak pernah dilaksanakan tetapi syarikat lebih cenderung memilih menggunakan proses salahlaku berat meskipun melibatkan kesalahan-kesalahan kecil yang bersifat proses dan amalan kerja.

iv. USIA PERSARAAN 58 TAHUN
Syarat-syarat pelanjutan kontrak selepas usia persaran wajib 56 tahun seperti dalam Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Bil.BE 4 Tahun 2011 bertarikh 1/8/2011 telah dilakukan tanpa perbincangan rasmi dengan Kesatuan dan gagal mengikuti asas-asas persetujuan yang dicapai dalam rundingan Perjanjian Kolektif KeTujuh.


v. PAKAIAN SERAGAM PEKERJA GILIRAN
Pekerja-pekerja yang bertugas secara giliran dalam skop jawatan TNBJOU tidak disediakan pakaian seragam dan ini memberikan implikasi keselamatan dan imej yang tidak baik terhadap ahli-ahli Kesatuan yang terlibat.


vi. MESYUARAT MAJLIS PERUNDINGAN BERSAMA (Joint Consultative Council)
a) Pengurusan telah mengabaikan makanisma Perhubungan Perusahaan kerana gagal mengadakan mesyuarat Majlis Perundingan Bersama (Joint Consultative Council) Peringkat Korporat dan Bahagian-Bahagian tertentu mengikut masa yang ditetapkan.
b) Sebagai rekod mesyuarat Majlis Perundingan Bersama (Joint Consultative Council) terakhir antara Kesatuan dengan pihak Bahagian Sumber Manusia Kumpulan adalah pada tahun 6/8/2009.

Sehubungan dengan itu, Kesatuan berharap supaya semua perkara dalam Pertikaian Perusahaan ini diambil tindakan sewajarnya untuk satu penyelesaian segera sesuai dengan prinsip Keharmonian Perhubungan Perusahaan mengikut Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967 dalam tempoh 14 hari dari tarikh serahan notis yang dikeluarkan ini.

TNBJOU turut mengeluarkan notis dan telah menetapkan tarikh 12/3/2012 untuk Mesyuarat EXCO di Dynasty Hotel bagi membincang, membahas serta menetapkan keputusan dan tindakan selanjutnya terhadap isu-isu Pertikaian Perusahaan seperti yang dinyatakan. Turut akan dibincangkan adalah isu 'panas' perlantikan CEO baru TNB dari kalangan 'orang dalam' TNB seperti yang telah diputuskan oleh Jawatankuasa Bersama Kesatuan dan Persatuan TNB yang turut disiarkan di media perdana.

KENAPA TNBJOU HANTAR NOTIS PERTIKAIAN PERUSAHAAN (TRADE DISPUTES)?
*Notis Trade disputes adalah satu notis tawaran untuk tempoh 14 hari kepada majikan bagi menyelesaikan semua isu-isu yang dibangkitkan Kesatuan. Sekiranya majikan gagal menyelesaikan isu-isu tersebut-Kesatuan berhak mengheret majikan ke Mahkamah Perusahaan untuk satu penghakiman dan mengambil apa juga tindakan perusahaan sesuai dengan peruntukan undang-undang pekerjaan. BERSATU TEGUH!

Outsourcing Agents and their Practices: An ‘Illegality’ and Injustice that Must End

Outsourcing Agents and their Practices: An ‘Illegality’ and Injustice that Must End
Employment relationships must respect worker rights guaranteed by law

by Charles Hector



A worker who works in a factory, under the supervision and control of the employer using the tools provided by the factory or workplace, just like every other worker in the factory, and is remunerated for the work he does at the factory, is alleged to be not employed by the owner of the factory or the workplace but by some third party.

In Malaysia, we have outsourcing agents that supply workers to factories, plantation companies, construction companies and all sorts of different workplaces to people who own and control these workplaces (after this referred to as ‘company’). The workers supplied remain the workers of the outsourcing agents. They are not employees of the company that they work at. This practice is odd. It differs from the practice employed by private employment agencies and/or ‘head hunters’.

For the work done, the factory pays the outsourcing agent a fee that is calculated based on the days/hours of work, overtime,
work on rest day and/or public holidays and which shift the individual worker works. The outsourcing agent, after taking their share pays the worker their wages. For example, in an eight-hour day, the company pays the outsourcing agent RM40. He then pays the worker RM20 only. Sometimes the outsourcing agent may take more than 50%. The more the worker works, the more the outsourcing agent gets.

In Malaysia, these practices that were previously used for migrant workers are now being used for local workers, including workers from Sarawak and Sabah. Instead of employing the workers, many employers prefer to use workers supplied by outsourcing agents directly in order to avoid employment relationships.

This reduces the duties and obligations imposed by law on employers such as ensuring that workers enjoy minimum legally guaranteed rights as provided for in the Employment Act 1955 and other laws in Malaysia. Outsourcing agents market this employment set up by emphasizing that the companies need focus only on their business without having to worry about their workers.

In this article, we consider, amongst others:
(a)          1- whether the outsourcing agent is legal;
(b)          2- whether what is being practised by these outsourcing agents, companies and workers is legal; and

(c)          3- proposals about how to bring about  more just situation especially for all workers in Malaysia.


Dawn of the ‘outsourcing’ concept

On 5 July 2005, the Cabinet Committee on Migrant Workers allowed the employment of migrant workers using the outsourcing concept.1

This did not simply mean the supply of migrant workers to a company but included the management of certain matters related to the employment of migrant workers including accommodation, transportation, paying wages, medical examination and also the obligations to get the necessary insurance coverage for these workers. It was primarily intended for smaller companies who may lack the necessary resources to manage migrant workers full time, and also for bigger companies who may have a sudden need for extra workers by reason of peak seasonal harvest. Its purpose was not to usurp the role of the employer from the companies these workers were supplied to. It was about outsourcing some of the obligations an employer of migrant workers had.

Alas, the practice of outsourcing agents has gone far beyond what the Cabinet Committee envisioned. They gave the false impression that companies that used these workers avoided employment relationships. More importantly, these employers did not have to adhere to any of the duties and obligations of employers under the law and ensuring that all these workers enjoyed the full rights provided for workers.

The intention of the government was not to make these outsourcing agents employers but mere suppliers of workers. These outsourcing agents may assist employers with some of their obligations to the migrant workers; however, the employers would still be directly responsible for the workers. The outsourcing agents would be merely agents of the employers taking care of, amongst others, accommodation, transportation, medical check-ups, getting the necessary insurances for workers and payment of wages.

The Deputy Prime Minister, after chairing the Cabinet Committee on Foreign Labour and Illegal Foreign Workers, wass
reported in May 2010 to have said, “We feel that employers are the people who should be responsible for their foreign workers. Outsourcing companies are only responsible for bringing them in. After that, employers must assume full responsibility.”2

Existing law also binds the government of the day. Any decisions they do or make that are contrary to existing law will still be null and void ab initio. Likewise, any actions done pursuant to such decisions are also null and void.

Legality of outsourcing agents

What outsourcing agents do is basically find and supply workers to companies; they are a ‘contractor for labour’. The Employment Act 1955 has no provision for ‘contractor for labour’; only ‘subcontractors for labour’ which is defined as:

… any person who contracts with a contractor or sub-contractor to supply the labour required for the execution of the whole or any part of any work which a contractor or subcontractor has contracted to carry out for a principal or contractor, as
the case may be.3

This does not assist in legalising outsourcing agents as they supply workers to the company as the principal, not a contractor or a sub-contractor.

The Malaysian Government came to realise that these outsourcing agents were illegal and tried to introduce ‘contractors for labour’ into our employment laws vide the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2010 that was tabled in Parliament in July 2010.

However, due to protests from many quarters including the trade union movement 4  the said Bill was withdrawn in October 2010 5. In any event, even if that Bill had become law, it would not have retrospective effect and could not have legalised these ‘contractors for labour’.

Outsourcing agents are therefore still illegal.

Another act of relevance would be the Private Employment Agencies Act 1981, and the definition section 6 could have covered outsourcing agents. Migrant workers could also be covered as the definition of worker7 does not distinguish between local or foreign worker. What is good about this law is that the fees 8 are fixed by law, and it cannot be arbitrarily decided by employment agencies.

Even if these outsourcing agents came into being pursuant to this Act, then still what they are practising, in respect the monies that they are getting from workers and/or their employers, would certainly be a breach of this law.

Legality of the practices of outsourcing agents and companies

With the introduction of the Employment Act 1955, a new era of a more just employment relationship and worker rights in Malaysia dawned. Third parties and middlemen involvement in employment relationships ended. The only permitted relationship was a direct employer-worker employment relationship.

The Act also provided for a secure permanent employment relationship until retirement. However, this could be earlier ended by very clear ways, being, the resignation of the worker, the closure of the company, the cessation or changes in the company’s operations that brought about redundancy and hence retrenchment and/or lay-offs, or by reason of misconduct committed by the worker whose termination would require a domestic inquiry. Even in cases of retrenchment not because of closure, the onus is placed on the employer to find some other suitable alternative work in the company before ending the employment relationship. The law also provides for termination and lay-off benefits though the quantum depends on the number of years of employment.

The Employment Act 1955 also introduced minimum worker rights and employer obligations, and if an employment contract (contract of service) or an agreement provided for less favourable terms than what is provided by this law, then the more favourable terms in the Act prevails.9

In the case of the practices employed by some outsourcing agents and companies, workers seem to be paid only for the day/hours that they work, but they do not get the other rights like paid one rest day per week, paid annual leave, paid public holidays, paid sick/hospitalisation leave and maternity leave and benefits. This is contrary to law.

These practices often result in discrimination at the workplace.

Workers supplied by these outsourcing agent are treated differently and often worse
than other workers at the same company. This, I believe, is contrary to article 8 of the Federal Constitution which guarantees equality to all persons.10 This concern about non-discrimination at the workplace is something that Parliament felt important enough to insert by amendment a prohibition against discrimination on the basis of whether one is a local worker or migrant worker.11

As mentioned earlier, there can be no more middle-person in an employment relationship, and as such this also makes the practices of outsourcing agents and companies also wrong in law.

Negative implication to workers and their unions

The practices employed by some outsourcing agents and companies are detrimental to other workers and/or their unions. The influx of migrant workers weakens the bargaining powers of local unions when in disputes between employers and workers or when negotiating collective agreements. For the company, outsourced workers are not considered as their workers (employees) so they would not be allowed to form and/or join unions, or participate in any negotiations and worker actions to get better terms and conditions for workers in the company.

Even when these migrant workers complain and claim their rights, it is easy for the company to ‘terminate’ and dismiss them. No due process is needed. All they need to do is instruct the outsourcing agent to remove the worker. Strikes or protests would be less effective as more and more workers working at companies are supplied by outsourcing agents. These workers are often too fearful to stand up for rights for fear of losing their jobs at the company which can be done without any requirement of due process or domestic inquiries.
Features/Articles
Attempts to evade employment relationship is not peculiar to Malaysia

The use of various arrangements and practices to evade or disguise employment
relationship is becoming ubiquitous in many countries. So serious is the concern that it led the International Labour Organisation (“ILO”) to respond by coming out with R198 Employment Relationship Recommendation 2006.

ILO’s wants, amongst others, to “combat disguised employment relationships in the context of, for example, other relationships that may include the use of other forms of contractual arrangements that hide the true legal status, noting that a disguised employment relationship occurs when the employer treats an individual as other than an employee in a manner that hides his or her true legal status as an employee, and that situations can arise where contractual arrangements have the effect of depriving workers of the protection they are due…Where there has been an attempt to
disguise the employment relationship, there is a particular danger that workers will be deprived of the protections due to them.”12

ILO provided guidelines that could be used to counter or unmask attempts to evade employment relationships so that worker rights can continue to be recognised and protected.

Unmasking the disguises – Examples from other jurisdictions

In United Kingdom, in the Dacas case,13 which involved a worker, an employment agency (Brook Street) that supplied the worker, and the end user (Wandsworth Borough Council (the Council)), the Court of Appeal had this to say:

The totality of the triangular arrangements may lead to the necessary inference of a contract between such parties, when they have not actually entered into an express contract, either written or oral, with one another. Although there was no express contract between the applicant (worker) and the end-user (the Council) in this case, that absence does not preclude the implication of a contract between them… There maybe an implied contract, which may be characterised as a contract of service or as a contract for services…That control was exercised by the Council, which supplied her clothing and materials and for whom she did the work. The fact that Brook Street agreed to do some things that an employer would normally do (payment) does not make it the employer…

The English Court of Appeal in the Cable & Wireless PLC case 14 confirmed an earlier case in favour of implying a contract of employment as a matter of necessity (Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd [2004] IRLR 359). There, the Court of Appeal enforced a mutuality test which contains two elements to consider in deciding who is an employee in situations where there is a chain of relationships and triangular relationships.

The two elements are, firstly, an obligation to provide work and, secondly, an obligation to perform it coupled with control. It does not matter whether the arrangements for paying are made directly or indirectly (as in the facts of this case, through an intermediary firm that paid invoices submitted to it). An implied contract did exist between the worker and the end user because Cable & Wireless were obliged to provide Mr Muscat with work and Mr Muscat was obliged to attend the premises and do the work subject to the control of the company’s management.15

In Canada, the most frequently cited ‘test’ of who is an ‘employee’ in Canadian employment jurisprudence was articulated by Lord Wright in a Privy Council decision in Montreal v Montreal Locomotive Works Ltd et al, [1937] 1 DLR 161 at p 169 (PC). His Lordship stated:

In earlier cases, a single test, such as the presence or absence of control, was often relied on to determine whether the case was one of master and servant, mostly in order to decide issues of tortious liability on the part of the master or superior. In the more complex conditions of modern industry, more complicated tests have often to be applied. It has been suggested that a fourfold test would in some cases be more appropriate, a complex involving (1) control; (2) ownership of the tools; (3) chance of profit; (4) risk of loss. Control in itself is not always conclusive... In many cases, the question can only be settled by examining the whole of the various elements which constitute the relationship between the parties.16

The Japanese courts have judged that an employment relationship exists when the actual work circumstance lends itself to an employment relationship regardless of the provisions of the contract (SAGA TV case: Fukuoka High Court Judgment 7 July 1983, Hanrei Jiho No 1084, p 126; SEN-EI Case: Saga District Court Takeo Branch Judgment 28 Mar 1997, Rodo Hanrei No 719, p 38).17

Following these decisions, the courts in Malaysia, I believe, should come to a similar conclusion, i.e. it is the company that is the employer; not the outsourcing agent.

When immigration department and official documents cloud the truth

In Malaysia, one other document that attempts to disguise employment relationship is the multiple entry visa or work pass/visa issued by the Immigration Department to the migrant worker. This states the worker is employed as an ‘Outsourced Worker’ in which sector with ‘[name of the outsourcing agent]’ at ‘[address of the outsourcing agent]’. It is also interesting that in the past, if migrant workers were found to be working at another company and address, they would most likely be arrested and action taken against them because they violated the conditions of the work pass/visa.

Surely, this document issued by a department under the Ministry of Home Affairs, not even the Human Resource Minister, can be relied on for the determination of who is the real employer of a particular worker.
Features/Articles
‘Illegal’ unjust practices must end

It is sad that this practice of outsourcing agents and companies that continue to avoid employment relationships are allowed to exist for so long without any legal challenge. This was probably because earlier on most of these ‘outsourced workers’ had been migrant workers. Even if they tried to claim their rights they would have likely been terminated and sent back quickly to their home country.

There are still no clear provisions in Malaysia’s Employment Act 1955, like the one found in the Industrial Relations Act 1967,18 that prohibit employers from discriminating against and/or terminating workers that resort to claiming their rights, be it to the employer or by utilising some other legal avenue of access to justice like the Labour Department. It is commendable though that some labour departments, when they do receive complaints from even ‘outsourced workers’ do consider the company as employer, and the outsourcing
agent as agent.

The lack of transparency in government is another problem. Though the decision to allow this ‘outsourcing’ concept by the Cabinet Committee was formulated in July 2005, it only came to light in a report in 2007. Malaysia should emulate neighbouring Thailand where every Cabinet decision is immediately published and made available to the public as Cabinet Resolutions.

Malaysian Trade Union Congress (“MTUC”)19 and other groups have been calling for an end to outsourcing agents and their practices for many years but to no avail. Workers and unions are losing out, as the Malaysian Government becomes more pro-employer. The government have meetings with employers and workers representatives, being the Malaysian Employers Federation (“MEF”) and MTUC 20 but today whilst workers are still being represented by one organisation, the employers are represented by many more organisations. This is unjust to the workers.

Outsourcing practices benefit employers to the detriment of workers. The government’s statement about 10 months ago that employers should be fully responsible for their workers, not outsourcing agents has proven to be empty talk.

The way forward

It is sad that there may be over 200 outsourcing agents in Malaysia, which are not only illegal but also prejudicial in the practices they employ. Short of eliminating them completely, the only solution may be to bring them under the Private Employment Agencies Act 1981. This would restrict their role to just supplying workers to companies who would then enter into a transparent direct employment relationship with these workers.

Statements of intentions alone are insufficient. What is urgently needed is immediate action for the good of all workers in Malaysia, both local and migrant workers, to ensure that justice be done. As a caring nation that upholds the law, what is illegal and unjust must be discarded but not forgotten.

23 Mar 2011
––––––––––––––––
1 Contracts of Employment in Malaysia and the role of Trade Unions by Bruno Periera, citing as source the Report of the Round Table Conference on Migrant Workers in Malaysia 5/4/2007 ISMK-KSM. The reference of the Minutes of the Cabinet Committee on Migrant Workers was 33rd (JKK-PA) Bil. 2/2005.

2 Higher levies for foreign workers, New Straits Times, 21 May 2010.

3 Section 2(1) of the Employment Act 1955.

4 Labour law amendments by Syed Shahir Syed Mohamud (ALIRAN Monthly). Syed Shahir Syed Mohamud, president of the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (“MTUC”), delivered this speech at a public forum ‘Labour Law Amendments? — What does it mean to you?’, organised by Bar Council in Kuala Lumpur on 21 Aug 2010.
5 Employment Bill withdrawn, the Star,13 Oct 2010.

6 Section 3 of the Private Employment Agencies Act 1981, “private employment agency” means — (a) an employment agency conducted with a view to profit, that is to say, any person, company, institution, agency or other organisation which acts as intermediary for the purpose of procuring employment for a worker or supplying a worker for an employer with a view to deriving either directly or indirectly any pecuniary or other material advantage from either employer or worker; the expression does not include newspapers or other publications unless they are published wholly or mainly for the purpose of acting as intermediaries between employers and workers; (b) an employment agency not conducted with a view to profit, that is to say, the placing services of any company, institution, agency or other organisation which, though not conducted with a view to derive any pecuniary or other material advantage, levies from either employer or worker from the above service an entrance fee, a periodical contribution or any other charge.

7 Section 3 of the Private Employment Agencies Act 1981, “worker” means any person who works for hire or reward, whether as apprentice or not, and includes any person seeking such work.

8 Section 14(1) of the Private Employment Agencies Act 1981, “No private employment agency shall charge for any service rendered a fee other than or in excess of that prescribed in the Schedule and for every fee received a receipt shall be issued.” And currently, item (iv) of the Schedule read as follows:

(iv) Placement Fee
(i) Fee charged for local placement — Not more than 20% of initial month’s pay
(ii) Fee charged for overseas placement — Not more than 25% of initial month’s pay;
Provided where employers have already paid the agency for the services rendered, the worker shall not be charged on placement.

9 Sections 7 and 7A of the Employment Act 1955

10 Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution —

“All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.”

11 Section 60L of the Employment Act 1955.

12 See also The Employment Relationship: An annotated guide to ILO Recommendation No 198.

13 Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd [2004] IRLR 359 (Court of Appeal).

14 Cable & Wireless PLC v Muscat [2006] IRLR 355.

15 Paragraph copied almost in toto from The Employment Relationship: An annotated guide to ILO Recommendation No 198.

16 Paragraph copied almost in toto from The Employment Relationship: An annotated guide to ILO Recommendation No 198.

17 The Employment Relationship: An annotated guide to ILO Recommendation No 198.

18 Section 5(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 “…

No employer or trade union of employers, and no person action on behalf of an employer or such trade union shall —… (c) discriminate against any person in regard to employment, promotion, any condition of employment or working conditions on the ground that he is or is not a member or officer of a trade union; (d) dismiss or threaten to dismiss a workman, injure or threaten to injure him in his employment or alter or threaten to alter his position to his prejudice by reason that the workman — (i) is or proposes to become, or seeks to persuade any other person to become, a member or officer of a trade union; or (ii) participates in the promotion, formation or activities of a trade union; ...”

19 Malaysian Insider, 15 July 2008, MTUC wants licences of companies outsourcing foreign workers withdrawn, “MTUC has repeatedly called on the government to ban the foreign workers outsourcing system which has subjected workers brought into the country to extreme hardship.”

20 MTUC represents less than 8% of the total workforce, and only a few of the 1.9 million migrant workers are members of unions.

Source: Malaysian Bar’s Praxis Apr–June 2011, pages 25 – 28
[http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=3168&Itemid=332]

Notes:
1.   1. Malaysian worker, led by the MTUC, organized public protests on 3/10/2011, 3/11/2011 and also 3/12/2011. Protest have been ongoing against these proposed amendments since 2010, and they were successful in getting the government to withdraw the 2010 Bill, which was re-tabled again with almost no significant changes in 2011.

2.   2. 115 civil society groups and trade unions from all over the world, which included the MTUC and various international unions, including the International Trade Union Confederation[ITUC who represents 175 million workers in 151 countries and territories and has 305 national affiliates) who issued a joint media statement entitled “Malaysia Must Protect Worker and Union Rights, and withdraw proposed unjust amendments to Employment Act - Labour Suppliers Should Not Be Employers” dated 28/10/2011, and letters and statement were sent to Malaysian Prime Minister, Minister of Human Resources and others, and as of 2/3/2012 there has no response whatsoever.

3.   3.  Employment (Amendment) Bill 2011 was passed by the Dewan Rakyat (the lower house of Parliament) on 6/10/2011, and by the Senate on 22/12/2012. To become law, it needs the assent of the King, and to become effective it must but into force by the government of the day. Media coverage of the protests and the reasons for the objections have been most disappointing. 

4. 4. Minor typo errors in the article published have been corrected by the author