Saturday, June 29, 2013

Siapa jadi penghalang hak pekerja lebih baik? Union juga?

Siapakah yang menjadi penghalang kepada hak pekerja yang lebih baik? Biasanya jawapannya adalah pihak majikan, dan kerajaan yang pro-majikan. Kini persoalannya, adalah sama ada UNION(Kesatuan Pekerja) atau pemimpin dalam Kesatuan Pekerja juga menjadi penghalang hak pekerja dan perjuangan pekerja?

Kadang-kadang UNION atau pemimpin Union sudah 'tertidur' atau sudah hilang keupayaan atau kapasiti memperjuangkan hak pekerja - mereka hanya mahu jadi pemimpin Union sahaja. Masalah juga ahli Union yang tidak juga selalu memantau kepimpinan mereka - dan tidak memastikan bahawa mereka sentiasa aktif dalam memperjuangkan hak ahli dan hak pekerja. Protest ini adalah satu cara mengejutkan pemimpin yang sudah tidur.

Masalah lain dibanyak Union adalah masalah komunikasi di antara pemimpin dan ahli. Adakah Union anda ada sistem komunikasi di antara pemimpin Union dengan ahli - kini sangat senang kerana boleh gunakan emel, FB, Blog dan juga laman web. Mungkin kepimpinan NUTE sedang tekun berusaha mendapatkan TM untuk mengimplementasi umur persaraan 60...tetapi mereka menghadapi halangan - tetapi ahli tidak tahu. Ini masalah komunikasi di antara pemimpin dan ahli. Jangan pula Union menjadi macam kerajaan, di mana wakil rakyat 'turun padang', mahu dengar rintihan rakyat...biasanya dekat PRU sahaja...

Adakah UNION kamu adakan perjumpaan BULANAN sekurang-kurangnya dengan ahli khususnya di peringkat kilang/bandar? UNION wujud bukan sahaja untuk CBA/CA - atau mewakili ahli semasa sudah kena buang... atau pergi JPP/Mahkamah Perusahaan bila ada isu CBA/CA sahaja. Jika ya, perlu kita pergi kembali kepada asas...adakan perbincangan, dsb.nya


Workers protest against union over retirement at 60 delay
  • Koh Jun Lin
  • 9:39AM Jun 29, 2013
 
A group of union members held a protest against the National Union of Telecommunications Employees' (Nute) in front of its office in Bangsar yesterday morning, alleging that it has failed to speedily push Telekom Malaysia's (TM) management to implement the retirement age of 60.

Their spokesperson, P Pasupathy, said although the amended Minimum Retirement Age Act only comes into effect on July 1, companies are allowed to implement it early and some have already done so.

"When others have done it, why can't we do it? TNB has done it, TV3 has done it - all these companies have done it.

"All the government-linked company (GLC) (employees) have benefitted, why are we the only one left out? The whole problem started with the union," said Pasupathy at Malaysiakini's office after participating in the alleged protest of about 20 Nute members.

The former technician said he was compulsorily retired upon hitting the age of 56 this year, but would prefer to work another four years.

He said that if he and the fellow colleagues could not be reinstated, he said he hoped TM would follow Bernas' move to pay compensation to the workers, which he said should be backdated from the time the Minimum Retirement Age Act was gazetted in August last year to the date when they turn 60 years old.

The group also wants Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to intervene in the matter, and for the Nute president to resign over his complacency.

Pasupathy claimed that both the Nute and the TM's management have been silent on the issue, and no firm responses had been forthcoming. - Malaysiakini, 29/6/2013,
Workers protest against union over retirement at 60 delay

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Judgment kes Noorfadilla Ahmad Saikin - CEDAW has the force of law, binding on Malaysia


NOORFADILLA AHMAD SAIKIN v. CHAYED BASIRUN & ORS HIGH COURT MALAYA, SHAH ALAM ZALEHA YUSOF J [ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: 21-248-2010] 12 JULY 2011


Judgement

[1] Enclosure (1) of this originating summons is the plaintiff's application for inter alia, the following declarations:
(i) that with regard to the legal rights, status and character of a pregnant woman, namely the plaintiff (as of 12 January 2009), that the plaintiff was qualified and entitled to be appointed a "Guru Sandaran Tidak Terlatih" (GSTT);
(ii) that the action of the defendants on 12 January 2009 to withdraw and/or cancel the plaintiff's appointment as a GSTT is unconstitutional, unlawful and void.
Facts
[2] The 1st and 2nd defendants were at the material time Education Officers of the Education Office of the Hulu Langat District (PP DHL), in charge of employing persons interested in the GSTT position for the Hulu Langat District. The 3rd defendant was then the State Director of the Education Department of Selangor. The Ministry of Education (the Ministry) tried to overcome the problem of shortage of teachers in Malaysia by employing untrained teachers, also known as GSTT. The Ministry had previously issued a letter of approval (also known as a warrant) to all State Directors of Education, authorizing them to elect and employ GSST. The letter of approval/warrant states that the employment of GSST is subject to the terms of "Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia Bil 1/2007" dated 27 February 2007 (the circular). The circular states inter alia, as follows:
3. Taraf GST And GSTT
3.1 GST dan GSTT adalah bertaraf bukan kakitangan kerajaan. Oleh yang demikian mereka tidak layak mendapat apa jua faedah atau kemudahan seperti yang diterima oleh guru-guru tetap kecuali kemudahan-kemudahan seperti yang tersebut di perenggan 4 di bawah.
4. Elaun dan Kemudahan yang layak diterima oleh GST dan GSTT
...
4.1.1. Elaun bulanan berdasarkan tangga elaun yang diluluskan oleh Jawatankuasa Kabinet Gaji dan telah dilaksanakan melalui...
4.2. Kemudahan-Kemudahan yang tidak layak diperolehi oleh GST dan GSTT
...
4.2.2. Cuti Bersalin
...
6. Tempoh Perkhidmatan Guru-Guru Sandaran
...
6.2. Perkhidmatan GSST adalah juga berdasarkan sebulan ke sebulan dan akan tamat pada 31 Disember tahun berkenaan atau ditamatkan pada bila-bila masa apabila perkhidmatan mereka tidak dikehendaki lagi oleh Jabatan Pelajaran Negeri/Jabatan/Bahagian berkenaan mengikut yang mana lebih berkaitan dengan kepentingan perkhidmatan.
[3] It is clear from the above that the employment of a GSTT is temporary in nature, on a month to month basis and a GSTT is paid a monthly allowance and may resign at any time.

[4] The plaintiff had applied to PPDHL to be employed as a GSTT. The plaintiff had received a call requesting her to attend an interview at PPDHL on 2 January 2009. On the day the plaintiff attended the interview she was asked to fill up certain forms before the interview. During the interview, questions posed to the plaintiff included questions pertaining to her general knowledge, personal details, problem solving skills and residential address. Before and during the said interview, the plaintiff was not asked whether she was pregnant or not. On 11 January 2009, the plaintiff received a text message from a PPDHL officer. The text message is reproduced as follows:
As'kum wbt... Berhubung permohonan GSTT, tuan/puan cik diminta hadir ke Blok B, Pejabat Pelajaran Daerah Hulu Langat pada hari Isnin 12 Januari 08 mulai dari pukul 8.00 pagi hingga 9.00 pagi untuk mendapatkan Memo Penempatan ke sekolah-sekolah. Sila berpakaian sesuai untuk ke sekolah. Walaubagaimanapun, bagi yang ada kelapangan pada hari ini, boleh juga berbuat demikian mulai dari pukul 11.00 pagi hingga 4.30 petang.
Tahniah dan terima kasih.
[5] On 12 January 2009 at 8am, the plaintiff was present at PPDHL as instructed. The plaintiff was given a "Memo Penempatan" (Placement Memo) where it was stated that the plaintiff will be posted to "Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Tinggi Kajang". It is pertinent to note that the date the plaintiff was to have reported to the said school had passed, ie, 5 January 2009. This means that as of 12 January 2009, there was still a need for the plaintiff to fill the vacancy.

[6] The plaintiff and a few others were then given a briefing on the terms of service of employment such as the requirement to give one month's notice for resignation. The plaintiff was also asked to report for duty immediately.

[7] Subsequently, a PPDHL officer asked if anyone was pregnant. The plaintiff and two others admitted that they were pregnant. (The plaintiff at that time was three months pregnant). The officer then withdrew the Placement Memo of the plaintiff.

[8] Later, the plaintiff, through her husband wrote a number of e-mails to the Ministry requesting for an explanation. On 17 February 2010 the Ministry, ie, on behalf of the 4th and 5th defendants replied. The Ministry relied on the circular to say that a pregnant woman cannot be employed to the GSTT post because:
(i) The period between the time of delivery to full health is too long (two months).
(ii) A pregnant woman as a GSTT may not frequently be able to attend to her job due to various health reasons.
(iii) When she gives birth she needs to be replaced by a new teacher who will require further briefings.
(iv) A GSTT post cannot be filled with "replacement" teachers.
[9] The Ministry added that the purpose of employing a GSTT is to help overcome the shortage of teachers and not to add to the problem.

[10] On 19 February 2009, the plaintiff through her solicitors wrote a letter to the defendants demanding that her employment as GSTT be restored immediately. There was no written reply to this letter until today.

[11] Despite attempts, the parties have not been able to resolve this dispute.

[12] On 7 May 2010 the plaintiff filed this originating summons against the defendants.

Issue
[13] The main issue here is whether the action/directive of the defendants in refusing to allow pregnant women to be employed as GSTT is gender discrimination in violation of art. 8(2) of the Federal Constitution.

[14] There are, however, other issues which have been raised by the defendants in their further submission ie, on the locus of the plaintiff to bring this action and on whether declaration is a proper remedy. I feel these other issues can be dealt with together before I deal with the main issue.

Opinion
[15] It is the defendants' contention that there is no binding contract between the parties; therefore the plaintiff has not acquired a legal right as against the defendants to grant her the locus standi to make this application. To me, I agree with the plaintiff's argument that whether there is a binding contract or not is not relevant as in the instant case, the plaintiff is claiming that her right to be employed has been affected by the defendants' decision which the plaintiff claims to be contrary to art. 8(2) of the Federal Constitution. So, it is clear that what the plaintiff is seeking is to assert her right to a legal status which is in line with s. 41 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 (Act 137). Hence, declaration is a proper form of relief. Refer to the Supreme Court's decision in Teh Guan Teik v. Inspector-General of Police & Anor [1998] 3 CLJ 153 and the Federal Court's decision in YAB Dato' Dr Zambry Abd Kadir & Ors v. YB Sivakumar Varatharaju Naidu; Attorney-General Malaysia (Intervener) [2009] 4 CLJ 253.
'
[16]Section 41 of Act 137 however provides that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration, omits to do so. If we look at encl. (1), the plaintiff is not only seeking for declaratory orders but also for damages. As such to me, it is dear that the plaintiff has also satisfied the proviso of s. 41 of Act 137.

[17] I must state that at this stage, I have not given a decision as to whether to grant the order sought by the plaintiff yet. All I am saying is that a declaration is a proper remedy for this sort of cases.

[18] Now back to the main issue; art. 8(2) of the Federal Constitution provides inter alia, that there shall be no discrimination on the ground only of gender in the appointment of any office or employment under a public authority. The word "gender" was added to art. 8(2) by the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2001 (Act A1130), which came into force on 28 September 2001; to comply with Malaysia's obligation under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). This is clearly illustrated in the Minister's speech in the Hansard for 2nd and 3rd Reading of the Bill to amend the Constitution on 1 August 2001 at p. 69 as follows:

(Datuk Seri Utama Dr. Rais bin Yatim): Tuan Yang Di-Pertua, Yang Berhormat bagi Kepong, saya suka menyatakan telah mengambil dua aspek penting. Salah satu daripadanya ialah dari segi bahasa yang satu lagi dari segi peristilahan diskriminasi. Secara am izinkan saya menjawab bahawa pandangan Yang Berhormat berkaitan dengan penggunaan bahasa yang betul dan juga cara olahan sintaksis ataupun susunan bahasa itu perlu mengikut susunan yang diterima dan tidak lagi seperti yang dikritik oleh sesetengah pihak perlu diterima dengan baik dan saya ingat atas pantun burung murai dan sebagainya itu dalam pada demikian beliau menanyakan adakah diskriminasi yang disifatkan CEDAW itu merupakan sesuatu yang telah dikemaskinikan.
Saya maklum tentang konvensyen tersebut dan Malaysia sebagai salah satu daripada anggota konvensyen CEDAW pada tahun 1995 memang akur kepada keputusan tersebut dan memasukkan perkataan "jantina" dalam Perkara 8(2) ini adalah sedekat-dekat mungkin bagi kita memberi penjelasan dan kesempurnaan kepada tuntutan CEDAW itu.
[19] Further at p. 70, the Minister said:
Tentang CEDAW sebentar tadi, biar saya bacakan sedikit petikan daripada The Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women. Atau secara ringkasnya The CEDAW Convention. Dia kata di sini, "Malaysia has become a party in 1995". Keadaan sedemikian juga Artikel menyatakan bahawa pihak-pihak yang berkenaan mempunyai tanggungjawab supaya menampilkan pandangan serta konsep bahawa wanita tidak didiskriminasikan. Atas tujuan itu kita telah berjaya pada hari ini dan yang Menteri Pembangunan Wanita dan Keluarga telah tiga kali menyebut peruntukan ini supaya kerajaan mengambil perhatian sekiranya pihak pembangkang merasa bahawa dengan keikhlasan Perdana Menteri mewujudkan kementerian ini ada faedahnya. Sekurang-kurangnya perkataan terima kasih dan penghargaan itu harus kita kemukakan kepada beliau. [Tepuk]
[20] The gist of the plaintiff's complaint is that the GSTT post was revoked and withdrawn by the defendants on the sole ground that the plaintiff was pregnant. The question here is whether this action of the defendants tantamounts to gender discrimination and therefore against art. 8(2) of the Federal Constitution?

[21] As has been stated earlier, the word "gender" was incorporated into art. 8(2) of the Federal Constitution in order to comply with Malaysia's obligation under the CEDAW. It is to reflect the view that women are not discriminated. Article 1 of CEDAW defines "discrimination against women" as any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.

[22] Further, Article 11(1)(b) of CEDAW provides that state parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of employment in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, the same rights, in particular the right to the same employment opportunity, including the application of the same criteria for selection in matters of employment. In Article 11(2) (a) of CEDAW, it provides that State Parties shall take appropriate measures to prohibit, subject to the imposition of sanctions, dismissal on the grounds inter alia, of pregnancy.

[23] According to the Depository Notification dated 28 July 2010 by Malaysia, the only reservation on CEDAW now is confined to Article 9(2), 16(1)(a), 16(1)(f) and 16(1)(g). It also makes a declaration that in relation to art. 11 of the Convention, Malaysia interprets the provision of this article as a reference to the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of equality between men and women only. Mr Andrew Khoo the learned counsel from Suhakam explains, that this is because there are some countries promoting what is called a third gender. Hence, the declaration does not detract at all from Malaysia's whole obligation on Article 11 of CEDAW.

[24] But the question now, can this court refer to CEDAW in clarifying the term "equality" and gender discrimination under art. 8(2) of the Federal Constitution? In Mohamad Ezam Mohd Noor v. Ketua Polis Negara & Other Appeals [2002] 4 CLJ 309 at p. 386, Siti Norma FCJ when discussed the application of Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 said as follows:
In my opinion, the status and the weight to be given to the 1948 Declaration by our Courts have not changed. It must be borne in mind that the 1948 Declaration is a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations and not a convention subject to the usual ratification and accession requirements for treaties.... Since such principles are only declaratory in nature, they do not, I consider, have the force of law or binding on member states. If the United Nations wanted those principles to be more than declaratory, they could have embodied them in a convention or a treaty, to which member states can ratify or accede to and those principles will then have the force of law.
[25] CEDAW is not a mere declaration. It is a convention. Hence, following the decision of the Federal Court in Mohamad Ezam 's case (supra), it has the force of law and binding on members states, including Malaysia. More so that Malaysia has pledged its continued commitments to ensure that Malaysian practices are compatible with the provision and principles of CEDAW as evidenced in the letter from the Permanent Mission of Malaysia to the Permanent Missions of the Members States of the United Nations dated 9 March 2010.

[26] In 1988, there was a high level judicial colloquium on the Domestic Application of International Human Rights Norms (the Colloquium) in Bangalore, India. The Chief Justice of Malaysia at that time was one of the participants of the Colloquium. One of the outcomes of the Colloquium was the Bangalore Principles. It set out values and principles that judges should adhere to in carrying out their duties. Of particular relevance here is:
Value 5: Equality
Principle: Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the courts is essential to the due performance of the judicial office.
Application:
5.1. A judge shall be aware of, and understand, diversity in society and differences arising from various sources, including but not limited to race, colour, sex, religion, national origin, caste, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, social and economic status and other like causes ("irrelevant grounds").
5.2. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice towards any person or group on irrelevant grounds.
5.3. A judge shall carry out judicial duties with appropriate consideration for all persons, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff and judicial colleagues, without differentiation on any irrelevant ground, immaterial to the proper performance of such duties.
[27] The Convenor of the Colloquium summarized the discussions, inter alia, as follows:
7. It is within the property nature of judicial process and well established judicial functions for national courts to have regard to international obligations which a country undertakes - whether or not they have been incorporated into domestic law - for the purpose of removing ambiguity or uncertainty from national constitutions, legislation or common law.
[28] Hence, it has become the obligation of this court to have regard to Malaysia's obligation under CEDAW in defining equality and gender discrimination under art. 8(2) of the Federal Constitution.

[29] In 2005, more commitments were made by Malaysia in the Putrajaya Declaration and Programme of Action on the Advancement of Women in Member Countries of the Non-Aligned Movement. Among them were as follows:
4. Recognise the need for full and accelerated implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women by States parties to the Convention:
...
16(m). Strengthen the incentive role of the public sector as employer to develop an environment that effectively affirms and empowers women;
16(p). Facilitate the creation of sustainable jobs and livelihood opportunities to improve women's position in the labour market and ensure favourable working conditions for all women, including migrant women, consistent with all their human rights;
...
43. Gender mainstreaming in all legislation, policies, and programmes is an essential process to women's empowerment and their full participation in all spheres of society. It facilitates the integration of women's differing experience and needs into the development process, as well into the society and helps to change the negative social norms that discriminate against women. NAM member states recognise that effective gender mainstreaming is critical to the empowerment of women and to the achievement of gender equality.

44. We hereby commit ourselves to:
a) Take all necessary measures, including in the area of law, policy, programme and activities to eliminate discrimination against women within public and private sectors;
b) Implement affirmative actions, where needed, to accelerate de facto equality rights of women in all spheres;
c) Raise awareness about women's right to equality and the importance of women's participation and representation in all spheres and at all levels in order to eliminate obstacles to women's equality.
[30] To me, in interpreting art. 8(2) of the Federal Constitution, it is the court's duty to take into account the Government commitment and obligation at international level especially under an international convention, like CEDAW, to which Malaysia is a party. The court has no choice but to refer to CEDAW in clarifying the term "equality" and gender discrimination under art. 8(2) of the Federal Constitution.

[31] In Australia in the case of Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Teoh [1995] 128 ALR 353 Mason, CJ, speaking for himself and Deane, J, said:
It is well established that the provisions of an international treaty to which Australia is a party do not form part of Australian law unless those provisions have been validly incorporated into our municipal law by statute. (Chow Hung Ching v. The King [1948] 77 CLR 449; Bradley v. The Commonwealth [1973] 128 CLR 557; Simsek v. Macphee Koowarta v. Bjelke-Peterson [1982] 148 CLR 636; 40 ALR 61; Kioa v. West [1985] 159 CLR 550; Dietrich v. The Queen [1992] 177 CLR 292; J.H. Rayner Ltd v. Department of Trade [1990] 2 AC 418). This principle has its foundation in the proposition that in our constitutional system the making and ratification of treaties fall within the province of the Executive in the exercise of its prerogative power whereas the making and the alteration of the law fall within the province of Parliament, not the Executive. (Simsek v. Macphee [1982] 148 CLR, at 641-642). So, a treaty which has not been incorporated into our municipal law cannot operate as a direct source of individual rights and obligations under that law. In this case, it is common ground that the provisions of the Convention have not been incorporated in this way. It is not suggested that the declaration made pursuant to s. 47(1) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act has this effect.
[32] But the fact that the Convention has not been incorporated into Australian Law does not mean that its ratification holds no significance for Australian law. Where a statute or subordinate legislation is ambiguous, the courts should favour that construction which accords with Australia's obligations under a treaty or international convention to which Australia is a party (Chu Kheng Lim v. Minister for Immigration [1992] 176 CLR 1), at least in those cases in which the legislation is enacted after, or, in contemplation of, entry into, or ratification of, the relevant international instrument. That is because Parliament, prima facie, intends to give effect to Australia's obligation under international law.

[33] It is accepted that a statute is to be interpreted and applied, as far as its language permits, so that it is in conformity and not in conflict with the established rules of international law (Polites v. The Commonwealth).

[34] Apart from influencing the construction of a statute or subordinate legislation, an international convention may play a part in the development by the courts of the common law. The provisions of an international convention to which Australia is a party, especially one which declares universal fundamental rights, may be used by the courts as a legitimate guide in developing the common law...

[35] But the courts should act in this fashion with due circumspection when the Parliament itself has not seen fit to incorporate the provisions of a convention into our domestic law. Judicial development of the common law must not be seen as a back door means of importing an unincorporated convention into Australian law. A cautious approach to the development of the common law by reference to international conventions would be consistent with the approach which the court have hitherto adopted to the development of the common law by reference to statutory policy and statutory materials (Lamb v. Cotogno [1987] 164 CLR 1 at 11-12). Much will depend upon the nature of relevant provision, the extent to which it has been accepted by the international community, the purpose which it is intended to serve and its relationship to the existing principles of our domestic law.

[36] It is also pertinent that in India in the case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan AIR [1997] SC 3011, the court when interpreting the Indian Constitution had emphasized the obligation of the Indian Government in two other international statements:
(a) the Beijing Statement of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA Region, where the principles of the independence of the judiciary were accepted by the Chief Justice of India, and
(b) Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing where the Government of India had made an official commitment.
[37] In Vishaka 's case (supra), Teoh 's case (supra) was applied. It must also be noted that Malaysia is also a party to the Beijing Statement and Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing.

[38] Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 provides that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. CEDAW is without doubt a treaty in force and Malaysia's commitment to CEDAW is strengthened when art. 8(2) of the Federal Constitution was amended to incorporate the provisions of CEDAW which is not part of the reservation, ie, to include non-discrimination based on gender. As such, I am of the opinion that there is no impediment for the court to refer to CEDAW in interpreting art. 8(2) of the Federal Constitution. Hence, applying art. 1 and 11 of CEDAW I hold that pregnancy in this case was a form of gender discrimination. The plaintiff should have been entitled to be employed as a GSTT even if she was pregnant. Further, the plaintiff was pregnant because of her gender. Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is a form of gender discrimination because of the basic biological fact that only women have the capacity to become pregnant. Refer to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Brooks v. Canada Safeway Ltd [1989] 59 DLR (4th) 321 where it was held as follows:
It cannot be disputed that everyone in society benefits from procreation. The Safeway Plan, however, places one of the major costs of procreation entirely upon one group in society; pregnant women. Thus, in distinguishing pregnancy from all other health related reasons for not working, the plan imposes unfair disadvantages on pregnant women. In the second part of this judgment I state that this disadvantage can be viewed as a disadvantage suffered by women generally. That argument further emphasizes how a refusal to find that Safeway Plan discriminatory would undermine one of the purposes of anti-discrimination legislation. It would do so by sanctioning one of the most significant ways in which women have been disadvantaged in our society. It would sanction imposing a disproportionate amount of the costs of pregnancy upon women. Removal of such unfair impositions upon women and other groups in society is a key purpose of anti-discrimination legislation. Finding that the Safeway Plan is discriminatory furthers this purpose.
[39] It has been argued by the defendants that by applying the principle of reasonable classification, it is justified to discriminate pregnant women. However, with due respect, the principle of reasonable classification is only applicable to art. 8(1) and does not apply to art. 8(2) of the Federal Constitution. This is clearly explained in PP v. Datuk Harun Haji Idris & Ors [1976] 1 LNS 180 as follows:
Article 8(2) contains a specific and particular application of the principle of equality before the law and equal protection of the law embodied in Article 8(1). Therefore, discrimination against any citizen only on the grounds of religion, race, descent or place of birth or any of them in any law is prohibited under Article 8(2) and such discrimination cannot be validated by having recourse to the principle of reasonable classification which is permitted by Article 8(1) (Srinivase Aiyar v. Saraswathi Ammar AIR [1952] Mad 193 195 at page 195; Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra AIR [1952] SC 123 at page 125).
[40] It has also been argued on behalf of the defendants that the decision not to employ a pregnant woman for GSTT is a policy consideration and the court ought not to review or question it. The defendants cite inter alia the cases of R. Rama Chandran v. The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor [1997] 1 CLJ 147, C.C.S.U v. Minister of Civil Service [1994] 3 All ER 935 and Kumpulan Perangsang Selangor Bhd v. Zaid Mohd Noh [1997] 2 CLJ 11. I totally agree that the court should not be involved in the policy decision of the government. However, in this instant case, the argument of policy consideration, to my mind, is an afterthought, as, if it is that important, why was this not incorporated into the circular or raised during interview as submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff? I would only accept that para. 4.22 of the circular is a policy consideration and the court therefore must not review it.

[41] It is very clear that the contract for GSTT is a month to month contract and it can be terminated at any time. Even after one month of working, there is no guarantee that the person will stay even if she is not pregnant. As such I find there is no merit in the argument put forward by the defendants that employing a pregnant woman to fill up the post will defeat the purpose of GSTT to solve the problem of shortage of teachers in Malaysia. Even medical check-up for pregnant women will not disturb the school time as it can be done in the evening or night.

[42] I also note, even the circular does not specifically prohibit a pregnant woman from applying for the post. It merely states that a GSTT is not entitled to maternity leave. If that is the case, is that not indirectly saying that pregnant women could apply only that they are not entitled to maternity leave? To me, that provision in the circular supports the argument that a pregnant woman can be engaged for GSTT.

[43] It is also the defendants' submission that based on the Federal Court's decision in the case of Beatrice AT Fernandez v. Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia & Anor [2005] 2 CLJ 713, art. 8 of the Federal Constitution does not apply to a contractual relationship. With due respect, what was held in Beatrice 's case (supra) inter alia, is as follows:
To invoke Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, the applicant must show that some law or action of the Executive discriminates against her so as to controvert her rights under the said article. Constitutional law, as a branch of public law, deals with contravention of individual rights by the Legislative or the Executive or its agencies....
[44] By virtue of art. 160 of the Federal Constitution, the defendants are definitely public authorities and therefore agents of the Executive. To me, the defendants' act of revoking and withdrawing the Placement Memo because the plaintiff was pregnant constitute a violation of art. 8(2) of the Federal Constitution. It was the contravention of the plaintiff's rights by the defendants as agents of the Executive. As such, the requirement of Beatrice 's case has been fulfilled.

Conclusion
[45] The Supreme Court in Teh Guan Teik v. Inspector General of Police & Anor [1998] 3 CLJ 153 had quoted Lee Hun Hoe CJ in Datuk Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed v. Government of Malaysia & Anor [1978] 1 LNS 44 that the court's jurisdiction to make a declaratory order is unlimited subject only to its own discretion. In my opinion, the court has a role to promote the observance of human rights in this country. On the grounds I have indicated above, the application must be allowed except for prayer 3. As this is a public interest case, I make no order as to costs.

SOLIDARITI - Pekerja dtindas majikan, lain pekerja tak bertindak membantah ketidakadilan?



Mengapa rakan pekerja tidak keluar membantah tindakan disiplin yang dimulakan syarikat terhadap seorang pekerja atau pemimpin pekerja? Adakah kerana takut? Atau adakah kaum pekerja sudah lupa cara berjuang...dan kebanyakkan pekerja hanya mementingkan diri sahaja... 

Atau pekerja terbabit tidak sanggup berjuang untuk memastikan keadilan untuk rakan pekerja mangsa tindakan salah memulakan tindakan disciplin, melakukan tindakan diskriminasi,dan sebagainya...Jika ya, erti prinsip 'bersatu teguh bercerai roboh' sudah dilupakan. Apa itu UNION (kesatuan sekerja) sudah pun dilupakan? Majikan bolehlah melakukan apa-apa kepada mana-mana pekerja di kilang dengan keyakinan bahawa pekerja lain akan tidak bertindak membantah atau protes...Ini adalah satu perkara untuk difikirkan.

Apa? Biar kita tunggu 'Domestic Inquiry'(DI) - dan seterusnya jika tidak puas hati pergi buat aduan di Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan(JPP)..dan ikut proses yang ditetapkan undang-undang...

Saya berpendapat bahawa bila didapati syarikat memulakan tindakan disiplin terhadap seseorang pekerja - pekerja lain terpaksa 'bersatu teguh' dan protes dalam kes-kes di mana nyata tuduhan tak berasas dan tindakan tak adil oleh syarikat..

UNION, jika ada, mesti segera turun membantah kepada majikan mengenai tindakan - di mana matlamat utama adalah adalah untuk segera memberhentikan apa-apa proses disiplin, jika nyata tidak adil. 

Jangan kita tunggu sampai habis DI, dan pekerja sudah diberhentikan kerja. Itu sudah terlambat dan majikan sudah menang. 

Mengapa?

Jika proses cuba sampai kepada penyelesaian di JPP gagal, kes akan dirujuk kepada Menteri, yang akan membuat keputusan sama ada kes itu akan di rujuk kepada Mahkamah Perusahaan atau tidak...Tapi adakah anda tahu bahawa lebih daripada 31% kes pembuangan kerja secara salah tidak pun dirujuk ke Mahkamah Perusahaan oleh Menteri - lihat  31.5%(10,016) workers denied access to Industrial Court in wrongful dismissal cases 

Yang dirujuk kepada Mahkamah Perusahaan, pun akan ambil masa yang lama & jika pun pekerja menang dan mahkamah mendapati bahawa tindakan majikan memberhentikan pekerja adalah salah - Mahkamah kini jarang sekali mengarahkan majikan mengambil balik pekerja kerja disyarikat. - ertinya Majikan menang dan telah berjaya mengeluarkan pekerja atau pemimpin pekerja daripada tempat kerja. Tambahan, masa untuk Mahkamah sampa[i kepada keputusan agak lama - saya baru baca kes pekerja dibuang kerja tahun 2007, di mana Mahkamah baru pada tahun 2013 membuat keputusan pekerja dibuang kerja secara salah - 6 tahun...

Justeru, saya percaya tindakan segera apabila keluar sahaja 'surat tunjuk sebab' - di mana jika pekerja bersatu, majikan akan mengalah dan rakan pekerja yang menjadi mangsa akan terselamat terus bekerja...

 


Wednesday, June 26, 2013

'Menjatuhkan imej atau nama baik syarikat...' harus tidak menjadi salah laku pekerjaan

Bagi seorang pekerja, apa yang penting adalah kontrak pekerjaannya di mana harus pekerja memastikan bahawa tidak ada apa-apa terkandung dalam perjanjian tersebut antara majikan dan pekerja yang kemungkinan membawa kepada ketidakadilan kepada pekerja.

Bila terdapat UNION, biasanya ada CBA(Collective Bargaining Agreement) di antara UNION dan majikan, di mana ini secara otomatis digunapakai bagi semua pekerja ahli UNION, di mana ini kebiasaan mengandungi terma yang lebih baik bagi pekerja.

Satu daripada perkara yang kadang-kadang terlepas lihat adalah isu 'salah laku' dan prosidur disciplin, di mana ini akan membebankan pekerja nanti, sapertimana yang kini berlaku kepada pekerja anak syarikat DRB Hicom di Pekan.

Biasanya majikan akan cuba memasukkan Company Handbook yang mengandungi rules dan polisi syarikat (Peraturan, Aturcara dan Polisi)- di mana jika dilihat setengah daripada buku ini ada menyeneraikan beratusan jenis salah-laku(misconduct), di mana setengah daripada ini begitu lebar sehingga boleh digunakan dengan berbagai cara untuk tujuan memberhentikan kerja pekerja. Kadang-kadang, senarai salah-laku ini tidakpun diklaskan samada ianya merupakan salah-laku kecil yang akan membawa kepada 'penalti, amaran,... atau salah-laku besar yang akan membawa kepada pemberhentian kerja. 

Apa-apa rujukan(tanpa apa-aba syarat atau bantahan) kepada Handbook atau Aturan Syarikat dalam CA/CBA secara otomatis boleh dianggap sebagai pengakuan dan penerimaan semua apa yang terkandung dalam buku majikan ini - Ini sangat bahaya. Maka,  JANGAN sama sekali merujuk kepada buku rules dan/atau polisi syarikat di dalam CA. Jika mahu menerima pakai mana-mana bahagian, buat rujukan khusus kepada Bahagian, muka surat, perenggan apa atau peruntukan apa-apa. Nyatakan juga edisi apa(tahun dicetak) untuk keselamatan.

Amalan terbaik adalah untuk memasukkan senarai 'salah laku' yang boleh diterima terus ke dalam CA/CBA. Pastikan diskripsi salah-laku adalah jelas - bukan sesuatu yang kurang jelas dan kemungkinan boleh disalahgunakan. Pastikan bahawa salah-laku berkenaan dihadkan kepada 'work performance', kelakuan semasa kerja atau yang boleh diterima. Pastikan salahlaku itu jelas sekali.

Kita meneliti bebarapa 'salah laku' yang majikan cuba masukkan TETAPI UNION/Pekerja mesti bantah..

Menjatuhkan imej atau nama baik syarikat melalui apa-apa cara sama ada cara lisan, tulisan atau perbuatan.
Ini adalah contoh 'salah laku' yang sangat am... dan ianya sememangnya harus tidak diterima pekerja.

Mengapa?

1 - Pekerja di ambil kerja untuk melakukan kerja khusus syarikat - dia tidak ada obligasi menaikkan imej atau nama baik syarikat - ini semua bukan tugas atau tanggungjawab pekerja. Justeru, menjatuhkan imej atau nama baik syarikat tidak boleh dijadikan salah laku. [Lain jika ia ditujukan kepada seorang Pengarah syarikat, CEO, COO atau orang yang boleh dikatakan dilihat khalayak ramai sebagai orang yang mewakili syarikat...]

2 - Jika pekerja ditindas syarikat, cara biasa pekerja atau Union lawan majikan adalah dengan cara 'memalukan' syarikat, merayu masyarakat umum dan pihak lain membantu memberikan tekanan kepada syarikat supaya syarikat berhenti penindasan tersebut, pencabulan hak pekerja tersebut,...ini sahaja 'senjata' perjuangan pekerja - selain daripada mogok(strike) di mana pekerja berhenti kerja menjejaskan pendapatan majikan, atau 'go slow'(kerja perlahan) atau tindakan kerja ikut masa normal (tak mahu buat kerja lebih masa atau apa-apa kerja tambahan luar skop kerja biasa. - kini apabila-bila pekerja atau union mengunakan taktik 'namakan dan malukan' (nama and shame tactic) - majikan boleh memulakan tindakan disiplin mengunakan salah laku yang dinyatakan di atas. - Inilah sebab mengapa 'salah laku' ini harus dikeluarkan daripada senarai salahlaku, atau secara alternatif hadkan supaya tak dipakai di dalam situasi perjuangan pekerja/kesatuan dalam perjuangkan hak pekerja.

Di kes syarikat DRB Hicom Pekan, inilah satu tuduhan salah laku yang telah digunakan oleh pihak syarikat...

Oh ya, tuduhan sama mungkin juga akan digunakan majikan jika pekerja keluar beramai-ramai memprotes tindakan salah syarikat terhadap rakan pekerja - tetapi jika ramai yang keluar protes, sukar majikan mengambil tindakan terhadap semua pekerja - dan pekerja boleh menang dan menghalang ketidakadilan menimpa rakan pekerja.

Kita harus mengingati mangsa salah laku sedemikian -

* National Union of Journalists (NUJ) president Hata Wahari
 
* Abdul Jamil Jalaludeen and Chen Ka Fatt dari NUBE(National Union of Banking Employees)



Maka, HARUS pekerja atau UNION memastikan bahawa salah laku yang dinyatakan di atas mengenai imej dan nama baik syarikat dikeluarkan daripada senarai salah-laku.

Kewujudan salah laku tersebut akan menjejaskan kebolehan pekerja berjuang untuk hak pekerja atau berjuang memastikan ketidakadilan tidak menimpa rakan pekerja.

Sekian dulu, saya akan memberikan pendapat mengenai salah-laku lain dan perkara lain dalam masa akan datang.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

MTUC keluar kenyataan mengenai 'face mask' - tetapi adakah keluar kenyataan membantah penangguhan pembayaran gaji minima?

Bagus sekali bahawa MTUC telah menimbulkan isu ini dalam media massa, dan pihak media sememangnya akan memberikan liputan berkenaan isu sebegini - tetapi apabila isu berkenaan hak pekerja saperti hak terima gaji minima sekarang, hak mendapatkan pekerjaan tetap sehingga bersara, hak memberikan pengiktirafan kepada union secara cepat, dsb. - ruang media kurang atau jarang diberikan tetapi apa yang penting adalah MTUC, Kesatuan Sekerja, Senator, MP dan pejuang hak pekerja mesti sentiasa keluar kenyataan media berkenaan perkara yang menyentuh hak pekerja ... Harapan adalah bahawa kenyataan-kenyataan diterbitkan dengan sepenuhnya di laman web, serta petikan mana-mana lapiran media...
 
Jika kita melihat kenyataan, kita akan tahu bahawa MTUC dan/atau Kesatuan lain telah segera bertindak...ini penting untuk warga pekerja dan masyarakat umum...
 
Adakah MTUC mengeluarkan apa-apa kenyataan bila 400 syarikat besar dibenarkan menangguhkan pembayaran gaji minima sehingga akhir tahun?  Mana dia suara pekerja membantah penafian hak menerima gaji Minima? Apa majikan minta kerajaan bagi - 400 minta tangguh 400 dapat - pelik
 
MTUC wants bosses to give free masks to workers
  • Bernama
  • 2:17PM Jun 25, 2013
 
The Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) today urged all employers to provide free face masks to their workers in view of the worsening haze in the country.

Priority should be given to those working in the field, like the construction, plantation and port workers, said its vice-president, A Balasubramaniam.

surgical maskHe told Bernama that at present some of the workers were buying their own masks and this was imposing a financial burden on them.

Balasubramaniam, who is also the MTUC’s Health and Safety Committee chairperson, said the employers should also give due consideration to their employees who were asthmatic or suffering from other respiratory ailments.

He said these categories of workers should be given proper medical assistance or days off depending on the haze situation and their health needs.

He said it was hoped that the government would provide special incentives to encourage employers to ensure the health of their workers during this critical period.

- Bernama - Malaysiakini, 25/6/2013, MTUC wants bosses to give free masks to workers

Monday, June 24, 2013

Employers advised to stop field work if haze worsens


Employers advised to stop field work if haze worsens
 
Employers have been advised to reduce or stop field work should Air Pollutant Index (API) readings remain at worrying levels, said Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH)
director-general Dr Johari Basri.

He said this was necessary so that the health of workers continued to be protected.

“We hope that at certain API levels, employers will take action especially for their workers in the field and construction sites.

“Workers who operate cranes, for example, will experience low visibility due to the haze and this will endanger them,” he told Bernama in Putrajaya today.

According to Johari, employers in all sectors were advised to prepare a guideline on safety and health for their workers which could be implemented with cooperation from the Health Ministry and Department of Environment (DOE).

He added that employees must also give consideration for their safety and health first.

“They need to be more careful when driving or riding a motorcycle,” he said.

According to reports from the DOE, API readings in Muar, which was declared as an emergency area, showed a positive development with readings of 148 as at 7am today compared to 507 at 4pm yesterday.

Only one area remains as hazardous which is Port Dickson in Negri Sembilan with API reading of 335, while Bukit Rambai, Malacca, and Kemaman, Terengganu, still have unhealthy levels of 260 and 249.

Unhealthy API readings are found in 19 areas, 28 areas are moderate and one categorised as good.

- Bernama

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Mana dia suara pekerja membantah penafian hak menerima gaji Minima? Apa majikan minta kerajaan bagi - 400 minta tangguh 400 dapat - pelik

Ini adalah gaji minima pekerja - tetapi nyata kerajaan berpihak kepada syarikat besar, di mana diumumkan bahawa 400 syarikat besar dibenarkan menangguhkan pembayaran gaji minima kepada pekerja sehingga 31/12/2013 - MENGAPA?

Harus kita jangan lupa bahawa oleh kerana majikan telah gagal membayar pekerja gaji adil, kerajaan termasuk masuk campur dan menetapkan gaji minima, di mana RM900 itu pun masih sangat kurang...di mana janji kerajaan bahawa pekerja akan menerima gaji minima pada 1/1/2013 - dan pekerja di beberapa syarikat/sektor pada 1/7/2013. Kemudian datang satu lagi Perintah menafikan ramai pekerja gaji minima pada 1/1/2013. Kini, 400 syarikat BESAR pula dibenarkan tidak membayar gaji minima - semestinya syarikat BESAR mesti mampu.

Sekarang Menteri mempelawa syarikat kecil (micro) membuat permohonan supaya mereka tak perlu membayar gaji minima. Mereka tak pohon sebelum ini, tetapi Menteri minta mereka memohon...bukankah ini tak adil?

He said, to date, the ministry had yet to receive any application for the postponement of minimum wage from micro companies but employers would have an opportunity to do so at the meeting.

Persoalan yang timbul adalah mengapa pekerja tidak memohon untuk mendapatkan gaji minima - masalahnya mereka tiada hak atau kapasiti  berbuat demikian, khususnya apabila ramai pekerja ini tidak mempunyai UNION. 

Tanggungjawab membela hak pekerja adalah tanggungjawab MTUC - tetapi nampaknya MTUC berdiam diri, tidak membuat apa-apa bantahan keras atau protes, dan pekerja menjadi mangsa... MTUC dan union lain perlu BERSUARA BERJUANG untuk pekerja - di mana perjuangan ini harus perjuangan terbuka - bukan hanya 'merayu' di dalam Bilik kepada Menteri atau pegawai Kementerian... Keluarkan kenyataan - buat 'press conference'/sidang media, sebarkan kenyataan mengunakan emel, BLOG, laman web... kerana kini nampaknya hanya majikan yang aktif berjuang tak mahu bayar gaji minima...tetapi pekerja, MTUC dan union lain berdiam diri sahaja menerima sahaja apa-apa keputusan kerajaan.

Sekarang nampaknya mana-mana majikan memohon, mereka berjaya - 400 yang memohon, 400 berjaya.


"To date, we have received 400 applications from companies seeking for the date to be pushed to Dec 31 and I have approved the applications,"
Adakah MTUC terlibat berjuang untuk pekerja yang tak ada union? Adakah MTUC ada peranan atau peluang membantah sebelum keputusan Menteri dibuat?
Secara rasmi, MTUC diambil kira sebagai wakil semua pekerja oleh kerajaan Malaysia ...oleh ILO. 

Majikan selalu mengunakan taktik agressif, mengunakan media ...di mana dalam situasi sebegini, MTUC dan UNION lain juga harus berjuang 'secara terbuka' dalam arena umum - bukan lagi dengan cara 'senyap-senyap'...

Apa yang gagal lapuran media menyatakan, adalah bilangan pekerja yang menjadi mangsa akibat keputusan Menteri ini.... 400,000?  


Business

400 big companies to delay minimum wage

June 22, 2013
 
More than 400 big companies have received the green light to postpone the implementation of minimum wage of RM900 a month until Dec 31.

Human Resource Minister Datuk Richard Riot said the postponement was made due to various reasons, including the financial capability of the companies to implement the minimum wage, announced by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak previously.

"Overall, all the private sector agreed and did not protest against the decision of the government to implement minimum wage but they asked for flexibility due to certain reasons.

"To date, we have received 400 applications from companies seeking for the date to be pushed to Dec 31 and I have approved the applications," he told reporters after the 2013 Workers' Day gathering at the Bukit Jalil Stadium today launched by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak. The announcement of the RM900 monthly minimum wage for the private sector for the peninsula and RM800 a month in Sabah, Sarawak and Labuan was made by the Prime Minister on April 30 last year and gazetted on July 16.

The Minimum Wage Order 2012 was enforced on Jan 1, 2013 and the rate would be studied every two years.

Meanwhile, Riot said the National Wages Consultative Council would hold a meeting with employers from micro companies to discuss on the implementation of minimum wage on July 25.

He said, to date, the ministry had yet to receive any application for the postponement of minimum wage from micro companies but employers would have an opportunity to do so at the meeting.

In his speech, Riot said 2012 witnessed the national economy managing to weather the impact of the global economic crisis. He said the success was due to agreement and consensus to ensure the national development agenda could be continued and inherited by the coming generation. - Bernama, June 22, 2013,  - Malaysian Insider, 22/6/2013, 400 big companies to delay minimum wage

Sunday, June 9, 2013

Human rights defenders face a tragic fate - Al’ Jamil(FMT Letter)

Human rights defenders face a tragic fate

June 5, 2013
FMT LETTER: From Al’ Jamil, via e-mail

My name is Abdul Jamil Jalaludeen, and I am the vice-president of NUBE. I was dismissed by my employer, Maybank Bhd after 20 years of service. My fellow union brother, Chen Ka Fatt (general treasurer of NUBE) was also dismissed after 30 years of service to Maybank. Why were we fired, you might ask? We were dismissed simply because we fought to defend human rights and well as the rights of NUBE members in Maybank Bhd

Many of us do not realise the importance of a union. It is often brushed off as a communistic cabal of blue collar workers demanding higher pay. Many of us do not realise that our cause is the same as the guy next door, we are only asking for a fair share of the economic pie

For instance, the former CEO of Maybank Abdul Wahid Omar took home a whopping RM6.26 million last year. One man, one family enjoys such lavish income. It is no secret that corporate fat cats earn a killing, but Maybank also lavishly spends our hard earned contribution to the company by channeling company profits to entertain the rich and famous to The Malaysian Golf Open where in 2011 they sponsored the cash prize money amounting to RM7.5 million and RM6.4 million in 2010 and 2009.

This is unpretentiously a smokescreen to earn fame in the pretext of Corporate Social Responsibility, I would know; I worked in Maybank for a decade. When we ask for a performance bonus after multiple profitable quarters? We are denied. We were not only denied but also had our rights obscenely violated when an in-house union was formed in Maybank. An in-house union clearly violates Malaysian and International Labour Standards. This is a clear act of desperation to divide and conquer us.

As a shrewd and cunning capitalist, Wahid will decimate the lower and middle class in his efforts to make this an aristocratic state. His appointment as the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department will hinder Malaysia’s progress of ever bridging the income inequality gap. How is it that I am sacked, my wife and three (3) children are deprived of a livelihood, for standing up for my basic human rights, and yet Wahid is promoted to Minister?

A stab in the back!

I will never forget the Jan 31, 2012 because ever since I joined the Maybank’s Pulau Tikus branch in 1993 I have always come in to work early, way before any other bank personnel especially the Bank Manager. To my surprise, I saw my bank Manager in the office way before me on Jan 31,2012. She called me in and shoved a paper onto my hands, and explained the situation to me slowly.

Imagine the amount of weight on my shoulders, when I learned, that I was sacked for conducting union related activities. The betrayal of Maybank does not end there, to rub salt into my open wound, they canceled my credit card; I have mouths to feed.

The canceling of my credit card was the last straw, it was not like I had committed a crime, hell, I have even dealt with cases of dismissal involving fraud the but the employer does not cancel their credit card. I was merely exercising my right to freely express my contentions pursuant to a trade dispute and I am punished with such cruelty?

To add insult to injury, the first question my manager asked was, “Can I have your Medical Card back?”
Maybank accused me of causing disrepute to the bank by holding a banner bearing the words “Maybank robs poor Malaysian workers” at the International Labor Organisation convention in Geneva as part of our trade dispute campaign. However, they are the ones bringing disrepute to themselves, with their deep pockets and crafty lawyers, bullying me, the small guy.

I have received the High Performance Award 3 times during my time at Maybank, an award that was discontinued during Wahid’s regime, as a slight bonus was given alongside the award. Furthermore, I had various bank managers from all over the NUBE’s northern region which comprises Penang, Kedah and Perlis conveyed their dissatisfaction over my dismissal. As many times, I have helped settled multiple union disputes with bank managers.

They overlooked my capabilities as an outstanding employee and as a cooperating unionist, just to instill fear into other union members. In other words, to make an example out of me, they paralysed me financially. However this will not knock me down, I am confident of winning my wrongful dismissal case in court, and under the leadership of the Union led by president, Tan Eng Hong and general secretary, J Solomon with the undivided support of our 30 thousand-strong NUBE members, we will win!

Ask yourselves: If Trade Unions were not a force to be reckoned with, why do Corporations spend millions to challenge Unions? Why do Corporations fight so hard to defeat the Trade Unions?

To all the Kids out there, Unions are Cool!

To the younger generation, who are unfamiliar with unions, they are the only check and balance mechanism left in a capitalistic economy. Without unions, some of the most essential and unalienable workers’ rights will be trampled upon and bastardised.

I urge all Malaysians to realise this fact and realise that there are laws protecting workers. Trade Unionism cannot be alienated from Human Rights. Trade Union rights are human rights. The next time, when you are at work, and when you go out for a lunch break, be thankful towards these unions, because once upon a time, a lunch break did not exist. - FMT News, Human rights defenders face a tragic fate, June 5, 2013 FMT LETTER: From Al’ Jamil, via e-mail