HAK Pekerja - dalam undang-undang, Kontrak kerja atau CBA

Jika hak pekerja tidak terkandung dalam undang-undang negara, ianya mesti ada dalam Kontrak Kerja atau dalam Perjanjian Bersama (Collective Bargaining Agreement) di antara Union dan Majikan - jika tidak ada, hak itu kemungkinan besar tidak boleh dituntut pekerja..

Justeru, amat penting bagi mana-mana UNION apabila memasuki CBA dengan majikan memastikan bahawa hak ini terkandung dalam Perjanjian Bersama tersebut...

Merujuk kepada AKTA KERJA 1955 - semua hak terkandung hanya untuk mereka yang bergaji RM2,000 atau kurang - Maka, jika mahu hak ini juga terpakai untuk semua pekerja dan/atau ahli UNION - mestilah dengan jelas menyatakan bahawa semua hak terkandung dalam AKta ini terpakai untuk semua pekerja tak kira jumlah gaji atau apa-apa faktor lain

Tempoh Percubaan - juga tak terkandung dalam AKta - perlu dimasukkan dalam Perjanjian Bersama

Disiplin - Juga harus dimasukkan senarai SALAHLAKU KERJA  - jangan pula biarkan majikan sahaja yang putuskan. Pastikan dengan jelas apakah SALAHLAKU KERJA, juga apakah hukuman yang akan dikenakan jika kesalahan pertama, kedua atau ketiga yang sama. 

Jenis hukuman yang boleh dikenakan 

1 - Amaran Lisan

2 - Amaran Bertulis

3 - Denda

4 - Turun Pangkat

5 - Buang Kerja 

(Ingat UNION dan majikan akan putuskan ini - pastikan salahlaku adalah jelas dan tepat - jangan terlalu am atau longgar....)

Ada UNION yang secara silap terima sahaja semua SALAHLAKU yang majikan mencadangkan, atau yang sudah terkandung dalam Manual Syarikat Majikan - ini tindakan yang kurang baik... Satu contoh kesilapan ini adalah saperti clausa yang dinyatakan dibawah ini yang terkandung dalam CBA(Perjanjian Bersama)...

FACTORY RULES AND REGULATIONS

All employees shall comply with the rules and regulations of the factory. The rules and regulations may be reviewed from time to time as deemed fit by the Company as deemed fit by the Company after discussion with the Union

Akibat kemasukan klausa ini, semua pekerja terikat dengan semua apa yang terkandung dalam 'Factory Rules and Regulations' - apa-apa salahlaku terkandung telah diterima UNION bagi pihak semua ahli....Adakah UNION membaca dengan terperinchi 'Factory Rules and Regulations' ini sebelum menandatangani CBA ini? 

Malangnya banyak UNION memberi tumpuan lebih kepada isu 'wang' ---

Senarai salahlaku yang dipersetujui berserta hukuman yang boleh dikenakan - boleh dilampirkan sebagai Jadual kepada Perjanjian Bersama...

PROSIDUR DISIPLIN  - ini juga perlu dinyatakan dengan jelas dalam CBA

Langkah 1 - Surat Tunjuk Sebab akan dihantar kepada pekerja terbabit (sesalinan kepada UNION) menyatakan dengan jelas apakah salahlaku yang dilakukan, serta fakta khusus mengapa majikan berpendapat salahlaku tersebut dilakukan. Masa untuk menjawab - 7 atau 14 hari

Langkah 2A - Jika pekerja mengakui tuduhan - apa berlaku

Langkah 2B - Jika pekerja menafikan tuduhan yang dilemparkan, dan majikan boleh memberhentikan prosidur disiplin TETAPI jika majikan mahu meneruskan dengan tuduhan, HARUS diadakan DOMESTIC INQUIRY sapertimana terkandung dalam Jadual XXX (yang akan dengan lebih jelas menyatakan langkah serta hak dalam DI) 

Ingat 'due inquiry' tidak jelas - maka perlu nyatakan dengan jelas apa yang dimaksudkan

Panel Bebas (Berapa orang?)
Prosidur  - Caj dibaca - Pekerja mengaku atau tidak mengaku - Jika tak mengaku, majikan membentangkan keterangan - panggil saksi, pekerja dituduh ada hak soal balas saksi, majikan ada hak membuat pemeriksaan semula saksi(re-examination), pekerja ada hak memanggil saksi, 
Siapa boleh mewakili pekerja? Peguam, Wakil Union, Pekerja lain - cuba masukkan kesemuanya...kerana mereka yang akan mewakili majikan biasa ada latar belakang undang-undang (mungkin juga bekas peguam)...INGAT bahawa mereka yang mewakili pekerja yang dituduh mesti arif dalam bertanya soalan kepada saksi majikan, mencabar keterangan yang dikemukan oleh majikan (tak boleh diterima kerana dengar cakap, dll... di mana pengetahuan undang-undang dan pengalaman perlu sangat... sebaik-baik cupa dapatkan hak pekerja boleh diwakili peguam...

.....

Boleh juga dinyatakan juga dalam CBA bahawa kegagalan mengadakan DI sebuang pekerja dibuang kerja akan diambil kira bahawa pembuangan kerja tersebuat adalah TIDAK SAH.

SUSPENSION PENDING INQUIRY - tujuan ini adalah kerana majikan tidak mahu pekerja ditempat kerja BUKAN pekerja tak mahu masuk kerja. Pada masa ini juga, pekerja dianggap tidak bersalah - doktrine "innocent until proven guilty" - maka  suspension mesti dengan GAJI PENUH - jangan setuju dengan gaji separuh dan sebagainya... Jika mahu terus suspend pekerja sehingga tamat DI dan sebagainya .... pastikan bahawa bukan sahaja Gaji Penuh tetapi pekerja menikmati PENDAPATAN PURATA (Ramai pekerja gaji rendan, dan elaun kerja dan lain-lain merupakan pendapatan - jadi kenapa seorang yang masih belum habis DI atau dibuang kerja perlu dihukum ?? 

Tapi, ada yang menyatakan, ini prinsip dalam undang-undang - khususnya Akta Kerja seksyen 14(2)

(2) For the purposes of an inquiry under subsection (1), the employer may suspend the employee from work for a period not exceeding two weeks but shall pay him not less than half his wages for such period:
Provided that if the inquiry does not disclose any misconduct on the part of the employee the employer shall forthwith restore to the employee the full amount of wages so withheld.

Tapi, bukankah peruntukkan ini TIDAK ADIL - bagaimana pula seseorang yang belum didapati bersalah boleh dihukum dengan suspension potong gaji pula....[Sewajarnya MTUC, UNION lain sudah lama berkempen untuk memansuhkan provisi 'potong gaji ini' - kalau tidak pernah berbuat demikian, persoalannya adalah kenapa???]

Jangan lupa, ini adalah Perjanjian Bersama - jadi hak yang lebih baik daripada apa yang terkandung dalam Akta Kerja 1955 boleh dimasukkan, dan ini akan terpakai.... 

ADA YANG MENYATAKAN TAK PAYAH MASUK SEMUA INI DALAM CBA ATAU PERJANJIAN BERSAMA - tapi soalan yang harus ditanya adalah jika ianya tidak jelas terkandung dalam Undang-Undang, Kontrak Kerja atau CBA, dari manakah datangnya HAK INI? 

Pastikan hak pekerja dimasukkan dengan jelas dalam CBA (Perjanjian Bersama), di mana ini semestinya termasuk salah laku dan proses disiplin...

Kerja malas adalah terima buta-buta semua kandungan Company Handbook atau Company Manual - tapi demi pekerja, harus kita jangan malas dan rajin memastikan CBA lengkap...dan hak pekerja dijamin dan dipertingkatkan bukan dihakis....

 

 

 

Kes Guppy Plastic - Diskriminasi berasaskan jantina masih boleh dilakukan kepada pekerja sektor swasta

 Kes Guppy Plastic ada dua isu - di mana ini telah dibincang dan diberi keputusan melalui dua kes

1- Pembuangan kerja - mereka yang cuba menubuhkan union/atau ahli Union

2 -Diskriminasi - di mana kepimpinan union perempuan dibuang kerja (atau di anggap bersara) di mana umur persaraan perempuan adalah 50, dan umur persaraan lelaki adalah 55. Keadaan ini adalah nyata diskriminasi berasaskan jantina - yang bercanggah dengan prinsip 'Equality' yang secara khusus juga menghalang diskriminasi berasaskan jantina....Tetapi, kini Mahkamah negara ini membuat keputusan bahawa peruntukan atau keperluan 'equality' dan tidak dibenarkan diskriminasi adalah hanya untuk pekerja sektor awam - bukan pekerja sektor swasta. Ini nyata DISKRIMINASI.

Berikut adalah sedikit latar belakang kes ini yang saya dapat daripada Facebook Bicara Pekerja, dan salinan penghakiman kes di Mahkamah Tinggi mengenai isu pertama ... salinan alasan penghakiman kes di peringkat Mahkamah Tinggi mengenai isu diskriminasi sedang saya mencari pada masa ini... 

Kawan-kawan, sedikit latarbelakang tentang kes diskriminasi pekerja-pekerja Guppy Plastik:

Isu Perjuangan Umur Persaraan Pekerja-Pekerja Guppy Plastic Industries S/B

1. Gan Soh Eng, 61
2. Janama a/p Muniandy, 64
3. Iyyamah a/p Irtchumanan, 65
4. Pereyarka a/p Velesamy, 64
5. Danalachumy a/p Sinian, 63
6. Tolasiamah a/p S.A.Samy, 63
7. Marri a/p Perumal, 65
8. Letchmi a/p Suppiah, 62

Kronologi Peristiwa Penting :

10 Jan 2000: Surat Pekeliling dari Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Guppy Plastic Industries (KPPG) kepada semua pekerja, memberi nasihat agar jangan menandatangani Buku Panduan Syarat-Syarat & Peraturan Pekerjaan tanpa memahami dengan jelas kandungan buku tersebut. Juga dinasihatkan untuk memberitahu kesatuan sekiranya pihak majikan memaksa sesiapa untuk menandatangani Buku Panduan tersebut.

10 Jan 2000: Aduan di bawah Seksyen 8, 59(1) dan 4(1) Akta Perhubungan Perindustrian 1967 oleh KPPG kepada Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan mengenai Buku Panduan Syarat-Syarat & Peraturan Pekerjaan yang mencabuli hak pekerja dan ahli kesatuan sekerja.

29 Jun 2001: 20 pekerja mengadu kepada KPPG bahawa pihak majikan telah memecat mereka dengan 24 jam notis atas alasan mereka sudah mencapai umur persaraan.

2 Julai 2001: Surat aduan kepada pihak majikan meminta pekerja-pekerja tersebut diambil semula untuk kerja. Surat tersebut juga menegaskan pekerja-pekerja Guppy tidak bersetuju dengan kandungan Buku Panduan Syarat-Syarat & Peraturan Pekerjaan.

23 Julai 2001: Surat kepada majikan daripada KPPG mengenai pemecatan pekerja-pekerja berumur 51-53 tahun secara tidak sah. Surat ini juga menyentuh tentang surat KPPG kepada pihak majikan bertarikh 9 & 10 January 2001 membantah isu umur persaraan dan perkara-perkara lain. Ia juga menyentuh tentang mesyuarat bersama antara pihak majikan, Jabatan Buruh, Jabatan Perhubungan Perindustrian, Kementerian Sumber Manusia dan KPPG mengenai bantahan pekerja terhadap syarat umur persaraan. Ia juga menyentuh tentang aduan dari pekerja bahawa majikan memaksa mereka untuk menandatangani Buku Panduan Syarat-Syarat & Peraturan Pekerjaan.

25 Oct 2001: KPPG menulis surat kepada Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan Penang untuk membantah pelaksanaan Buku Panduan Syarat-Syarat & Peraturan Pekerjaan yang bercanggah dengan Akta Pekerjaan 1955 dan Perlembagaan Persekutuan Negara. Antara isu-isu tersebut ialah berkaitan Notis Penamatan, Waktu Bekerja, Umur Persaraan dan kenaikan gaji tahunan.

25 Nov 2001: Surat dari KPPG kepada Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan membantah pelaksanaan Buku Panduan Syarat-Syarat & Peraturan Pekerjaan oleh pihak syarikat Guppy. Sebanyak 32 perkara di bawa ke perhatian Pengarah JPP termasuk isu umur persaraan.

8 Jan 2002: Surat dari Dato Dr. Toh Kin Woon (EXCO Negeri Pulau Pinang) kepada Pengarah Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan meminta campurtangan menyelesaikan aduan pekerja-pekerja Guppy Plastic Industries membantah pelaksanaan Buku Panduan Syarat-Syarat & Peraturan Pekerjaan.

2 Ogos 2005: Pernyataan Kes yang difail oleh IRO bagi pihak pekerja-pekerja (8 orang) yang dihentikan kerja atas alasan mencapai umur persaraan, di Mahkamah Industri:

(i) 8 orang pekerja dibuang kerja pada I Julai 2001 melalui surat bertarikh 18 Jun 2001. Mereka telah bekerja sebagai ‘operator pengeluaran’, ‘cleaner’, ‘general worker’ yang telah bekerja sejak tahun 1990/1997 di syarikat plastic Guppy. Malah salah seorang dari mereka berumur 50 tahun ketika dilantik, manakala yang lain dalam lingkungan 40an. Gaji terakhir mereka adalah dalam lingkungan RM800 sebulan.

(ii) Tiada terma umur persaraan dalam kontrak kerja semasa dilantik bekerja. Diberi keyakinan bahawa mereka boleh bekerja sehingga terdaya.

(iii) Surat tawaran pekerjaan hanya diminta ditandatangani sekitar tahun 1999 dan bukan semasa di ambil kerja. Dalam surat tawaran ini tiada terma mengenai umur persaraan pekerja.

(iv) Sekitar Nov 1997, Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Guppy Plastic telah di tubuhkan dan menerima pendaftaran oleh Jabatan Hal Ehwal Kesatuan Sekerja pada 27 April 1998. Sembilan orang pekerja ini adalah ahli Kesatuan Sekerja.

(v) Sejak pihak Kesatuan Pekerja menuntut ‘pengiktirafan’ (30 Mei 1998), pihak syarikat bertindak melumpuhkan kesatuan dengan memangsakan AJK-AJK kesatuan dan ahli-ahli aktifnya secara berperingkat-peringkat.

(vi) Pada Disember 1999, kesemua 9 orang dan pekerja-pekerja lain telah diberi Buku Panduan Syarat-Syarat & Peraturan Pekerjaan. 9 orang pekerja ini dipaksa oleh majikan untuk menandatangani satu surat sebagai persetujuan menerima kandungan terma-terma dalam buku tersebut. Pekerja terbabit telah memberitahu perkara ini ke perhatian pihak Kesatuan.

(vii) Pihak Kesatuan telah membuat aduan kepada YB Menteri Sumber Manusia, Jabatan Perhubungan Perushaan, Jabatan Buruh dan juga kepada pihak majikan, Guppy Plastic Industries mengenai Buku Panduan Syarat-Syarat & Peraturan Pekerjaan yang mencabuli hak pekerja dan hak kesatuan sekerja.

(viii) Pihak kesatuan juga menulis surat kepada majikan membantah tindakan pembuangan kerja.

(ix) 8 orang pekerja bersama pihak kesatuan telah membuat aduan pembuangan ini di Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan (JPP). Pada 6 Julai 2001, pihak majikan mendesak 8 orang pekerja ini membuat surat pengakuan bahawa Pengerusi Kesatuan telah memaksa mereka membuat aduan di JPP. Pihak kesatuan telah membuat aduan polis terhadap pihak syarikat yang melemparkan tuduhan-tuduhan palsu terhadap Kesatuan Sekerja Guppy Plastic.

3 Julai 2008: Keputusan Kes Mahkamah Perusahaan [No. 26 (14)/4-244/05, Award No. 1147] dibuat di bawah seksyen 30 Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, memihak pihak pekerja.

13 Ogos 2008: Permohonan untuk perintah certiorari oleh pihak majikan (Goh Boon King, perayu) untuk membatalkan keputusan di atas. Antara argument-argumen yang dibentangkan ialah:

(i) Tidak setuju dengan kesimpulan (Award No. 1147) bahawa umur persaraan 50 tahun bagi pekerja-pekerja wanita adalah amalan buruh yang tidak adil. Yang gagal di cabar ialah ‘umur persaraan biasa’ di sektor industry plastic ketika itu ialah 50 tahun bagi pekerja wanita dan 55 tahun bagi pekerja-pekerja lelaki.

(ii) Pengerusi Mahkamah Perusahaan tidak mengambil kira fakta bahawa Pihak Menuntut (pekerja-pekerja) telah ‘bersetuju’ dan ‘mengesahkan’ segala terma-terma dan syarat-syarat yang terkandung di dalam Buku Panduan Syarat-Syarat & Peraturan Pekerjaan dan telah terus bekerja. Juga telah menerima bayaran gratuiti persaraan apabila bersara.

22 Oct 2008: Kebenaran diberi kepada pihak majikan untuk memohon suatu perintah certiorari di Mahkamah Tinggi

7 Ogos 2009: Afidavit jawapan dari pihak pekerja (responden). Antara jawapan ialah:

‘menentukan polisi umur yang berbeza antara pekerja lelaki dan perempuan iaitu 50 tahun bagi pekerja wanita dan 55 tahun untuk pekerja lelaki adalah merupakan satu diskriminasi’

13 April 2010: Keputusan Yang Arif Dato’ Aziah Binti Ali, Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di KL – menyebelahi pihak majikan

20 April 2010: Notis Rayuan difailkan oleh peguam pihak pekerja (perayu).

Jan & Sept 11: Surat Peringatan dari peguam pihak pekerja kepada Mahkamah meminta tarikh kes.

31 Oct 2011: Penyerahan Memorandum kepada Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia YAA Tan Sri Dato Seri Md. Raus: untuk mempercepatkan tarikh perbicaraan kes.

12 Jan 2012: Perbicaraan Kes di Mahkamah Rayuan [Rujukan Kes:
W2-02-1194-10]. Kes ditunda ke 21 Mar 2012.

21 Mar 2012: Pekerja kalah di Mahkamah rayuan.

Sekian

 Source: Facebook, BICARA PEKERJA, sumbangan Sivaranjani Manickam

 

ROSHAMIZA MUHAMAD & ORS v. GUPPY PLASTIC INDUSTRIES SDN BHD & ANOR
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
MOHAMAD ARIFF MD YUSOF J
[PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO. R3(2)-25-234-2006]
14 DECEMBER 2009

GROUNDS OF DECISION

This was a judicial review application in relation to an award of the Industrial Court where the Industrial Court upheld the decision of the employer to dismiss the Applicants on the ground of misconduct after a short disciplinary enquiry.

The grounds for the judicial review application and the reliefs prayed appear in the application for judicial review and the statement under Order 53 rule 3(2), and it is not necessary to repeat them here. Suffice to state the Applicants applied for an order of certiorari to quash the entire award of the Industrial Court (Award Number 965 of 2006); [2006] 2 LNS 0965 which had dismissed the claim of unlawful dismissal without just cause and excuse. The Applicant also applied for a consequential order in the event this Court should allow the application for certiorari; in this respect the Applicants applied for any necessary consequential reliefs, or alternatively an order of mandamus to remit their claim to the Industrial Court to be reheard.

I allowed the application for judicial review for the substantive order of certiorari as prayed in prayer (a) of Enclosure 1, with a further order that an order of mandamus be issued to remit the matter back to the Industrial Court for the industrial to decide on the appropriate remedy other than dismissal. I made no order as to costs, given the circumstances, namely misconduct was proven but the issue turned on whether the outright dismissal of the Applicants was proper in law.

In summary, I was of the view that, given the facts and the total circumstances of the case, the dismissal the Claimant was wholly disproportionate and award did not disclose the Industrial Court Chairman had addressed her mind as to the harshness or severity of the punishment, and in so doing the learned Industrial Court Chairman had committed a jurisdictional error. I refer to the High Court case of Sunmugan Subramaniam v. JG Containers (M) Sdn Berhad & Another [2000] 6 CLJ 521, which applied the doctrine of proportionality in a dismissal case. The High Court in Sunmugam Subramaniam, supra, drew on earlier principles stated in the celebrated case of R Rama Chandran v. The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Another [1997] 1 CLJ 147 where the Federal Court expressly referred to the doctrine of "proportionality" as a possible fourth ground of review which called for development. The High Court in Shunmugan Subramaniam, in applying the doctrine of proportionality to the facts, stated thus:

"A perusal of the award would reveal that the Industrial Court in this instant case had totally failed to perform its duty in the second limb of its twofold function as set out in Milan Auto. In other words, the Industrial Court failed to address his mind as regards the harshness or severity of punishment. Thus, the Industrial Court had committed a jurisdictional error of law... Moreover, the Industrial Court erred in law in dismissing the Applicant's claim because it failed to apply the doctrine of proportionality." (See page 535 and 536 of the report)

I respectfully agreed with this sentiment and application of the law. On the facts of the present judicial review application, there was an element of disproportionate action taken by the employer and on this the learned Industrial Court Chairman had failed to sufficiently address her mind on this important aspect of industrial law. See also the guidelines established in the persuasive Indian Supreme Court decision in RM Parmar v. Gujarat Electricity Board [1983] 1 LLJ 261 where Thakkar CJ held:

"In imposing punishment on an erring employee an enlightened approach informed with the demands of the situation and the philosophy and spirit of the times requires to be made. It cannot be a matter of the ipse dixit of the disciplinary authority depending on his whim or caprice. Be it administration of criminal law on the exercise or disciplinary jurisdiction in departmental proceedings, punishment is not and cannot be of the "end" in itself. Punishment for the sake of punishment cannot be the motto. Whilst deliberating upon the jurisprudential dimension the following factors must be considered:

(1) In a disciplinary proceeding for an alleged default of an employee punishment is imposed not in order to seek retribution or to give vent to feeling of wrath.

(2) The main purpose of punishment is to correct the fault of employee concerned by making him more alert in the future and to hold out or warning to the other employees to be careful in the discharge of their duties so that they do not expose themselves to similar punishment. And the approach to be made is the approach parents make towards an erring or misguided child.

(3) It is not expedient in the interest of the administration to visit every employee whom fault is established with the penalty of dismissal and to get rid of them. It would be counter-productive to do so for it would be futile to expect to recruit employees who are so perfect that they would never commit any fault.

(4) In order not to attract the charge of arbitrariness it has to be ensured that the penalty imposed is commensurate with the magnitude of the fault. Surely one cannot rationally justly impose the same penalty for giving a slap as one would impose for homicide."

These guidelines were referred to and applied in Sunmugan Subramaniam as well (see pages 534 and 535 of the report)

See also the persuasive Indian decision of Vasant Tukaram Mandavkar v. Life Insurers Corporation of India & Others [1998] III LLJ (Supp) 599, where the High Court of Bombay made reference to the need to have a careful application of mind to the facts and circumstances, including the past record of the Petitioner, before an order of dismissal should be imposed.

Counsel for the Applicants made it clear in the course of submission that the applicants were not challenging the finding of guilt, or the findings of the Industrial Court that the Applicants were untruthful witnesses. The issue here was whether the Applicants were victimised for their union activity, and since the Industrial Court Chairman had considered their victimisation as an irrelevant consideration, whether her decision to uphold the employer's decision to dismiss them could be supported in law. The three Applicants were, at all material times prior to the dismissal, factory workers (a line leader, and packing operators) who were at the same time principal office bearers of an in-house union known as Kesatuan Pekerja Pekerja Guppy Plastic Industries Sdn Bhd. According to the employer, seven office bearers of the union, including the Applicants, were found to have been engaged in illegal and unlawful activities which included giving false information about the company to third parties for publication which affected the image of the company, by distributing leaflets containing false information, and by carrying out the union activities during normal office hours which disrupted the work of other workers on the company's premises. In point of fact, the leaflets said to have been produced and distributed by the union office bearers were printed by a third party. All in all, though five charges levelled against these factory workers, only the three applicants were found guilty on the first, second and fifth charges, and promptly dismissed.

The details of the charges of found on pages 4 and 5 of the Award. Suffice to say, the Industrial Court found the Applicants not guilty of the first charge, but affirmed the finding of guilt on the second and fifth charges. It was noted by the learned Industrial Court Chairman that there was no domestic enquiry held because COW 2 had testified that the Applicants as Claimants had each admitted to committing allegations one, two and five but not allegations three and four.

It was the case for the Applicants in the Industrial Court that they were victimised for their union activity. This was expressly pleaded in the statement of case, which appears on page 62 of Enclosure 3, reading:

"11. The Claimant shall contend that they were dismissed without just cause or excuse.

12. The Claimants shall further contend that the decision to dismiss them was arbitrary, capricious and are acts of victimisation motivated by mala fides related to the claimant's involvement in trade union activities."

The Applicants expressly referred to the statement made by the General Manager of a company, who appeared as COW 1, in which he was questioned and he replied an agreed that he "went after the union". See the notes of proceedings produced in Enclosure 7, page 48:

"Q: The union has been corresponding, communicating from late 1997.

Why is it that after this letter the whole committee were suspended?

A: Because of the five charges spelt out - to find out whether true or not - yes suspend the entire AJK to investigate.

Q: So you went after the union?

A: Yes."

In conclusion, the learned Industrial Court Chairman found the argument that their action taken was "to nip the union in the bud" as "irrelevant to the court's consideration". It is also noted that at the material time the union had not been accorded recognition under section 9 of the Trade Unions Act. The facts, however disclosed, that the union had lodged a recognition claim but the company had refused to accord recognition. 

The in-house union had earlier applied to the Registrar of Trade Unions and the proposed in-house union was approved and registered under the Trade Unions Act 1959. When the disciplinary action was taken therefore, the in-house union had been involved in an application for recognition from the employer. This was the overall scenario behind the dismissal of the Applicants by the employer.

Although the court was exercising judicial review jurisdiction and it is an accepted principle of law that findings of fact on the evidence by the Industrial Court should not be interfered with by the High Court, the argument and ground mounted by the Applicants in this judicial review application extended beyond the narrow confines of interfering with findings of fact, but encroached upon the equally important area of "irrationality" and "proportionality". 

Given the right of association accorded to workers under the Federal Constitution, I believe it right and proper to assess the reasonableness and proportionality of the decision to dismiss, against the admitted evidence of the employer's representative that he went "after the union". In any event, the evidence did not disclose any sufficient attention being given to the Applicants' otherwise unblemished record and long service. I agreed with the position taken by counsel for the Applicants that the learned Industrial Court Chairman had adopted a cursory approach to the question whether the conduct complained of was serious enough to warrant an immediate dismissal. They had argued that they were distributing the leaflets which originated from a third party in the belief that the contents were true. In the circumstances, I was of the view that the punishment of an outright dismissal was unduly harsh and motivated by an extraneous factor namely to nib the in-house union activities in the bud.

In this connection, it might be useful to refer to some persuasive passages in a leading case by the Constitutional Court of South Africa, ie, Z Sidumo & Congress of South African Trade Unions v. Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd, Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration & Another [2007] ZACC 22. Although not strictly binding on the Malaysian Court, the juristic reasoning of the Constitutional Court of South Africa is of very persuasive significance. I quote the relevant passages:

"[72] In deciding how commissioners [the South African equivalent of the Industrial Court] should approach the task of determining the fairness of the dismissal, it is important to bear in mind that security of employment is a core value of the Constitution... This is the protection afforded to employees who are vulnerable. Their vulnerability flows from the inequality that characterises employment in modern developing economics...

[75] It is a practical reality that in the first place it is employer who hires and fires. The act of dismissal forms the jurisdictional basis for a commissioner, in the event of an unresolved dismissal dispute, to conduct an arbitration in terms of the LRA [the South African Labour Relations Act]. The Commissioner determines whether the dismissal is fair.

There are therefore no competing "discretions". Employer and commissioner each play a different part. .. the decision to dismiss belongs to the employer but the determination of its fairness does not. Ultimately, the Commissioner's sense of fairness is what must prevail and not the employer's view. An impartial third party determination on whether or not a dismissal is fair is likely to promote labour peace ...

[77] Employees are entitled to assert their rights ... The state is obliged to provide the means to ensure that constitutional and labour law rights are protected and vindicated."

The above juristic principles are worth emulating, coming as they do from such an esteemed institution as the Constitutional Court of South Africa. Security of employment is a core value of the Constitution and any arbitral tribunal provided with jurisdiction under the labour law legislation to adjudicate between an employer and employee should approach its jurisdiction on the basis that the position in relation to the determination of the fairness of dismissal is within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, not the employer. In this light, the arbitral tribunal should not place undue emphasis on the employer's decision to dismiss, but must proceed further to enquire whether in the total circumstances of the case, the decision to dismiss is "fair", bearing in mind the core values of the Constitution.

On the facts of this particular judicial review application, and bearing in mind the constitutional right to organise and form a trade union as a component element of the freedom of association, any decision of the employer to dismiss an employee just because an employee is a trade union office bearer should be carefully examined for legal validity under administrative law. In the circumstances of this particular judicial review application, I was of the view the position of the Industrial Court Chairman to affirm the dismissal of the employer to dismiss the Applicants should be quashed and the matter be remitted back to the Industrial Court to determine what would be a more appropriate punishment given the circumstances.

Dated: 14 DECEMBER 2009.

(MOHAMAD ARIFF MD YUSOF)

JUDGE

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR

Worker and trade union rights in BN-ruled Malaysia (Part 1)

By Aliran, on 28 July 2012

 

In the first of a two-part article, Charles Hector examines how a pro-business government has led to a steady weakening of workers’ rights and their welfare and livelihood.

Photograph: Jerit

Under the rule of the Umno-led coalition, today known as the Barisan Nasional (BN), worker and trade union rights have suffered significantly.

‘Eight hours labour, Eight hours recreation, Eight hours rest’ is a right that many workers in Malaysia have lost. Minimum wages, a norm in most developed and developing countries, is something that is still denied to Malaysian workers.

Existing worker rights in law have been slowly eroded and accesses to justice have not been made effective and simple for the workers. Even obligations as to rights provided in law are still being taken away by the granting of applications by employers whilst denying the fundamental right to be heard or objections before decisions are made. Minister’s decisions are held to be final and uncontestable in court. Workers are being weakened when union leaders are now allegedly being dismissed simply because they criticized their employers – not because of work performance or work-related misconduct.

The right to permanent employment until retirement today is being replaced by short-term fixed duration employment relationships, whereby most of these short-term employment contracts are for one year or less, with no guarantee of renewal. Since 2005, with the emergence of the ‘outsourcing concept’ which started for migrant workers, now expanded to local workers, traditional just employment relationships between those that own and control the workplace, who have work and need workers to do the required work, is also being withered away with the introduction of manpower/labour suppliers who now supply workers whilst continuing to be the employers even after the said workers start working at, and for the workplaces, factories and offices of the principal.

In short, these new ‘employment relationship’ introduces a third party and allows principals and owners to now just utilize the labour free of employer obligations to the rights and welfare of the workers. We shall be looking briefly at the situation of worker and trade unions in Malaysia, but not all, to determine this current government’s performance when it comes to worker rights and welfare.

Right to ‘eight hours labour, eight hours recreation, eight hours rest’ eroded

Action taken by stonemasons on 21 April 1856, followed by many other worker struggles ultimately led to the establishment and maintenance of the Eight Hour Day, that is now recognized internationally, and this right was also given a high priority by the International Labour Organization (ILO) since its creation in 1919. The slogan ‘Eight hours labour, Eight hours recreation, Eight hours rest’ captures the essence of this struggle.

Likewise in Malaysia, this right is to be found in our Employment Act 1955. Any work beyond 8 hours would be construed as overtime work, and this required the consent of the worker and also entitled the worker to be paid extra, at a rate usually not less than one and half times his hourly rate of pay (Section 60A 3(a) Employment Act 1955).

In 1989, the government amended the law (Employment (Amendment) Act 1989 Act A716) allowing for the Minister to waive these rights as to required hours of work, on the application of the employer, but retained the condition that no worker is required to work for more than forty-eight hours in one week, which subsequently was removed by yet another amendment in 1998 (Employment (Amendment) Act 1998 Act A1026).

What was obviously missing was the requirement of the prior agreement of the worker and/or the relevant union, let alone the right to be heard, before decision are made that allowed the employer to deny workers this long struggled for right that limits the required hours of work. The law now provides that after that decision is made, ‘… any person who is dissatisfied with any decision of the Director General … may, within thirty days of such decision being communicated to him, appeal in writing … to the Minister, and any decision or order of the Minister shall be final, thus shutting the door to judicial review – being the court’s authority to examine an executive or legislative act and to invalidate that act if it is contrary to constitutional principles and justice.

There is also an absence of clear provisions in law that requires the provision of any notice whatsoever to workers and/or their unions when the said applications are being made by employers to the Director General, and as such decisions are being made by the government without workers being given the right to be heard. At present such ‘permissions’ are not even publicly and openly disclosed even in the relevant Ministry’s website.

No guidelines and/or simple forms are provided for as to how workers can appeal these decisions, and given that the appeal must be in writing, there being no provision of any right to be heard orally, workers and/or unions, with no required language capabilities or knowledge in law are certainly prejudiced by this present procedure of protest and appeal. Remember, there are about 2 million migrant workers in Malaysia, most of whom do not have the capacity to read and write Bahasa Malaysia, let alone write to the Minister.

The employment law provides minimum rights for all workers in Malaysia, but these rights can so easily and ‘secretly’ be denied to workers as the Director General of Labour permits employers to do so, with no prior notice or right to be heard given to workers. Similar provisions are available all over the Acts providing for various worker rights to be taken away.

As it now stands, workers may be required to work long hours, even more than ten hours per day, and even more than 48 hours per week – so what exactly is the limit? The employers also can require their workers to work on rest days and even on public holidays. Some workers even have to work on May 1st, Workers’ Day!

Some companies do not stop operations, and workers are continuously working in their respective shifts and this also prevents workers from meeting and/or organizing unions and/or developing collective demands. Workers on day shifts, some starting at 8.00 am and ending at 8 pm would not even have the opportunity to go to the Labour Department to lodge complaints, and in Malaysia most of the avenues of complaints and justice for workers only operate during the usual working hours. The same is the case with national/regional unions and the MTUC office, National Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) and even the Legal Aid Centres operated by the Malaysian Bar.

Minimum wages

In most developed and in some developing countries, minimum wages for workers have long been fixed by governments and laws. India, for example has had a Minimum Wage Act since 1948. Other examples include Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines, India, Hong Kong, United States of America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and United Kingdom. 

Fast track: Average wages and allowances for local workers

However, the Malaysian government has been avoiding the fixing of minimum wages, despite repeated calls being made by the Malaysian Trade Union Congress(MTUC) and workers for several decades. Even after August 2010, when the government’s own Human Resources Ministry’s study of 1.3 million Malaysian workers found that a shocking 34 percent earned below the poverty line income of RM750 per month (Malaysiakini, 5 August 2010), the government has failed to recommend a minimum wage.

At the same time, the government continued to implement measures, including reducing subsidies, that resulted in an even higher cost of living. Then suddenly, just before the upcoming 13th General Elections, the prime minister announced on Labour Day 2012, that he would be implementing a minimum wage policy.

The Malaysian government, obviously committed to neo liberalism and free trade is perceived to be pro-employer, inclined to ensure that cost of labour is kept low and workers in Malaysia are ‘problem-free’ – all this allegedly to keep Malaysia competitive so as to attract foreign direct investments into the country.

Paradoxically, the Malaysian government may have interfered with market forces that might have improved wages, work benefits and conditions of workers by the introduction of migrant workers, temporary and casual workers into the labour market. However, these workers related policies and laws might have had the effect of weakening the bargaining rights of workers and unions.

Stagnation of workers’ righrts and erosion of justice for workers

The Malaysian government seems to have failed to improve workers’ access to justice too. If an employer cheats the worker by non-payment of agreed wages, overtime and/or makes wrongful deductions, the worker who succeeds in the Labour Department or Court at the end of the day only gets the amount that he was deprived of, not even additional interest or cost including the cost of transportation, the cost of taking leave and hence loss of daily wages when he attends court, and the cost of a lawyer and/or union representatives. When workers want to meet and seek advice or help even from MTUC officials, workers allegedly have to pay them a nominal sum of about RM60 per meeting. At the end of the day, for the lowly paid worker, it becomes more practical that they do not claim their rights. Hence the errant employer gets off scot-free.

For employers, the law favors them for even when it is proven that they have violated worker rights, all that is required of them is to pay the worker what they should have originally paid their workers. As an example, section 100(1) of the Employment Act states:

Any employer who fails to pay any of his employees wages for work done by his employee on a rest day or pays wages less than the rate provided under section 60 commits an offence, and shall also, on conviction, be ordered by the court before which he is convicted to pay to the employee concerned the wages due for work done on every rest day at the rate provided under section 60, and the amount of such wages shall be recoverable as if it were a fine imposed by such court.

This certainly is not just and does not deter employers from breaking the law. It would have been more just and a deterrent if the errant employer is ordered to pay at least 3 times the sum that he cheated the worker.

In the Employment Act, there is also no provision that protects workers who complain or access the avenues of justices, from being terminated and/or discriminated by reason of the fact that he is claiming rights against the employer. It is thus not uncommon that workers who complain or claim rights are summarily terminated; for the migrant worker, it is worse! For a termination will also be the loss of the legal right to remain in the country to claim or to continue pursuing their claims compounded with the fact that migrant worker will also not be allowed to work with any other employer even if he is allowed to stay.

Discrimination based on gender also occurs as when the courts recently affirmed practice of a company that had different retirement ages for men and women workers. Indeed, the Government was silent despite the fact that this certainly goes against our own Federal Constitution which guarantees equality to men and women performing the same job.

Industrial courts – Only court which requires Minister’s permission

When it comes to workers claiming wrongful dismissal seeking reinstatement, they have to lodge their complaint at the Industrial Relations Department(IRD), and if the dispute cannot be resolved, it is then referred to the Minister who has the power to decide whether the case be referred to the Industrial Court for trial or not. The issue is: why should the Minister’s permission be needed? For when a matter cannot be resolved between employee and employer at the IRD, it should immediately br referred to the Industrial Court. An additional hurdle in a worker’s quest for justice is unnecessary; it may also be discriminatory.

The law also provides that if any party is dissatisfied with the decision of the Minister, they may go to the High Court to challenge that decision. But unlike the Labour Courts and Industrial Courts, the High Court will award cost against the losing party, and this can be high and for the ordinary worker, who has been wrongfully dismissed, this may be an added financial risk which is unaffordable. The pursuit of justice in any court, I believe, requires the removal of all monetary risks.

As of February 2008, workers successful in their claim for wrongful dismissal saw the entitlement to wages and benefits, drastically slashed when in lieu of reinstatement all they could get was limited to a maximum of 24 months wages, based on their last drawn salary, less a percentage of post-dismissal earnings. Prior to this, their entitlement was for wages and benefits from date of dismissal until judgment and other matters. This was certainly an anti-worker amendment to the Employment Act.

There is still no Industrial Courts in Pahang, Trengganu, Kelantan, Kedah, Perlis, Melaka, Negeri Sembilan and Selangor. Why did this government not ensure that there are Industrial Courts in all major and medium sized towns, preferably no further than 50 kilometers from the workplace to ensure easy access to justice for workers. Today, after 50 over years since independence, we see Industrial Courts only in Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Ipoh, Johor Bahru, Kota Kinabalu and Kuching. 

Source: ALIRAN Website

90 menuntut Mansuhkan Sistem ‘Contractor for Labour’

Kenyataan Bersama – 3/5/2012 ((Versi Bahasa Malaysia)

Mansuhkan Sistem ‘Contractor for Labour’

Tarikbalik pindaan 2012 kepada Akta Kerja 1955.

Kami, 90 kesatuan sekerja, kumpulan masyarakat awam (civil society groups) dan pertubuhan yang bertandatangan di bawah membantah tindakan kerajaan Malaysia menghancurkan perhubungan pekerjaan(employment relationship) terus di antara prinsipal sebagai majikan, dan pekerja(workers) mereka selaku pekerja(employee) melalui pindaan terbaru Akta Kerja 1955.

Kongres Kesatuan Sekerja Malaysia (MTUC), yang mewakili bukan sahaja lebih kurang 800,000 pekerja yang menjadi ahli kesatuan, tetapi juga lebih daripada 12 juta pekerja di Malaysia, telah dengan keras dan secara konsisten menentang pindaan tersebut sejak mula dicadangkan dan dibentangkan di Parlimen melalui Bill No: D.R.25/2010 pada Julai 2010, di mana akhirnya kerajaan telah mengalah dan menarik balik cadangan pindaan tersebut. Tetapi pada Jun 2011, kerajaan telah membentang semula Rang Undang-Undang ini, hanya dengan sedikit perubahan, melalui Bill No: D.R.15/2011. MTUC telah membantah dengan kuat dan juga telah berpiket di Parlimen pada 3hb Oktober 2011, tetapi walaupun terdapat bantahan keras daripada berbagai pihak, Rang Undang-undang kontroversial ini telah diluluskan di Dewan Rakyat pada 6hb Oktober 2011, dan telah akhirnya mulai berkuatkuasa pada 1hb April 2012.

Kami mahu hanya menumpukan perhatian kepada satu daripada beberapa aspek pindaan baru tersebut yang kami membantah, di mana ini juga merupakan bantahan utama mengenai kemasukan peruntukan baru yang memperkenalkan ‘contractor for labour” dan kegiataannya.

Melalui pindaan ini, ‘contractor for labour’ akan dibenarkan menjadi pihak ketiga (atau orang tengah) di dalam perhubungan kerja dua-hala kini yang wajar di antara pihak tuan punya-prinsipal sesuatu perniagaan (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai ‘prinsipal’) dan pekerja-employee mereka.

LATAR BELAKANG

Akta Kerja 1955 yang diperkenalkan sebelum Kemerdekaan oleh pihak pentadbiran British secara berkesan telah menghapuskan ‘ buruh kerahan (indentured labour), buruh terikat (bonded labour) dan sistem “kanggani” di Malaya. (secara kolektif dikenali pada masa itu sebagai ‘sistem kontrak’). Akta itu juga telah mengwujudkan dua princip undang-undang yang masih hingga hari ini dianggap sangat penting. Ianya adalah jaminan pemilikan kerja (security of tenure) – yang memastikan kerja tetap, dan hak proprietari kepada kerja (proprietary right to the job) – dimana, antara lain, pembuangan kerja seseorang pekerja harus dilakukan hanya atas alasan atau sebab wajar ( just cause and excuse) dan melalui proses wajar (due process).

Hakikat kerja negara ini mulai berubah pada awal 1990an. Pada 1992, kerajaan telah membenaran pekerja migran untuk sektor pembinaan dan perladangan. Pada 2000, ini telah dilebarkan kepada sektor pembuatan (manufacturing) dan perkhidmatan (hotel dan restoran), dan pada tahun 2002, ianya dibenarkan untuk kesemua sektor.

Pada mulanya pekerja migrant telah diambil kerja (employed) secara terus oleh majikan principal tetapi ini mulai berubah pada 2005, apabila Jawatankuasa Kabinet tentang Pekerja Asing pada mesyuarat 5 Julai 2005 telah membenarkan pengambilan kerja pekerja asing melalui syarikat ‘outsourcing’ (kini dikenali sebagai ‘Contractor For Labour’ dalam Akta yang baru dipinda). Pengeluaran lessen/permit ‘outsourcing’ secara aneh dilakukan oleh Kementerian Dalam Negeri, bukan oleh Kementerian Sumber Manusia. Pada hari ini ada lebih kurang 277 syarikat ‘outsourcing’ tenaga kerja/pekerja yang didaftaraikan di negara(The Star, 23-Feb 2010).

Kewujudan syarikat ‘outsourcing’ ini telah mengakibatkan kembalinya ‘sistem kontrak’ yang lama. Ia membuka pintu yang menyebabkan serangan terus kepada asas hak pekerja (basic foundation of labour rights), melemahkan martabat buruh (dignity of labour), mengalakkan pembentukan dan operasi kerja terikat dan tidak berperikemanusian (perpetuating the establishment and operation of dehumanized and bonded labour). Realiti ini yang bermula dengan pekerja migrant, kini sudah merangkumi pekerja tempatan.

Syarikat ‘outsourcing’ kini mengambil pekerja tempatan dan pekerja migrant, setengah melalui kontrak jangkamasa terhad, dengan syarat yang biasanya adalah kurang baik (‘less favourable’) berbanding dengan pekerja-employee yang mempunyai perhubungan kerja terus dengan prinsipal.

Bilangan syarikat prinsipal mengunakan pekerja yang dibekalkan oleh syarikat ‘outsourcing’ semakin lama semakin bertambah. Syarikat prinsipal membayar syarikat ‘outsourcing’ jumlah tertentu untuk sebilangan pekerja yang dibekalkan, sama ada mereka pekerja tempatan atau pekerja migran. Secara berkesan, syarikat prinsipal dapat mengelak daripada tanggungjawab dan obligasi majikan untuk memastikan hak dan kebajikan pekerja-employee mereka. Cara ini juga menjimatkan syarikat prinsipal wang yang biasanya akan dibelanjakan untuk pekerja-employee mereka untuk kos perubatan, insuran, bonus, kenaikan gaji, faedah pencen, pengangkutan dan penginapan, awad perkhidmatan dan lain-lain faedah kerja. Ianya juga membenarkan mereka mengelak tanggungjawab statutori berkenaan Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja(KWSP/EPF) dan skema sekuriti social. Syarikat prinsipal juga terlepas daripada mematuhi obligasi dan penjagaan (safeguards) terkandung dalam undang-undang apabila pekerja diambil kerja atau dibuang kerja, yang termasuk pemeriksaan dalaman (‘domestic inquiries’) dan faedah-faedah rentikerja sentara dan penamatan (‘lay-off and termination benefits’). Kini, jika syarikat principal tidak mahu seseorang pekerja, mereka hanya perlu memberitahu syarikat ‘outsourcing’.

Untuk menukar tenaga kerja daripada pekerja tetap kepada pekerja kontrak jangka pendek, dan kini pekerja ‘outsource’, ramai principal telah mengurangi bilangan pekerja-employee tetap melalui ‘retrenchment’, skema perpisahan secara sukarela (VSS) atau cara yang lain, atau dengan terus memberhentikan sahaja kerja pekerja-employee mereka dan mengantikan mereka dengan pekerja yang dibekalkan oleh syarikat ‘outsourcing’

SEBAB PINDAAN AKTA

Syarikat outsourcing telah lama dibenarkan beroperasi di luar undang-undang dengan tidak ada apa-apa Akta yang meregulasi mereka. Walaupun mereka ini adalah pembekal tenaga kerja/pekerja, mereka tidak diwujudkan atau diwajibkan diregulasi oleh Akta Ajensi Pekerjaan Swasta 1981( Private Employment Agencies Act 1981), yang sememangnya akan memastikan bahawa pembekal tenaga kerja/buruh akan hanya membekal pekerja dan tidak sama sekali menjadi majikan pekerja yang dibekalkan.

Pindaan terbaru Akta Kerja adalah untuk memberikan syarikat ‘outsourcing’ ini pengesahtarafan statutori di bawah Akta Kerja, dan pada masa yang sama menghalalkan pekerjaan(employment) melalui syarikat outsourcing, yang selepas ini dikenali sebagai “contractor for labour”.

Satu sebab utama mewujudkan ‘contractor for labour’ dan pengenalan ‘labour outsourcing’ adalah untuk mengurangkan kapasiti(atau kuasa) pekerja dan kesatuan pekerja menuntut dan berunding untuk mendapatkan hak dan faedah lebih baik untuk pekerja. Memorandum MTUC kepada Menteri Sumber Manusia bertarikh Oktober, 7 2008 ada merujuk kepada satu interbiu dengan Datuk Ishak Mohamed, selaku Pengarah Penguatkuasaan Jabatan Imigrasi, yang telah diterbitkan dalam akhbar New Straits Times, Julai 20, 2008, di mana, antara lain beliau menyatakan, ‘…outsourcing adalah bagus kerana ia akan menarik pelabur asing secara terus (foreign direct investment.) Pelabur tidak mahukan kesatuan pekerja diwujudkan dalam tempat perniagaan (‘establishment’) mereka. Melalui outsourcing, ia akan menjadi sukar untuk kesatuan kerja ditubuhkan memandangkan syarikat outsourcing, dan bukan kilang yang akan menjadi majikan…” [‘…outsourcing is good as it will attract foreign direct investment. Investors do not want unions to be formed in their establishments. Through outsourcing, it would be difficult for unions to be formed as outsourcing company, and not the factory, would be the employer…’], di mana ini telah mendedahkan niat kerajaan.

KUMPULAN KELAS BAWAHAN PEKERJA

Penjanaan kelas bawahan pekerja, yang tidak di anggap pekerja-employee prinsipal, juga mengugat perhubungan kerja(employment relationship) sedia ada di antara prinsipal dan pekerja-employee mereka kini, termasuk juga perhubungan dengan kesatuan sekerja pekerja-employee ini. Pada hari ini klas bawahan pekerja ini, yang terdiri daripada pekerja tempatan dan migrant, berada di kebanyakkan tempat kerja, termasuk juga dalam syarikat yang ada hubungan dengan kerajaan (GLC), di mana di setengah kilang kini hampir 50% tenaga kerja kilang terdiri daripada pekerja daripada kelas bawahan ini. Kesatuan sekerja dilemahkan, dan kuasa berunding mereka untuk menuntut hak dan faedah lebih baik untuk pekerja semakin lama semakin terhakis akibat penambahan pekerja yang bukan pekerja-employee principal, serta juga akibat kehilangan jaminan pemilikan kerja (security of tenure) akibat kontrak kerja jangka pendek.

‘Contractor for Labour’ adalah sebenarnya mengenai ‘outsourcing of labour’ yang sangat berbeda daripada ‘outsourcing of work’. ‘Outsourcing of work’ adalah apabila prinsipal outsource kerja atau operasi khusus yang bukan merupakan operasi utama (‘core operation’) mereka, kepada syarikat lain yang melakukan kerja tersebut mengunakan pekerja mereka sendiri dibawah kawalan dan penyeliaan syarikat lain tersebut. Sebagai contoh, di dalam beberapa syarikat pembuatan (manufacturing), kerja membersih, turfing/mengendali laman, kantin dan perkhidmatan sekuriti adalah contoh kerja yang telah di-outsource. ‘Outsourcing of work’ saperti ini adalah wajar dan dibenarkan, di mana pekerja yang melakukan kerja ‘outsourced’ ini juga dirangkumi oleh Akta Kerja.

Bercanggah dengan prinsip bahawa pekerja yang melakukan ‘core operation’ harus merupakan pekerja-employee principal, pindaan kepada Akta kini membenarkan ‘contractor for labour’ membekalkan pekerja untuk melakukan kerja ‘core operation’ ini di bawah kawalan dan penyeliaan staf penyelia dan/atau pengurus prinsipal. ‘Contractor For Labour’ hanya mengambil bayaran untuk tenagakerja/pekerja yang dibekalkan dan seterusnya membahagikan sebahagian yang akan dibayar kepada pekerja yang dibekalkan tersebut, di mana biasanya jumlah yang dibayar kepada klas pekerja ini adalah kurang daripada jumlah yang dibayar kepada pekerja-employee prinsipal walaupun kerja yang dibuat adalah sama. Prinsip gaji sama untuk kerja sama( equal pay for equal work) jelas diiingkari.

Prinsipal, yang dianggap BUKAN majikan pekerja yang dibekalkan, melepaskan dirinya daripada semua liabiliti dan tanggungjawab majikan untuk pekerja yang dibekalkan oleh ‘contractor for labour’ di mana pekerja ini sebenarnya melakukan kerja untuk faedah prinsipal.

PERINTAH KERJA (PENGECUALIAN) 2012

Menteri Sumber Manusia, di dalam satu cubaan meredakan bantahan MTUC, kesatuan pekerja, pertubuhan masyarakat umum (civil society groups) dan pekerja telah mengeluarkan satu Perintah Pengecualian, yang berkuatkuasa mulai April 1 2012, yang antara lain, menyatakan:-

 “…Any person who enters into contract for service with a principal to supply employees required by the principal for the execution of the whole or any part of any work for the principal in any industry, establishment or undertakings other than the agriculture undertakings, is exempted from sections 31, 33A, 69 and 73 of the Act...”

“…Mana-mana orang yang membuat kontrak untuk perkhidmatan dengan principal untuk membekal pekerja yang diperlukan oleh principal bagi pelaksanaan keseluruhan atau mana-mana bahagian daripada kerja untuk principal dalam mana-mana industry, instituisi perniagaan atau perusahaan selain perusahaan pertanian dikecualikan daripada seksyen 31, 33A, 69 dan 73 Akta” [Perkataan ‘worker’ dan ‘employee’ apabila diterjemahkan dalam Bahasa Malaysia adalah perkataan sama, iaitu ‘pekerja’ di mana ini senang mengelirukan – lihat versi dalam Bahasa Inggeris]  

Tetapi, perkataan yang digunakan dalam perintah pengecualian tersebut, yang juga telah tidak merangkumi pindaan kepada seksyen 2, yang merupakan pindaan utama yang memberikan pengiktirafan undang-undang kepada ‘contractor for labour’ dan kegiatan mereka, hanya mengesahkan lagi ‘contractor for labour’ dan apa yang mereka lakukan kini. Seksyen yang dikecualikan hanya mengenai perkara sampingan saperti pendaftaran pekerja-employee apabila dibekalkan kepada prinsipal dan keutamaan keberhutangan (priority of debt). Perintah pengecualikan tersebut juga akan menghalang pekerja yang dibekalkan oleh ‘contractor for labour’ di dalam sector-sektor yang dikecualikan daripada membuat aduan dan menuntut keadilan.

Bantahan MTUC dan kumpulan lain terhadap pindaan tersebut tidak diredakan oleh Perintah Pengecualian tersebut, dan mereka terus membantah ‘contractor for labour’.

PROTES

Kami dengan keras membantah sistem ‘contractor of labour’. Semua pekerja yang bekerja di bawah kawalan dan penyeliaan prinsipal harus menjadi pekerja-employee prinsipal tersebut bukan mana-mana pihak ketiga. Tindakan kerajaan Malaysia adalah pengingkaran Artikel 8 Perlembagaan Malaysia. Pada tahun 1988, Malaysia telah meratifikasi Deklarasi ILO berkenaan Prinsip Asas dan Hak Semasa Bekerja (ILO Declarations on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work) tetapi pindaan ini adalah bercanggah dengan Deklarasi tersebut. Secara tambahan, tindakan Malaysia ini juga bertentangan dengan Agenda Kerja Decent ILO (ILO’s Decent Work Agenda), di mana Malaysia telah menerima.

International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), banyak kesatuan pekerja dan pertubuhan masyarakat umum (civil society groups), juga telah menetang dan masih kini menentang pindaan tersebut. Malaysian Bar juga baru-baru meluluskan satu Resolusi sebulat suara pada Mac 10 2012, antara lain, memanggil untuk dikekalkan perhubungan kerja(employment relationship) dua-hala, dan yang juga mengambil pendirian bahawa pembekal tenagakerja/pekerja atau ‘contractor for labour’ itu tidak harus dijadikan atau kekal menjadi majikan pekerja yang mereka membekalkan setelah pekerja itu telah dibekalkan, diterima dan mulai bekerja di tempat kerja prinsipal.

'Contractor for labour’ dan kegiatan mereka tidak harus dibenarkan di dalam mana-mana sektor, termasuk sektor perladangan dan pertanian.

TUNTUTAN

Maka, kami menuntut dimansuhkan semua pindaan kepada Akta Kerja 1955, secara khusus pindaan kepada seksyen 2, 31, 33A, 69 dan 73, yang dipinda oleh Employment (Amendment) Act 2012 [ACT A1419] yang berkenaan ‘contractor for labour’ dan kegiatan mereka, dan sementara menunggu pemansuhan semua pindaan tersebut, didesak bahawa ianya diberhentikan beroperasi mulai sekarang.

Kami memanggil untuk pemansuhan ‘contractor for labour’ dan semua kegiatan mereka, dan untuk semua pekerja yang kini telah dibekalan oleh pihak ketiga, iaitu pembekal tenagakerja/pekerja (‘contractor for labour’) yang masih bukan pekerja-employee prinsipal segera dijadikan pekerja-employee prinsipal tersebut dan diberikan faedah dan layanan sama sapertimana diberikan kepada pekerja-employee prinsipal yang lain tanpa diskriminasi, termasuk juga hak menubuhkan/menyertai kesatuan sekerja, dan hak mendapat semua hak dan faedah yang kini di dalam Perjanjian Koletif terpakai.

Kami juga menuntut untuk pemansuhan pekerjaan tidak menentu (precarious employment), dan untuk dikelakan hubungan kerja dua pihak yang adil di antara prinsipal dan pekerja-employee, dan untuk menghormati hak pekerja dan hak kesatuan sekerja.

Charles Hector

Pranom Somwong

Bruno Pereira

Untuk dan bagi pihak,

ALIRAN (Aliran Kesedaran Negara), Malaysia

Amalgamated Union of Employees in Government Clerical and Allied Services(AUEGCAS )
Amalgamated Union Employees Tenaga Nasional Berhad (AUETNB )

Anak Muda Sarawak (AMS)

Asian  Migrants Center (AMC)

Asia Monitor Resource Centre(AMRC)

Asia  Pacific  Forum on Women , Law and Development  (APWLD)

Asian Network for the Rights of Occupational and Environmental Victims (ANROEV)

Association for Community Development -ACD, Bangladesh

BASF Asia Pacific Network

BASF-PETRONAS Malaysia

Burma Campaign Malaysia (BCM)

Burma Partnership

Centre For Reflection And Action On Labour Rights (Cereal Guadalajara), Mexico

Center for Indonesian Migrant Workers-CIMW

Center for Migrant Advocacy, Philippines (CMA-Phils)

Centre des travailleurs et travailleurs immigrants / Immigrant Workers' Centre (Montréal, Québec)

Centre d'appui aux Philippines - Centre for Philippine Concerns (Montréal, Québec)

Christian Development Alternative (CDA)-Bangladesh

Clean Clothes Campaign

Communication Workers Union Victoria,Australia

Community Action Network (CAN), Malaysia

Democratic Party for a New Society (DPNS), Burma

Dignity International

Ecumenical Institute for Labor Education and Research (EILER), Philippines

Electronic Industry Employees Union Western Region Peninsular Malaysia (EIEUWRPM)

FAIR (Italy)

Families Against Corporate Killers, UK

Federation Independent of Trade Union (GSBI) Indonesia

FSPMI ( Federasi Serikat Pekerja Metal Indonesia)

Future In Our Hands, Norway

Garment and Allied Workers Union, India

Hsinchu Catholic Diocese Migrants and Immigrants Service Center (HMISC), Taiwan

Institute for Occupational Health and Safety Development (IOHSAD),

International Metalworkers' Federation (IMF)

International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF)

Jaringan Rakyat Tertindas (JERIT), Malaysia

Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Polyplastics Asia Pacific (KPPAP)

Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Selatan

Kesatuan Sekerja NUTEAIW Isuzu Hicom (M) Sdn Bhd, Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia

Kesatuan Industri Elektronik Wilayah Timur Semenanjung Malaysia

Konfederasi Serikat Nasional (National Union Confederation)[KSN] , Indonesia.

Labour Behind the Label, UK

Lal Zenda Coal Mines Majdoor Union (LZCMMU), India

Lembaga Informasi Perburuhan Sedane-Sedane Labour Resource Centre Bogor-Indonesia

LHRLA - Lawyers for Human Rights & Legal Aid (Pakistan)

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Malayan Nurses Union(MNU)

MTUC (Malaysian Trade Union Congress)

Migrant CARE, Indonesia

Migrant Forum in Asia(MFA)

Migrante International

National Domestic Workers Movement- AP Region

National Hazards Campaign of UK

NLD-LA (National League for Democracy-Liberated Areas), Malaysia

National Union of Banking Employees (NUBE)

National Union of Petroleum & Chemicals Industrial Workers (NUPCIW), Malaysia

National Union of Transport Equipment and Allied Industries Workers (NUTEAIW), Malaysia

Network of Action for Migrants in Malaysia (NAMM)

Occupational and Environmental Health Network of India (OEHNI)

Pakistan Rural Workers Social Welfare Organization (PRWSWO)

Paper & Paper Products Manufacturing Employees Union(Reg No 444), Malaysia

Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM)

Perak Women for Women Society (PWW)

Persatuan Masyarakat Selangor dan Wilayah Persekutuan (PERMAS)

Persatuan Sahabat Wanita, Selangor (PSWS)

PINAY - The Filipino Women's Organization in Quebec

Public Services International, Malaysian Affiliates National Coordinating Committee

Pusat Komunikasi Masyarakat (KOMAS)

RightOnCanada.ca, Canada

Sarawak Medical Services Union (SMSU)
Solidarity of Cavite Workers, Philippines

Tenaga National  Berhad Junior Officers Union (TNBJOU)

Tenaganita, Malaysia

Thai Committee for Refugees Foundation (TCR)

Thai Labour Campaign, Thailand

The Live And Livelihood Foundation, Bangladesh

The Women's Caucus (Southeast Asia Women's Caucus on ASEAN)

Think Centre – Singapore

United Filipinos In Hong Kong (UNIFIL-MIGRANTE-HK)

United Students Against Sweatshops,  US

University of Malaya General Staff Union (UMGSU)

WARBE Development Foundation, Bangladesh

Women's Legal and Human Rights Bureau, Inc.(WLB),Philippines

WOREC Nepal

Workers Assistance Center, Inc., Philippines

Workers Hub For Change (WH4C)

Yayasan LINTAS NUSA Batam-Indonesia

Yokohama Action Research (Japan)

Clean Clothes Campaign, the Netherlands