Reinstated after 58 months since wrongful dismissal - Justice Delayed is Justice Denied..

A rare case where reinstatement ordered - but back wages limited to only 20 months?? This is wrong, it should be backwages for 58 months. Further, if reinstatement, then  employer should have paid backwages, etc from date of wrongful dismissal until date of reinstatement... 

And another glaring problem, is that the employer has not been punished for wrongfully dismissing the worker... Should there not have been at least some FINE...or some additional damages? But, as mentioned earlier, the Judge granted reinstatement and that is rare and welcomed...but..

The Minister took 8 months to refer the matter to the Industrial Court, and we see that the delay is at the Industrial Court, which took so long to complete the hearings, and the Judge took an unexplainable 11 months plus after the last hearing date...WHY? The Industrial Court itself, took over 20 months, and this is unacceptable...

Employee terminated:- 26/8/2008 

Wrongful Dismissal Award:- 5/6/2013

58 months from date of wrongful dismissal to date of Judgment 

Complain to Industrial Court would have been before 26/10/2008

Reference by Miniter to Industrial Court 3/6/2009

Time Lapse: About 8 months

Reached Industrial Court - 3/6/2009, first mention 17/8/2009

Time Lapse" About 2 1/2 Months (this could have been the time parties had taken to file the pleadings...)

First Mention(17/8/2009) To Last Hearing Date(19/6/2012), then 2 additional mention dates on  -19.07.2012 and 28.08.2012 - About 11 months plus

Last court date(28/8/2012) to date Award handed down(5/6/2013) = About 9 1/2 months {The Award should have been handed down immediately or should have taken 2 weeks maximum, it should really have handed down at in July 2012, not August 2013)

So from 1st mention to award is about 20 1/2 months 

 

SIVAKUMAR RATNAM v. GUINNESS ANCHOR BERHAD INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR AHMAD ROSLI MOHD SHAM AWARD NO. 984 OF 2013 [CASE NO: 11/4-283/09] 5 JUNE 2013

Counsel: For the claimant - Mohan Ghandi; M/s Mohan Ghandi & Associates For the respondent - S Suganthi; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA

[CASE NO: 11/4-283/09]

BETWEEN

SIVAKUMAR RATNAM

AND

GUINNESS ANCHOR BERHAD

AWARD NO. 984 OF 2013

Before:	DATO' AHMAD ROSLI BIN MOHD. SHAM - CHAIRMAN (Sitting alone)
Venue:	Industrial Court, Kuala Lumpur
Date of Reference:	03.06.2009
Dates of Mention:	17.08.2009, 18.09.2009, 19.10.2009, 30.10.2009, 13.11.2009, 15.12.2009, 15.03.2010, 09.04.2010, 26.05.2010, 23.11.2010, 19.07.2012 and 28.08.2012
Dates of Hearing:	27.05.2010, 05.07.2011, 06.07.2011, 12.10.2011, 13.10.2011, 27.01.2012, 13.04.2012 and 19.06.2012
Representation:	For the claimant - Mohan Ghandi; M/s Mohan Ghandi & Associates For the respondent - S Suganthi; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co

Reference:

This is a reference under section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, arising out of the dismissal of Mr. Sivakumar A/L Ratnam (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by Guinness Anchor Berhad (hereinafter referred to as "the Company").

AWARD

1. The Claimant was first employed by the Company as a Clerk with effect from 2.11.1993 and was confirmed in his employment with effect from 2.2.1994. The Claimant's last held position was as an Inventory Executive with a pay of RM2,983.00 per month with an allowance of RM380.00 and he also obtained overtime payments of between RM1,000.00 and RM2,000.00 per month. But according to the Company, the Claimant's last pay was RM2,982.00 with a car allowance of RM250.00 per month.

2. In his capacity as Inventory Executive the Claimant was required to inter alia :

i. Supervise and control the warehouse operations of receiving, put away, storage and issuing in Sungei Way Brewery (SWB) and PJ Glenmarie office;
ii. To practice FIFO and tracking and tracing process;
iii. To supervise service providers, FLT drivers, contract labourers to coordinate with brewing, packaging, customs and suppliers;
iv. To carry out inventory checks and counts; and
v. To monitor bottle return rates.

3. Sometime in July 2008 the Company's aluminium cans supplier Crown Beverage Cans Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. (CBCM) reported that they had discovered significant quantities of packaging materials missing from their consignment stocks stored in the Empty Bottle Store (EBS) in the Company.

4. Pursuant to investigations undertaken by the Company, the evidence obtained and the Claimant's statement to the Audit team, the Company alleged that the Claimant's actions had resulted in serious breaches of the Rules and Procedures of the Company as follows:-

i. The Claimant had admitted in his statement to the Audit Team that he used another person's password ie, belonging to his Assistant Manager, Razale bin Asoh, to post stock adjustments on plastic layer pads between the period 18.11.2007 to 28.7.2008.
ii. The Claimant's foregoing conduct in using another person's password, was in breach of the Company's IS & T Security Procedure and such conduct was further aggravated in that the Claimant's access rights to adjust stock variances had been removed on 21.9.2007 as a result of another incident ie, the missing Project Glory labels, the details of which were well within the Claimant's knowledge.
iii. Despite the Claimant being fully aware that he was not authorized to post stock adjustments subsequent to 21.9.2007, he continued to post such stock adjustments.
iv. The Claimant had also confirmed in his statement to the Audit Team that he would normally post stock adjustments in the SAP system after he had seen the approved "Adjustment Request Form" purportedly given by Razale bin Asoh. However the investigations of the Company revealed that no such approval was obtained for the stock adjustments of the above mentioned plastic layer pads when the Claimant made the postings during the period of 18.11.2007 to 28.7.2008. In any event, the Claimant's access rights to adjust stock variance had already been removed on 21.9.2007 and accordingly any form of stock adjustments subsequent to 21.9.2007 were unauthorized.
v. The Claimant also confirmed in his statement that he had counted the plastic layer pads with the CBCM's lorry driver before the forklift driver loaded the materials onto the lorry. The results of the Company's investigations however differ from the statement given by two others who confirmed that the lorry driver would normally provide the quantities to be returned to CBCM without any counting being done by the Claimant.
vi. Further the Claimant had also failed to report the loss of the measuring ruler to his Manager when this went missing. The measuring ruler was a necessary tool to verify and confirm the quantity of the plastic layer pads to be returned to CBCM and the Claimant would have been unable to do the counting without the use of the ruler.

5. The Company was of the view that he had by reason of the aforesaid conduct breached his express and/or implied terms and conditions of employment in his capacity as an Inventory Executive.

6. During the Claimant's tenure of employment with the Company he had received several warnings in relation to his negligence, breach of Company policies and procedures and work performance with a final warning being issued on 10.5.2000. Thereafter in October 2007 his increment had been withheld on account of misconducts committed by him relating to negligence, abuse of the Company's processes, failure to comply with the Company's policies and procedures and he had been reminded that any further breaches on his part would lead to the punishment of dismissal if so warranted by the circumstances.

7. The Company terminated the Claimant's appointment with immediate effect by letter dated 26.8.2008. The reasons for dismissal as stated in the letter of termination (see page 40 COB) are as follows;

i. You had admitted in your statement that you had used the password given by your Assistant Manager, Razale bin Asoh, to post stock adjustments on plastic layer pads between the period 18^th November 2007 to 28^th July 2008. By using another person's password, you have breached the Company's IS&T Security Procedure.
Further, your access rights to adjust stock variances had been removed on 21^st September 2007 as a result of the missing Project Glory labels incident, the facts of which are well within your knowledge. Your actions are further aggravated in that you continued to post stock adjustments despite being fully aware that you are not authorized to do so.
ii. You had confirmed in your statement that you would normally post stock adjustment in the SAP after you had seen the approved "Adjustment Request Form" purportedly given by Razale bin Asoh. However no such approval was obtained for the stock adjustments of the adjustment of the above mentioned plastic layer pads when you made the postings during the period of 18^th November 2007 to 28^th July 2008. In any event you were aware that your access rights to adjust stock variance had been removed on 21^st September 2007 and as such any form of stock adjustment by you subsequent to 21^st September 2007 were unauthorized.
iii. You confirmed in your statement that you had counted the plastic layer pads with the CBCM's lorry driver before the forklift driver loaded the materials onto the lorry. This claim however differs from the statement given by two others who confirmed that the lorry driver would normally provide the quantities to be returned to CBCM. In addition to this, you had also failed to report the loss of the measuring ruler to your Manager when this went missing.

8. The Claimant on the other hand denies that he posted on behalf of Razale or used Razale's password to make stock adjustment in the computer system after 21^st September 2007. He merely counted the plastic layer pads before loading into the lorry. He reported about the missing ruler to his superior Razale. Rulers are measuring sticks used to measure the stack of plastic player pads when counting.

9. The Claimant also said that the plastic layer pads were of little or no value. It appears from the evidence that plastic layer pads were used in the packaging the Company's products and the amount of plastic layer pads were not counted piece by piece but using a measuring ruler to estimate the number based on the thickness of the bundle. It is hardly surprising that the figures were erratic never tally and constant adjustments are needed.

10. The Claimant called CLW-2 Razale bin Asoh Ali as his witness. Razale was the Assistant Manager and immediate superior of the Claimant. In his evidence Razale stated that the Claimant did not do any posting on his behalf after 21^st September 2007. He also confirmed that the Claimant reported the missing ruler to him and he instructed the Claimant to count by estimation.

11. It is noted here that the Claimant was never charged with the missing layer pads as complaint by the Company's cans supplier CBCM. In fact there is no evidence of the plastic layer pads being stolen or pilfered.

12. The Claimant called CLW-3 Lim Lai Hock the Company's former project manager as his witness. CLW-3 stated that after the Claimant's dismissal he was instructed to carry out an investigation on the missing layer pads. According to CLW-3 his findings are as follows:-

i. The Plastic Layer Pads were missing due to weak system and controls in the Company;
ii. No one stole the plastic layer pads or damaged it;
iii. It was established that all these happened because of their existing weak control system in the Company and due to wear and tear and lack of manpower which existed for several years;
iv. The Company had continued this practice without any question whatsoever during the working period of the Claimant and CLW-2.

13. The Company objected to the issue raised through CLW-3's evidence as it was not pleaded in the Claimant's documents. However in the circumstances of this case where the Claimant denies the Company's reasons for dismissing him and it is the duty of the Company to prove those reasons, this Court views CLW-3's evidence as in answer to rebutt the Company's case and therefore is relevant to the issues in this case despite it not been specifically mentioned earlier in the Claimant's statement of case.

14. The key evidence relied upon by the Company in their decision to dismiss the Claimant is found basically in the document at page 11 of COB the Company's document. This is a statement recorded by Ling Hwa Liek from the Claimant which the Company said contains an admission by the Claimant that he posted the stock adjustment for plastic layer pads in the Company's computer system using the password of CLW-3 Razale bin Asoh Ali, his immediate superior. The statement is a typewritten statement signed by the Claimant, the recorder Ling Hwa Liek and a witness Michael Tan. All the charges against the Claimant arises out of this statement.

15. Paragraph 4, 5 and 6 of the statement reads;

4. I have posted the stock adjustment in the SAP system between 18^th November and 28^th July 2008 on plastic layer pads using password given by Razale, my manager.
5. The adjustments made on 16^th July 2008 for 47,188 pieces of plastic layer pads was based on Razale's confirmation that the Supply Chain Director, Peter Voglander, has approved it.
6. I also confirmed that I normally post adjustments after I have seen the "adjustment request form" given by Razale.

16. It is noted that at paragraph 5, in between the first and second line of the paragraph is a handwritten statement that states "but the adjustments not done by me (siva)" and the Claimant's signature and the recorder's signature appears at the corresponding margin. This handwritten statement was not explained by the Company but the Claimant stated in evidence that he wanted to write his own version but was denied the opportunity by the Company and that is all that he could write.

17. The Claimant denied making the statement and said that he was given a pre-typed statement and was induced to sign it. The Claimant said he was told that if he refuse to sign the pre-typed statement his bonus and profit sharing amounting to about RM20,000.00 will not be paid to him.

18. Even though the Company has shown that there is no such thing as "profit sharing" in the contract of employment and therefore there cannot be such an inducement but looking at the hand written note by the Claimant which is inconsistent with the rest of the statement, this Court thinks that the statement of admission by the Claimant cannot be taken at its face value. Some further explanations and other supporting evidence are needed before it can be taken into consideration. The recorder and the witness who signed on the statement would be able to shed some light and to tip the balance of probability either in the Claimant's favour or the company's favour. Without the evidence of the aforesaid, the statement remains as a statement which contents is in contradiction with itself. Such a statement is unsafe to act upon.

19. There was no domestic inquiry held before dismissing the Claimant. Even though it is true that a domestic inquiry is not a necessity before every dismissal but in such a case like this where the evidence relied upon by the Company to prove the Claimant's misconduct is disputed, such dismissal is arbitrary. The Claimant was denied the opportunity to dispute the manner in which the statement was taken, its contents and to cross examine other witnesses relied upon by the Company to decide the misconduct of the Claimant and the appropriate punishment. There is always the danger that other employees from whom the Company recorded their statement would implicate someone else to save their own neck. As an example, CLW-2 whose statement recorded by the Company at page 34-35 of COB, which seems to implicate the Claimant has given an entirely different evidence in Court.

20. Based on the evidence as adduced in this Court, the grounds relied upon by the Company to prove the misconduct of the Claimant is insufficient and therefore the company has failed to discharge their burden on the balance of probabilities in the face of the Claimant's evidence supported by the witnesses CLW-2 and CLW-3.

21. For these reasons, the Court orders that the Claimant is to be reinstated to his former position without any loss in pay or other benefits. The Company is also to pay the Claimant back wages equivalent to 20 months salary. No evidence was produced by either party to show the exact amount of the Claimant's last salary and this Court is unable to put an exact figure of the total amount of back wages. Therefore it is left to the parties themselves to determine the amount based on the Company's records.

HANDED DOWN AND DATED 5^TH JUNE 2013

(DATO' AHMAD ROSLI BIN MOHD SHAM)

CHAIRMAN

INDUSTRIAL COURT, MALAYSIA

KUALA LUMPUR

Dua Himpunan Pekerja pada 1 Mei 2014

Ada DUA perhimpunan pekerja pada 1 Mei, satu anjuran MTUC - lihat 

May Day Rally - 7.00am - 12 noon, Dataran Petaling Jaya (opp Amcorp Mall)

 

 

dan himpunan Kedua adalah saperti berikut

Himpunan 1 Mei meraikan hak pekerja

Apr 23, 2014

ANIS NAZRI

KUALA LUMPUR: Bersih 2.0 mengingatkan pihak berkuasa bahawa kebebasan berhimpun ialah hak yang dijamin di bawah Perlembagaan Persekutuan, lebih-lebih lagi pada tarikh 1 Mei setiap tahun.

Perhimpunan 1 Mei yang merupakan Hari Pekerja adalah menjadi tradisi, bukan sahaja di Malaysia tetapi di seluruh dunia untuk meraikannya dengan menggunakan hak sejagat ini.

Dalam kenyataannya kepada Harakahdaily, Pengerusi Bersih 2.0, Maria Chin Abdullah, berkata lama sebelum tercetusnya himpunan-himpunan Bersih, sudah wujud himpunan Hari Pekerja yang berterusan.

Justeru, katanya Bersih 2.0 menyokong sepenuhnya himpunan Hari Pekerja yang akan datang, dengan tema GST: Gasak Sampai Tumbang, yang dianjurkan sekumpulan badan bukan kerajaan, di Dataran Merdeka.

"Bersih 2.0 mengambil kesempatan ini untuk menyatakan solidariti kami bersama para pekerja. Hari Pekerja sudah berkembang daripada satu acara untuk memperingati perjuangan untuk keadaan bekerja yang baik kepada peluang untuk menangani dasar yang mempengaruhi keadaan hidup pekerja, yang turut menjadi kepentingan kepada pengundi seperti anda dan saya," tegas beliau dalam kenyataannya.

Tambah beliau, suasana itu dapat dilihat dalam rangkuman isu yang meluas yang dibangkitkan oleh Jawatankuasa Mei 1: daripada penentangan terhadap Cukai Barangan dan Perkhidmatan (GST) dan ketidak telusan Perjanjian Perkongsian Trans-Pasifik (TPP) kepada desakan yang lazim untuk hak wanita, Orang Asal dan Orang Asli, pelajar dan pekerja asing serta gaji minima.

Di samping itu, tegas Maria, tidak dilupai bahawa pekerja turut merupakan pengundi.

Maka, katanya  himpunan tahun ini juga akan mendesak untuk pilihan raya yang bebas dan adil serta kebebasan asas lain, terutamanya kebebasan media, yang merupakan antara isu teras Bersih 2.0.

Beliau juga melihat isu yang dibangkitkan oleh Himpunan 1 Mei sebagai manifestasi pilihan raya yang tidak adil yang telah memberi kuasa kepada kerajaan yang tidak mempunyai mandat rakyat.

Dalam pada itu, Bersih 2.0 menytkan komitmen untuk turut menyertai perhimpunan aman itu bersesuaian dengan hak berhimpun dan bersara yang dijamin perlembagaan.

"Maka, Bersih 2.0 akan menyertai masyarakat madani yang lain untuk berhimpun pada 1 Mei di KLCC, 2 petang, sebelum berarak ke destinasi rancangan kami - Dataran Merdeka," kata beliau.

Bersih 2.0 turut menggesa orang ramai, sebagai rakyat Malaysia dan sebagai pekerja, supaya turun padang untuk himpunan ini dan mendesak supaya hak pekerja dimajukan. - Harakah Daily, 23/4/2014

8 Jam Kerja, 8 Jam Rekreasi, 8 Jam Rehat - asal usul sambutan Hari Pekerja (1 Mei)

Asal-usul Hari Pekerja

 

Dua minggu lagi, pada 1 Mei, kita akan menyambut acara tahunan Hari Pekerja. Apa sebenarnya maksud hari cuti ini? Adakah ia hari beristirehat semata-mata? Atau hari untuk berhibur dan pergi “shopping” jualan murah?

Mari kita meninjau kembali sejarah awal asal-usul Hari Pekerja yang dicatatkan oleh seorang wanita yang menjadi ikon perjuangan hak rakyat miskin dan hak pekerja, Rosa Luxemburg(1894)

===
Idea bahagia untuk menggunakan hari cuti sebagai kaedah mendesak kepada hak waktu kerja lapan jam sehari mula-mula sekali dicadangkan di Australia. Golongan pekerja di sana memutuskan pada tahun 1856 untuk mengaturkan satu hartal (mogok kerja) dengan program-program perhimpunan dan hiburan sebagai satu demonstrasi menuntut hak waktu kerja lapan jam sehari. Hari yang ditetapkan untuk sambutan tersebut ialah 21 April. Pada mulanya, pekerja-pekerja Australia hanya merancang untuk program itu diadakan pada tahun 1856 sahaja. Namun oleh sebab sambutan tersebut mempunyai kesan yang begitu mendalam terhadap golongan pekerja di Australia, menghidupkan mereka serta meniup semangat mereka, maka ia diputuskan untuk menjadi sambutan setiap tahun. 

Apa lagi yang mampu memberikan keberanian yang begitu besar kepada para pekerja dan memberikan mereka keyakinan terhadap kekuatan sendiri selain hartal besar-besaran yang diputuskan oleh mereka sendiri? Apa lagi yang mampu memberikan keberanian kepada hamba abdi kilang-kilang dan bengkel-bengkel selain kejayaan mereka mengemblengkan kekuatan seluruh kaum pekerja? Justeru, idea sambutan Hari Pekerja diterima baik dan bermula dengan Australia, idea ini tersebar ke negara-negara lain sehingga berjaya menawan seluruh dunia pekerja. 

Yang terawal sekali mengikut jejak pekerja-pekerja Australia ialah para pekerja di Amerika Syarikat. Pada tahun 1886, mereka memutuskan untuk menobatkan 1 Mei sebagai hari hartal. Pada hari tersebut, 200,000 pekerja meninggalkan tempat kerja mereka dan menuntut hak waktu bekerja lapan jam sehari. Selepas itu, polis dan tindakan undang-undang pihak berkuasa menghalang para pekerja daripada menganjurkan demonstrasi sebesar ini untuk beberapa tahun kemudiannya. Namun, pada tahun 1888, para pekerja telah membuat keputusan bahawa sambutan seterusnya akan berlangsung pada 1 Mei 1890. 

Pada masa yang sama, pergerakan pekerja di Eropah menjadi semakin kuat dan bersemangat. Kemuncak pergerakan ini berlaku semasa Kongres Pekerja Antarabangsa pada tahun 1889. Dalam Kongres tersebut yang dihadiri oleh empat ratus orang perwakilan, telah diputuskan bahawa tuntutan utama para pekerja adalah hak waktu bekerja lapan jam sehari. Seorang perwakilan dari kesatuan pekerja Perancis, Lavigne dari Bordeaux telah mengusulkan agar tuntutan tersebut disuarakan oleh kaum pekerja di semua negara melalui suatu tindakan hartal. Wakil daripada Amerika Syarikat kemudiannya memaklumkan rancangan rakan-rakan beliau untuk berhartal pada 1 Mei 1890, lalu tarikh tersebut pun diputuskan oleh Kongres sebagai tarikh keramat sambutan hak pekerja. 

Dalam kes ini, seperti yang berlaku di Australia tiga puluh tahun yang lalu, para pekerja pada awalnya menyangka sambutan tersebut hanya untuk sekali sahaja. Kongres tersebut memutuskan bahawa seluruh kaum pekerja di serata dunia akan berhartal bersama-sama bagi menuntut hak waktu bekerja lapan jam sehari pada 1 Mei 1890. Tiada sesiapa pun yang menyebut bahawa sambutan akan diulangi pada tahun-tahun yang akan datang. Tiada sesiapa pun yang dapat meramalkan betapa pantasnya idea ini akan berjaya dan diterima sepenuhnya oleh kaum pekerja di serata tempat. Namun, cukup sekadar sekali menyambut Hari Pekerja untuk setiap orang memahami dan merasai semangat Hari Pekerja dan menyakinkan mereka bahawa ianya patut diraikan secara berterusan. 

Hari Pekerja yang pertama menuntut hak waktu bekerja lapan jam sehari. Walaupun selepas tuntutan tersebut telah tercapai, sambutan Hari Pekerja masih diraikan. Selagi perjuangan kaum pekerja terhadap penindasan ke atas mereka masih berlaku, selagi semua tuntutan pekerja masih tidak dipenuhi, selagi itu Hari Pekerja akan menjadi satu lambang untuk semua tuntutan tersebut. Dan apabila hari besok yang lebih cerah menjelma, di mana kaum pekerja sedunia telah berjaya, pada masa itu, seluruh umat manusia mungkin turut menyambut Hari Pekerja sebagai memperingati perjuangan pahit dan segala kesusahan masa lampau.

 

Sumber: Blog Labour Bulletine

Aduan kepada ILO - satu cara 'namakan dan malukan' untuk mencapai keadilan untuk pekerja/Kesatuan Sekerja?

Apa itu ILO? Bagaimana kita boleh mengunakannya untuk mendapatkan keadilan bagi pekerja dan kesatuan sekerja di Malaysia? Adakah ianya berkesan?

 

ILO(International Labour Organisation) adalah satu 'specialised agency' di bawah Economic and Social Council United Nations(UN)[Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa bersatu)

 

ILO adalah sebuah badan tripartite, di mana setiap negara ada perwakilan kerajaan, perwakilan pekerja(MTUC) dan perwakilan majikan(Malaysian Employers Federation - MEF).

 

ILO, saperti juga UN, ada mempunyai Convention(Konvensyen) yang menyatakan pendirian mengenai aspek pekerjaan - hak & kewajipan. Apabila Malaysia atau sesuatu kerajaan meratifikasi (atau tandatangan) sesuatu Convention, ia menyatakan bahawa ia akan berlaku menunaikan semua obligasi dan perlaksanaan semua hak yang terkandung dalam Convention tersebut.

 

Sebagai contoh, kita lihat Convention 98[C098], yang merupakan satu convention yang telah ditandatangani(diterima pakai) oleh Malaysia pada 5 Jun 1961 yang mula berkuatkuasa pada 5/6/1962

 

Malangnya di Malaysia tidak ada Akta, yang secara terus memberi kesan undang-undang kepada Convention yang ditandatangani Malaysia - maka, untuk memberi kesan, Kerajaan Malaysia HARUS meminda semua Akta yang bercanggah dengan C098, sebagi contoh.... atau membuat Akta baru.

 

Malangnya, bagi C098 pun, selepas lebih 50 tahun, masih lagi terdapat Akta atau undang-undang yang bercanggah dengan prinsip C098 - dan MTUC telah menimbulkan perkara ini dalam satu dalam tuntutan mereka sebelum GE 13[PRU 13] ... malangnya MTUC gagal memaklumkan apa sebenar peruntukkan undang-undang sedia ada yang bercanggah dengan C098, atau apa lagi dalam C098 yang belum lagi dijadikan undang-undang yang harus dipatuhi semua majikan...

 

Sekarang, MTUC boleh membuat aduan kepada ILO mengenai isu terkandung dalam mana-mana Convention yang Malaysia telah menandatangani...sebagai contoh, aduan boleh dibuat mengenai kewujudan undang-undang yang bercanggah dengan C098... [Hak membuat aduan adalah terhad kepada MTUC atau MEF atau kerajaan...aduan boleh juga dibuat mengenai kes khusus...saperti kes RENESAS, NUFAM, G18 dan DRB HICOM, dan sebagainya tetapi adakah MTUC membuat aduan....atau mereka malas...atau gagal berbuat demikian - kita akan melihat kemudian apakah aduan yang telah dibuat ....masa lain.

 

Bila aduan dibuat, kerajaan dan/atau pihak MEF ada hak untuk memberikan jawapan dan hujahan, di mana selepas itu ILO akan membuat keputusan .... dan Malaysia diharapkan menurut.... kalau Malaysia tak dengar atau tak mahu buat apa-apa, pihak ILO tidak boleh buat apa-apa  - kadang-kadang di dalam setengah isu, ILO membuat keputusan merujuk kes kepada International Court of Justice(ICJ), di mana jika ini berlaku dan ICJ membuat keputusan, kerajaan saperti Malaysia terpaksa ikut... 

 

MTUC boleh membuat aduan di ILO - dan kita akan lihat sama ada mereka ada membuat aduan...atau pergi sahaja untuk lawatan 'oversea' untuk mesyuarat ILO tetapi hanya untuk duduk diam...tak kempen apa-apa... (ILO  ada rekod, minit mesyuarat, dll - pi lihat untuk mengetahui samada MTUC mengunakan peluang demi pekerja atau tidak? lihat juga apa jawapan kerajaan Malaysia kepada isu yang ditimbul....)

Taktik yang digunakan di ILO boleh dikatakan adalah 'NAME AND SHAME' - namakan dan malukan majikan atau kerajaan Malaysia di kalangan komuniti antarabangsa bahawa ini akan mengerakkan majikan dan/atau kerajaan Malaysia untuk melakukan sesuatu untuk memastikan keadilan dan memastikan hak pekerja/kesatuan dihormati...

Taktik sama digunakan semasa kita BERPIKET - iaitu menamakan yang mencabul hak atau berlaku tidak adil dan menjelaskan apakah isu berkenaan = dengan harapan mendapat sokongan ramai menekan majikan bertindak memastikan hak dihormati dan keadilan dicapai.

Mengadu kepada ILO adalah satu daripada banyak taktik/cara yang boleh digunakan .... maka, yang pandai akan mengunakan semua jenis taktik serentak(atau lebih kurang pada masa yang sama atau...) ....

 

Ya,ada banyak jenis taktik atau cara untuk berjuang membehentikan pencabulan hak dan memastikan ketidakadilan dicapai.... TETAPI MANGSA KETIDAKADILAN MESTI MAHU BERJUANG UNTUK KEADILAN, jika tidak, sukar untuk orang lain bantu berjuang....bantu kempen untuk keadilan...

   

Apakah dia C098?...

C098 - Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98)

Convention concerning the Application of the Principles of the Right to Organise and to Bargain Collectively (Entry into force: 18 Jul 1951)Adoption: Geneva, 32nd ILC session (01 Jul 1949) - Status: Up-to-date instrument (Fundamental Convention). 

Preamble 

The General Conference of the International Labour Organisation,

Having been convened at Geneva by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, and having met in its Thirty-second Session on 8 June 1949, and

Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals concerning the application of the principles of the right to organise and to bargain collectively, which is the fourth item on the agenda of the session, and

Having determined that these proposals shall take the form of an international Convention,

adopts this first day of July of the year one thousand nine hundred and forty-nine the following Convention, which may be cited as the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949:

Article 1

1. Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment.
2. Such protection shall apply more particularly in respect of acts calculated to--
• (a) make the employment of a worker subject to the condition that he shall not join a union or shall relinquish trade union membership;
• (b) cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice a worker by reason of union membership or because of participation in union activities outside working hours or, with the consent of the employer, within working hours.

Article 2

1. Workers' and employers' organisations shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference by each other or each other's agents or members in their establishment, functioning or administration.
2. In particular, acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers' organisations under the domination of employers or employers' organisations, or to support workers' organisations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organisations under the control of employers or employers' organisations, shall be deemed to constitute acts of interference within the meaning of this Article.

Article 3

Machinery appropriate to national conditions shall be established, where necessary, for the purpose of ensuring respect for the right to organise as defined in the preceding Articles.

Article 4

Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organisations and workers' organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements.

Article 5

1. The extent to which the guarantees provided for in this Convention shall apply to the armed forces and the police shall be determined by national laws or regulations.
2. In accordance with the principle set forth in paragraph 8 of Article 19 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation the ratification of this Convention by any Member shall not be deemed to affect any existing law, award, custom or agreement in virtue of which members of the armed forces or the police enjoy any right guaranteed by this Convention.

Article 6

This Convention does not deal with the position of public servants engaged in the administration of the State, nor shall it be construed as prejudicing their rights or status in any way.

Article 7

The formal ratifications of this Convention shall be communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office for registration.

Article 8

1. This Convention shall be binding only upon those Members of the International Labour Organisation whose ratifications have been registered with the Director-General.
2. It shall come into force twelve months after the date on which the ratifications of two Members have been registered with the Director-General.
3. Thereafter, this Convention shall come into force for any Member twelve months after the date on which its ratification has been registered.

Article 9

1. 1. Declarations communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 35 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation shall indicate -- 
• (a) the territories in respect of which the Member concerned undertakes that the provisions of the Convention shall be applied without modification;
• (b) the territories in respect of which it undertakes that the provisions of the Convention shall be applied subject to modifications, together with details of the said modifications;
• (c) the territories in respect of which the Convention is inapplicable and in such cases the grounds on which it is inapplicable;
• (d) the territories in respect of which it reserves its decision pending further consideration of the position.
•  
2. The undertakings referred to in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 of this Article shall be deemed to be an integral part of the ratification and shall have the force of ratification.
3. Any Member may at any time by a subsequent declaration cancel in whole or in part any reservation made in its original declaration in virtue of subparagraph (b), (c) or (d) of paragraph 1 of this Article.
4. Any Member may, at any time at which the Convention is subject to denunciation in accordance with the provisions of Article 11, communicate to the Director-General a declaration modifying in any other respect the terms of any former declaration and stating the present position in respect of such territories as it may specify.

Article 10

1. Declarations communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office in accordance with paragraph 4 or 5 of Article 35 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation shall indicate whether the provisions of the Convention will be applied in the territory concerned without modification or subject to modifications; when the declaration indicates that the provisions of the Convention will be applied subject to modifications, it shall give details of the said modifications.
2. The Member, Members or international authority concerned may at any time by a subsequent declaration renounce in whole or in part the right to have recourse to any modification indicated in any former declaration.
3. The Member, Members or international authority concerned may, at any time at which this Convention is subject to denunciation in accordance with the provisions of Article 11, communicate to the Director-General a declaration modifying in any other respect the terms of any former declaration and stating the present position in respect of the application of the Convention.

Article 11

1. A Member which has ratified this Convention may denounce it after the expiration of ten years from the date on which the Convention first comes into force, by an act communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office for registration. Such denunciation shall not take effect until one year after the date on which it is registered.
2. Each Member which has ratified this Convention and which does not, within the year following the expiration of the period of ten years mentioned in the preceding paragraph, exercise the right of denunciation provided for in this Article, will be bound for another period of ten years and, thereafter, may denounce this Convention at the expiration of each period of ten years under the terms provided for in this Article.

Article 12

1. The Director-General of the International Labour Office shall notify all Members of the International Labour Organisation of the registration of all ratifications, declarations and denunciations communicated to him by the Members of the Organisation.
2. When notifying the Members of the Organisation of the registration of the second ratification communicated to him, the Director-General shall draw the attention of the Members of the Organisation to the date upon which the Convention will come into force.

Article 13

The Director-General of the International Labour Office shall communicate to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for registration in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations full particulars of all ratifications, declarations and acts of denunciation registered by him in accordance with the provisions of the preceding articles.

Article 14

At such times as it may consider necessary the Governing Body of the International Labour Office shall present to the General Conference a report on the working of this Convention and shall examine the desirability of placing on the agenda of the Conference the question of its revision in whole or in part.

Article 15

1. Should the Conference adopt a new Convention revising this Convention in whole or in part, then, unless the new Convention otherwise provides,
• (a) the ratification by a Member of the new revising Convention shall ipso jure involve the immediate denunciation of this Convention, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 11 above, if and when the new revising Convention shall have come into force;
• (b) as from the date when the new revising Convention comes into force, this Convention shall cease to be open to ratification by the Members.
2. This Convention shall in any case remain in force in its actual form and content for those Members which have ratified it but have not ratified the revising Convention.

Article 16

The English and French versions of the text of this Convention are equally authoritative.