Saturday, December 30, 2017

PRM and 31 Groups - Workers rights should not be hindered by the gov't(Malaysiakini)



Workers rights should not be hindered by the gov't

 

Published:     Modified:
COMMENT | We, the 32 undersigned organisations, trade unions and groups are shocked that the Human Resources Minister Richard Riot had decided not to refer the claim of about 3,600 Malaysian Airlines (MAS) workers, claiming wrongful dismissal and reinstatement, to the industrial court – hence denying these workers the right for their claim to be heard speedily and determined. This is grossly unjust.
It must be noted that past statistics revealed in parliament has shown that between 2001 and 2011, 31.5 percent or about 10,016 of about 31,714 workers who claimed wrongful dismissal and reinstatement were denied access to the industrial court by the minister who decided not to refer their cases to the court.
Whether a worker’s claim for reinstatement is successful is a matter that should be decided by the courts, after careful consideration of all facts, evidence and submissions on law - not by a minister,who has not accorded the right to be heard to the affected worker and employer, and possibly only relying on limited notes of an officer handling the attempt at conciliation at the Industrial Relations Department (IRD).
It must be noted that at the IRD conciliation stage, the worker is also not allowed to be represented by a lawyer of his choice, and hence, a worker would have to represent themselves or be represented by a union representative. As such, there is also a likelihood that all relevant facts and legal arguments may not have been put forward, thus, a decision of a minister in such circumstances can lead to a miscarriage of justice.

Most times, the representations are only oral, and without written representations enclosed with relevant documents and legal arguments. The right for a worker to be represented by a lawyer or a qualified legal representative at all stages of the administration of justice is, therefore, essential.
The suffering worker
When a worker loses employment and income, it is essential that justice is done speedily, preferably within a few months.
A worker who just lost their employment suffers a loss of income and it impacts on one’s financial security and that of their family, who would have to deal with all continuing monthly financial obligations of the family.
A failure to pay in time could result in loss of home, personal vehicle, deprivation of basic amenities and even a rising debt given the fact that most Malaysians have low savings.
The worker will also likely not be able to secure loans from financial institutions because of the loss of their employment and may be forced to resort to borrowing from illegal money lenders, who charge a very high interest rate. Unless justice is achieved quickly, there is a real risk of the worker and their families plunging deeper into poverty.
On the other hand, the employer most likely will continue their business as usual.
The pursuit of justice also requires monies, and it is likely that many workers, especially from the lower and middle-income category, will simply choose to walk away. Victims are not able to undertake the quest for justice, and the employer perpetrators of injustice get off scot-free.
Whilst the Malaysian government has provided legal aid to the poor in criminal matters, the government does not provide legal aid to workers, especially the poor. However, the Malaysian Bar has now made available legal aid lawyers to qualified workers.
Most importantly, the rights of a worker to be represented by lawyers of their choice at all stages of the administration of labour justice are currently barred by law, and this right must be provided to ensure equity and justice to workers in their quest for justice against employers and even the government.
Worker discrimination
Victims of injustice can generally immediately commence court actions against the alleged perpetrators, but not workers claiming wrongful dismissal and their employment back.
These workers are discriminated against as they have no right to immediately pursue their claims of wrongful dismissal and reinstatement at the industrial court. They will have to go through many administrative steps before their wrongful dismissal cases ever reach the court. For these victims, they can only get their cases heard by the industrial court only if the minister refers their cases.
It is very wrong and unjust for the minister to be able to prevent workers from immediately bringing their claims to the industrial court. The fact that the government also owns and controls many employer companies makes it even more unjust for a member of the executive, a cabinet minister, to have such power. Malaysian Airlines, for example, was a wholly owned government company.


 
 
The hurdles that have to be overcome by workers in their quest to reach the industrial court to claim wrongful dismissal and reinstatement in Malaysia is provided for in the existing unjust laws.
This includes the need to first lodge a claim/complaint within a stipulated time at the IIRD, then go through the conciliation session at the IRD, and thereafter, if no conciliation, the claim is referred to the minister who then decides whether the case is referred to the industrial court or not.
Their quest for reinstatement to their job may not even end in court, and may be ended prematurely in this administrative process including the decision of a minister not to refer the case to court.
The conciliation session
The ‘conciliation’ session is an attempt for the affected worker and employer to come to some sort of settlement, and therefore there will be no need to send the matter to the minister, and possibly the industrial court.
Rather than investigating and enforcing the law, the IRD sadly plays the role of an ‘impartial’ go-between, not taking sides, to get the parties to come to some sort agreement so that the worker does not proceed any further with their claim to reinstate their employment.
It is most unlikely that the conciliation session will not end with any employer agreeing to reinstate the worker to their previous employment, or even paying out just compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
Some employers may try to settle the claim by making a nominal payment, and so, real justice ends undone.
Now, conciliation or mediation could happen at the industrial court, where currently it is not uncommon for the court to try to get parties to settle and come to an agreement through mediation before the trial commences.
Attempts of settlement can also happen at any time, as initiated by any party, via their lawyers, trade unions, legal representatives or even third parties. As such, there is really no need for these time-consuming conciliation sessions at the IRD at all.
The minister's reference
Now, if and when this conciliation attempt fails, then the matter is referred to the minister who again seems to take too much time, and in the case of these MAS ex-workers, it took two years before it was decided by the minister that he would not refer the case to the industrial court.
Note, the minister decides whether to refer or not to refer to the industrial court without even according the right to be heard to the affected worker and/or the employer. It is a decision which is not even based on all the facts and evidence, and as such could be said to be arbitrary.
All that the minister has are the notes taken by the IRD officer who had conducted the conciliation session. Being a conciliation session, parties may even not be providing all the relevant facts and evidence, especially the evidence of other witnesses.


It is, therefore, most shocking that about 31 percent of worker claims are not referred to the industrial court by the minister.
The reasons for the non-referral by the minister that were given in Parliament included reasons of misconduct, voluntarily stopping their employment and/or accepting the Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) and changing their mind, or that their employment contract period had ended. 
These reasons given by the minister are usually what employers will say to justify termination. However, these are matters to be decided by the courts after hearing and considering all evidence and facts.
Was the employer right in terminating the worker, or was the worker right in saying that it was a wrongful dismissal? Was the alleged misconduct even a valid misconduct agreed before by both parties of an employment contract? Was the worker deceived by the employer and their agents? These are matters that only a court should be deciding on after not just hearing evidence of the parties to the dispute, but also other relevant witnesses.
A worker who takes the trouble, expending monies and time, to file a claim for wrongful dismissal asking for reinstatement most likely has a case and arguments to justify such a claim, and there is a need to consider all the facts and listen to all the evidence, including evidence from witnesses, to determine the truth and make a final decision.
This is the task of the courts, not the minister.
Delays in the industrial court
There are currently no time limits set for the completion of an industrial court case or appeals thereafter. It can take years from the date the case is referred to the industrial court until the completion of the trial.
The hearing and conclusion of the trial at the industrial court can take years, and in some cases, may even take five years or more after the date of wrongful dismissal. If the worker is victorious, then the fruits of justice can further be delayed by appeals to the higher courts.
The long drawn out process before the case reaches the court and the time taken for trials to complete would most likely deter most workers from filing a claim or even cause them to abandon the claim midstream.
Thus, the procedures made may ultimately end up protecting violators of laws and rights rather than the workers themselves.
Reducing a worker's entitlement 
The injustice to the worker was compounded by the fact that from Feb 2008, the law limited the amount of claim for a worker who was successful in court proving that he was indeed wrongfully dismissed.
The maximum amount they can get is 24 months in back wages, even if it takes five years or 10 years before he gets his employment back or the final judgment that he was wrongfully dismissed.
 
Before this amendment, a worker successful in his claim would have been entitled to not just back wages from the date of wrongful dismissal until the date of reinstatement or the date of final judgment. They would also be entitled to whatever increments and bonuses that he would have gotten if not for the wrongful dismissal by the employer.
The new Second Schedule of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, in Paragraph 1 now states, “In the event that back wages are to be given, such back wages shall not exceed twenty-four months' back wages from the date of dismissal based on the last-drawn salary of the person who has been dismissed without just cause or excuse”.
Moreover, there are provisions for even further deductions from the amount of back wages due and payable if the worker was earning whilst he was waiting to get back his job.
Now even if the worker is victorious, a further sum shall be deducted for “contributory misconduct of the workman,” and this amounts to penalising the worker despite their success in court.
The courts should not only decide whether the worker was wrongfully dismissed or not, but also what the worker receives from their employer all that he would have earned, including wage increments and bonuses, from the date of his wrongful judgment until the date of reinstatement and/or final judgment.
There should also be a need for further damages that ought to be paid by the employer for the violation of the worker’s rights and the law, and also for the suffering caused.
The government's duty
Enforcement of the law and protecting worker rights should be a priority of the government. The government, in particular, the Human Resource Ministry and its various departments, should be regularly inspecting, investigating and ensuring that rights are not violated and laws are enforced. On the receipt of information of alleged violations from any source, the ministry should speedily investigate and ensure that the law is complied with at a particular workplace.
The practice of waiting for the victims to lodge formal complaints or claims before action is taken must end, as most victimised workers are worried about lodging formal complaints against their employer, more so when they are still in employment for fear of retaliation, which may also include dismissal.
The law empowers the Human Resources Ministry to conduct regular inspections, but a perusal of the statistics provided by the ministry shows that there are only inspections, investigations and prosecutions carried out by the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) department, and there are no statistics about inspections, investigations, prosecution and/or enforcement of the basic worker and trade union rights like payment of wages, overtime, wrongful dismissal, discrimination and such rights.
A perusal of the Human Resources Ministry quarterly reports, Statistic Pekerjaan dan Perburuhan Siri 13 Bil 3/2017 September (Employment and Labour Statistics) discloses no statistics of workplace inspections to ensure that worker and trade union rights are not being violated, no statistics of investigation and prosecution of employers that have violated labour laws and fundamental worker rights, no statistics of information or complaints received and no statistics of employers found guilty. The only available are matters concerning the OSH.
Given the fact that there are statistics on OSH inspections and enforcement, it looks like the Malaysian government and the Human Resources Ministry are not interested in protecting basic worker and trade union rights. After all, the statistics of inspection, investigation, prosecution, conviction and enforcement against employers who breach existing Malaysian labour and trade union laws are information so easily compiled by the government.
The case of Malaysian Airlines
These 3,200 workers were employees of the Malaysian Airlines, a wholly government-owned company. The airline had decided to reduce the workforce by 6,000 workers, a process normally done via a retrenchment exercise, which would have had to comply with existing just legal principles like Last In First Out (LIFO).
However, what the Malaysian government did was to form a new company, and terminate all employees in the previous company – and then re-employed selected workers in the new wholly owned company. This would not be just and is a violation of worker rights.
The Malaysian government then passed a new law that made the new company specifically not liable for the actions and liabilities of the old company.
This exercise may also be the biggest union-busting exercise of recent times, as six of the trade unions were in-house trade unions, and this exercise would have effectively killed all those unions.
However, the airline employees in Malaysia did previously have a national union. In February 1979, 22 members of the Airlines Employers Union (AEU) were detained under the ISA after a pay dispute at the state-run Malaysian Airline System (MAS) had led to a work to rule and a government order to deregister the union.


 
 
Thereafter, only in-house unions existed for employees of MAS, until the recent registration of National Union of Flight Attendance Malaysia's (NUFAM). However, despite Nufam's success in getting 62.73 percent of the votes at the secret ballot, and the director general of industrial relations (DGIR) issuing the formal letter acknowledging Nufam as a recognised union in MAS, the company challenged the decision in court.
Considering the background, this nonreference claim of these 3,200 ex-MAS workers to the industrial court by the minister is all the more unconscionable. If not for that new law that attempts to not make the new company that is owned by the same owners of the old company, the owners and the new MAS company would most likely be found to be liable for the actions of old MAS company. Even with the new law, the courts may have found judgement in favour of the former workers.
The minister’s decision of not referring the case to the courts in this case may be tainted with mala fide – an attempt to even prevent the claims of these former workers from being considered and determined by the court, where judges are duty bound to uphold the cause of justice without fear or favour – and not follow the agenda and intention of the existing Umno-BN government.
The reality in Malaysia where worker rights are not protected and promoted and instead eroding is embarrassing. When Malaysia recently wanted to be part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), one of the preconditions was that Malaysia amends its labour and trade union laws to enable it to be in compliant with international labour standards.
While there have been moves on the part of the government to do so, to date, we have yet to see any proposed amendments.
Therefore, we;
  • call on the Malaysian government to ensure that workers claiming wrongful dismissal seeking reinstatement shall have the right to immediately file their claim at the industrial court and that all administrative hurdles including the minister’s discretion to refer a case be removed;
  • call for the revocation of the minister’s decision not to refer this case of the 3,200 former MAS workers, and that their case is immediately commenced and heard by the industrial court. Likewise, all ministerial decisions not to refer worker cases be revoked, and be forthwith heard by the industrial court;
  • call for the repeal of Schedule 2 of the Industrial Relations Act that seeks to, amongst others, limit the worker’s who have been wrongfully dismissed to just 2 years back wages;
  • call for the government to expedite administration of justice, including trials, of workers wrongfully dismissed who are claiming reinstatement to end not later than 6 months from the date of claim;
  • call for the Malaysian government to proactively protect worker and trade union rights, amongst others, by regular inspections, speedy investigations and enforcement of labour laws and worker rights.
  • call on Malaysia to expedite the transformation of existing labour and trade union laws to be in compliance with international human rights and labour standards;
  • call on Malaysia to promote and protect worker and trade union rights.
Charles Hector is writing on behalf of;

ALIRAN
Association of Maybank Executives
ATRAHDOM Guatemala
CAW(Committee for Asian Women)
Christian Development Alternative (CDA), Bangladesh
Club Employees Union Peninsular Malaysia (CEUPM)
Community Development Foundation (CDF)
Electronic Industry Employees Union (EIEU) Southern Region, Peninsular Malaysia
Japan Innocence and Death Penalty Information Center
Garments Workers Federation (NGWF ), Bangladesh
HAK Association from Timor-Leste
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Sdn Bhd
MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
Majlis Rangkaian Kesatuan Sekerja Antarabangsa Malaysia (UNI-MLC)(UNI - Malaysia Labour Centre - (UNI-MLC)
Malaysian Physicians for Social Responsibility
National Union of Flight Attendants Malaysia (NUFAM)
National Union of Transport Equipment & Allied Industries Workers (NUTEAIW)
North South Initiative
Parti Rakyat Malaysia(PRM)
People & Planet, UK
Persatuan Kakitangan Akademik University Malaya - PKAUM (Academic Staff Union)
Persatuan Komuniti Prihatin Selangor dan Kuala Lumpur
Rescue Alternatives Liberia (RAL)
Sahabat Rakyat (人民之友)
Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM)
Singapore Anti Death Penalty Committee
Solidarity of Cavite Workers, Philippines
Teoh Beng Hock Trust for Democracy
WH4C (Workers Hub For Change)
Women's Rights and Democracy Centre (WORD Centre)
Workers Assistance Center, Inc. , Philippines
Yayasan LINTAS NUSA, Batam, Indonesia

Read more at https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/406043#D3VKUbxFSRUslJSy.99

Thursday, December 21, 2017

Workers’ Right To Claim Justice In Courts Must No Longer Be Delayed Or Blocked By Minister -3,600 Malaysian Airlines(MAS) Workers Denied Day In Court By Minister-(Joint Statement 20/12/2017)

Parti Rakyat Malaysia(PRM) joins 31 other groups and trade unions to fight for better worker rights in Malaysia. Sadly many other political parties seems not so bothered about worker and worker rights in Malaysia
Media Statement – 20/12/2017

Workers’ Right To Claim Justice In Courts Must No Longer Be Delayed Or Blocked By Minister

-3,600 Malaysian Airlines(MAS) Workers Denied Day In Court By Minister-


We the 32 undersigned organisations, trade unions and groups are shocked that the Minister of Human Resources had decided not to refer the claim of about 3,600 Malaysian Airlines(MAS) workers, claiming wrongful dismissal and reinstatement, to the Industrial Court – hence denying these workers the right for their claim to be heard speedily and determined by the Industrial Court. This is grossly unjust. (Malaysiakini, 5/10/2017)


It must be noted that past statistics, revealed in Parliament, showed that between 2001 and 2011, that 31.5% or about 10,016 of about 31,714 workers who claimed wrongful dismissal and reinstatement were denied  access to the Industrial Court by the Minister of Human Resources who decided not to refer their cases to the  Industrial Court (Utusan Online, 23/10/2012).


Justly, whether a worker’s claim for reinstatement is successful is a matter that should be decided by the Courts, after considering all facts, evidence and submissions on law - not by a Minister, without even according the right to be heard to the affected worker and employer, and possibly only relying on limited notes of an officer handing an attempt at conciliation at the Industrial Relations Department. 


Note at this IRD conciliation stage the worker is also not allowed to be represented by a lawyer of his choice, and hence a worker would have to represent himself/herself or be represented by a union representative, and the likelihood that all relevant facts and legal arguments may not have been put forward, and as such a decision of a Minister in such circumstances can most probably lead to a miscarriage of justice.

Most times, the representations are only oral, and without written representations enclosed with relevant documents and legal arguments. The right for a worker to be represented by a lawyer or a qualified legal representative at all stages of the administration of justice is essential.


WORKERS SUFFER WHILST BUSINESS AS USUAL FOR THE EMPLOYER


When a worker loses employment and income, it is essential that justice be done speedily, preferably within a few months.  


A worker who just lost his/her employment suffers a loss of his/her income and it impacts on one’s financial security and that of his/her family, who still would have to deal with all continuing monthly financial obligations of the family whereby a failure to pay in time could result in loss of home, personal vehicle, deprivation of basic amenities and even a rising debt given the fact that savings of most Malaysian workers are rather low. 

The worker will also most likely not be able to secure loans from financial institutions because of the loss of employment, and may be forced to resort to borrowing from illegal money lenders, who charge a very high interest rate. Unless, justice is achieved fast, there is a real risk of the worker and family plunging deeper into poverty.


On the other hand, the employer most likely will continue business as usual.


The pursuit of justice also needs monies, it is most likely that many workers, especially from the lower and middle income category, will simply choose to walk away victims not able to undertake the quest for justice, and employer perpetrators of injustice get off scot free.


Whilst Malaysia government have finally provided legal aid to the poor in criminal matters, the government still do not provide legal aid to workers, especially the poor. The Malaysian Bar now makes available legal aid lawyers to qualified workers. 


Most importantly, the right of a worker to be represented by lawyers of his/her choice at all stages of the administration of labour justice is currently barred by law, and this must be right must be  provided to ensure equity and justice to workers in their quest for justice against employers and even the government.


WORKERS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST COMPARED TO OTHER VICTIMS OF INJUSTICE


Victims of injustice can generally immediately commence court actions against alleged perpetrators – but not workers claiming wrongful dismissal and their employment back.


These workers are discriminated as they have no right to immediately pursue their claims of wrongful dismissal and reinstatement at the Industrial court. They will have to go through many  administrative steps before their wrongful dismissal cases ever reaches the court. For, these worker victims, they can only get their cases heard by the Industrial only if finally the Minister refers their cases. 


It is very wrong and unjust for the Minister to be able to prevent workers from immediately bringing their claims to the Industrial Court. The fact that the government also owns and controls many employer companies makes it even more unjust for a member of the Executive, a Cabinet Minister, to have such power. The Malaysian Airlines, for example, was a wholly owned government company.


The hurdles that have to be overcome by workers in their quest to reaching the Industrial court to  claim wrongful dismissal and reinstatement in Malaysia is provided for in the existing unjust laws. 


This includes the need to first lodge a claim/complaint within a stipulated time at the Industrial Relations Department(IRD), then go through the conciliation session at the IRD, and thereafter, if no conciliation, the claim is referred to the Minister who then decides whether the case is referred to the Industrial Court or not. 


Their quest for reinstatement to their job may not even end in court, and may be ended prematurely in this administrative process including the decision of a Minister not to refer the case to court.


The Conciliation Session

The ‘conciliation’ session is an attempt for the affected worker and employer to come to some sort of settlement, and therefore there will be no need to send the matter to the Minister, and possibly the Industrial Court. 


Rather than investigating and enforcing the law, the IRD sadly plays the role of an ‘impartial’ go between not taking sides, to get the parties to come to some sort agreement so that worker not  proceed any further with his/her claim to get employment back.  


It is most unlikely that the conciliation session will not end with any employer agreeing to reinstate the worker to his/her employment, or even paying out a just compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 


Some employer may try to settle the claim by making a small payment, and so real justice ends up not being done. 


Now, conciliation (or mediation) could happen at the Industrial Court, where currently it is not uncommon that the court will try to get parties to settle and come an agreement through mediation before trial commences. 


Attempts of settlement can also happen at any time, initiated by the parties, vide their lawyers, trade unions, legal representatives or even 3rd parties. As such, there is really no need for these time consuming conciliation sessions at the IRD at all.


The Reference to the Minister – Decide whether refer to Industrial Court or Not


Now, if and when this ‘conciliation’ attempt fails, then the matter is referred to the Minister who again seems to take too much time, and in the case of these 3,200 MAS workers, it took 2 years to decide not to refer the case to the Industrial Court. 


Note, the Minister decides whether to refer or not to refer to the Industrial Court without even according the right to be heard to the affected worker and/or the employer. It is a decision which is not even based on all the facts and evidence, and as such could be said to be arbitrary. All that the Minister has are only the notes taken by the IRD officer who conducted the conciliation session. Being a conciliation session, parties may even not be providing all the relevant facts and evidence, especially evidence of other witnesses.


It was most shocking that almost about 31% worker claims are not being referred to the Industrial Court by the Minister. 


The reasons for the non-referral by the Minister that were given in Parliament, as reported in the media in 2012,  included because the worker was terminated by reason of misconduct, because the worker stop employment voluntarily and/or accepted the Voluntary Separation Scheme(VSS) and then changed his/her mind; and the worker’s employment contract period had ended. (Utusan Online, 23/10/2012). 


Well, these reasons given by the Minister are usually what employers will say to justify termination. This really are really a matter to be decided by the courts after hearing and considering all evidence and facts. Was the employer right in terminating the worker, or was the worker right in saying that it was a wrongful dismissal? Was the alleged misconduct even a valid misconduct agreed before by both parties of an employment contract? Was the worker deceived by the employer and/or their agents? There are many matters that only a court should be deciding on after not just hearing evidence of the parties to the dispute, but also other relevant witnesses.


A worker who takes the trouble, expending monies and time, to file a claim of wrongful dismissal asking for reinstatement most probably has a case and arguments to justify such a claim, and there is a need to consider all the facts and listen to all the evidence, including evidence from witnesses, to determine the truth and make a final decision. This is the task of the courts, not a Minister.


Delays in the Industrial Court
 

There are currently no time limits set for the completion of an Industrial Court case and/or appeals thereafter. From the date the case is referred to the Industrial Court until the completion of the trial, it can take years. Hearing and conclusion of trial at the Industrial Court can take years, in some cases it may even take about 5 years or more after the date of wrongful dismissal. If the worker is victorious, then the fruits of justice can further be delayed by appeals to the higher courts. 


The long drawn out process before the case reaches the court and the time taken for trials to complete would most likely just deter most worker victims of injustice from even filing a claim and/or to abandon the claim midstream. 


Thus, this administration of justice procedure may ultimately end up protecting violators of law and rights rather than the worker victims.


Reducing the entitlement of the wrongfully dismissed worker by law

The injustice to the worker was compounded by fact that from February 2008, the law limited the amount of claim for a worker who was successful in court proving that he was indeed wrongfully dismissed. Now, the maximum he can get is 24 months back wages, even if it takes 5 years or 10 years before he gets his employment back and/or the final judgment that he was wrongfully dismissed. Before this amendment, a worker successful in his claim would have been entitled to not just back wages from the date of wrongful dismissal until the date of reinstatement or the date of final judgment. He would also be entitled to whatever increments and bonuses that he would have gotten if not for the wrongful dismissal by the employer.


The new Second Schedule of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, in Paragraph 1 now states, “In the event that back wages are to be given, such back wages shall not exceed twenty-four months' back wages from the date of dismissal based on the last-drawn salary of the person who has been dismissed without just cause or excuse;”. Further there is provisions, for even further deductions from the amount of back wages due and payable if the worker was earning whilst he was waiting to get back his job. 


Oddly, now even if the worker is victorious, a further sum is deducted for “shall take into account contributory misconduct of the workman.”, and this amount to penalising of the worker despite being successful in court. Courts should decide whether worker was wrongfully dismissed or not, and it is only just that a worker receives from the employer all that he would have earned, including wage increments and bonuses, from the date of his wrongful judgment until the date of reinstatement and/or final judgment. Justly, there should also be a need for further damages that ought to be paid by the employer for the violation of the worker’s rights and the law, and also for the suffering caused. 


ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW AND PROSECUTION OF THE GUILTY IS THE DUTY OF GOVERNMENT


Enforcement of the law and protecting worker rights should be priority of the government. The government, in particular the Human Resource Ministry and its various departments, should be regularly inspecting, investigating and ensuring that rights are not violated and laws are enforced. On receipt of information of alleged violations from any source, the Ministry should speedily investigate and ensure that the law is complied with at a particular workplace.



The practice of waiting for the victims to lodge formal complaints/claims before action is taken must end, as most victimized workers are worried about lodging formal complaints against their employer, more so when they are still in employment for fear of retaliation which may also include dismissal.



The law empowers the Ministry of Human Resources to conduct regular inspections, but a perusal of the Statistics provided by the Ministry shows that there are only inspections, investigations and prosecutions being carried out by the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) department, there is no statistics about inspections, investigations, prosecution and/or enforcement of the basic worker and trade union rights like payment of wages, overtime, wrongful dismissal, discrimination and such rights.



A perusal of the Ministry of Human Resources quarterly reports, Statistic Pekerjaan dan Perburuhan Siri 13 Bil 3/2017 September (Employment and Labour Statistics) discloses no statistics of workplace inspections to ensure that worker and trade union rights are not being violated, no statistics of investigation and prosecution of employers that have violated labour laws and fundamental worker rights, no statistics of information/complaints received and no statistics of employers found guilty. Only available are matters concerning OSH.



Given the fact that there are statistics on Occupational Safety and Health(OSH) inspections and enforcement, it looks like the Malaysian government and/or the Ministry of Human Resources are not interested in protecting basic worker and trade union rights. After all, the statistics of inspection, investigation, prosecution, conviction and enforcement against employers who breach existing Malaysian labour and trade union laws is information so easily compiled by the Government.



Malaysian Airlines – A wholly government owned company



These 3,200 workers were employees of the Malaysian Airlines, who was owned by a wholly government owned company. The airlines decided to reduce the workforce by 6,000 workers, which justly would have been done vide retrenchment exercise, which would have had to comply with existing just legal principles like Last In First Out (LIFO). However, what the Malaysian government did was to form a new company, and terminate all employees in the previous company – and then re-employed selected workers in the new wholly owned company. This would not be just and a violation of worker rights.

The Malaysian government then passed a new law, that made the new company specifically not liable for the actions and liabilities of the old company.




This exercise may also be biggest union busting exercise of recent times, as almost 6 of the trade union were in-house trade unions, and this exercise would effectively kill all these unions.




The airlines employees in Malaysia, did previously have a national union.  In February 1979, 22 members of the Airlines Employers Union (AEU) were detained under the ISA after a pay dispute at the state-run Malaysian Airline System (MAS) had led to a work to rule and a government order to deregister the union. Thereafter, only in-house unions existed for employees of the Malaysian Airlines, until the recent registration of National Union of Flight Attendance Malaysia's (NUFAM). However, despite NUFAM succeeded in getting 62.73% of the votes at the secret ballot, and thereafter on August 2013, the Director General of Industrial Relations(DGIR) issued the formal letter acknowledging NUFAM as a recognized union in MAS, the company challenged the decision in court.





Considering the background, this non reference of the claim of these 3,200 Malaysian Airlines(MAS) workers to the Industrial Court by the Minister is all the more unconscionable. If not for that new law, that attempts to not make the new MAS company, owned by the same owners of the old MAS company, the owners and the new MAS company would most likely be found to be liable for the actions of old MAS company. Even, with the new law, the Courts may have found in favour of the workers.



The Minister’s decision of not referring the case to the Courts as such in this case may be tainted with mala fide – an attempt to even prevent the claims of these MAS worker from being considered and determined by the court, where judges are duty bound to uphold the cause of justice without fear or favour – and not follow the agenda and/or intention of even the existing UMNO-BN government.



The reality in Malaysia where worker rights are not protected and promoted, and have been eroding in some cases is embarrassing. When Malaysia recently wanted to be part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), one of the pre-conditions was that Malaysia amends its labour and trade union laws to enable it to be in compliance with international labour standards, whereby there have been moves on the part of the government to do so but alas to date, we have yet to see any proposed amendments.



Therefore, we

·          
Call on Malaysian government to ensure that workers claiming wrongful dismissal seeking reinstatement shall have the right to immediately file their claim at the Industrial Court, and that all administrative hurdles including the Minister’s discretion to refer a case be removed;


·          
Call for the revocation of the Minister’s decision not to refer this case of the 3,200 Malaysian Airlines(MAS) workers, and that their case immediately be commenced and heard by the Industrial Court. Likewise, all Ministerial decisions not to refer worker cases be revoked, and be forthwith heard by the Industrial Court;


·       
  Call for the repeal of Schedule 2 of the Industrial Relations Act that seeks to, amongst others, limit the worker’s who have been wrongfully dismissed to just 2 years back wages;

·          

Call for the government to expedite administration of justice, including trials, of workers wrongfully dismissed who are claiming reinstatement to end not later than 6 months from the date of claim;

·         

 Call for the Malaysian government to proactively protect worker and trade union rights, amongst others, by regular inspections, speedy investigations and enforcement of labour laws and worker rights.

·        

 Call on Malaysia to expedite the transformation of existing labour and trade union laws to be in compliance with international human rights and labour standards;

·          

Call on Malaysia to promote and protect worker and trade union rights.




Charles Hector
Ng Yap Hwa
Pranom Somwong
For and on behalf of the 32 organisations, trade unions and groups listed below


ALIRAN
Association of Maybank Executives
ATRAHDOM Guatemala
CAW(Committee for Asian Women)
Christian Development Alternative (CDA), Bangladesh 
Club Employees Union Peninsular Malaysia (CEUPM)
Community Development Foundation (CDF)
Electronic Industry Employees Union (EIEU) Southern Region, Peninsular Malaysia
Japan Innocence and Death Penalty Information Center
Garments Workers Federation  (NGWF ), Bangladesh
HAK Association from Timor-Leste
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Sdn Bhd
MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
Majlis Rangkaian Kesatuan Sekerja Antarabangsa Malaysia (UNI-MLC)(UNI - Malaysia Labour Centre - (UNI-MLC)
Malaysian Physicians for Social Responsibility
National Union of Flight Attendants Malaysia (NUFAM)
National Union of Transport Equipment & Allied Industries Workers (NUTEAIW)
North South Initiative
Parti Rakyat Malaysia(PRM)
People & Planet, UK
Persatuan Kakitangan Akademik University Malaya - PKAUM (Academic Staff Union)
Persatuan Komuniti Prihatin Selangor dan Kuala Lumpur
Rescue Alternatives Liberia (RAL)
Sahabat Rakyat (人民之友)
Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM)
Singapore Anti Death Penalty Committee
Solidarity of Cavite Workers, Philippines
Teoh Beng Hock Trust for Democracy
WH4C (Workers Hub For Change)
Women's Rights and Democracy Centre (WORD Centre)
Workers Assistance Center, Inc. , Philippines
Yayasan LINTAS NUSA, Batam, Indonesia

Friday, December 15, 2017

Our time has come, says Parti Rakyat Malaysia sec-gen(Malay Mail)

Sunday December 10, 2017
04:57 PM GMT+8
GEORGE TOWN, Dec 10 — Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) sees itself in power in Penang after the 14th General Election (GE14).

It secretary-general Koh Swe Yong claimed that Penangites were fed up with the DAP-led government and were just waiting to give them the boot in GE14.

“Imbalanced development leading to environmental damage and natural disasters like massive landslides and severe flooding, money politics and cronyism are the bane of the current administration,” he told a press conference here today.

He said Penangites were now ready for “out with the old, in with the new” and that if given the mandate, PRM would do its best to serve them in the way they expect.

Also present was PRM chairman Tang Hiang Lye.

The DAP-led goverment is currrently serving its second term. GE14 must be called by August next year. — Bernama - Malay Mail, 10/12/2017

Thursday, August 10, 2017

PRM membantah perlanjutan tempoh Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif sebagai Ketua Hakim Negara



2017-08-08

Kepada Pengarang yang dihormati,

Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM)  dengan kerasnya membantah perlanjutan tempoh Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif sebagai Ketua Hakim Negara selama tiga tahun berkuatkuasa mulai 4 Ogos 2017. Tempoh perkhidmatan Tan Sri Md Raus tamat setelah beliau capai umur persaraan 66 tahun, serta lanjutan 6 bulan yang diberikan pada 3 Ogos 2017.

PRM bertekad bahawa tarikh akhir tempoh perkhidmatan hakim iaitu tarikh persaraan mesti pasti dan  mandatori.

Pasti  dan mandatori bererti hakim setelah dilantik sebagai hakim tidak boleh dibuang kerja sehingga umur persaraan,  yang pada masa ini adalah 66 tahun. Ini bermakna juga  tempoh perkhidmatan hakim tidak boleh dilanjutkan melampaui umur persaraan  oleh mana-mana pihak termasuk Perdana Menteri atau Ketua Hakim Negara.

Pendirian PRM adalah bahawa untuk Malaysia  mencapai status negara dan masyarakat maju serta dihormati komuniti antarabangsa, amalan Malaysia harus sejajar dengan amalan  yang diterima oleh Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu, contohnya dalam isu kehakiman ialah Prinsip Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu mengenai perlakuan hakim dan badan kehakiman.  

Dalam United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, yang dengan jelas menyatakan perlu tarikh akhir tempoh perkhidmatan yang pasti  , ‘Judges, whether appointed or elected, shall have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of their term of office, where such exists.’(Hakim, sama ada dilantik atau dipilih, harus mempunyai tarikh perkhidmatan yang terjamin sehingga tarikh persaraan mandatori atau kehabisan tempoh perkhidmatan, di mana ia wujud)

Tindakan PM Najib dan juga tindakan bekas Ketua Hakim Negara, Ariffin Zakaria sehari sebelum Ketua Hakim bersara.  Ada kemungkinan kebebasan hakim dicabul.

 Untuk memastikan kebebasan kehakiman, satu perkara yang perlu adalah ketetapan tempoh perkhidmatan.

Jika tidak, hakim mungkin membuat keputusan yang disukai mereka yang ada kuasa melanjutkan tempoh perkhidmatan hakim. Justeru kebebasan kehakiman di Malaysia diragui.

Rakyat Malaysia berhak mempunyai hakim yang bebas membuat keputusan Mahkamah berasaskan keadilan,  tanpa dipengaruhi oleh mana-mana pihak termasuk Perdana Menteri Najib dan UMNO-BN. 

Tindakan PM Najib dan UMNO-BN ini bukan sahaja menonjol amalan dan teladan yang   tidak sihat,  bahkan akan terus menjejaskan kebajikan rakyat dan ekonomi negara.

Tindakan PM Najib dan UMNO-BN ini,  juga seolah-olah mahu memastikan badan kehakiman Malaysia akan berpihak kepada UMNO-BN khususnya apabila PRU14 akan diadakan bila-bila masa. 

Persepsi umum adalah sistem pentadbiran keadilan di Malaysia bertambah keraguannya susulan perlanjutan tempoh Tan Sri Md Raus ini. 

PRM menuntut agar Tan Sri Md Raus segera letak jawatan selaku Ketua Hakim Negara dan juga hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan,  di mana tindakan ini amat penting untuk Malaysia - untuk mengembalikan kebebasan kehakiman di Malaysia. 

PRM juga menuntut PM Najib dan UMNO-BN jangan melakukan perkara yang akan menjejaskan Malaysia dan menyebabkan penderitaan rakyat berterusan atau bertambah teruk. 

Yang benar, 

(Koh Swe Yong)
Setiausaha Agung PRM
012-2766551

No. 7D Jalan PJS 1/48 Petaling Utama, 46000 Petaling Jaya Selangor