POSITION PAPER  

Amendments to the Trade Unions Act 1959 & Industrial Relations Act 1967 

We would like to place on record that we are generally agreeable to the proposed amendments to the Trade Unions Act. We would like to believe that they would contribute to better running and of trade unions for the benefits of its members and prevent abuse by trade union leaders. 

As for the amendments to the Industrial Relations Act, we have serious concerns and call on the Government to seriously address these concerns: 

A          S5 (2) (b) - Executive & Security Categories 

1.            The amendments to exclude those in executive and security categories to be members of officers of a trade union that caters for other workers is certainly regressive and is a further restriction to the progress and development of trade unions. 

2.            It will further limit much needed competent and knowledgeable employees in managing trades in a professional way. 

3.            It is contrary to the government’s aim to have unions that are properly managed run to protect the interest of its members. 

4.            It is also regressive to modern human resources management in which job empowerment is being practiced to improve productivity.  Employees will be more reluctant to go on job empowerment for fear that employers will now consider them executive and deny them union membership.   

5.            There is certainly no justification, 50 years after independence to continue to segregate the trade unions movement in almost a thousand unions. 

6.            Further there is clear definition of executives which has resulted in employers abusing the situation where executives are paid no higher than unionized employees and who do not have executive powers but your Ministry has regarded as executives for example Junior Bank officers. 

B          Section 9 Claim for Recognition 

1.    The deeming provisions that a Union has withdrawn its claim if it did not report within 14 days is discriminatory against Trade Unions of workers as there are no concurrent provisions for employers who did not repose or comply with subsection 3 or 3A. 

2.    To be fair, there must be also a similar deeming clause that if employers failed to response to a claim for recognition with 21 days, recognition must be deemed to be accorded. 

3.    There must also be a time limitation for the Director General to take steps under (4A) (a)  or (b) Secret Ballot otherwise the original employees who wish to promote the Trade Union may  no longer in the employment. 

C          Section 30 -Second Schedule 

1.            This appears to only take into account the interest of employers only and discriminates against employees especially those earning low wages. 

2.            Now all an employer has to do is to pay a maximum of 24 x $500 = $12,000 to get rid of workers whose only misconduct may be to promote or participate in a trade union in the workplace. 

3.            As the poor worker has to earn a living while waiting for up to 7 years for his case in the industrial court he may end up with nothing!  He also cannot claim cost.  This is surely not conducive to industrial harmony. 

4.            In all fairness there must be another provision for the court to take into account the pain and suffering of the poor worker when he was dismissed. 

5.            There must also be provisions for punitive damages where employers acted wantonly and in dismissing their employees. 

6.            To punish the poor worker because the Ministry takes more than 1 year to refer dispute to the court and for court to take years to resolve the case is beyond decency. 

7.            Damages and remedy must be left to the discretion of the courts. Just because of one or two cases of highly paid directors/general managers being awarded huge sum by the industrial court does not justify the law to be amended to discriminate against poor workers. 

8.            If at all there must be a limit that a global sum like in England is more effective and fair. 

9.            To limit to one year for probationers please note that probationers could have left secure jobs to take up new employment on probations. The amendments are contrary to the government aim to create a highly mobile and productive workforce and to encourage employability instead of job security- people are now reluctant to change jobs. 

10.          The real priority is to remove the back log of cases ensure that cases are disposed off speedily. If cases are disposed off within 24 months that the limit is no longer an issue. 

11.           In this regard MTUC suggest that: 

·                 To provide for an Industrial Appellate Tribunal or an Industrial Division of the High Court to hear appeals/judicial reviews of Industrial Court cases. 

·                 TO remove the Conciliation proceedings for dismissal cases filed under Section 20 as these are individual disputes. The Human Resources Minister shouldnot bec concerned withindividual disputes 

·                 Cases should go direct to the Industrial Court which will have the power to screen cases through summary judgements, mediations before adjudicating the dismissal. 

MTUC also urge that they should be amendments : 

·                     To 30(7) IRA to increase the 6 months limitation to at least one year.

·                     To amend the Companies Act to provide priority of Industrial Court Awards over other debts 

·                     To Introduce Penalties for employers who failed to comply with Industrial Court Awards 

·                     To remove the need to have a non compliance order to enforce Awards

ANDREW LO
SECRETARY 

1 May 2008

[back to top]