STATEMENT 

TRIENEKENS VIOLATED HUMAN RIGHTS OF ITS EMPLOYEES 

PROSECUTE THE COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS 

POLICE REPORT MADE AGAINST COMPANY 

MTUC is shocked that Trienekens (Sarawak) Sdn Bhd a company owned by the State Government and a German Company has violated the fundamental human rights of 2 of its employees by dismissing them because of their trade Union Activities 

The Company has dismissed the President & the Secretary of its own employees’ Union for 

¨       “On 24 April  2008 you have been involved in writing a circular/written and/or signed a circular  dated the same instigating and/or urging workers to boycott Trienekens (Sarawak) Sdn Bhd Family Day on 27 April 2008.

¨       In the circular, among others stated that “Sehubungan dengan itu pihak majlis jawatankuasa kerja (MJK) Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Trienekens menyeru semua ahli memulaukan majlis tersebut dengan tidak menghadir diri pada hari tersebut’.”

¨       Between 24 – 27 April 2008 you have been involved in circulating a circular dated 24 April 20008 instigating and/or urging workers to boycott Trienekens ( Sarawak) Sdn Bhd Family Day on 27 August 2008 

¨       The 2 employees are duly elected officers of a Trade Union registered under the Trades Unions Act 1959. The actions alleged by the company were carried by them in their capacity as Officers of a Trade Union and under the directions and instructions of the Trade union. 

¨       The wanton action of the company is clearly an attempt to destroy the Union and is a clear violation of Section 59 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 which makes it an offence for an employer to dismiss a workman or to cause him some employment-related detriment for various matters, inter alia arising out of his membership or leadership of a union. Section 59 reads as follows:-

            59.  Injuring a workman on account of certain acts.

(1)        Subject to the provisions of section 5(2), it shall be an offence to dismiss a workman or injure or threaten to injure him in his employment or alter or threaten to alter his position to his prejudice, by reason of the circumstances that the workman -

(a)        is, or proposes to become, an officer or member of a trade union or of an association that has applied to be registered as a trade union;

(d)       being a member of a trade union which is seeking to improve working conditions, is dissatisfied with such working conditions;

 (2)      An employer who contravenes any of the provisions of subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to a fine not exceeding two thousand ringgit or to both.

(5)       Any employer who fails to comply with a direction given under subsection (3) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or to both.

MTUC cannot see how writing or involved in writing a union letter ON A NON WORKED RELATED EVENT- FAMILY DAY can be an employee’s misconduct justifying dismissal.  It is clear therefore that the company is engaged in trade union busting activities. It is sad that in this modern day and age, we still have employers in Sarawak believe that they are masters and workers are slaves. 

If the employees chose to listen to a union rather than the Managing Director, it is a sure sign that they are very unhappy with the company. 

EMPLOYEES FORCED TO ATTEND FUNCTIONS ON REST DAYS 

We are also shocked that the Company has been forcing its employees to attend a family day on a Sunday and Rest day - in clear violation of the Sarawak Labour Ordinance. 

It appears that foreign owned companies are exploiting the rights of workers in Sarawak and has adopted labour practices that have long been banned in their home countries. 

PROSECUTE THE COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS 

MTUC call on the authorities and the Government to take appropriate actions against the company, failing which MTUC will take whatever actions necessary to protect the fundamental right of workers and.  We do not rule out public protect and industrial actions.  

MAY TAKE INDUSTRIAL ACTIONS, 

We call on the local councils- DBKU, MBKS and MPPK to direct the company to reinstate the workers failing which it must review the contract given to the company> We may call on all tax and rates payers in the councils to boycott the company. 

WHAT THE COURTS HAVE SAID 

It is appropriate that we be reminded of the judgment of the Industrial Court in the case of Ladang  Segaria Sdn Bhd  as follows:- 

Before coming to a decision as to the award which this Court ought, in equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case, to make, the Court might add that employers are not only lawfully bound to respect a worker's right to engage in unionism and to participate in the lawful activities of a union. They are also morally and ethically constrained to do so. Article 8 of the Code of Conduct for Industrial Harmony dated 9 February 1975 which is a tripartite document signed by the Malayan Council of Employers Organisations, the Malayan Trades Union Congress and the Minister of Labour and Manpower (now the Minister of Human Resources) unequivocally declares that:

Employees further agree not to support or encourage any unfair labour practices such as:  

(a)        interference with the affairs of a trade union and the right of workers to organise;  

(b)        discrimination, restraint or coercion against any worker because of legitimate trade union activities; and  

(c)        abuse of authority in any form.

Employers must recognise the necessity for constructive engagement and positive cooperation with lawful unions and their elected officials. They must refrain from conduct which can be castigated as unfair labour practices and/or victimisation of its employees.

What had transpired in the estate of Ladang Segaria tucked away in the remote south-east region of Sabah might be regarded as something commonplace in a less enlightened past when good industrial relations standards and practices have yet to be established by law and/or codes of conduct. That intolerance of the existence of lawful unions and of their officials and activities is still evident in the industrial relations scene speaks much of the very long distance our society has to traverse before it arrives at the full acceptance of just and equitable structures in industrial relations in which the legitimate rights of workers to unionise is accepted not only in rhetoric but also in reality.

The Court will be failing in its duty if it failed to take the opportunity and occasion presented by this case to reiterate the dire consequences to an employer who chooses to blatantly flout its lawful, ethical and moral obligations pertaining to due respect for the rights of its employees to union membership and to assume leadership roles in unions together with its cluster of associated rights and protection. The Court ought to make an award which reflects not only the injustice done to the claimant but also the seriousness of the estate's wrongful and unlawful conduct. The Court ought to make an award which will serve as a timely reminder to employers to refrain from conduct and activities which undermine the foundational structures of lawfully registered unions consisting of their members and duly elected officials.

The Court has on various occasions seen it fit to express its concern and indeed reprobation of certain practices of the employer which are abhorrent in Industrial Relations. Thus for example, the employer may have acted in a way which is so high-handed and oppressive or may have proceeded with the removal of an employee in a manner which grossly humiliates the employee before his fellow workers or in the presence of others. Other conduct may consists of victimisation, oppression, harassment or unfair labour practice which is tainted by mala fide.  

ANDREW LO
SECRETARY, MTUC

18 SEPTEMBER 2008

[back to top]