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The deeming provisions that a Union has withdrawn its claim if it did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]
|