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]
|