Isnin, 20 September 2010

Pindaan Akta Kerja: Semakin Teruk Pekerja Dianiaya dan Ditindas!!!

Dengan usul pindaan Akta Kerja di Parlimen, keadaan pekerja sektor swasta dikhuatiri akan semakin teruk dianiaya dan penindasan ini semakin tidak mendapat pembelaan dari pihak Kerajaan. Dengan dasar Kerajaan yang amat pro-perniagaan dan pro-majikan, mereka bersungguh-sungguh untuk mempromosikan tenaga kerja yang dibayar murah, kemudahan fasiliti dan banyak lagi untuk menarik pelabur asing walhal Kerajaan menjaja kepada kebanyakan pekerja atau lebih kepada rakyat bahawa mereka akan menikmati gaji yang tinggi (high income) menjelang tahun 2020. 
Malangnya ini seakan-akan bakal menjadi angan kosong apabila Kerajaan berura-ura untuk membentangkan usul pindaan Akta Kerja di Parlimen untuk dibincangkan dan diluluskan. Antara perkara-perkara yang akan dipinda adalah:
  1. Pekerja yang diberhentikan dengan cara tidak adil atau salah dibahagikan kepada beberapa golongan iaitu:
      • Pekerja yang masih dalam tempoh percubaan (probation) dalam setahun perkhidmatan;
      • Pekerja yang menerima gaji pokok melebihi RM10,000;
      • Pekerja yang bekerja mengikut terma kontrak tetap (fixed term contract);
        • Usul Pindaan: Dikecualikan dari Pengembalikan Kerja (reinstatement of work) dibawah Seksyen 20 Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan.
  2. Membenarkan para majikan untuk memeriksa status keahlian Kesatuan Sekerja setiap lima (5) tahun:
  3. Membenarkan para majikan mencabar status award yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah Perindustrian (Buruh) terus kepada Mahkamah Tinggi. 
  4. Membenarkan Sumber Manusia (HR consultant/specialist) mewakili pihak majikan sekiranya berlaku pertikaian perusahaan di Mahkamah Perusahaan (Buruh).
  5. Menghalang sebarang Kesatuan Sekerja untuk menggunakan dana mereka untuk sebarang tujuan pelaburan yang berisiko.
  6. Meminda Seksyen 12 Akta Kerja; menyelaraskan notis penamatan perkhidmatan kepada 4 minggu tanpa mengira tahun perkhidmatan pekerja tersebut.
  7. Pindaan Akta Kerja Seksyen 17A /  Seksyen 19 / Seksyen 22 / Seksyen 25A / Seksyen 34 / Seksyen 60A dan 60C - antaranya membenarkan majikan menangguhkan pembayaran gaji lebih masa sehingga 30 hari, majikan tidak perlu mendapat kebenaran dari pekerja jika berlaku perubahan cara pembayaran gaji melalui bank (pertukaran bank) dan pertukaran waktu bekerja seperti tertakluk dalam Seksyen 60A dan C.
Majoriti pindaan dan gubalan baru Akta Kerja, Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan dan Akta Kesatuan Sekerja didapati ianya tidak memihak kepada golongan pekerja mahupun Kesatuan Sekerja. Ia lebih nampak "bias" kepada menjaga pelaburan tempatan dan asing iaitu majikan. Setiap peruntukan perubahan; jika diluluskan pastinya akan menekan dan menindas pekerja. Jika tidak, kenapa Kerajaan mengusulkan pindaan ini secara senyap dan tanpa membuat sebarang perbincangan sama ada MTUC mahupun Kesatuan Sekerja lain. Status pekerjaan bagi pekerja swasta yang diketahui tidak stabil ini akan menjadi lebih tidak terjamin dan lebih teruk lagi dengan berlakunya PINDAAN AKTA TERBURUK SEJAK 40 TAHUN ini!!!.

Sabtu, 18 September 2010

Unjust Law Amendment for Private Sector Workers!!!

Workers in Malaysia, especially in the private sector, have been getting a bad deal  from the  government since independence. The pro-business pro-employer government did consciously keep wages low - and justified it as necessary to lure foreign investors/companies to open factories in Malaysia. One of the pull-factors was 'cheap docile labour' ....

If a worker is unjustly or wrongly dismissed, then he certainly should have the right to claim reinstatement and/or damages in lieu of reinstatement, and should also be entitled to receive some exemplary/punitive damages. {If the employer is found guilty of unjustly/wrongfully dismissing a worker, should he not be penalized and maybe asked to pay RM10,000 or maybe 6 months wages, whicever is more, to the worker - Logically, that would have been right, but alas there is no such explicit provision in  our laws}

Now, the government wants to amend the laws again and deprive certain classes of workers the right to claim justice when they are unjustly/wrongfully terminated - and these classes of workers are:-

a)  Employees with less than one year of service (probationers) are excluded from seeking reinstatement via Section 20 of IRA;  

b) Employees earning a basic salary of RM10,000 or more are excluded from seeking reinstatement via Section 20 of IRA; 

c) Employees with fixed term contract are excluded from seeking reinstatement via Section 20 of IRA if termination is as per contract terms.

* Probation - Well, this is supposed to be a 'try-out' period, where the employer accesses the suitability of a worker, before he confirms the worker as a permanent worker. Reasonable probation period is maybe 3 months (plus maybe another 1 or 2 months).  After that period, confirmation should be automatic - irrespective if the employer gives you a letter or not. - But here, even after 1 year...2 years, the worker can still be considered on probation, because there is no clear provision in law. The rights and entitlement of a probationer is certainly lesser (about half that of a worker). There must be a law that stipulate the maximum period of probation...to protect workers. If an employer finds a worker unsuitable after 3-months, then he should just let the worker go... But, of course these kind of amendments that will benefit the worker is not the government's priority...

The government has made general proposals to certain bodies like the MTUC, etc (and certainly not to the Malaysian public) and is trying to get some feedback. An MTUC paper that looks into this is attached below... 

Anti-Worker Amendments are being planned by Malaysian government - MTUC Position Paper, 21/4/2010

* The Malaysian government is planning to introduce some very anti-worker laws, but unfortunately, as usual, they do not tell the public what these proposed amendments are - let alone consult with the ordinary Malaysian. Suddenly, the Bill will be tabled in Parliament, and before you know it, it has become law. This MTUC Position Paper gives us a glimpse of some of these proposed amendment of the laws, see " 7. MTUC’s comments and response to Ministry’s proposal" (I have copied and converted the MTUC position paper from its PDF format, into the HTML format - and note that there may small errors created in the process. * It must be pointed out that as at 2007, only 6.3% (i.e. 802,339) of the 12,744,000 strong workforce are unionized, - the rest are not represented by unions. Given this fact, it is important that these 93% (about 12 million) workers who will be affected by any amendments also be consulted by the government. A referendum is always a good way of getting the people's views - the 12 million worker's view.





21 APRIL, 2010


1. We have lagged behind in efforts to move up the value chain. We now have become a country dependent on foreign workers - who remit most of what they earn - losing the country foreign exchange and further weakening domestic demand and consumption. This has put our economy at the mercy of exports and performance of other countries.

2. Our brain drain is getting worrying; our purchasing power parity is weak - car price and petrol prices are amongst the most expensive in the world. We cannot compare prices simply by using the exchange rate. E.g. a Singaporean who earns $1000 only pays $1.28 a litre, while a Malaysian who earns RM800 has to pay RM2.05per litre. Our per capita income has lagged behind.

3. On the other hand, we have seen evidence in the country that where Unions are strong, effective, representative and independent, real wages has increased, and what is more important the industry/enterprise that they exist in, has flourished, where profitability and productivity is amongst the highest.

4. The banking Industry is a good example. With high rate of unionization all employees including executives are covered by collective agreement and the productivity and profits are amongst the highest. Banks in Malaysian lead in terms of technological advances, investment and human resources development.

5. The banking industry has shown that by investing in technology and more important in effective human resources, we do not need any foreign workers in what was once a very labour intensive industry.

6. It can be seen that presence of strong and effective unions is a prerequisite to a high-income nation.

7.Malaysian banks can now compete successfully with foreign banks and have also expanded regionally.

8. This is inline with the New Economic Model as announced by the government recently.

9. There is no point to spend billions to produce graduates and professors if employers continue to suppress wages that our best brains migrate to other countries.

10. We call on the government to once and for all banish the antiquated policy to keep wages low by stiffing the trade union movement and give in to the fancies of those employers who only know how to lobby for more foreign workers but do not spend anything on research and development.


To achieve that aspiration of the NEM, any review of the labour laws must be geared towards
* Enhance Trade Union rights and collective Bargaining
* Building strong independent workers and employers organization with technical capacity and knowledge for effective participation in the social dialogue process.


Horizontal Segregation of Trade Unions
1. Under the Trade Unions Act (TUA), unions are segregated by regions,and by trade, establishments, occupation or industry and even split amongst Pen Malaysia, Sabah & Sarawak. The relevant part of section 2 reads as follows:

“trade union” or “union” means any association or combination of workmen or employers, being workmen whose place of work is in West Malaysia, Sabah or Sarawak, as the case may be, or employers employing workmen in West Malaysia, Sabah or Sarawak, as the case may be.(a) within any particular establishment, trade, occupation or industry or within any similar trades, occupations or industries;

2. Under section 2 of the Act, a trade union can have its members who are from similar industries. The Act does not demand that the workmen must be from the same industry. However the DGTU usually adapt a very narrow and strict interpretation. This has resulted in multiplicity of trade unions – ie 600 unions representing just a little over 800,000 workers.

Vertical Separation
3. Apart from horizontal segregation, the law also imposes segregation by job positions.

4. TUA used to allow executives to be members of the union even though under section 9 of the Industrial Relations Act they may not be included for the purposes of the Collective Bargaining. Section 9 states as follows:
No trade union of workmen the majority if whose membership consists or workmen who are not employed in any of the following categories:Managerial, executive, security and confidential, may seek recognition or serve an invitation under s 13 in respect of these workmen

5. This already made workmen employed in these categories reluctant to join unions as they will not be entitled to the benefits of a CA. They can still be members and hold post in these unions. The latest amendments to S5 (2) (b) - Executive & Security Categories to the law now prohibit them from even being members.

6. The amendments to exclude those in executive categories to be members or 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. It will further limit much needed competent and knowledgeable employees in managing trades in a professional way.

7. Further there is no 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 the Minister has regarded as executives for example Junior Bank officers.


8. Disputes arising out of recognition claims used to be under the ambit of the Industrial Court prior to 1971. The power to decide was transferred to the Minister, with the hope to offer quick solutions to what should be simple recognition issues, and to avoid lengthy court proceedings. Unfortunately the end result is an equally
frustrating recognition process and has not stopped parties going to the courts through certiorari (usually employers who has the financial clout to challenge any

Arbitrary powers of DGTU

9. There is little doubt that the Trade Unions Act bestows the DGTU with wide powers over the registration de registration and function of trade unions. He has general powers to exercise all powers, discharge all duties and perform all tasks as may be necessary f or the purposes of giving effect and carrying out the provisions of the Act.

10. Generally he has exercised his wide powers to the detriment of the trade union movement as can be seen below;

11. As we can see trade union density in the private sector is very poor. It must be noted as well that not all unions in the private sector have obtained recognition and even for those with recognition, not all have collective agreements.

Malaysian Trade Union Membership & Density - 2007
No. of Unions
Average Members
Density %

Malaysian Trade Union Membership & Density - 1992
No. of Unions
Average Members
Density %


12. Total number of workers covered by new collective Agreement over a 3-year period 2005, 06 & 07 is only 254,209.00 (MOHR Figures). CA covers a 3 year period so the figure will be representative of the number of workers covered by a current up to date CA in the Country. This shows that only 2.11% of workers in the country are covered by a CA.

13. Between 1992 and 2007 there is a huge increase (58%) in the number of trade unions from 258 to 407 but the actual membership increased by only 12%. Average membership declined by 40% from 1492 to 1059 15 years ago. And all this happened during the years where the workforce actually increased by 67% .

14. There are less than 10 unions with more than 10,000 members and majority have less than 500 members. Quite a lot of Unions have less than 50 members. Under such a situation can we ever hope for strong effective and viable unions?

15. With membership fees averaging RM5.00 a month, it is difficult for Unions to survive, much less be able to invest in training, research and to employ competent and professionals to manage the unions.

16. To compound matters, check off is not a trade dispute since 1984 (non metallic case) and it is now at the mercy of employers who will usually use it to impose a CA on the union.

Previous Amendments
17. The Second Schedule only take into account the interest of employers only and discriminates against employees especially those earning low wages.

I. Apart from limiting backwages to 24 months, the courts are now mandated to take into account post termination gainful employment and contributory conduct.

II. However, the amendments did not mandate the court to impose punitive damages in cases where 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. Nor are there provisions for punitive damages where employers acted wantonly in dismissing their employees.

III. 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. See Trienekens case.

IV. 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.

V. 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 decent work, it is just indecent.

VI. 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.

VII. 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. Please note that probationers could have left secure jobs to take up new employment on probations.

MTUC’s Proposal dated 1st March 2010

1. In response to the Ministry’s request, on 1st March 2010 MTUC submitted the following proposal:


Malaysian Trades Union Congress hereby propose that the Industrial Relations Act 1967 be amended as follows:-

1. Section 8 – Reference of complaint to Industrial Court

1.1 Enforcement of the provisions of Section 4 Rights of workmen and employers and section 5 Prohibition on employers in respect of certain act remains most unsatisfactory and inefficient. Complaints of breach of section 4 and 5 are rarely referred to the Industrial Court.

1.2 Therefore we propose that Section 8 clause (2) be amended to require the Director General to refer the complaint to the Industrial Court within 90 days.

2. Section 9 - Recognition And Scope of Representation of Trade Unions

2.1 We propose that clause 1 (C) be amended to require the Director General to refer any dispute relating to scope of membership to the Industrial Court within 90 days. Stipulating a time limit will remove the inefficient and unsatisfactory procedure currently practiced.

2.2 Clause (4) – be amended to increase the 14 days to 21 days for the union to report the matter to the Director General for Industrial Relations.

2.3 Clause (5) Currently it takes 12 months to 36 months to resolve a recognition
claim. Therefore we propose that a 90 days time limit be stipulated.

2.4 It is not always practical to conduct a secret ballot to ascertain the representative status of the union claiming recognition: Therefore the provisions be amended to enable the DGIR to determine based on practicality:
- whether to conduct a secret ballot or
- carry out membership verification

2.5 Where secret ballot is conducted the status shall be determined by the
number of votes cast. Under the present system, voting take place 12 months to 36 months after the date of claim for recognition during which a substantial number leave employment. In order to upset the balloting and evade recognition, employers can terminate and repartriate most of their foreign workers. Current procedure is designed to deny union recognition and collective bargaining.

2.6 The question posed on the ballot paper should be DO YOU WANT TO BE REPRESENTED BY UNION?

2.7 Where balloting is conducted and union’s majority representative status is confirmed, recognition shall be deemed accorded.

3. Part IV – Collective Bargaining and collective agreements

3.1 In order to ensure sanctity of collective agreement, clause (2A) Sub clause (b) should be deleted.

3.2 To give effect to the voluntary system of Industrial Relations, we propose that the entire limitation on the scope of collective agreement under 13 (3) (a) to (f) be deleted.

3.3 The definition of collective agreement be extended to include provisions for deduction of union dues from salary.

3.4 Section 18 Reference of disputes for conciliation. Clause (5) be amended to require the DGIR to refer the dispute to the Industrial Court within 90 days.

4. Section 20 Representations on Dismissals

4.1 Section 20 (2)

Under the current procedure it takes the DGIR and the Minister as long as 24 months to 36 months to refer a complaint of unfair dismissal to the Industrial Court. Therefore we propose that clause (2) be amended to require the DGIR to refer the complaint to the Industrial Court within 90 days.
4.1 Clause (9)
The 2008 amendment is unfair and completely one sided. If it is the intention of the Government to find a speedy solution then a clause should be inserted to state that where an employer attends none of the conferences under paragraph (8) (b) without any reasonable excuse, the employer shall be deemed to have withdrawn the dismissal.

5. Section 22 – Constitution of the Court
Clause 5 be amended to require a panel.

6. Second schedule
We propose that the entire second schedule be removed. The limitations and restrictions severely interferes with the independence of the court and department of Industrial Relations and the Minister will be encouraged to perpetuate their inefficient procedures which causes inordinate delays.

7. Section 30 Awards
We propose that the mandatory 6 months limitation imposed on the court on retrospective effect of a collective agreement be removed. With such limitation the Minister can unreasonably delay reference of disputes to the Industrial Court.

8. Section 56 Non compliance with Award or Collective Agreement
Section 56 should be amended to empower the Industrial Court to enforce their award. The current provisions requiring the workman to go to the High Court to enforce an award is time consuming and
extremely expensive.

9. Employment Appellate Tribunal
We propose that serious efforts be made to establish and Employment Appellate Tribunal within the Industrial Court.

1. Numerous restrictions and provisions under the Trade Union Act 1959 curtailing freedom of association is contrary to the provisions of Article 10 of the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

2. We acknowledge that under the provisions of article 10 (2) Parliament may by law impose on the right conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order or morality.

3. We concede that at the time when the Trade Unions Act 1959 was formulated, Federation of Malaya was facing communist insurgency and the Government, in the interest of security wanted to closely monitor all mass based organizations such as trade unions. The situation has completely changed for the better in the last fifty years.

4. The Trade Unions Act severely restrict trade unions right to organize and as a result, hundreds of thousands of workers are denied the right to collective bargaining. The Act permit the Director General of Trade Unions to capriciously decide on the unions’ scope of membership.

5. The controversial enforcement of the provisions of Section 26 (1A), especially in the last two years, has created serious apprehension that this provision will be extensively used by anti union employers to unfairly victimize and even get rid of union activists with impunity. Denial of right of a dismissed worker to remain as a member of the union whilst his unlawful dismissal is being pursued has nothing to do with the security of the nation.

6. We therefore propose that the Trade Unions Act 1959 be revamped in compliance with the provisions of Article 10 of the Federal Constitution ensuring that: -
* Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization.
* Workers’ and employers’ organizations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes.
* The public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.
* Workers’ and employers’ organizations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority.


Malaysian Trades Union Congress hereby propose that the following provisions of the Employment Act 1955 amended:-

1. Scope of coverage
The legal safeguards and the minimum standards should be applicable to all employees including domestic workers whose wages do not exceed five thousand ringgit a month.

Based on the Prime Minister’s 1 Malaysia concept the minimum standards and safeguards should be extended to all employees including employees in Sabah and Sarawak.

2. Part III – Payment of wages
We propose that Section 18 be amended to provide for a RM900 minimum monthly salary for all employees within the scope of the Employment Act. The quantum shall be increased periodically based on consumer price index.

3. Section 60 D Holidays
Every employee should be entitled to a paid holiday on all gazetted public holidays by the Federal Government and the state. There is no justification for the government to continue the discriminatory practice against employees in the private sector. All employees in the private sector as well have the right to celebrate their
festivals and national events of significance.

4. Section 60E Annual Leave
The minimum number of annual leave entitlement should be raised to 12 days.

5. Section 60F Sick Leave
Although a vast majority of the employers do provide medical attention and medicine at their expense some employers argue that based on the provisions of section 60F(1) they are required to pay for cost of examination only. The Labour Department has confirmed that indeed employers are not required to pay for the cost of medicine. Government is fully aware that in our country all medical practitioners provide examination and treatment and charge the person accordingly.

Therefore Section 60F(1) should be amended that employer pay for medical examination and treatment.

6. Section 31 Priority of Wages over other debts
The provisions of section 31 should be amended and appropriately worded to ensure that:-
* Wages contractual bonus, retrenchment benefits, termination and lay off benefits and all statutory contributions are accorded priority over all other debts.

The amendment should categorically remove any conflict with the provisions of the companies act. We wish to draw the attention of the Ministry that more than
10,000 workers were deprived of the entitlement under the termination and lay of regulations.

7. Section 37 Maternity Protection
Length of paid maternity leave should be raised to 90 days.

8. Termination Benefit
Termination benefit for employees who are terminated in accordance with the Employment (Termination and Lay-Off Benefits) Regulations 1980 should increased to one month’s salary based on the last drawn salary for every year of service.

9. Retirement Age
In the absence of specific provisions under the Employment Act most employers in the private sector arbitrarily set retirement age at 55 years for male and 50 years for female employees.

In view of the significant increase in the life expectory age, government should set a retirement age of 60 years for all employees.Government has repeatedly stated that employees who are dependant on their savings with the EPF have nothing left after the fourth or fifth year of retirement. By raising the retirement age employees will be able to save more through contributions to the EPF and the length of dependency period will be shortened.


1. The Ministry did not hold any meeting with MTUC to discuss the above proposal.

2. The National Labour Advisory Council (NLAC) established in accordance with the principles of tripartism has been completely sidelined in dealing with this very important topic which has far reaching implications on the ten million working people in the country.

3. On Friday 9th April, 2010 MTUC together with two other trade union organizations were invited to attend a meeting chaired by the Secretary General of the Human Resources Ministry.

4. During the 90 minutes meeting, Ministry officials presented an outline of the amendments to the Employment Act 1955, Industrial Relations Act 1967 and Trade Unions Act 1959.

5. We need to stress that the presentation concentrated on the concept of the amendments and NOT the actual amendments. In the absence of the actual wording of the amendments, our understanding on the full implication of the amendments were severely restricted: Therefore our comments and response have to qualified.

6. During the said meeting, Ministry officials did not respond or give any explanation on the status of MTUC’s proposal submitted on 1st March 2010. We still maintain our proposal and seek an urgent meeting with the Ministry so that we can justify our proposal.

7. MTUC’s comments and response to Ministry’s proposal

7. 1 Definition of employees under EA - employees whose wages do not exceed RM2000 irrespective of their occupations;

MTUC’s comments

Scope of coverage
The legal safeguards and the minimum standards should be applicable to all employees including domestic workers whose wages do not exceed five thousand ringgit a month. Based on the Prime Minister’s 1 Malaysia concept the minimum standards and safeguards should be extended to all employees including employees in Sabah and Sarawak.

7. 2 Better protection for employees such as domestic servants by having specific regulations;

As stated under para 8.1 hereabove domestic workers should be entitled to all the minimum standards. We should stop using the term “servants”. To avoid any confusion they can be referred to as “Home Workers”.

7.3 Priority of wages and termination benefits over other Debts
(Section 31 of EA) for employees who are the most Vulnerable of the parties during closing of business and/or termination due to redundancy (this matter would be discussed with SSM and KPDNKK)

Wages, contractual bonus, retrenchment benefits, termination and lay off benefits and all statutory contributions are accorded priority over all other debts. The amendment should categorically remove any conflict with the provisions of the companies act.

7. 4 Contract of Service in writing with salient employment matters such as salary, working hours, probation period, retirement age, termination benefit and minimum benefits as provided in EA;

We agree in principle but we need to see the actual working.

7.5 Maternity protection

Ministry’s proposal is vogue we propose that Section 37 be amended to extend paid maternity leave to 90 days.

7.6 Employees with less than one year of service (probationers) are excluded from seeking reinstatement via Section 20 of IRA;
Employees earning a basic salary of RM10,000 or more are excluded from seeking reinstatement via Section 20 of IRA;
Employees with fixed term contract are excluded from seeking reinstatement via Section 20 of IRA if termination is as per contract terms.

The above proposal’s are most retrogressive and are clearly in contradiction with the decisions of the Industrial Court and landmark judgements of our courts.Most of the collective agreements stipulate initial probationery period of 3 months which can be extended to another 3 months. Currently even probationers have the right to seek redress if their termination is wrongful. Ministry’s proposal to deny those earning RM10,000 or more, the right to challenge unfair dismissals is unacceptable. Many of our affiliates who represent executive staffs have salary scales exceeding RM10,000. We do not see any justification for the Ministry to subject this category of employees to be vulnerable to the whims and fancies of their employers.

Ministry should carefully study all the awards handed down in the past 24 months to get a better understanding of the arbitrary attitude of bosses in the private sector.
Ministry’s proposal to deny access to justice to workers with fixed term contract will encourage employers to adopt such contracts so that they can be terminated with impunity.

We find rather shocking that government officers who are guaranteed of a lifetime employment have drafted such inconsiderate proposal.

7. 7 Mandatory conciliation at Industrial Relations Department for dismissal cases;
We cannot understand the purpose of this amendment. Parties attending the conciliation may disagree with conciliation officials but a overwhelming majority attend the proceedings. By inserting such a provision,is the ministry proposing to impose penalty on those who fail to attend conciliation proceedings? Otherwise the said clause will serve no purpose.

To effectively strengthen the conciliation process we propose the following:
* If a workman or trade union fail to attend conciliation proceedings, their report will be deemed as withdrawn.
* If an employer fail to attend conciliation proceedings, the complain would be referred to the Industrial Court.

7.8 Dismissal cases would not be referred to Industrial Court under certain circumstances such as:-
Employee has accepted mutual separation package;
Expiry of fixed term contract;
Termination of employee beyond the mandatory retirement age of the company;
Employee refusing reinstatement; and
Cases of amicable settlement and employee has accepted settlement.

We do not see any necessity for the above.

7.9 To enable Industrial Court to strike out frivolous or vexatious cases.

This proposal suggests that the Industrial Relations officers, Director General of Industrial Relations and the Human Resources Minister who referred the dispute to the Industrial Court after 12 to 24 months study were inefficient and incapable.

7.10 To amend Section 12 of EA for the notice period of termination of contract for employees be standardized to 4 weeks irrespective of the years of service; and Ministry officers must be mindful that in the private sector workers do not have any job security: Even workers who have continuously served the company for as long as 20 years, can be terminated on grounds of redundancy, reorganization and restructuring. Section 12 was intentionally amended to ensure that workers with long service are given longer notice of termination – What is the need for such retrogressive amendment?

7.11 For any disputes relating to claims and other matters that has been reported under the provision of IRA, to have a standard operating procedure for DGIR where settlement reached at conciliation be spelled out in detail.

We need to see the actual wording of this clause before we can comment on the proposal.

7. 12 Section 17A/Section 19/Section 22/Section 25A/Section 34/Section 60A and 60C

We strongly object to the proposed amendments. The supervisory role of the Director General of Jabatan Tenaga Kerja must be maintained. Our experience shows that such important issues cannot be left in the hands of the employers to adopt self regulation.

For example:
We have employers in our midst who require female employees to report for work at 4.30 am. We have employers who end night work at 2.30am without any consideration for the female workers’ safety traveling at such odd hours of the night.

The amendment to Section 19 to allow employers to delay payment for overtime work for as long as 30days is unnecessary and unacceptable. With all the technological advancement employers can easily comply with current requirement.

Section 25A . The current provisions requiring employers to acquire consent of workers to change the mode of payment of salaries is still very much relevant. The plantation workers throughout the country are paid in cash. As many plantations are located far from banks it is not practical to pay wages through banks.

Section 60A. The proposed amendment is completely one sided and the convenience of workers have been completely ignored. This provisions can empower employers to set unreasonable working time requiring employees to start work at 5.00am when there is no public transport available.

The proposal to compel workers to take annual leave without any consideration of the employees’ needs goes against decided principles Ministry must be mindful that workers’ entitlement under the Act is as low as 8 days – 40% of this would be 3.2 days leaving the workers with only 5 days for the whole year. Furthermore the EA guarantees only 10 paid public holidays.

New Provisions
7.13 To provide provisions on sexual harassment in the Employment Act (coverage is for all employees irrespective of their wages or occupations);
We welcome any effort by the Ministry to eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace. We need to see the actual wordings of the Section before we can give our endorsement.

7.14 To allow for direct appeal to High Court pursuant to Industrial Court Award on dismissals by way of rehearing instead of judicial review currently.

We do not believe that this provision will help to shorten the duration. Furthermore this would give unfair advantage to the employers because with their financial resources almost all cases will end up at the High Court.

Unions and individual workers with limited resources cannot afford to engage lawyers to represent them at proceedings before the high court.

We believe that this amendment is intended to accord unfair advantage to employers.
7.15 Payment of wages in legal tender through banks that requires employee consent (Section 25); Restriction on places at which wages are paid (Section 28); Prohibition of female employees working beyond 10pm (Section 34);The need to keep a ‘hard copy’ of employee register by the employers is reviewed so as to allow for soft copies (Sections 44 and 61)

The above provisions are still very much relevant and for the reasons we have stated under para 8.12 hereabove the safeguards must be maintained.

Clarification of ambiguous provisions and Introduction of New Provisions

7.16 Definition of manual worker in the EA;
Definition of managers and executives in IRA;

We request the Ministry for the actual wording before we can give our comment.

7.17 The need to review on the status of union which has been given recognition.(Power given to DGIR to review upon request after a minimum period of five years)

The proposed amendment will enable employers to perpetually deny workers collective bargaining rights. Since union recognition is a pre-requisite to commence collective bargaining this amendment will encourage employers to challenge Minister’s decision to accord recognition.

In the past five years a significant number of employers have challenged Minister’s decision to accord recognition. Pending a decision on their appeal at High Court and Court of Appeal which takes about five to ten years the employer need not commence negotiations.

During the five to ten year waiting period union members leave employment or relinquish their membership out of frustration over the union’s inability to negotiate on better wages and conditions.

And finally when the courts uphold the decision of the Minister to accord recognition, with the proposed amendment, the employer can immediately mount a challenge to question the representative status of the union. When the DGIR and the Ministry go through the process and make a new decision, companies who are anti union can proceed to the High Court to challenge the new decision.

Secondly, the Ministry must be mindful that even under the present conditions, the Department of Industrial Relations takes as long as 24 months to 36 months to resolve recognition claims. With the proposed amendments the situation will worsen further.

7. 18 To allow HR specialists/consultants to represent parties at the conciliation proceedings and hearing in the Industrial Court.

We cannot understand the purpose of this proposal. Is this intended to help retired Ministry officials or close friends of Ministry officials who have set up HR Consultancy business?

MTUC and MEF as organization of trade unions and employers are signatories to the Code of Conduct for Industrial Harmony. And both organizations have signified their commitment to promote and maintain industrial harmony in the country.

Both organizations represent the interest of their respective group in the National Labour Advisory Council. By virtue of their partnership role, both MTUC and MEF are obliged to play a constructive role in finding amicable solution to industrial disputes.

We know of HR Consultants who deliberately create disputes in order to make a living. We attach herewith a copy of the letter addressed to the company in Penang by an HR consultant.

We wish to highlight the following from the HR Consultants letter:
* The DGIR and DGTU after months of work advised the company to accord recognition;
* The HR consultant advise the Company to challenge the DGIR and if the DGIR fail to concede then they should appeal to the HR Minister;
* If the Minister decides to accord recognition then the Company should file an application at the High Court to challenge the Minister’s decision’s;
* The consultant claims that he was an official of the Ministry of Human Resources and has close contact with senior officials of the Ministry.
* By stating that, he is giving the impression to the employer that Ministry officials are under his influence.
* He names a list of companies where had successfully removed the union;
* He stipulates his fees for his services to successfully remove the union;
* The company accepted the HR consultants offer and advise and appointed him;
* As advised by the consultant the company challenged the Minister decision to accord recognition. After a long delay of six years, in 2009, the High Court upheld the decision of the Minister.
* This is a clear case to show that the consultant is thriving by creating disputes and industrial disharmony.
* This matter was brought to the attention of the Secretary General of the Human Resources Ministry on 28 July 2003, KSU’s reply to MTUC was “we have no control over the conduct of consultants but you can be assured that such persons will not be permitted to appear at proceedings at any department under the HR Ministry”.
7.19 To have provision in the Act for trade unions to inform DGTU when it forms or closes branches; To have provisions requiring trade unions to have their annual
general meeting on a timely basis; To have extra qualifications for a worker to become union officer;

There are adequate provisions under the Rules and Constitution of every union to cover all aspects mentioned hereabove: Therefore we are of the view that there is no necessity for the amendments.
7.20 To amend provisions relating to membership of public officers in trade unions as may be determined by KSN;

Section 27 of the Trade Union Act elaborately covers all aspects relating to membership of Public Officers and employees of statutory authorities. The proposed amendment to empower the KSN can lead to arbitrary and ad-hoc decisions.

7.21 To have provision to resolve trade unions in ternal disputes at Trade Union Department;

Current provisions to resolve trade unions internal dispute are adequate. There is no need for amendments to empower the Trade Union Department to intervene.

7.22 To restrict trade unions from using their funds for risky investment.

Most unions do not have sufficient funds to manage their administration costs. Under Section 19 of the Trade Unions Act unions are required to obtain prior written approval of the Minister to invest. Therefore the proposed amendment is redundant.

Worst Labour Law Amendments (Press Statement By MTUC)

15TH APRIL 2010
Human Resources Minister Dato Dr S. Subramaniam has given the green light to amend the three major labour legislations.
The proposed changes to the Employment Act 1955, Industrial Relations Act 1967 and the Trade Union Act 1959 is seen as the worst in 40 years. The amendments, when passed, would completely remove security of tenure for thousands of workers in the country.
The amendment is deliberately designed to empower employers to employ workers on fixed term contract for as long as they please. Even workers who had ten years service on a contract basis will have no right to seek redress in the event of termination.
This is a drastic change from the current law and practice which accords the right to all workers, irrespective of their salary levels and length of service, including probationers to challenge their dismissals.
The Minister is also seeking amendments to permit employers to question a trade union’s representative status every five years. This will have a serious impact on trade unions right to negotiate on terms and conditions of employment. This will also encourage employers to intensify their efforts to encourage their employees to relinquish their union membership. MTUC is deeply concerned with the Minister’s retrogressive step.
Union leaders representing 200 affiliates will participate in an emergency meeting on Monday (19th April 2010) to discuss the draconian amendments, and decide on the course of action.
The proposed amendments, we believe, are done at the behest of Multinational Corporations and potential investors.
Secretary General

Khamis, 16 September 2010

Bantah Pindaan Terburuk Undang-Undang Buruh!!!

Pindaan yang paling buruk dalam sejarah pekerja di Malaysia! 
Apa gunanya undang-undang untuk pekerja jika ia langsung tidak berguna untuk mempertahankan hak pekerja dan dipinda ikut kepentingan majikan! Hak pekerja dicabul oleh Kerajaan yang bersekongkol dengan majikan!

Secara senyapnya Kerajaan cuba meminda 3 undang-undang pekerjaan iaitu Akta Kerja 1955, AktaPerhubungan Perusahaan 1967 dan Akta Kesatuan Sekerja 1959 melalui Sidang Parlimen. Pindaan ini akan melumpuhkan hak pekerja untuk bersuara, menubuhkan Kesatuan serta mempertahankan hak mereka. Jangan biarkan perkara ini berlaku! Tandatangani petition ini sebagai tanda bantahan!!!


Sebarkanlah maklumat ini kepada semua kelas pekerja tanpa mengira kaum dan agama!

Maklumat lanjut: www.jerit.org

Selasa, 14 September 2010

KSIEWSSM: "Kenapa Majikan Takut Terhadap Kesatuan Sekerja?"

KSIEWSSM hari ini melahirkan rasa kesal terhadap segelintir majikan yang takut untuk berhadapan dengan Kesatuan Sekerja serta mengiktiraf dan seterusnya membiarkan pekerjanya bebas memilih untuk menyertai Kesatuan Sekerja tersebut. Hal ini berlaku setiap kali KSIEWSSM menghantar surat untuk mendapatkan Pengiktirafan dari majikan tersebut dan malangnya majikan sering kali menafikan permohonan ini. Ini menjadikan proses tuntutan menjadi lebih panjang dan kebajikan pekerja mereka sering kali tergendala. Apakah majikan tidak mempedulikan kebajikan pekerja mereka dijaga oleh Kesatuan?

Tujuan Kesatuan Sekerja ditubuhkan adalah diantaranya menjaga kebajikan ahli (pekerja) yang kadangkalanya berada diluar pandangan dan perhatian majikan mereka. Apakah tindakan ini salah? Banyak tindakan para majikan yang boleh dipersoalkan selepas mereka ini menerima surat permohonan dari Kesatuan Sekerja, dan antaranya;
  • Tindakan Majikan: Menaikkan gaji atau pangkat pekerja yang disyaki terlibat dengan aktiviti Kesatuan dan juga majoriti pekerja. Persoalannya: Kenapa perlu menaikkan gaji atau pangkat pekerja secara mendadak selepas memperolehi maklumat atau surat rasmi dari Kesatuan? Kenapa tidak sebelum ini majikan secara sukarela menaikkan gaji mereka jika tiada Kesatuan?
  • Tindakan Majikan: Membuat undang-undang baru yang tidak terkandung didalam syarat perkhidmatan asal. Tindakan tatatertib dikenakan jika ingkar. Persoalannya: Kenapa majikan tidak mendapatkan persetujuan pekerja terlebih dahulu? Adakah tindakan ini mendapat "perkenan" dari Jabatan Buruh misalannya?
  • Tindakan Majikan: Mengambil inisiatif untuk menubuhkan Kesatuan Sekerja peringkat dalaman (Kesatuan Dalaman) dan terdapat juga majikan yang membiayainya. Persoalannya: Ini adalah salah mengikut Akta Kesatuan Sekerja. Majikan berselindung dibelakang pekerja yang dikawalnya. Kenapa sebelum ini, terdapat kes pekerja yang cuba untuk menubuhkan Kesatuan Sekerja telah ditindas, didera secara psikologi atau dibuang?! Kenapa sekarang setelah wujudnya keahlian Kesatuan dikalangan pekerja mereka, majikan dengan kadar segera mencari, menaja dan mengalakkan penubuhan Kesatuan Dalaman?
  • Tindakan Majikan: Mengugut, memaksa dan mengarahkan pekerja membuat sesuatu pekerjaan diluar dari syarat perkhidmatan yang ditandatangani pekerja (spt: ditukar jabatan, disuruh membuat sesuatu kerja diluar skop bidang mereka, ditukar waktu kerja, tidak dibenarkan mengambil cuti bergaji, mencari kesalahan remeh dengan maksud untuk mengambil tindakan tatatertib dan sebagainya). Persoalannya: Apakah dengan tindakan majikan ini bertujuan untuk mengubah dan mempengaruhi psikologi pekerja supaya berpendapat wujudnya Kesatuan telah menyusahkan pekerja yang menyertainya? Kenapa tindakan ini menjadi rakus selepas menerima surat rasmi Kesatuan?
Wujudnya Kesatuan Sekerja bertujuan untuk memimpin pekerja teramai bagi mewujudkan suasana harmoni antara majikan dan pekerja mereka. Kewujudan Kesatuan Sekerja bukan untuk "berperang" dan berkerat rotan dengan majikan, jadi apa perlunya majikan takut? Kesatuan hanya mewakili pekerja yang selama ini takut, gentar dan bimbang untuk berhadapan dan menuntut hak mereka dengan majikan. Apakah hak mereka ini hanya boleh dituntut oleh mereka? Selama mana majikan telah beroperasi dan mengaut keuntungan tetapi berapa kali mereka berhadapan dengan tuntutan pekerja secara individu?

Perbandingan seperti negara-negara maju, Kesatuan Sekerja mereka dibenarkan dan diiktiraf malah pekerja mereka dibenarkan menyertainya kerana ianya menjadi pra-syarat majikan semasa perjanjian syarat perkhidmatan. Kesan psikologinya terhadap pekerja, mereka akan merasa bahawa majikan mereka mengambil berat terhadap kebajikan pekerja. Ini dapat menjamin masa depan pekerja tersebut bersama majikan dan juga meningkatkan produktiviti (pengeluaran) majikan.

Kesatuan Sekerja boleh memainkan peranan besar kepada industri keseluruhannya. Sama ada membantu pekerja mendapatkan hak mereka mahupun membantu majikan dalam menghadapi masalah pekerja; semuanya boleh dibawa didalam perbincangan mereka kelak. Adakah perkara ini menjadi penghalang kepada suasana harmoni?

KSIEWSSM dengan terbuka hati menjemput para majikan bersama-sama untuk membincangkan masalah yang dihadapi tentang pekerja dan menilai baik buruk setiap tuntutan Kesatuan dan apa yang boleh Kesatuan bantu majikan ini.

Khamis, 9 September 2010

Veteran unionist dies in road accident

BUKIT MERTAJAM: Veteran trade unionist Francis Xavier, 59, died when his motorcycle was involved in a head-on collision with a car which had skidded into the opposite lane at Jalan Kulim. Four other motorcyclists were also injured in the incident which occurred at about 11.30pm on Tuesday night. The driver of the car, who is believed to be in his 20s, had apparently lost control of the vehicle, causing it to skid and collide with the motorcycles. Francis, who sustained serious abdominal injuries, died at 4am at the district hospital here.
Three motorcyclists are still being warded while one received outpatient treatment. Francis’ brother Henry Basil, 55, said Francis was a bachelor who lived alone in a rented house in Taman Remia here. Malaysian Trade Union Congress Penang branch secretary K. Veeriah said Francis had been involved in the trade union movement for more than three decades. “It is a big loss to the movement. I, too, have lost a friend because he was my schoolmate at Bukit Mertajam High School in the mid ‘70s,” he said. “In March, he was appointed the coordinator of the newly registered northern region Electronics Workers Union,” he said. Central Seberang Prai OCPD Asst Comm Azman Abd Lah appealed to eyewitnesses to come forward to assist in investigations.
Source: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/9/9/nation/7004514&sec=nation

Belasungkawa: Saudara Francis Xavier

KSIEWSSM menzahirkan rasa simpati teramat kepada keluarga saudara Francis Xavier yang meninggal dunia akibat kemalangan jalan raya pada 8 September 2010. Beliau adalah seorang yang berdedikasi sebagai Penyelaras Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Utara (KSIEWUSM) dan belum pun panas beliau membimbing perjuangan KSIEWUSM.

KSIEWSSM mengucapkan takziah kepada keluarga beliau, dan semoga tabah menghadapi dugaan ini.

Saudara Francis Xavier,
Akhir kata,
Warga KSIEWSSM masih belum sempat mengenali dan mengutip pengalaman, tunjukajar dan ilmu yang saudara ada dan saudara telah pergi meninggalkan kami dan rakan-rakan. Semoga dengan pemergian saudara menginspirasikan perjuangan keseluruhan Kesatuan Sekerja Wilayah (Utara, Barat, Timur dan Selatan)

Selasa, 7 September 2010

Selamat Menyambut Hari Raya Aidilfitri Dari Warga KSIEWSSM

Kami terdiri dari Presiden, Setiausaha Agung, Bendahari Agung dan Ahli Majlis Eksekutif serta Warga Kerja KSIEWSSM (Penyelaras, Penganjur, Setiausaha Eksekutif dan Kakitangan) ingin mengucapkan;

Salam Lebaran 2010, kepada semua kaum pekerja terutama kepada ahli-ahli KSIEWSSM, warga kerja sektor elektronik, Ahli Majlis Eksekutif (KSIEWBSM, KSIEWUSM dan KSIEWTSM), Ahli Majlis MTUC dan mereka-mereka yang mengetahui dan mengenali Kesatuan ini.
Kami memohon maaf sekiranya terdapat salah silap tutur kata, penulisan yang dipaparkan dan perkembangan  KSIEWSSM ini didapati menyinggung para pembaca. Diharap Lebaran kali ini, amat bermakna bagi semua kaum pekerja sekelian dan memberikan 'sinar' baru buat kita semua.



Ahad, 5 September 2010

Kebergantungan terhadap Pekerja Asing Membimbangkan!

Secara majoritinya, majikan amat bergantung kepada pekerja asing iaitu sekurang-kurangnya hampir 60% dari jumlah pekerja mereka adalah pekerja asing. Ini amat membimbangkan kerana disebabkan pekerja ini dibayar dengan amat murah dan boleh dan senang dikawal oleh majikan. Ia berlainan dibandingkan dengan pekerja tempatan yang mana, kadar "turn-over" mereka amat tinggi dimana antara faktor-faktor penyebab adalah:
  • Kadar gaji yang dibayar amat rendah; sebagai perbandingan ~ seseorang pekerja di sektor perkilangan dibayar dengan kadar RM450 ~ RM600 sebulan, manakala sekiranya seseorang itu bekerja secara sambilan atau di restoran makanan segera, mereka dibayar pada kadaran RM4/jam atau RM35/hari. Mereka tidak perlu bekerja lebih dari 8 jam untuk memperolehi kadar gaji lebih dari RM700 sebulan!.
  • Persekitaran tempat kerja yang tidak selamat, selesa dan sihat; terdapat majikan yang tidak mengendahkan tentang keselamatan, keselesaan dan kesihatan pekerja ditempat kerja. Kadang-kala, isu ini tidak mendapat perhatian majikan dan mereka hanya memenuhi syarat jika terdapat penilaian jabatan terbabit atau sekiranya terdapat kemalangan ditempat kerja.
  • Waktu kerja; terdapat kes dimana pekerja dipaksa bekerja lebih masa dan tindakan disiplin diambil bagi pekerja yang ingkar. Kerja lebih masa disatu perkara amat diperlukan oleh sesetengah pekerja tetapi ianya sepatutnya boleh dibuat perbincangan antara pekerja dan majikan.
  • Diskriminasi; menjadi satu dari masalah utama yang dihadapi oleh para pekerja. Majikan mengamalkan dasar diskriminasi dari segi bangsa (kaum), jantina, agama dan sebagainya. Sering berlaku dimana seseorang pekerja yang berkemahiran tetapi tidak diberikan perhatian atau penghargaan khusus kerana disebabkan diskriminasi ini.

Majikan yang menghadapi masalah ini mengambil jalan mudah dan pintas iaitu dengan mengambil pekerja warga asing ataupun secara kontrak . Majikan menganggap dengan pengambilan pekerja warga asing dan kontrak ini akan menyelesaikan masalah mereka, tetapi ianya akan menyebabkan:
  • Masalah penggangguran dikalangan pekerja warga tempatan,
  • Masalah sosial yang dibawa oleh pekerja asing,
  • Masalah penyakit berjangkit dan sebagainya.
Perkara berlaku sekarang ini amat membimbangkan dan tidak mustahil jika dimasa hadapan, pihak majikan akan menggaji keseluruhan operasi mereka kepada pekerja asing. Pihak KSIEWSSM memandang serius terhadap perkara ini dan berharap Kerajaan dan juga majikan bersama-sama membendung genjala pengambilan pekerja asing ini agar warga tempatan dapat digajikan dengan bayaran yang setimpal, tempat kerja yang selamat, tiada diskriminasi dan tidak perlu bersaing dengan warga asing untuk mendapatkan kerja yang stabil.

Pada hari ini, mungkin kadar 60% pekerja asing tidak sangat membimbangkan, tetapi trend dan masalah yang selesaikan oleh majikan (dengan kebenaran Kerajaan) seolah-olah ia menjadi api dalam sekam dan merebak dengan senyap. Dan ya, pekerja asing mungkin akan menyebabkan majikan membayar gaji yang lebih murah, pekerja asing tidak takut dengan risiko kemalangan tempat kerja, tiada masalah dengan diskriminasi dan tidak kisah dengan waktu kerja yang ditetapkan.

Masalah ini akan dapat diselesaikan dengan cara lebih berhemah dan lebih praktikal iaitu dengan menilai kembali kadar gaji yang lebih sesuai dan berpatutan, situasi tempat kerja yang selesa serta selamat, dan waktu kerja yang lebih praktikal bagi menjamin produktiviti, suasana tempat kerja harmoni dan lebih stabil.

Ahad, 29 Ogos 2010

Memorandum KSIEWSSM Kepada Menteri Sumber Manusia

Memorandum ini telah diserahkan kepada Menteri Sumber Manusia, Datuk Dr. S. Subramaniam pada 26 Ogos 2010 melalui wakil beliau; Pn. Rozita Bahari (JTK Negeri Johor)

Memorandum Kepada YB Menteri Sumber Manusia -
Baca Memorandum

Selasa, 24 Ogos 2010

Agenda KSIEWSSM: Tuntutan Gaji Minima Yang Munasabah

Bertepatan dengan rancangan Kerajaan Malaysia untuk menjadikan Malaysia sebagai sebuah negara berpendapatan tinggi pada tahun-tahun mendatang, Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Selatan Semenanjung Malaysia (KSIEWSSM) menegaskan bahawa langkah pertama yang perlu dilakukan oleh Kerajaan adalah menetapkan kadar gaji minima bagi sektor swasta terutamanya sektor elektronik. Dengan anggaran pekerja sektor elektronik seluruh Malaysia sekitar 350,000 pekerja, langkah ini perlu diambil dengan kadar segera memandangkan kos sara hidup dan keperluan kaum pekerja semakin meningkat saban hari.

Majoriti perkilangan sektor elektronik ini tertumpu disekitar bandar-bandar besar seperti Petaling Jaya, Johor Bahru, Bayan Lepas dan sebagainya dimana kos sara hidup amat tinggi bagi pekerja tersebut. Secara perbandingan, gaji permulaan bagi operator pengeluaran di Johor Bahru, misalnya masih hanya pada sekitar RM350~600 sebulan manakala di Muar pula sekitar RM450~600 dibandingkan kos hidup di Johor Bahru dan Muar ini, amat tidak berpatutan. Ini masih tidak mencukupi bagi mereka jika diambil kira kos hidup di Johor Bahru!.

KSIEWSSM memandang serius terhadap tuntutan minima gaji ini, kerana setelah sekian lama tuntutan demi tuntutan dibuat oleh pelbagai pihak termasuk MTUC dan sebagainya, ia tidak menjadi kenyataan dan diambil serius oleh Kerajaan. Sektor elektronik telah bertapak di Malaysia hampir mencapai ke generasi ke-3, tetapi taraf dan pendapatan kaum pekerja tetap hampir sama dengan generasi terawal.

Kebanyakan pekerja elektronik sekarang terpaksa bertukar kepada pekerjaan lain bagi menampung kos hidup mereka dan akhirnya majikan mendakwa bahawa pekerja tempatan tidak berminat untuk memohon kekosongan jawatan yang mereka tawarkan sedangkan gaji yang ditawarkan tidak berpatutan!. Dan sebagai jalan penyelesaiannya, majikan memohon kepada Kerajaan supaya membenarkan untuk "mengimport" pekerja asing dan ini adalah satu "penyakit" yang semakin tidak terkawal! Majikan sanggup untuk mengeluarkan perbelanjaan yang lebih untuk pekerja asing tetapi tidak mahu untuk melabur lebih sedikit untuk gaji pekerja tempatan.

Peranan Kerajaan diperlukan untuk mengawal perkara-perkara sebegini. Janganlah menjadi seperti "kera dihutan disusukan, tapi anak dirumah mati kelaparan".

 Kenyataan MEF berkenaan dengan gaji pekerja (Kosmo)

Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Selatan Semenanjung Malaysia

Isnin, 23 Ogos 2010

Cuti Am, Cuti Tahunan dan Lain-lain Cuti

Berapa lamakah cuti berbayar yang patut diterima oleh setiap pekerja?

Kurang dari 2 tahun bekerja 
  • Cuti Am (Hari Pelepasan Persekutuan dan Negeri) : 10 hari
  • Cuti Tahunan (Annual Leave) : 8 hari
  • Cuti Sakit (Medical Leave), tidak termasuk rawatan dalam wad Hospital : 14 hari
  • Cuti Sakit (Medical Leave), termasuk rawatan dalam wad Hospital : 60 hari
  • Cuti Bersalin (Maternity Leave) : 60 hari
2~5 tahun bekerja
  • Cuti Am (Hari Pelepasan Persekutuan dan Negeri) : 10 hari
  • Cuti Tahunan (Annual Leave) : 12 hari
  • Cuti Sakit (Medical Leave), tidak termasuk rawatan dalam wad Hospital : 18 hari
  • Cuti Sakit (Medical Leave), termasuk rawatan dalam wad Hospital : 60 hari
  • Cuti Bersalin (Maternity Leave) : 60 hari
Lebih 5 tahun bekerja
  • Cuti Am (Hari Pelepasan Persekutuan dan Negeri) : 10 hari
  • Cuti Tahunan (Annual Leave) : 16 hari
  • Cuti Sakit (Medical Leave), tidak termasuk rawatan dalam wad Hospital : 22 hari
  • Cuti Sakit (Medical Leave), termasuk rawatan dalam wad Hospital : 60 hari
  • Cuti Bersalin (Maternity Leave) : 60 hari
Cuti Am
  • 4 cuti am yang ditetapkan; Hari Merdeka, Hari Kebesaran Yang Di-Pertuan Agung, Hari Kebesaran Sultan, Hari Pekerja dan 6 hari cuti am lagi diumumkan oleh majikan anda,
  • Jika cuti am jatuh pada hari rehat, hari bekerja berikutnya merupakan  hari cuti berbayar,
  • Jika cuti am jatuh semasa cuti tahunan atau cuti sakit, anda akan mendapat satu lagi cuti berbayar selama sehari.
 Cuti Sakit/Cuti Bersalin
  • Jika anda sakit pada hari rehat, anda tidak akan mendapat cuti sakit berbayar.
  • Cuti sakit atau bersalin yang jatuh pada cuti tahunan tidak akan dikira sebagai cuti tahunan.
Bilakah boleh saya mendapat cuti tahunan?
Hanya selepas setiap 12 bulan anda bekerja secara berterusan.

Bolehkah majikan saya membatalkan cuti tahunan saya?
Majikan anda boleh membatalkan cuti tahunan anda tanpa membayar anda jika;
  • Anda tidak hadir lebih dari 10% daripada waktu kerja semasa 12 bulan kerja berterusan dimana anda berhak mendapat cuti tahunan; atau,
  • Anda tidak mengambil cuti tahunan anda semasa didalam tempoh masa 12 bulan selepas anda mendapat cuti tahunan; atau,
  • Anda dipecat kerana salah laku. 
Apa yang perlu saya lakukan jika saya ingin mengambil cuti sakit?
  • Ambil sijil sakit (MC) dari doktor panel majikan anda atau hospital kerajaan; dan,
  • Beritahu atau cuba beritahu majikan anda dalam lingkungan masa 48 jam anda mula cuti sakit atau masuk hospital.

Sumber dari "Pintas" 


Ahad, 22 Ogos 2010


Di manakah saya boleh mendapatkan bantuan mengenai masalah-masalah yang dihadapi tentang pekerjaan?

Sebagai pekerja, anda boleh mendapatkan khidmat bantuan dari:
  • Kesatuan Sekerja; jika menjadi ahli kepada Kesatuan Sekerja;
  • Jabatan Buruh untuk khidmat nasihat dan tuntutan kewangan dibawah Akta Pekerjaan dan Pampasan Pekerja (Workmen's Compensation); jika anda layak; berpendapatan dibawah RM1,500 sebulan
  • Perkeso/Socso untuk tuntutan dan pampasan terhadap kecederaan akibat pekerjaan, penyakit atau kematian; jika anda layak.
  • Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan; jika anda mahu jawatan anda semula dan sekiranya layak,
  • Biro Bantuan Guaman untuk nasihat dan perwakilan; jika anda layak,

Berapakah jam bekerja biasa saya yang saya sepatutnya di bawah syarat-syarat pekerjaan?
Selain daripada kerja mengikut shift ataupun dengan kebenaran Ketua Pengarah, masa bekerja untuk seseorang pekerja mestilah TIDAK MELEBIHI;
  • 5 jam berterusan tanpa sekurang-kurangnya 30minit rehat,
  • 8 jam sehari
  • Satu bentangan jam 10 jam sehari, 
  • 48 jam seminggu (bagi kerja mengikut shift, purata sebanyak 48 jam seminggu di dalam masa 3 minggu)
Bolehkah saya dipaksa untuk bekerja lebih masa ("overtime")?
Selain daripada yang diperuntukkan di bawah Akta Pekerjaan, pekerja TIDAK BOLEH dipaksa untuk bekerja lebih daripada jam bekerja biasa. Kerja lebih masa maksimum yang dibenarkan adalah sebanyak 104 jam sebulan.

Bagaimana gaji lebih masa dikira?
Jika anda bekerja pada;
  • Hari Kerja Biasa = 1.5 x jumlah pendapatan biasa sejam,
  • Hari Rehat = 2 x jumlah pendapatan biasa sejam,
  • Hari Cuti Am = 3 x jumlah pendapatan biasa sejam.

Sabtu, 21 Ogos 2010

Prosiding Tuntutan Pengiktirafan

Tindakan-Tindakan Yang Dilarang Semasa Diadakan Prosiding Tuntutan Pengiktirafan
  1.  Majikan adalah dilarang mengisytiharkan sekat-masuk (lock-out) atau menamatkan pekerjaan mana-mana pekerjanya kecuali atas alasan-alasan tatatertib (misconduct).
  2. Pihak Kesatuan pula dilarang daripada melancarkan apa-apa tindakan perusahaan seperti mogok atau piket.
Penalti Bagi Kesalahan Bersabit Tuntutan Pengiktirafan
 Seksyen 60, APP 1967 menetapkan penalti yang membawa hukuman penjara untuk tempoh yang tidak melebihi dua tahun atau denda tidak melebihi lima ribu ringgit atau kedua-duanya atas pelanggaran mana-mana peruntukan dibawah Akta tersebut; atau atas ketidakpatuhan terhadap apa apa saman, perintah atau arahan yang diberi atau dibuat dibawah Akta berkenaan.

Berikut adalah langkah-langkah (proses) bagi Tuntutan Pengiktirafan
  1. Kesatuan mengemukakan tuntutan pengiktirafan kepada majikan dalam Borang A (Notis Tuntutan Untuk Mendapatkan Pengiktirafan).
  2. Kesatuan mengemukakan Borang A berserta satu salinan Perlembagaan Kesatuan/Peraturan-peraturan  Kesatuan Sekerja kepada majikan secara pos berdaftar dengan satu salinan kepada Ketua Pengarah Perhubungan Perusahaan Malaysia (KPPPM)
  3. Majikan dikehendaki memberi maklumbalas dalam tempoh 21 hari dari tarikh penerimaan Notis Tuntutan.
  4. Jika majikan memberi pengiktirafan secara sukarela, kes tuntutan pengiktirafan dianggap selesai.
  5. Jika pengiktirafan tidak diberi, Kesatuan hendaklah mengemukakan aduan secara bertulis kepada KPPPM dalam tempoh 14 hari dari tarikh penerimaan maklumbalas majikan atau selepas tamat tempoh 21 hari. Jika Kesatuan gagal mengemukakan aduan tersebut, kes tuntutan pengiktirafan dianggap telah ditarik balik.
  6. KPPPM akan memohon Ketua Pengarah Kesatuan Sekerja (KPKS) bagi menentukan kelayakan Kesatuan.
  7. KPPPM kemudiannya memohon majikan kemukakan senarai nama pekerja syarikat (Borang B)
  8. Proses undi sulit dijalankan bagi menentukan peratusan keahlian kesatuan sama ada mempunyai majoriti atau sebaliknya. (Majoriti = 50%+1)
  9. Laporan kepada Y.B Menteri Sumber Manusia untuk mendapat keputusannya dibawah seksyen 9 (5), APP 1967.
  10. Keputusan Y.B Menteri dimaklumkan kepada majikan dan Kesatuan.

  • Apabila sesebuah Kesatuan Sekerja telah mendapat pengiktirafan daripada majikan, tidak ada tuntutan pengiktirafan keatas majikan yang sama boleh dikemukakan oleh pihak Kesatuan Sekerja yang lain kecuali selepas tempoh tiga (3) tahun telah genap.
  • Apabila sesuatu tuntutan pengiktirafan telah diselesaikan oleh KPPPM atau telah diputuskan oleh Y.B Menteri Sumber Manusia yang menyebabkan Kesatuan Sekerja itu tidak mendapat pengiktirafan, Kesatuan Sekerja tersebut tidak boleh membuat apa-apa tuntutan lanjut untuk mendapatkan pengiktirafan sehingga selepas tempoh enam (6) bulan telah genap dari tarikh penyelesaian atau keputusan tersebut.