Employment Law - Can a Bankrupt make a Claim at the Labour Dept.

Can an aggrieved employee who is declared a bankrupt file a complaint at the Labour Dept, in the event his employer refuses to pay overtime on rest days, or Public Holidays or compensation in the event of termination and/or lay-off benefit.

But lately, a question as arisen as to whether an employee who is a 'Bankrupt' has a right to make a claim in the absence of Sanction from the Insolvency Department pursuant to Section 38(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967. In a Labour Court hearing, counsels representing the employer made a preliminary objection during the course of the hearing that the Complainant who is declared a bankrupt has no legal bearing to proceed with his case as the Complainant did not obtain a Sanction pursuant to Section 38(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967, hence the counsels applied to the Labour Court to be strike-off the case, and, if proceeded further this would tantamount to a contempt of court, in support of their argument they submitted an Authority from Court of Appeal. However, the presiding officer seek further advice with her superior and informed the parties that she would not strike-off the case rather fixed a new date for mention and in the mean time the Complainant is suppose to secure the Sanction from Insolvency Dept.

 An application was made to the Insolvency Dept, subsequently a letter was issued which states that the complainant can proceed with his case since it involves wages therefore a sanction under section 38(1)(a) is not necessary. The above experience now confirms that even a bankrupt can make an application under Section 69 of the Employment Act 1955 to claim monitory benefits. however, to be on the save side it is better to get the Sanction from the Insolvency Department.

Union activist must be adequately equipped with such information to assist them in their trade union work. Surprisingly, the above case is represented by to senior lawyers for the employer, and their intention is to strike-off the case because there is no Sanction pursuant to Section 38(1)(a) Insolvency Act 1967. As a laymen and not being trained as a lawyer, one should not shy away or being intimidated by their oratory defense or threat, as a trade unionist we must lean to be patience and put forward your disagreement in a most decent manner, avoid rhetoric statements which may cause distress on our part, and  this may cause distraction during the debate,  they has trained lawyers would like to provoke you and take advantage and cause agitation to defeat whatever arguments we put forward.

Anyway, the above labour case is still pending at the Labour Department and looking forward to a fruitful conclusion. Hope to succeed this case.

Employment Law - Can a Bankrupt make a Claim at the Labour Dept.

Can an aggrieved employee who is declared a bankrupt file a complaint at the Labour Dept, in the event his employer refuses to pay overtime on rest days, or Public Holidays or compensation in the event termination and/or lay-off benefit. But lately, a question as arisen as to whether an employee who is a 'Bankrupt' as a right to make a claim in the absence of Sanction from the Insolvency Department pursuant to Section 38(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967. In a Labour Court hearing,the counsels representing the employer made a preliminary objection during the course of the hearing that the Complainant has no legal bearing to proceed with his case as the Complainant did not obtain a Sanction pursuant to Section 38(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967, hence the counsels applied to the Labour Court to be strike-off the case, and, if proceeded further this would tantamount to a contempt of court, in support of their argument they submitted an Authority from Court of Appeal. However, the presiding officer seek further advice with her superior and informed the parties that she would not strike-off the case rather fixed date for mention and in the mean time the Complainant suppose to secure the Sanction from Insolvency Dept. An application was made to the Insolvency Dept and subsequently a letter was issued which states that the complainant can proceed with his case since it involves wages therefore a sanction under section 38(1)(a) is not necessary. The above experience now confirms that even a bankrupt can make an application under Section 69 of the Employment Act 1955. however, to be on the save side it is better to get the Sanction from the Insolvency Department. Union activist must be adequately equipped with such information to assist them in their trade union work. Surprisingly, the above case is represented by to senior lawyers for the employer, and their intention is to strike-off the case because there is no Sanction pursuant to Section 38(1)(a) Insolvency Act 1967. As a laymen and not being trained as a lawyer, one should not shy away or being intimidated by their oratory defense or threat, as a trade unionist lean to be patience and put forward your disagreement in a most decent manner and avoid rhetoric statements, this may cause distraction during the debate and, they has trained lawyers would like to provoke you and cause agitation to defeat whatever arguments you put forward. Anyway, the above labour case is still pending at the Labour Department and looking forward to a fruitful conclusion. Hope to succeed this case.

Employment Law - Can a Bankrupt make a Claim at the Labour Dept.

Can an aggrieved employee who is declared a bankrupt file a complaint at the Labour Dept, in the event his employer refuses to pay overtime on rest days, or Public Holidays or compensation in the event termination and/or lay-off benefit. But lately, a question as arisen as to whether an employee who is a 'Bankrupt' as a right to make a claim in the absence of Sanction from the Insolvency Department pursuant to Section 38(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967. In a Labour Court hearing,the counsels representing the employer made a preliminary objection during the course of the hearing that the Complainant has no legal bearing to proceed with his case as the Complainant did not obtain a Sanction pursuant to Section 38(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967, hence the counsels applied to the Labour Court to be strike-off the case, and, if proceeded further this would tantamount to a contempt of court, in support of their argument they submitted an Authority from Court of Appeal. However, the presiding officer seek further advice with her superior and informed the parties that she would not strike-off the case rather fixed date for mention and in the mean time the Complainant suppose to secure the Sanction from Insolvency Dept. An application was made to the Insolvency Dept and subsequently a letter was issued which states that the complainant can proceed with his case since it involves wages therefore a sanction under section 38(1)(a) is not necessary. The above experience now confirms that even a bankrupt can make an application under Section 69 of the Employment Act 1955. however, to be on the save side it is better to get the Sanction from the Insolvency Department. Union activist must be adequately equipped with such information to assist them in their trade union work. Surprisingly, the above case is represented by to senior lawyers for the employer, and their intention is to strike-off the case because there is no Sanction pursuant to Section 38(1)(a) Insolvency Act 1967. As a laymen and not being trained as a lawyer, one should not shy away or being intimidated by their oratory defense or threat, as a trade unionist lean to be patience and put forward your disagreement in a most decent manner and avoid rhetoric statements, this may cause distraction during the debate and, they has trained lawyers would like to provoke you and cause agitation to defeat whatever arguments you put put forward. Anyway, the above labour case is still pending at the Labour Department and looking forward to a fruitful conclusion. Hope to succeed this case.

Proposed Amendments - Industrial Relations Act 1967 -Unprecedential Scale!!

Industrial Relations - In a Nutshell....

Industrial Relations are an important aspect of economic and social development in society. A stable and effective industrial relations situation is important for facilitating economic growth and equitable distribution of remuneration to labour. Industrial relations focuses on employer, employee relations with regard to terms and conditions of employment and grievance redressal procedures within the framework of existing legislation. The government plays an important role in ensuring the framework necessary for stable and effective industrial relations. Industrial relations are therefore a shared tripartite responsibility between the three equal social partners in society namely the government, the employer and the trade unions.

The Industrial Relations Act 1967 and its policies had been revised on numerous occasions including the amendments in April 2009, where new policies were introduced to replace the conventional method of membership verification exercise byway of secret ballot, this mandatory exercise has been entrusted to the Department of Industrial Relations, which was formerly carried out by the Director General, Registrar of Trade Unions, with this new amendments the role of DGTU is distinguished and declared redundant.

This piece of legislations and changes in its policies are based partly on the inherited ‘control culture’ of the colonial era, thus it is not surprising to note here that the proposed amendments would induce greater market friendly policies to attract foreign investment and encourage local investors. This new proposal to amend the legislation and its policies is viewed; form the union’s prospective as an aggressive exercise to suppress and deprive the legitimate right of labour to representation and redressal. The current policy refers to trade dispute; means any dispute between an employer and his workmen which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work of any such workmen’. With the new proposal a workman’s right to appeal and redressal pursuant to Section 20(1) IRA , is sanction and only a trade union can refer a trade dispute under the proposed amendments. If this new proposals were to be accepted by the stakeholders, than the fundamental principle of liberty to livelihood enshrined in the Federal Constitution would become redundant, amendments with such unprecedential scale cannot ensure that turbulence in the production as a result of labour unrest is minimized. Labour rights must be upheld in accordance to common law principle thus under such circumstance the proposed amendments to substitute ‘trade dispute’ and by  adopting the word ‘trade dispute’ means where there is a trade union’ must be rejected altogether and status-quo must be maintained, because we construe that such draconian legislation would defeat the right to representation of a workman or workmen.

The proposed amendments would not enhance industrial harmony or create a conducive working environment if the legislative is not prepared to provide adequate protection to workmen. Workers are the pillars of a nation hence the onus is with the government to ensure that their fundamental liberty to security of employment and dignity is protected.

to be continued in the next chapter......

Pekerja wanita berdemostrasi dihadapan kilang - keberanian yg sukar ditandinggi!!

Kebangkitan Pekerja Wanita yg sekian lama dalam tangisan.....untuk mempertahankan Hak Mereka!!!!!

Seramai 561 pekerja Wanita serta lelaki telah tunjuk-perasaan dihadapan kilang mereka kerana pihak majikan enggan mahu bermula perundingan dengan Kesatuan berkaitan dengan Perjanjian Bersama yang Pertama. Maka para pekerja telah bersepakat untuk berpicket dihadapan kilang mereka agar pihak majikan akan membuat satu keputusan terhadap jemputan Kesatuan untuk membincang cadangan-cadangartan CA yang telahpun dikemukakan kepada majikan mengikut Peraturan 13 Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967. Majikan diberi 30 hari dari tarikh surat Kesatuan untuk membuat rundingan dengan Kesatuan, apabila tidak ada sebarang tindakan daripada  pihak majikan maka telah wujud suatu Kebuntuan dalam rundingan dan ini telah menjadi satu pertikaian dimana pekerja-pekerja boleh keluar untuk menjalankan aktiviti picket selepas tamat kerja. Syarikat ini terlibat dalam perusahaan makanan (canned food) dan terletak di Kamunting, Taiping.

Kami sempat merakamkan tunjuk-perasaan ini dan dipamerkan gambar-gambar tersebut untuk kacamata anda.

Gambar-gambar ini jelas menunjukkan keberanian pekerja, khsusnya pekerja wanita.........mai kita sama-sama memberi sokongan kepada perjuangan mereka.....