The court upheld the Minister's classification of in-flight supervisors as non-managerial, affirming proper adherence to statutory inquiry protocols without procedural impropriety.

Azizah Nawawi JCA:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the decision of the High Court Judge dated 10 January 2019 dismissing the appellant's application for an order of certiorari and mandamus against the decision of the 1st respondent with costs.

[2] Having considered the appeal records and the submissions of the parties, this Court had dismissed the appeal with costs. Our decision was unanimous and these are our grounds for dismissing the appeal.

The Salient Facts

[3] The appellant, Malaysia Airlines Berhad ("MAB") is a company incorporated in Malaysia on 7 November 2014 and operates the national airline of Malaysia as a commercial entity.

[4] The 1st respondent is the Minister of Human Resources, Malaysia ("Minister") who is empowered under s 9(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (" IRA 1967") to decide whether or not a claim for recognition of a trade union ought to be accorded.

[5] The 2nd respondent is the Director General of the Industrial Relations Department ("DGIR"), who is empowered by the IRA 1967 to have general direction, control and supervision over all matters relating to industrial relations.

[6] The 3rd respondent is the National Union of Flight Attendant, Malaysia ("Union"), a union registered under the Trade Union Act 1959 .

[7] On 23 August 2016, the Union had sought recognition in relation to all cabin crew workers employed by MAB falling within the scope of its representation.

[8] After several discussions between the Union, MAB and the DGIR, a secret ballot was conducted on 25 April 2017 and 26 April 2017. This secret ballot did not involve the MAB's In-Flight Supervisors (the "IFS workers").

[9] Based on the secret ballot, only 35.09% of the eligible workers had voted to be members of the Union. Therefore, on 28 July 2017 the Minister issued Borang F under s 9(5) of the IRA 1967 that the Union was not eligible to be recognised by MAB.

[10] However, vide an email dated 29 April 2017, the Union filed a complaint with the DGIR under s 9(1A) of the IRA 1967. The Union had complained that MAB had failed to acknowledge that IFS workers are not employed in any managerial, executive, confidential or security capacity, and therefore had a right to vote to recognise the Union.

[11] Thereafter, the DGIR had informed MAB and the Union that he would be conducting further inquiries in respect of the disputed eligibility of the IFS workers pursuant to s 9(1B) of the IRA 1967.

[12] The DGIR (Selangor branch) had a discussion with MAB on 8 June 2017, with both the Union and MAB on 6 July 2017 and again with MAB on 28 August 2019. For the purposes of the DGIR's enquiry, MAB had given the list of 286 IFS workers to the DGIR on 21 August 2017.

[13] The DGIR also proceeded to interview the IFS workers on seven different occasions, between 6 September 2017 to 4 October 2017. The DGIR had interviewed around 62 IFS workers.

[14] Pursuant to subsection 9(1C) of the IRA 1967, the DGIR had informed the result of the inquiries to the Minister on 19 January 2018.

[15] On 6 February 2018, pursuant to subsection 9(1D) of the IRA 1967, the Minister made a decision that IFS workers are not employed in any managerial, executive, confidential or security capacity.

[16] On 20 February 2018, the Union filed another claim for recognition to MAB. This can be done after six months from the date of decision of the last attempt at recognition, pursuant to s 12 of the IRA 1957.

[17] On 1 March 2018, MAB filed this application for judicial review to quash the decision of the Minister dated 6 February 2018.

[18] On 10 January 2019, the High Court had dismissed MAB's application to review the Minister's decision.

[19] Vide a Notice of Appeal dated 22 January 2019, MAB lodged its appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the High Court.

[20] On 22 April 2019, the High Court granted MAB's application for a stay of execution of the order granted by the High Court on 10 January 2019, pending the dispo