The court emphasized balancing employee benefits with the company's financial capacity, requiring substantial evidence for proposed changes in collective agreements.

AWARD

Rusita Md Lazim:

[1] This is a reference dated 24 May 2022 by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources, Malaysia according to s 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (hereinafter referred to as " IRA ") arising out of the alleged trade dispute between Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Perusahaan Logam (hereinafter referred to as "the Union") and Yokowo Electronics (M) Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent") relating to the 1st Collective Agreement (CA) for the period from 23 February 2018 to 22 February 2021.

[2] This Court has considered the following cause papers and documents in handing down this award, namely:

(i) the Union's Statement of the Case dated 6 September 2022;

(ii) the Company's Statement in Reply dated 21 October 2022;

(iii) the Union's Amended Rejoinder dated 9 July 2023;

(iv) the Union's Witness Statement (Shahril Izwan bin Shah Arifin) marked as "UWS-1";

(v) the Company's Witness Statement (Russyazila binti Ahmad) marked as "COWS-1";

(vi) the Company's Witness Statement (Mohd Azmi bin Wahi @ Awang) marked as "COWS-2A";

(vii) the Company's Supplementary Witness Statement (Mohd Azmi bin Wahi @ Awang) marked as "COWS-2B";

(viii) the Company's Supplementary Witness Statement (2) (Mohd Azmi bin Wahi @ Awang) marked as "COWS-2C";

(ix) the Union's Bundle of Documents marked as "UB1";

(x) the Union's Supplementary Bundle of Documents marked as "UB2";

(xi) the Company's Bundle of Documents marked as "COB1";

(xii) the Company's Supplementary Bundle of Documents marked as "COB2";

(xiii) the Company's Supplementary Bundle of Documents marked as "COB3";

(xiv) the Company’s Supplementary Bundle of Documents marked as "COB4";

(xv) the Company’s Supplementary Bundle of Documents marked as "COB5";

(xvi) the Company’s Supplementary Bundle of Documents marked as "COB6"; and

(xvii) the Union's Submission dated 21 November 2023.

(xviii) the Company's Submission dated 2 November 2023.

Collective Bargaining

[3] Collective Bargaining refers to a process of negotiation to conclude a collective agreement. A collective agreement is an agreement in writing concluded between an employer or trade union of employers on one part and a trade union of workmen on the other relating to the terms and conditions of employment and work of workmen or concerning relations between such parties.

[4] The 1st CA expired on 22 February 2021. When this case came up for hearing on 4 August 2023, both parties came to the Court and informed that 36 Articles in the 1st CA had been amicably settled and agreed upon by the parties and was recorded by this Court vide the Interim Award 459/2023 and Interim Award 945/2023.

[5] The dispute in this case is over the proposal for seven Articles under the 1st Collective Agreement for the period of 23 February 2018 to 22 February 2021 submitted by the Union to the Company via letter dated 21 February 2019. The Union's proposals for a new Collective Agreement are exhibited as exhibit U1 in the Union's Statement of Case.

[6] There are only seven remaining disputed Articles, namely:

(i) Article 2 - Duration and Termination of this Agreement

(ii) Article 12 - Hours of Work

(iii) Article 20 - Retirement Benefit

(iv) Article 21 - Bonus

(v) Article 25 - Annual Increment/Incremental Date

(vi) Article 31 - Principle governing salary conversion

(vii) Article 41 - Friday Prayers

(viii) Salary Scale

Chronology Of The Key Events

[7] The chronology of the key events since the recognition of the Union in 2018 up to the 1st collective bargaining in 2020 are as follows:

Principles In Trade Dispute Cases

[7(a)] As provided under sub-section 30(4) of the IRA , this Court shall have regard to the public interest, the financial implications, and the effect of the award on the economy of the country and the industry concerned, and to the probable effect in related or similar industries. This Court must also act according to equity, good conscience, and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal form (sub-section 30(5) of th