SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 MarsdenLR 570

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
KESATUAN PEKERJA-PEKERJA PELABUHAN PULAU PINANG – Appellant
Versus
PERSATUAN MAJIKAN-MAJIKAN MEMUNGGAH MUATAN KAPAL .... – Respondent
Award No: 624 of 2024 [Case No: 18/2-2521/20]



Petitioner Advocates:Vijayan Veeriah ,Respondent Advocate: Aznil Abdul Majid

Compliance with Minimum Wage Orders is mandatory and non-negotiable under the Industrial Relations Act 1967, ensuring fair compensation for workers.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 – Section 26(2) – Trade dispute regarding the 14th Collective Agreement between the Union and the Company concerning salary scale, annual increments, and retirement benefits – The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of compliance with Minimum Wage Orders and the non-negotiable implementation of statutory minimum wages. (Paras 1, 9, 28, 33)

(B) The role of the Court in trade disputes is to balance the interests of both the Company and employees, ensuring fair compensation while considering the financial capacity of the employer. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case: The dispute arose from the Union's claims for salary adjustments and compliance with Minimum Wage Orders, with the Company arguing for flexibility based on productivity incentives. (Paras 2, 4)

Findings of Court: The Court found that the respondent had not complied with Minimum Wage Orders and must adjust salaries accordingly, including payment of arrears. (Paras 31, 33)

Issues: The main issues included the implementation of Minimum Wage Orders and the justification for annual increments and retirement benefits. (Paras 4, 35, 43)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that adherence to Minimum Wage Orders is mandatory and cannot be negotiated away, emphasizing the importance of statutory compliance for worker welfare. (Paras 28, 31)

Result: The respondent is ordered to comply with Minimum Wage Orders and adjust salaries accordingly.

AWARD

Jeyaseelen T Anthony:

Reference

[1] This is a reference dated 21 October 2020 by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources, Malaysia pursuant to s 26(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (hereinafter referred to as " IRA 1967") arising out of a trade dispute between the Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Pelabuhan Pulau Pinang (hereinafter referred to as "the Union") and Persatuan Majikan-Majikan Memunggah Muatan Kapal Pulau Pinang dan Seberang Perai (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") relating to the 14th Collective Agreement (CA) for the period of 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2021.

Background

[2] This reference under s 26(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') dated 21 October 2020 arose out of a trade dispute between the Union and the Company over the 14th Collective Agreement (CA) for the period of 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2021.

[3] This trade dispute concerns several Stevedoring companies who are members of the respondent, the Stevedore Employers' Association of Penang and Province Wellesley. The Union represents the employees of these companies who are known as Stevedores. Generally, stevedoring is a process of loading or discharging/off-loading cargo to and/or from a ship and a person (employee) engaged to perform this task is known as a Stevedore. Hence, Stevedoring chargers are charges incurred for performing this task on board a ship.

[4] At the outset of the hearing of this matter on 21 June 2023, the learned representative for the Union informed this Court that there are four (4) Articles which are disputed by the parties which require the Court's consideration and determination. The disputed Articles are as follows:

1. Article 22 - Tangga Gaji (Salary scale)

2. Article 24 - Kenaikan Gaji Tahunan (Annual Increments)

3. Article 28 - Gaji untuk Produktiviti

4. Article 35 - Faedah Persaraan (Retirement Benefits)

[5] Thereafter, the Union informed this Court that all other Articles are to be maintained as status quo as per the 13th CA COG No 266/2015 which was from 1 July 2015 until 30 June 2018. However on 23 April 2024, learned counsel for the respondent and the learned representative of the Union representing the parties to this trade dispute informed the Court that for the purposes of the disputed 14th CA for the period of 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2021, art 28 on Productivity Wages (gaji untuk meningkatkan produktiviti) has been agreed by the parties.

[6] Hence the Court will proceed to consider and determine the other three (3) disputed Articles namely:

1. Article 22 - Tangga Gaji (Salary scale)

2. Article 24 - Kenaikan Gaji Tahunan (Annual Increments)

3. Article 35 - Faedah Persaraan (Retirement Benefits)

The Role Of The Court In Trade Disputes

[7] In assessing and determining the competing claims of both parties with regard to this trade dispute, this Court is mindful of the words of the former learned President of this Court, Tuan Yussof Ahmad in the case of Gardenia Bakeries (KL) Sdn Bhd v. Kesatuan Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan ; [2003] 2 ILR 93 where he had said:

"The role of the Court is to balance the interests of both the Company and the employees. The Company is entitled to a reasonable return of the capital that has been invested in the business. The employees are entitled to expect improvement in the reward of their labour Therefore, it is fair on the part of employees to aspire for a higher quality of life and this can only come among other things through higher wages (provided our money's purchasing power remains the same) and better terms and conditions of service. The Court is exercising its function to dispense social justice rather than justice according to the law."

[8] Further, it is trite that the Court in deciding whether to grant salary revision is behoved to consider the following factors:

a. The wages and salaries in comparable establishments in the same region.

b. Any rise in the cost of living since the existing wages and salaries were last revised.

c. The financial

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top