Back
2014 MarsdenLR 2452
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
AMBANK (M) BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
MENTERI SUMBER MANUSIA & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-01-19-01/2013 & W-01-44-02/2013]
Important Points
Subject
Labor Law - Trade Union Recognition
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Judicial Review Principles - Court to assess decision-making process; cannot substitute its judgment for that of the decision-maker unless criteria of procedural impropriety, illegality, or irrationality are met. (Paras 29-30)
Facts of the case:
Appeals involved a trade union’s recognition for a specific employee grade and whether the Minister's recognition extended beyond that scope, particularly to include multiple employee categories. The Bank challenged the integrity of the union's election process and details concerning scope of recognition.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the Minister acted within jurisdiction regarding initial recognition, but the provision for a trade dispute was prematurely referred without necessary recognition for all claimed employees.
Issues: The core issues centered on whether the union’s recognition extended to all alleged employee categories and if the Minister’s decisions followed proper legal standards.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that while the recognition of the union was valid, the referral to the Industrial Court concerning a trade dispute without proper recognition of the wider employee categories was illegal and thus quashed the decision.
Result: Appeal allowed regarding the trade dispute; decision confirmed regarding initial recognition.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. agreements on the binding appeals (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. recognition application process and submissions (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 15) |
| 3. background events leading to the appeals. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 16 , 17 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. allegations of bribes impacting ballot integrity (Para 13 , 14 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. bank's challenges to minister's decisions (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. judicial review standards applied (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. standard for judicial review of administrative decisions. (Para 29) |
| 8. limits of judicial review circumstances (Para 30 , 31) |
| 9. limits of judicial intervention in administrative discretions. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 10. minister's discretion and decision validity (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 60) |
| 11. minister's decision criteria on union representation was lawful. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 12. conditions for collective agreement initiation (Para 46 , 49 , 52 , 54) |
| 13. minister's discretion must align with legal provisions. (Para 47 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 53) |
| 14. recognition of the union as a precondition for collective bargaining. (Para 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 15. failure to consider relevant matters tainted minister's decision. (Para 58 , 59) |
[1] The two appeals before us arose from separate judicial review proceedings filed at the High Court by the same Applicant (the Appellant here) against the same Respondents.The parties had agreed there that the outcome of application No R1-25-507-2010 would bind application No R1-25-111-2011 and accordingly a single decision had been issued by the learned review judge.
[2] Civil Appeal No W-01-44-02/2013 was in respect of the decision in R1-25-507-2010 while Civil Appeal No W-01-19-01/2013 arose from the decision in R-25-111-2011.Counsel for the parties at the outset informed us that the parties had similarly agreed amongst themselves that the outcome of Civil Appeal No W-01-19-01/2013 would follow our decision in Civil Appeal No: W-01-44-02/2013.However, having considered the material before us and the submissions of Counsel, we were of the view that the appeals merited separate assessment, not with standing that they had been heard together, both at the High Court and by us.
Background
[3] On 30 September 2008 the 2nd Respondent (also known as Association of Bank Officers Peninsular Malaysia and hereafter referred as ABOM) submitted to the Appellant (hereafter referred as 'the Bank') a 'claim for recognitions' under s 9(2) of the Industrial Relations Act , 1967 (IR Act).
[4] The class of workmen in respect of whom ABOM sought recognition to represent was specifically identified by ABOM as those in - 'Executive Scale E'.
[5] On 22 October 2008 ABOM informed the Director General of Industrial Relations (hereafter DGIR) that the Bank had refused to accord recognition as sought.
[6] Thereupon the DGIR pursuant to reg 4(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Regulations 1980 requested the Bank by letter of 17 March 2009 to submit a list of the workmen "in respect of whom the claim for recognition (is) made."
[7] The Bank in response, by letter of 14 April 2009 submitted to DGIR Borang B which listed out the particulars of their employees in Grade/Scale E and there was a total number of 211 employees identified by name in that Grade/Scale.
The Bank also requested the DGIR to carry out a membership check vis a vis ABOM's right to represent the said employees (GRADE/Scale E) by way of secret ballot.
[8] The DGIR wrote on 30 November 2009 to the Director General of Trade Union (hereafter DGTU) to do the needful to decide on the competency of ABOM to represent the class of employees in respect of whom recognition was being sought by ABOM (s 9(4B)(6) of IR Act).
[9] As it transpired however, the Bank agreed that ABOM was competent to represent employees in Grade E since previously ABOM had represented the same category of employees in the predecessor employer, AmBank Berhad.
The pertinent part of the Bank's letter of 11 January 2010 to DGIR in this respect was as follows:
"Untuk pengetahuan pihak t
