AWARD

1. This is a complaint of non-compliance by one Encik Chegne Keong Chye (hereinafter referred to as "the Complainant") with Article 40 of the collective agreement entered into between Fraser & Neave (M) Sdn.Bhd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") and the National Union of Drink Manufacturing Industry Workers (hereinafter referred to as "the Union") on 1st January 1982. That collective agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement") was taken cognisance of by the Court vide Cognizancs No.3/83.

2. The Complainant was first employed by the Company on 15th May, 1951. He retired from the service of the Company as a Factory Superintendent on 30th November, 1983 and, upon his retirement, was paid a sum of $16,000/- as retirement benefits. His complaint is that, according to Article 40 of the Agreement, he should get a sum of $69,774.00 for his 32 years of service with the Company. The relevant portion of Article 40 of the Agreement reads as follows :-

VI. Retirement benefits shall be calculated on the basis follows:

YEARS OF SERVICES		BENEFIT
Below 5 years	-	Nil
5 yrs - 10 yrs	-	10 days' basic wage based on his last drawn salary for each completed year of service or proportionate thereof for any incompleted year
10 yrs - 15 yrs	-	15 days' basic wage based on his last drawn salary for each completed year of service or proportionate thereof for any incompleted year
15 yrs - 20 yrs	-	20 days' basic wage based on his last drawn salary for each completed year of service or proportionate thereof for any incompleted year
20 yrs and above	-	25 days' basic wage based on his last drawn salary for each completed year of service or proportionate thereof for any incompleted year

VII. For the purpose of this Article, basic wage shall be exclusive of all overtime, travelling transport and meal allowance or any other allowances or payment additional to the basic salary for any subscription (description) whatsoever,

3. The Company disp ted the Complainant's claim. Its contention was that he was a Senior Local Staff and as such, his employment came under the terms and conditions of employment for Senior Local Staff and the provisions of the Agreement did not apply to him. The Company further contended that all Contract Staff, Senior Local Staff and Supervisory Staff were eligible to join the Fraser & Neave Ltd. Malaysian Employees Provident Fund (hereinafter referred to as "SPF" Staff Provident Fund) and the rates of contributions were initially 10% employer and 10% employee to the Fund, inclusive of the statutory contribution to the Employees Provident Fund. However, when the EPF rates increased to 11%, the Company ceased to contribute to the SPF. In addition to the SPF, Senior Local Staff were given retirement benefits calculated as follows :-

For services up to 30 November 1980	-	1/4 of last drawn salary x years of service
Service from 1 December 1980	-	12 1/2% of total basic salary minus Company's contribution to EPF

Upon his retirement, the Company said that the Complainant bas been paid from the Staff Provident Fund a sum of $172,453,97 and a retirement benefit of $16,000.00, a total of $188,453.97. And, if an award were made in favour of the Complainant, he would be getting double benefits. This, the Company submitted, was not equitable. But the Complainant argued that, being a workman, he was, by virtue of Section 17 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") within the ambit of the Agreement and as such, he was entitlsd to retirement benefit under Section 40 thereof. He then referred us to the case of Sumiputeh Steel Centre Sdn.Bhd. vs. Metal Industry Employees' Union (Award No.277/84).

4. In the case of Sumiputeh Steel Centre, the Company and the Union jointly deposited their collective agreement with the Court for cognisance. Before the Court took cognisance of their collective agreement, it required the parties to amend the provisions in respect of (a) Article 2 Scope of Agreement; and (b) Article 3 - Duration,