The court emphasized the union's burden of proof in salary adjustment disputes, ruling that existing provisions were justified and reasonable based on financial capacity and CPI considerations.

Jeyaseelan T Anthony:

Reference

[1] This is a reference dated 11 January 2023 by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources, Malaysia pursuant to s 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (hereinafter referred to as " IRA 1967") arising out of a trade dispute between the GS Yuasa Battery Malaysia Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") and Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Perusahaan Letrik (hereinafter referred to as "the Union") relating to the 13th Collective Agreement (CA) for the period from 1 March 2022 to 28 February 2025.

Background

[2] This is a reference under s 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') dated 11 January 2023 arose out of a trade dispute between the Union and the Company over the 13 th Collective Agreement (CA) for the period of 1 March 2022 to 28 February 2025.

[3] At the outset of the hearing of this matter on the 23 October 2023, learned counsel for the Union informed this Court that out of the nine (9) disputed Articles as pleaded in their Statement of Reply dated 31 May 2023, a total of five (5) Articles have been agreed by the parties. The agreed Articles are as follows:

1. Article 3

2. Article 15

3. Article 20

4. Article 28

5. Article 39

[4] There are four (4) remaining Articles which are disputed by the parties which requires the Court 's consideration and determination. The disputed Articles are as follows:

1. Article 22 - Medical Attention & Hospitalization

2. Article 24- Retirement/Termination Benefits

3. Article 40- Salary adjustment & Implementation

4. Salary Schedule (Appendix II)

The Role Of The Court In Trade Disputes

[5] In assessing and determining the competing claims of both parties with regards to this trade dispute, this Court is mindful of the words of the former Learned President of this Court , YA Tuan Yussof Ahmad in the case of Gardenia Bakeries (KL) Sdn Bhd v. Kesatuan Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan ; [2003] 2 ILR 93 at p 100 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."

[6] Further, it is trite that the Court in deciding whether to grant a 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 exiting wages and salaries were last revised.

c. The financial capacity of the employer to pay the increase.

d. The legitimate desire of the employer to make a reasonable profit.

[7] It has also been decided that the quantum of salary revision should follow the formula as propounded by the former President of this Court , the late Justice Harun Hashim (as he was then) in Malayan Commercial Banks' Association v. National Union of Bank Employees ; [1982] 2 ILR 288a, where His Lordship had this to say:

"We are of the view that salary increases based on the CPI should be an exercise of looking back to see whether salaries determined three years ago have been in any way affected by the CPI of to-day. The general practice is not to match the full extent of the increase in the CPI. In some countries the amount of increase allowed is 60%. In this country, we think, the general rule should be that salary increases based purely on the increase in the CPI should not be less than 60% or more than 2/3 of the average increase of the CPI over the previous three-year period."

The Financial Capacity Of The