Judicial review does not substitute the decision of inferior authorities unless proven to be illegal, irrational, or procedurally improper.

Introduction

[1] This is a judicial review application dated 13 July 2022 by the Applicant to obtain an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the 1st Respondent vide Form F dated 12 April 2022 ("Said Decision") in according recognition to the 2nd Respondent ("Union").

[2] The Applicant prayed for the following:

"(i) an order of certiorari to quash the entire decision of the 1st Respondent (i.e. the Director General of Industrial Relations, Department of Industrial Relations) which accorded recognition to the 2nd Respondent (i.e. the National Union of Transport Equipment and Allied Industries Workers), by way of Form F dated 12 April 2022 which was attached with a letter dated 15 April 2022;

(ii) a declaration that the secret ballot held on 14 December 2021 and / or the results of the secret ballot held on 14 December 2021 is defective, invalid and void;

(iii) a declaration that the Union does not have the support of the majority of the Applicant's employees and the claim for recognition of the Union through Form A dated 12 March 2021 is mala fide, without merit and void; and

(iv) an order that all further proceedings to enforce and / or execute the Said Decision of the 1st Respondent through Form F dated 12 April 2022 be stayed pending the final decision of this Court on the substantive application."

[3] With regards to prayer (iv) above, I granted a stay on 29 August 2022. On 1 March 2023, 1 dismissed the judicial review application. Here are the grounds of my decision.

Background Facts

[4] The Union made a claim for recognition against the Applicant through Form A dated 12 December 2018 under s 9(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("Industrial Relations Act") to represent all the employees employed by the Applicant except those in the executive, management, confidential and security capacities. However, the Union did not receive any reply to the claim from the Applicant. Vide a letter dated 3 January 2019 which was received by the 1st Respondent on 8 January 2019, the Union reported that no reply was received from the Applicant in respect of the claim for recognition and requested that the 1st Respondent take further action.

[5]vide a letter dated 30 January 2019, the 1st Respondent requested the Director General of Trade Union ("DGTU") to determine the qualification or competence of the Union to represent all salaried employees of the Applicant except those in the executive, management, confidential and security capacities. Vide a letter dated 5 April 2019, the DGTU informed the 1st Respondent that the activities of the Applicant fall within the membership scope of the Union.

[6] By a letter dated 17 April 2019, the 1st Respondent requested that the Applicant submit a list of information of all employees employed by the Applicant as at 12 December 2018 excluding employees in the executive, management, confidential and security capacities through Form B. On 23 May 2019, the 1st Respondent received Form B dated 14 May 2019 from the Applicant in relation to the list of all employees employed by the Applicant as at 12 December 2018 (i.e. the date of the claim for recognition) excluding the employees in the executive, management, confidential and security capacities.

[7]vide a letter dated 14 June 2019, the 1st Respondent informed the Director of the Penang Industrial Relations Department ("DIRD") to implement the appropriate measures in relation to the claim of recognition by the Union against the Applicant. Vide a letter dated 3 July 2019, the Penang Industrial Relations Department requested the Applicant and the Union to attend a conciliation meeting on 19 July 2019