The Industrial Court upheld the existing provisions of the Collective Agreement while ensuring that parties maintain equitable terms, affirming the importance of financial capacity in deliberations.

JUDGMENT

[1]This case is about a trade dispute.

[2]The applicant Company is in the business of manufacturing specialised automotive metal-based components and modular assembly parts for cars. The manufacturing plant is located in Melaka.

[3]The 2^nd respondent is a trade union having the exclusive bargaining agent in respect of the categories of employees of the 1^st applicant Company.

[4]The Union entered into a first Collective Agreement (“1st CA”) with the applicant for the period from 1.4.2016 to 31.3.2019. Art 41(a) of the 1^st CA provides that it is to continue in force thereafter “until and unless superseded by a new collective Agreement or Award”.

[5]A trade dispute arose when the parties could not conclude a 2^nd Collective Agreement (“2nd CA”). The dispute was reported to the Director General of Industrial Relations. Unfortunately, the matter could not be resolved.

[6]The parties then made a joint request to the Minister of Human Resources (“the Minister”) and thereafter, the Minister, acting under s 26(1) Industrial Relations Act 1967 Court for adjudication and an award.

[7]The matter referred to by the Minister arose from the trade dispute in respect of Perjanjian Kolektif Ke-2 bagi tempoh 01.04.2019 hingga 31.03.2022 pertaining to the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the employees.

At the Industrial Court

[8]At the outset of the reference before the Industrial Court, the parties agreed to maintain the status quo of some of the articles in the 1^st CA.

[9]Only the remaining un-agreed articles that were in dispute were referred to the Industrial Court for the adjudication and award. The un-agreed articles proposed under the new 2^nd CA are as follows:

[10]After having heard the evidence, submissions of the parties and making a comparative analysis with other collective agreements in similar industries, the Industrial Court handed down the award, which can be summarised as follows:

Art 3: Recognition of Union and Security

[11]The dispute is in respect of the existing art 3(g) which provides that the Union Room shall be provided upon request and subject to availability for the Union’s legitimate use. The Union requested for the applicant company to provide a Union Room equipped with a notice board and sought to remove the phrase “subject to availability”.

[12]The Industrial Court decided to retain the status quo in the 1^st CA which provides that the applicant Company “shall provide a room upon request and subject to availability”.

Art 6: Scope of Agreement

[13]The Company proposed that art 6(f) be included and suggested that employees shall not be entitled to the benefits of the agreement if they resigned, are medically boarded out or are no longer in service. The Union, however, was of the view that it would be fair to grant the workers who have left the Company to be paid back wages.

[14]The Industrial Court decided that art 6(f) shall remain. However, only the medically boarded out shall remain in the scope of art 6(f). Hence, art 6(f) is to read:

Save for medically boarded out employees, those employees who had resigned or no longer in service prior to the signing of this Agreement shall not be entitled to the benefits arising from this Agreement.

Article 7 – Probation

[15]In respect of art 7 (b), the Union proposed an increment of RM50.00 as a confirmation increment. The applicant Company, however, wanted to confine itself in issuing the letter of appoint