The human resources minister says it's illegal to disrupt work environment to protest against amendments to Employment Act 1955.
“If they picket during working hours, it would be illegal and action can be taken against them by their employers for disrupting the working environment,” said Subramaniam.
“However, if workers decided to hold a peaceful gathering outside of the work place or during lunch hour, it is their fundamental right.
“A strike or picket can only be done on a trade dispute. If they picket on this particular issue, it would be against the Industrial Relations Act 1967,” added Subramaniam.
Asked what sort of action an employer can take against employees who picket and disrupt work, he said it was up to the employer to decide.
He urged parties to make “rational decisions” and refrain from protesting, referring to the planned nationwide protest by Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC) on Thursday.
“This issue has been falsely interpreted and manipulated and I want the people to decide who is right and who is wrong,” he said.
Subramaniam said the original term “sub-contractor for labour” was amended to “contractor for labour” to widen the definition of the word, and that it was not a new idea.
“It was done to protect workers’ welfare. This new provision was suggested so as to encourage contractors to be registered with the director-general of labour.
“This will enable the ministry to monitor workers who are being employed. If there is any mistreatment of workers, swift action can be taken against the contractor,” he said.
He said the National Union of Plantation Workers (NUPW) had, in 1997, suggested at the International Labour Organisation-Asia Pacific Regional seminar in New Delhi that contractors be licensed and registered.
“That was a good suggestion and only with this can there be more transparency in managing the system and facilitating enforcement to safeguard the rights of workers.
“The suggestion came from the unions themselves, the NUPW, and I don’t understand why the same people from the unions, MTUC, want to picket over this,” said Subramaniam.
“India has enacted the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 to enable authorities to list the types of work that can’t be contracted to contractors. Employment must be direct through the employer.
“Through this, India managed to control the activities of contract labour and only those works that are temporary and seasonal are allowed (which are not the core business of the employer),” added Subramaniam.
A ‘return to slavery’
He said similarly, in Malaysia, the ministry, through Section 2A of the act, can amend the specific regulations to list down the types of work that will not be allowed through a contractor for labour to ensure workers are not manipulated by any party.
Subramaniam assured workers that they will not be banned for joining unions.
“Workers employed to contractors for labour can take part in unions but they are still bound by their collective agreements with their employers and their unions,” he said.
He cited the collective agreement between the Malayan Agricultural Producers Association (Mapa) and NUPW, which was created for workers provided for by contractors for labour.
“This same method can be employed in other sectors as well,” said Subramaniam.
He stressed that the amendment was “a transformation of management that will not affect the security of tenure, will not promote contractors for labour, or prevent the movement of trade unions in this country”.
Subramaniam added that other beneficial amendments to the act included payments of salary directly through banks, Hari Malaysia as a compulsory holiday, a procedure to complain about sexual harassments and maternity benefits for workers of any pay scale.
The revisions to the Employment Act were passed by the Dewan Rakyat on Oct 3 despite widespread protests. It has been termed as a “return to slavery” by some unions.
MTUC, which comprises 390 of the 692 labour unions with 802,323 members, is against amending the term “sub-contractor for labour” to “contractor for labour” under Section 2 of the Act, saying that it would not protect the rights of contract labourers.
The union is unhappy that under the proposed revisions, the rights of contract and part-time workers will not be protected.
Also, agencies supplying workers to a third party under “contractor for labour” would become employers of the workers and workers will not have job security as they would be under the contractor’s payroll and not be under the main employer.
The union is also unhappy that workers under contract for labour cannot be organised into unions. The proposed Bill still needs to be passed by the senate and receive royal assent, before it becomes law.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.