Collective Agreements Malaysia

June 3, 2019 On April 30, 2019, the National Union of Transport Equipment & Allied Industries Workers (NUTEAIW) signed the tenth collective agreement with Denso Malaysia, the largest automotive component manufacturer in Malaysia, which employs 1365 people. “This is an important moment because this is the tenth collective agreement over a thirty-year period. However, we observe a growing inequality over the same period, the share of labour in income per GDP remains low (35.2%). Therefore, the wealth of companies should be shared with workers.¬†Collective bargaining is the best way to achieve a cordial relationship between employers and workers. It is also an effective forum for agreeing on working and employment conditions. To achieve these objectives, labour relations systems in a country must provide a legal mechanism for the parties to negotiate collective agreements with a view to concluding a collective agreement. The ILO has adopted a Convention that provides a framework for member States to adopt laws that would facilitate such a mechanism. In this context, Malaysia has passed the Industrial Relations Act 1967, which provides, inter alia, for a collective bargaining mechanism. In this article, we discuss the extent of Malaysian workers` right to bargain collectively in the context of ILO standards. In this regard, we argue that, despite the available legal mechanism, which facilitates collective bargaining between the two parties, Malaysian workers and their unions find it difficult to negotiate with their employers. 31 Cf. Ozaki, M., “Labour relations in the public service: Method of determining employment conditions,” (1987) 126 International Labour Review 286.

Note in particular Ozaki`s definition of the civil service, a term that he says “applies to all levels of public administration (provinces and national premises) and encompasses public education, postal service and public health services, but excludes national railways and all other public enterprises or entities.” Note that the definition of “public service”, as given in a given country, is essential in determining the extent of the exclusion of public servants from collective bargaining in that country. Ozaki`s definition is broader than the ILO allows to exclude, as it is not limited to government officials employed in ministries, but also to employees in public education, post and public health. As we shall see, in Malaysia, the category of civil servants excluded from the scope of the IRA and implicitly from collective bargaining includes not only the workers defined by Ozaki in his definition, but also those whom he excluded; These are workers employed in companies and public bodies. The position in India seems to be aimed at Ozaki`s definition of the civil service, because IDA has placed all workers employed in a sector within its area of competence. The legal controversy surrounding the meaning of the notion of “industry” seems to relate to the status of civil servants employed in postal services, public education and public health. The situation seems to be that these categories of workers are excluded from the scope of IDA because the sectors in which they work cannot be defined as “industries”. 11 Cf. the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. See also Convention No.

154 on the Promotion of Collective Bargaining; the Convention was adopted in 1981. This Convention shall not be alongside Convention No. 98. The aim of its adoption was to encourage Member States to redouble their efforts to achieve the objectives that belonged to the old instruments of freedom of association. 53 Menteri Sumber Manusia v. Association of Bank Officers, Peninsular Malaysia (1999) 2 M.L.J. 337 states that workers in leadership positions collectively bargain unions composed exclusively of such workers. . . .