Effect Of Collective Agreement In Malaysia
53 The case of Menteri Sumber Manusia v. Association of Bank Officers, Peninsular Malaysia (1999) 2 M.L.J. 337 states that workers employed in leadership positions collectively negotiate unions made up exclusively of workers of their species. However, the case also shows that the concept of „executive capacity1 is broad, contrary to the ILO`s position.” In this case, the promotion of bank receivers and auditors to the status of „internal official” removed them from the jurisdiction of membership of the National Union of Bank Employees and placed them in the team of an executive union. 11 See the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights in the Workplace. See also Convention 154 on the promotion of collective bargaining; Convention was adopted in 1981. This Convention does not enter into force under Convention 98. Its adoption was intended to encourage Member States to redouble their efforts to achieve the objectives of previous instruments of freedom of association. 12 See Paul Weiler, „Reconcilable Differences: New Directions in Canadian Labour Law,” Carswell Toronto, 1980, 25; John Pencavel, „The legal framework for collective bargaining in developing economies” (1996) at 10.
66 See the detailed observations of the expert committee on the application of conventions and recommendations in the Malaysia documents available from ILOLEX. However, the ILO committee seems to assume certain prerogatives (such as dismissal or transfer) and not others (for example. B the assignment of certain tasks). The report adds: „While a collective agreement would not normally deal with individual cases of transfer, dismissal and reinstatement, it should be possible, for example, to include general criteria and procedures applicable to these issues, as is often the case in collective agreements in many countries. The Committee urges the Government to amend the legislation to fully align paragraph 3 of Section 13 of the Convention. 31 See Ozaki, M., „Labour relations in the public service: Method of determining employment conditions,” (1987) 126 International Labour Review 286 . Note in particular the definition of Ozaki`s public service, a term that he says refers to „all levels of public administration (provincial and local national) and encompasses public education, postal and public health services, but excludes national railways and all other public enterprises or enterprises.” Note that the definition of „public service,” as it exists 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 what the ILO allows for exclusion, as it is not limited to government officials working in ministries, but also to public education, postal and public health staff.
As we shall see, in Malaysia, the category of public employees who are excluded from the IRA gelampe and implicitly from collective bargaining includes not only the workers listed by Ozaki in its definition, but also those whom he excluded; Workers employed in state-owned enterprises and enterprises. The position in India appears to be aimed at Ozaki`s definition of the public service, since IDA has placed all workers employed in an industry in its field of expertise. The judicial controversy over the meaning of the concept of „industry” appears to be over the status of public sector employees employed in post offices, public education services and public health. The position seems to be that these categories of workers are excluded from the scope of IDA, as the sectors in which they work cannot be defined as „industrial”. Collective bargaining is the best way to achieve a cordial relationship between employers and workers.