Saturday, October 07, 2017

Pekerja Menuntut Keadilan - cara berjuang di Mahkamah mesti diperbaiki? 'Statement of Case"..

Cara berjuang untuk hak asasi, termasuk hak pekerja, adalah penting - ada cara yang akan meninggikan kemungkinan akan berjaya...dan ada pula cara yang akan merendahkan kemungkinan berjaya...atau meningkatkan kemungkinan kalah. 

Perjuangan berlaku dalam beberapa arena - dan satu daripada arena ini adalah di Mahkamah. Tumpuan pos ini adalah cara perjuangan di Mahkamah...

Dalam kes pekerja, pekerja atau Union terbabit, biasa diwakili 'unionist'(wakil kesatuan) atau peguam. Malangnya, dari segi pengamal undang-undang, ada yang lebih arif dan pula yang kurang arif - justeru pemilihan pengamal guaman(wakil union atau peguam) adalah sangat penting.

Setengah pengamal guaman kurang arif - di mana satu daripada sebabnya adalah kekurangan pengetahuan atau kekurangan pembangunan kapasiti. Ada setengah, akan guna cara sama, untuk semua kes - di mana ini mungkin bukan cara terbaik dan tidak akan menambahkan kemungkinan berjaya...

Kini, kita akan melihat kes Zulfadlee, Presiden Union di syarikat Infineon di Melaka, di mana telah sebelum ini kempen untuk mencapai keadilan yang melibatkan beberapa kumpulan, yang bukan sahaja telah bermula dengan kenyataan media bersama tetapi banyak taktik lain termasuk juga cara lain... Post berikut ada memberikan sedikit latar belakang....(cari dalam blog ini untuk posting lain mengenai kes Infineon)

Kes pembuangan kerja ini telah berjaya dirujuk kepada Mahkamah Perusahaan - di mana pekerja dan majikan perlu mengemukakan mengemukakan beberapa kenyataan pendirian - yang akan menentukan perjalanan kes/bicara. Pekerja bermula dengan  'Statement of Case' , dan majikan menjawab dengan 'Statement of Defence', dan pekerja selepas itu ada peluang membalas pernyataan majikan dengan memfailkan "Rejoinder'..

STATEMENT OF CASE - apakah yang harus dimasukkan? Ini diinyatakan dengan jelas dalam Indusrtrial Court Rules, khususnya Rule --- di mana sebahagian daripada Rule ini adalah saperti di bawah ini...

Industrial Court Rules 1967, Rule 9(3) Such Statement of Case shall be confined to the issues which are included in the Case referred to the Court by the Minister or in the matter required to be determined by the Court under the provisions of the Act and shall contain-

(a) a statement of all relevant facts and arguments;
(b) particulars of decisions prayed for;
(c) an endorsement of the name of the first party and of his address for service; and
(d) as an appendix or attachment, a bundle of all relevant documents relating to the case.
Justeru, yang penting adalah bahawa Statementof Case (Pernyataan SOC) perlu memberikan fakta relevan...serta ARGUEMENT (khususnya mengapa pekerja mendakwa pembuangan kerja tersebut adalah salah...)

Fakta Relevan 
- Hakikat bahawa kes ini kini dibawa ke Mahkamah Perusahaan akibat rujukan Menteri berdasarkan peruntukkan Akta mana satu.
- Siapa majikan pekerja ini? Sejak bila? Bila pekerja menjadi pekerja tetap(regular) - untuk mereka yang mempunyai 'tempuh percubaan'....Perjanjian pekerjaan(biasanya terkandung dalam surat perlantikan bertarikh ....[In penting kerana hak pekerja juga terdapat dalam perjanjian perlantikan - iaitu kontrak/perjanjian antara pekerja dan majikan, jika ada perjanjian tambahan atau pindaan yang ditandatangani pekerja-majikan juga mungkin penting; jika ada 'tempuh percubaan', surat mengesahkan jadi pekerja tetap juga relevan.)
- Adakah terdapat dokumen khusus, mengenai salah-laku kerja atau perkara yang dikatakan pengingkaran kontrak  - adakah ini dipersetujui secara khusus melalui kontrak pekerjaan (atau Perjanjian Bersama), atau boleh dianggap telah diterima pekerja kerana tidak dibantah?? Kes Infineon Melaka, ada dokumen yang menyeneraikan salahlaku, serta expresed/implied breach of contract - justeru relevan, kerana ia juga akan digunakan dalam hujahan(arguement) mengapa pembuangan kerja itu salah.
- Bila tarikh sebenar pekerja dibuang secara salah oleh majikan? Pada tarikh tersebut, apakah jawatan dan gaji/elaun pekerja? Adakah pekerja seorang pekerja 'regular' atau tetap, (atau pekerja 'kontrak jangka pendek', atau pekerja masih dalam tempuh percubaan,...). 
- Adakah pekerja ahli kesatuan sekerja, jika ya, adakah terdapat 'Perjanjian Bersama' di antara kesatuan dan majikan, dan tarikh perjanjian bersama terkini [Mengapa penting - sebab perjanjian ini adalah juga asas hak sedia ada pekerja)
- Adakah pekerja itu Presiden atau pemegang jawatan dalam Union - ini penting sekali, jika satu daripada 'arguement' yang akan dikemukakan adalah beliau dibuang secara salah kerana beliau Presiden atau pemegang jawatan dalam Kesatuan.
-  Apakah 'salahlaku kerja' atau 'pengingkaran kontrak', yang telah secara salah digunakan untuk justifikasi pembuangan kerja.

Adakah perlu menyatakan tarikh surat tunjuk sebab, surat jawapan pekerja, ...hakikat ada 'Siasatan Dalaman'(Domestic Inquiry - DI)...hakikat bahawa pembuangan kerja dilakukan selepas DI? - TAK PERLU kerana biar majikan yang masukkan dalam Pernyataan jawapan Majikan nanti. Masukkan, jika, hanya jika, ia akan membantu kes pekerja...jika tidak, jangan. Undang-undang menyatakan bahawa majikan telah adakan 'due inquiry' - jadi biar majikan yang membuktikan. ini...

Adakah 'due inquiry' atau Siasatan Dalaman(Domestic Inquiry), sapertimana diperlukan oleh undang-undang dan keadilan telah berlaku? Justeru, pernyataan saperti bawah sangat memprejudiskan PEKERJA ...jangan buat...
"...Pursuant to the Domestic Enquiry held on 1.12.20 16, via letter dated 13.12.20 16, the Company instantly dismissed the service of .the Claimant effective 13.12.2016...."
MEMPREJUDISKAN pekerja - kerana gambaran adalah semua 'OK' - Majikan nampaknya lakukan apa yang perlu....tetapi jika DI ini sebenarnya bercanggah dengan keperluan undang-undang atau keperluan 'due inquiry' - jangan sekali terima bahawa 'DI' telah diadakan...sebab 'due inquiry' atau 'Domestic Inquiry' harus terus dicabar sebagai tak sah...justeru tak ada 'due inquiry' atau 'DI' sapertiman diperlukan undang-undang. Boleh katakan majikan mendakwa pembuangan kerja adalah berasas 'Doemstic Inquiry'(yang pekerja mendakwa bukan 'due inquiry atau DI yang sah)...Jangan lupa, jika pekerja 'ditipu' dengan 'janji palsu' ...misalnya mengaku sahaja dan tak apa akan berlaku kecuali mungkin 'amaran' tetapi tak ada pembuangan kerja atau denda..atau pengurangan gaji, dsb... Ini juga menjadikan 'due inquiry' dan/atau 'DI" tak sah...justeru pendirian harus diambil pekerja adalah bahawa tak ada pun 'due inquiry' atau 'DI' sapertimana diperlukan undang-undang dan keadilan...

Dalam kes Zulfadlee, apa yang didakwa adalah bahawa alasan utama mengapa majikan lakukan apa yang mereka buat adalah untuk melemahkan 'Union'...ia itu dengan membuang kerja Presiden Union...dan mengambil tindakan terhadap kepimpinan kesatuan. 

Justeru, menurut pendapat saya yang telah melihat dokumen berkaitan dan juga menghayati fakta kes sapertimana dimaklumkan kepada saya oleh Zulfadlee sendiri, ini mestilah merupakan HUJAHAN utama pekerja dalam kes sebegini...

Claimant avers that the dismissal was because the Company wanted to weaken the Trade Union, by dismissing the President of the Union, and also the commencement of disciplinary actions against about 6 other members of the Union leadership - not because of any 'misconduct' and/or expressed/implied breach of contract.

The Company's desire to weaken the Union, is connected with the upcoming negotiations towards the upcoming Collective Bargaining Agreement, where a weakened Union President and leadership will enable possibly a better Collective Bargaining Agreement in favour of the Employer.

One example that Union had been strong about, was the Company's desire to change the current 3-shift working arrangement into a 2-shift working arrangement. When Claimant was Union President, the union strongly opposed this move - which was also validated by union membership who voted against this proposal on ___, where the votes of members in favour of the Union stand was ____ and in favour of the Company's plan was ___

The timing of the wrongful dismissal of the Claimant, and the taking of disciplinary actions against the other Union leaders, supports the contention of the Claimant, given the fact that the discussions with regard the upcoming new Collective Bargaining Agreement just started on ___

Although, the law in Malaysia clearly states, that the Claimant continues in law to remain the Union President, and should be allowed to carry out his duties and responsibilities, the Company refused to abide by the law, which is also the Malaysian Law.

The Union, and also the Malaysian Trade Union Congress, which the Claimant''s Union is a member, wrote to the Company on this issue, but the Company was adamant in continuing to break the law, and keep the Claimant from carrying out his responsibilities, including entering the Union office, and/or participating in the Collective Bargaining Agreement discussions and other Union activities. The email send by the Claimant's Union is dated ____, and the company's response is dated ____. The MTUC email to the company was dated ____, and the Company's responses are dated ____ and ____. There are other documents that show the Company's position.

In line with the above, the Claimant contends that the wrongful dismissal was in fact, really an attempt to wrongfully get rid of the Union President and weaken the Union  - not because of any alleged misconduct and/or breach of contract.

Further, after the dismissal, the Company again tried to get the employees of the Company to agree to the 2-shift proposal - which weakened by the loss of the Claimant as Union President and the threats and/or actions against other Union leadership and also union members, resulted in ____

The imposition of the lightest punishment of 'warning' following a disciplinary action, according to the Company's own document means ...."... Normal warnings will affect annual performance appraisals and promotions that occur within a period of 12 months of their issue....3.5.5 Stern final warnings and other sterner disciplinary measures will affect annual performance appraisals and promotions throughout the entire duration of the employees' service with the Company.  ". 

Hence, it means a impact on of these employees and their rights - ' annual performance appraisals and promotions..', whereby now power is with the Company with regard to promotions and salary increments. 

This can impact directly on employees - a 'risk and reward' depending solely now on the discretion of the Company. This, when used against union leaders and other leaders will impact on their independence, their will to struggle for better rights and for respect of existing rights - hence weakening union and union members. Their future promotions, salary increments and possibly their bonuses will be impacted simply by the fact they have received a warning following a disciplinary action. This effectively is a denial of right to claim discrimination, and is in fact a discrimination contrary to law.
The commencement of, or threat of disciplinary actions against 6 other members of the Union Committee, resulting even in a warning will seriously impact of these union leaders, and their future actions which may be detriment to workers, and faourable to the Company's interest.
The impunity of the Company by wrongfully dismissing of the Claimant(President of the Union), coupled with the impunity of disobeying laws in Malaysia, that clearly state the Claimant continues to be President of Union, with the full right to carry out all his duties and responsibilities of the Union President, only affects(or weakens) the Union  and its members.

The wrongful dismissal of the claimant was linked to the fact that the Claimant and about 40 other members had participated in a

The wrongful dismissal of the  Claimant by the Company is allegedly in connection with the Claimant's and about 40 other employees in a attendance and participation at a '...Rally organised by the MTUC Selangor at Putrajaya...' on or about 18 October 2016.

The threat and/or disciplinary actions commenced against the Claimant and about 6 other members of the Union leadership/committee was also in connection with the same event. The Claimant was dismissed and the others were probably given a 'warning'

The Company by its silence after the 18 October event  until the issuance of a show cause letter dated 3 November 2016 (some 15 days after the 18 October Rally), is an acknowledgement that participation in such worker-union activities are not wrong, and can be said that it was acknowledgement and/or confirmation that there was no wrongdoing by the Claimant, certainly none that justifies termination.

The lack of action, including the lack of verbal comments, reprimands or communication by Company to the claimant until the said letter of 3 November 2016, indicates mala fide and an 'after thought' most likely to get rid the Union President(the Claimant).

The Claimant was on medical or sick leave on 18 October 2016, which was also a fact almost immediately within the knowledge of the Company, The Claimant was granted sick leave by the Company.

The selective targeting of the Claimant(the Union President) and members of the Union Committee is illegal and is contrary to law, including section 4 and 5 of the Industrial Relations Act 1987.

Note that no similar, and/or contemperaneous actions were taken by the Company against other employees on or about 3 November 2016 who participated in the Putrajaya program is evidence of wrogndoing and a breach of this law.

As such, the wrongful dismissal of the Claimant was further a breach of Malaysian Law, which may also be considered a 'union busting'.

The Claimant did not commit any misconduct and/or breach of contract, expressed or implied, as found in the then company's document entitled "Policy for Misconduct and Disciplinary", which clearly states that 'Misconduct is any act or omission which violates the employees' expressed or implied obligations to the Company'. The Company's own document provides clear list of all misconducts, including also implied breaches of contract. 

The allegation levied against the Claimant is 'committed the act of malingering which is an act of misconduct in breach of the express and / or implied terms and conditions of your employment contract....' , clearly is not in the list of misconducts of the Company.

As such, it is a violation of the rule of law, in particular the established legal principle of 'Nulla poena sine lege (Latin for "no penalty without a law"), which is a legal principle, requiring that one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law. Of relevance, the Company, being a German company, it must be noted that this principle also exist in Germany. Article 103 of the German basic law requires that an act may be punished only if it has already been punishable by law at the time it was committed.

The Claimant avers that the 'act of malingering', which then was not an existing misconduct of the Company, is in violation of the legal principle of 'Nulla poena sine lege", and hence a violation of the law - and as such wrong.

As such, the Claimant avers that this was a wrongful dismissal - as there is no justification for the Company to charge him with a misconduct, that never existed before, and certainly not agreed by both parties of the employment agreement, i.e. the Company and the Claimant.

The claimant avers that he was on valid paid sick leave, granted after Claimant was examined by a professional doctor from the Company's own panel clinic. If Claimant, was not deserving of the sick leave, no competent doctor will issue a 'Sick Leave'. On 19 October 2016, since Claimant's condition had not improved, the Claimant went to a Specialist doctor, also a panel Clinic of the Company, who gave him further 'Sick Leave' for 3 more days. A test also revealed that he  had a real medical problem. The said sick leaves and medical report is attached.

If 'due inquiry' had been contacted by the Company, all these facts will certainly be known by the Company, and as such the act of dismissal is without just cause.

There is no listed things that an Employee of the Company can or cannot do whilst on sick leave. Therefore, the allegation of a misconduct of an employee whilst on Sick Leave is also wrong.

By reason of the wrongful actions, including the wrongful denial of the Claimant's obligation to carry out his duties and obligation of Union President, since his termination as President of the Union, the Company managed to get rid of a strong Union leader, whereby despite the ability to get over 500 votes, he was defeated at a recent election by one of the other Union leader who managed to secure about 900 votes. 

Further, even if the alleged misconduct(which it was not) was proven by the Company, the punishment of dismissal was unjust and unreasonable, considering also the long service and unblemished record of the Claimant. At most, even if the Claimant did commit the alleged misconduct(which it was not), the more reasonable would have been mere reprimand - not even a warning. But legally and reasonably one cannot be punished for something which was not even an agreed misconduct.

STATEMENT OF CASE seorang pekerja menjadi mangsa mestilah JELAS dan terus merujukkan kepada HUJAHAN(Arguement) utama mengapa pekerja mendakwa pembuangan kerja secara salah... 

Selepas menerima Statement of Case, majikan akan membalas merujuk kepada pernyataan dan hujahan pekerja - Jika majikan tak setuju, majikan kena balas dengan hujahan dan fakta perlu...Justeru, pekerja dapat tahu secara pasti, apakah yang Majikan akan gunakan sebagai balasan semasa perjalanan bicara.

STATEMENT OF CASE yang tidak disediakan dengan betul akan memprejudiskan pekerja. Mahkamah dan Majikan akan hilang fokus dan HUJAHAN utama mungkin terpinggir atau tidak dapat perhatian perlu semasa bicara...

YA - Mahkamah, sebelum mula bgicara, akan  membaca Pernyataan Pekerja ...dan seterusnya pernyataan majikan ...dan juga jawapan pekerja kepada pernyataan majikan(Rejoinder). 

Bahaya, jika semua hujahan perlu tidak dinyatakan dalam 'Statement of Case' kerana REJOINDER adalah balasan kepada pernyataan majikan - bukan untuk tambah hujahan baru. Justeru semua hujahan perlu MESTI dibentangkan dalam Statement of Case.

Aturan hujahan dalam Statement of Case juga sangat penting - hujahan paling kuat hujahan pertama....

Dalam kes Zulfadlee, silap besar mahu cuba buktikan bahawa tuduhan yang dilemparkan majikan telah dinafikan ...Mengapa perlu? Kerana pendiriannya sewajarnya adalah bahawa permulaan  tindakan disiplin dan pembuangan kerja sebenarnya adalah untuk mengeluarkan Presiden Union ...serta juga menakutkan dan/atau melemahkan union.

Kedua - 'Act of Malingering' bukan juga satu kesalahan kerja yang tersenarai atau wujud sebelum itu - Justeru, kenapa mahu layan tuduhan yang 'illegal' itu...? Adalkah bodoh membela diri bila tuduhan TAK SAH dilemparkan oleh majikan. 

 Tindakan cuba membela diri apabila berdepan dengan TUDUHAN TAK SAH - mungkin secara salalh memberi gambaran bahawa pekerja terima bahawa tuduhan ini adalah sah? Jika tuduhan TAK SAH - buktikan saja bahawa tuduhan ini tak sah. Jangan membela diri bila hadapi tuduhan TAK SAH. ..

 MENGAPA ANDA KATAKAN PEMBUANGAN KERJA ITU SALAH...hujahan(arguement) utama mesti menjadi fokus...

 Jika peguam atau wakil peguam, tidak diberikan arahan tepat mengapa dan apa berlaku, kesilapan boleh dilakukan oleh peguam dan/atau wakil union bila menyediakan 'Statement of Case'...Silap siapa? Silap peguam/wakil union atau kesilapan pekerja mangsa?

WAKIL UNION ATAU PEGUAM 

- mereka adalah hanya 'wakil pekerja' - dan pekerja perlu bincang dan menjelaskan betul apa yang berlaku, dan mengapa...

Kalau, lantik wakil atau peguam, dan biarkan mereka buat sendiri 'Statement of Case', tanpa perbincangan dan diskusi dengan mangsa...banyak yang penting mungkin tertinggal...silap siapa? Bukan silap peguam atau wakil union, kerana wakil hanya  'ikut arahan' pekerja yang menuntut. Jika pekerja malas...kesian bila yang salah difailkan...kesian jika hujahan salah dibuat...kesian jika hujahan(arguement) salah menjadi fokus semasa bicara.

...Wakil Union atau Peguam - ada yang baik...ada yang kurang baik. Justeru, pekerja/union perlu memilih dengan bijak...[Jika pilih salah, jangan pula menuduh wakil union atau peguam...ini kesilapan pekerja yang kena buang kerja.]

....Wakil Union atau Peguam, mungkin sudah lama atau telah ambil banyak kes...tetapi kadang-kadang mereka tidak bertambah baik dengan masa...kesilapan dulu terus dibuat
Mengapa? Mungkin peguam/wakil union itu pun tidak tahu kesilapan diri...kerana tak ada yang menegur...atau tak berminat mahu berubah...

Ini masalah juga dikalangan banyak peguam. Kini Majlis Peguam memerlukan kursus dan ceramah yang memberikan pengetahuan baru...dan skil baru dengan harapan mutu guaman akan bertambah...

...Masalah dengan 'wakil union' - ramai juga tak ada asas undang-undang...mereka pun tidak ada diploma atau sijil undang-undang. Mereka mungkin belajar dari ikut 'senior'(yang mungkin juga tak ada kelayakkan undang-undang) atau kurang arif. Setengah wakil union akan gigih mendapatkan pengetahuan baru...tetapi setengah akan tidak berkembang dari segi skil dan pengetahuan...

Banyak penghakiman kes pekerja di Mahkamah Perusahaan telah saya teliti...dan banyak kes yang pihak pekerja/union kalah kemungkinan besar silap peguam atau wakil union. 

STATEMENT OF CASE adalah tindakan pertama dalam perjuangan mendapatkan keadilan - ianya mestilah disediakan dengan baik...Jawapan dalam Pernayataan pihak majikan, adalah jawapan majikan menafikan 'hujahan'(arguement) pekerja ... REJOINDER digunakan untuk hujahan balas kepada jawapan majikan ...jika perlu. REJOINDER bukan masanya membuat 'hujahan baru' - kerana jika hujahan baru...majikan selepas itu tak perlu pun balas, dan pekerja yang rugi kerana tak tahu secara pasti apa jawapan majikan nanti dalam bicara...

STATEMENT OF CASE akan menentukan fokus Mahkamah - jangan mengelirukan Mahkamah, atau menarik tumpuan Mahkamah kepada pekara yang bukan hujahan utama mengapa pekerja mendakwa majikan buang kerja pekerja secara salah.

Ini adalah pendapat peribadi saya, dan catatan cadangan kandungan 'Statement of Case' hanya secara kasar saja...

**Saya gunakan bahasa biasa...bukan sangat bahasa 'guaman'...supaya pembaca akan lebih mudah faham maksud posting ini, yang juga bertujuan menyedarkan pekerja/union yang bakal jadi mangsa ketidakadilan majikan akan datang....supaya pada masa akan depan, kesilapan sama tidak diulangi...dan peluang berjaya mencapai keadilan akan jadi lebih baik...
















at

No comments:

Post a Comment