I CARE: 1 more TAX for the poor!!

22 Mar 2012, Balakong

Dr. Kumar gave an explanation about government’s 1 Care to a group of PSM members at  the Pustaka Kiri. Though lot of read in the media about 1 Care, his explanation made more sense in the both social and economic impact on the masses especially the poor and private sector doctors as well as the ideological dimension.

In a glance I CARE looks good, take a second look and one might fear on the honesty of the assigned doctors whether his interest his to get more allocation from NHFA or the health of the patient. If we take a deeper look, then one would understand how the government plans to create monopoly – all money, about 30 million would be given away to one company or agency called NHFA – can we trust their efficiency …hmm hmmm!!!

At the end, quality of health system would be jeopardized and the masses had to pay one more tax under I CARE after GST that is sure to come if BN wins in the next election. Already the masses are suffering, why the government keep burdening them with all these taxes. If only the government is not corrupted and that don’t waste money on arm deals and other wasteful  projects,  they could provide free health care to the public, said Kumar.

Annual Survey of violations of trade union rights: 2007

Malaysia

Population: 25 300 000
Capital: Kuala Lumpur
ILO Core Conventions Ratified: 29 – 98 – 100 – 138 – 182 – (105 – denounced)

Employers consistently refused to recognise trade unions, exploiting a requirement in the labour law, and workers regularly faced years of delays waiting for the government and courts to rule on union recognition and reinstatement of workers fired for union activity. The ban on the formation of industrial unions in the ‘pioneer’ electronics sector, and other extensive restrictions on union rights remained unchanged. Protests by migrant workers were attacked.

Trade union rights in law

The law recognises the right of most workers to form and join trade unions, although the procedure for obtaining union recognition is lengthy and cumbersome. Furthermore, the 1959 Trade Unions Act and the 1967 Industrial Relations Act (IRA), as well as subsequent amendments, place extensive restrictions on freedom of association. The ILO Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) has found that many provisions of the Trade Unions Act violate the principles of freedom of association, and has decried the fact that, despite unambiguous recommendations made to the government (in this and other similar cases filed in the past 15 years), to amend the law, no such action has been taken.

Other laws not directly related to labour issues also place restrictions on freedom of association. For example, the Malaysian Penal Code requires police permission for public gatherings of more than five people.

Many restrictions on union formation, wide discretion in de-registering unions: The Director General of Trade Unions (DGTU) has the power to supervise and inspect trade unions, can refuse to register a trade union without giving any reason for the refusal, and can withdraw registration. Unions which do not register, or whose registration has been denied or withdrawn, are considered illegal organisations. The DGTU is given very broad discretion in deciding these matters. For example, a union’s registration can be withdrawn if the DGTU ‘is of the opinion’ that the union is “likely to be used for unlawful purposes”. The DGTU may also deregister a union if he finds that two or more registered trade unions exist in a “particular establishment, trade, occupation or industry”. The DGTU has the authority to suspend a branch of a trade union if he “is satisfied” that the branch has contravened any part of the Act or the rules of the union. The Minister of Human Resources may also suspend a trade union for up to six months in the interests of national security or public order.

The DGTU can specify the category in which a union would be permitted to organise. He must also give his approval before a trade union is permitted to join an international organisation. Section 9 of the Trade Unions Act limits trade union membership to workers in similar trades and has allowed the DGTU to promote in-house, enterprise-level unions. This has served to keep the labour movement small and fragmented.

Restrictions on union officers: Membership of a trade union executive committee is reserved for citizens of Malaysia, who must have worked for at least one year in the establishment, trade, occupation or industry with which the trade union is connected. They cannot hold a position in a political party, nor can they work as an employee of a political party.

Banned from organising: The law prohibits industrial unions from organising employees in managerial and executive positions, or those entrusted with “confidential” matters or performing security-related tasks. This definition is extensively abused by most employers to deny union membership rights and often to demand the removal of experienced union leaders. The government does not allow national unions in the electronics industry, the country’s largest sector, only in-house ones.

General unions are prohibited and mergers between unions in different professional sectors are practically impossible.

Requirement of union to receive recognition from employer: Section 9 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1967 provides that a trade union must apply for recognition from the employer, who then has the discretion to recognise the union, deny recognition, or appeal to the Director General for a ruling on whether the members of the union are, in fact, really members. This provision is systematically abused by employers to delay union recognition and thwart efforts by unions to organise and collectively bargain.

Prohibition on migrant workers forming or leading trade unions: Migrant workers are prevented by law from organising or applying to register a trade union, and are barred from serving as officers of the trade union. Given the ever increasing percentage of the Malaysian workforce which is comprised of migrants, this prohibition strips union rights from a significant section of Malaysia’s workers. <<

The public sector: Trade unions in the public sector are permitted to organise unions per ministry, department, profession or activity, as well as to join federations. Employees in statutory bodies (such as ports and the Employees’ Provident Fund) are only authorised to join internal trade unions, which, in turn, may join the Civil Service Federation and the national trade union centre. Employees working for the defence sector, police force or prisons do not have the right to form or join trade unions.

Restrictions on the right to strike: The right to strike is not specifically recognised, and legislative restrictions make it practically impossible for workers to hold a legal strike. Trade unions are not allowed to go on strike for disputes relating to trade union registration or illegal sackings. General strikes and sympathy strikes are not permitted either.

Penalties for executive committee members of a union that engage in an illegal strike include fines and imprisonment for up to one year. Rank and file workers who engage in an illegal strike are considered by the government to be automatically stripped of their union membership, and cannot join another trade union in the future without the written approval of the DGTU.

Pre-strike authorisation procedures are cumbersome. Two thirds of the members of a trade union must vote in favour of a strike in a secret ballot and the ballot must include a resolution that states “the nature of the acts to be carried out or to be avoided during the strike”. The results of the ballot are passed to the DGTU for verification. Once all procedures have been complied with, a seven-day cooling off period is imposed. During the cooling off period, the Ministry of Human Resources’ Industrial Relations Department can attempt conciliation and, if this fails, refer the dispute to the Industrial Court. While the dispute is before the Industrial Court, strikes and lockouts are prohibited.

Trade unions in “essential services” face additional restrictions on their right to strike, including the requirement to give at least 21 days’ strike notice. Essential services are very broadly defined, but include health care, education and transportation.

It is almost impossible to strike in the public sector.

Restrictions on political activities by trade unions: Trade unions are not permitted to use their assets for political purposes, which are defined as an indirect or direct payment to a political party or “in furtherance of any political object.” This is widely defined to include not only support for candidates, but also holding of political meetings, and distribution of political literature or documents of any kind.

Prior approval needed for international affiliation: Section 76a of the Trade Union Act requires that trade unions seek prior permission from the DGTU before affiliating with any “consultative body…established outside of Malaysia” and that consideration of that application will be subject to whatever conditions the DGTU sees fit to impose.

Restrictions on collective bargaining… In the private sector: The Industrial Relations Act excludes hiring and firing, transfer and promotion, dismissal and reinstatement from the scope of collective bargaining. This provision allows employers to get rid of union activists with impunity, and thus serves to intimidate other workers into leaving the union. The IRA also limits collective bargaining in “pioneer” companies. The electronics industry, among others, still has this status. Since 1994, the government has claimed that measures were being taken to repeal this provision, but nothing has been done so far.

… In the public sector: In the public sector, the joint council system limits public sector unions to a consultative role where their only power is to “express their point of view” on principles regarding wages and working conditions. Trade unions do not have the right to take their disputes to the industrial court without the specific permission of the King of Malaysia.

The ever present threat of the Internal Security Act (ISA): Under the Act, any person suspected of threatening national security may be detained by the police for up to 60 days without trial, a period during which the person is held incommunicado, with no access to lawyers or to family members. After this initial 60 day detention period, a two year detention order may be issued with the Home Minister’s approval. The detention order is renewable indefinitely. Trade union leaders have been repeatedly threatened in the past with this draconian law.

Application of Employment Act limited to peninsular Malaysia: While the other labour laws apply to the Sabah and Sarawak, the Employment Act which regulates employment, contracts, termination, and minimum standards and conditions of work does not. These two Eastern States of Malaysia have their own State Labour Ordinances on wages and other terms and conditions of work.

Trade union rights in practice

Government interference: Only about 8 per cent of the total workforce is unionised. Unions try to maintain independence from both the government and political parties, but government control is pervasive, even extending to the internal affairs of a union.

Ban on general confederations: Owing to the ban on forming general confederations of trade unions, the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC), which covers both private and public sectors and has 500,000 members, is not recognised as a trade union confederation in law. Instead, the MTUC is registered under the Societies Act, and therefore does not have the right to conclude collective bargaining agreements, nor to undertake industrial action, but provides technical support to affiliated members.

Union recognition extremely slow: Obtaining a response from an employer to a request for union recognition should take a maximum of 21 days. However, in reality this takes much longer if a dispute occurs, as it gets taken to the Director General of Industrial Relations (DGIR), the DGTU, then to the Minister of Human Resources, who has the final say, unless that is challenged in the High Court. The High Court is fairly limited, in practice, in its ability to overturn a previous decision. It is not uncommon for recognition claims to take between 18 and 36 months to settle, particularly if a dispute develops. The President of the MTUC noted that some applications are taking as long as three to five years.

Arbitrary refusal of union recognition by Director-General of Trade Unions: In a complaint to the ILO lodged in September 2003, the MTUC listed cases over the previous 36 months in which the DGTU had arbitrarily denied organisational and collective bargaining rights to more than 8,000 workers in the manufacturing companies. At the end of 2006, the MTUC had listed many cases in which the DGTU had refused union recognition.

Employers impose extra restrictions: Employers tend to take advantage of the legal limitations on who can organise to prevent as many people as possible from joining a union. Employers often interpret the managerial and executive category to include supervisors, assistant supervisors, section leaders and lower level supervisory personnel. There has also been a tendency to consider all workers in information technology as being in the “confidential” category, which effectively prevents them from joining the same trade union as the rest of employees. In this manner, employers are able to maintain a series of small-sized, and therefore weaker, trade unions.

Inefficient labour courts: So far, the government has failed to apply any sanctions against employers who have opposed its directives granting trade union recognition or who have refused to comply with industrial court orders to reinstate illegally dismissed workers. In some cases, companies have changed their name or ceased to exist during the court case. At the end of 2005, information from the Industrial Court indicated that there were still 3652 cases in the court that were pending. At the end of 2006 the MTUC President condemned the fact that a significant number of cases filed with the Government in 2003 had still not been referred to the Industrial Court. Furthermore, in other cases, no award handed was down as long as 12 months after completion of the case.

Migrant workers intimidated to not join trade unions: There are approximately 2.5 to 3 million migrant workers in Malaysia, 1.8 million of whom are documented. However, notices on work permits state that workers who are not Malaysian nationals are not allowed to join associations. Most migrant workers, who come from all over South East Asia and South Asia, work long hours, for very low pay, if any, and are often subject to verbal and physical abuse. The MTUC continually called for migrant workers to be given full rights to associate and form labour unions, and continued to advocate for that right. The system for registering migrant workers also discourages workers from asserting their rights because it grants total discretion to employers to terminate workers for virtually any reason.

Police intimidation: Intimidation and obstruction by police at legally conducted, peaceful pickets has become common. The MTUC has been called in on several occasions to seek the intervention of the Inspector General of Police.

Increasing anti-union activity: There has been increasing union-busting activity in recent years. Notably, the MTUC claimed that former officers of the Department of Trade Unions and the Department of Industrial Relations had been involved in obtaining information, from serving officers, on unions involved in recognition claims and collective bargaining. They then approached the employers with an offer to remove the union, and advice on how to prolong the settlement process.

Employers’ challenges to Ministerial orders for recognition of trade unions were often encountered, and numerous cases were pending at the High Courts and Courts of Appeal. The MTUC noted that anti-union employers, including multinational companies, are increasingly choosing this path in order to evade union recognition for five to seven years.

Violations in 2006

Background: In November, the government announced its plan to revise the Employment Act in 2008, ostensibly to provide additional flexibility to employers to retrench workers and to encourage greater foreign investment.

Violent police attacks on union-led rallies: A peaceful protest against government fuel price hikes organised by the MTUC on 26 March in Kuala Lumpur city centre was violently suppressed by the police. A total of 22 protesters, including two minor girls were arrested. Police used batons, dogs, water cannon and mounted police to violently disperse the crowd. Police declared the protest illegal despite being informed of the protest in advance by written letter from the MTUC.

The next day, 27 March, a protest march of 500 members of the MTUC and allied civil society organisations was prevented by the police from presenting a petition protesting the fuel hike to the Prime Minister.

In an incident that became later popularly known as “Bloody Sunday”, another anti-fuel hike protest in the city centre was violently suppressed by police on 28 May. Police again used excessive force against the protesters, which included labour leaders, and caused a number of serious injuries. A total of 20 protesters were also arrested.

Retaliating against union leaders at Universal Cable Berhad: On 19 September, the management of Universal Cable called in local police who arrested nine workers based on company allegations that the workers were involved in stealing company property. In fact, the nine workers were all leading members of the plant-level Electrical Industry Workers Union, and had been playing key roles in organising union activities and pressing workers demands. At year end, a union appeal to the Labour Department was still under consideration.

Six years on at Kaneka – and the union is still not recognised: In 2006 the DGTU turned down a recognition claim by the National Union of Petroleum and Chemical Industry Workers (NUPCIW) at four companies of the Kaneka group. The company’s refusal to recognise the union and the slowness of official procedures meant the application had dragged on for five years, by which time many of the original union members had left. Hence the union no longer had enough members to be recognised.

Classifying workers out of the union at British American Tobacco: Exploiting a loophole in the labour legislation, a new title of “Process Specialist” was given to employees at British American Tobacco previously designated as “Process Technician.” This pseudo promotion stripped 15 British American Tobacco Employees Union (BATEU) members of their right to belong to the union, and prevented another 38 workers from joining the union. The BATEU stands to lose as much as 60 per cent of their membership. An appeal to the Director-General for Industrial Relations against this action was pending at year end.

Fired for distributing union pamphlets – and court agrees!: Three workers at Guppy Plastics Industries were fired by their employer for distributing union pamphlets in the factory during working hours. When they appealed their dismissal as an anti-union action, an Industrial Court ruling in June, concurred with their dismissal on the specious grounds that the information in the pamphlets was not correct.

AmBank yellow union approved by court: In 2006 the National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE) lost a case in the High Court of Kuala Lumpur, seeking a court order to direct the DGTU to de-register ayellow union created by AmBank management. NUBE’s evidence included the fact that management hand-picked the seven AmFinance Employees Union (KEPPA) officers, organised and paid for KEPPA meetings at its various branches, and the General Manager of the AmBank Branch Network required at those meetings that clerical and non-clerical staff sign KEPPA membership forms. Disregarding the evidence of management interference in setting up KEPPA, the High Court ruled based on a narrow technicality and denied the NUBE case.

People’s Volunteer Corps (RELA) attack protesting migrant workers: Migrant workers from India recruited to work for Whitex Garments, JB Automobile Engineering Sdh. Bhd., Sri Sai Construction, and GSM Kajang conducted a one week protest in front of the Embassy of India in Kuala Lumpur to seek support to secure payment of unpaid wages from their employers. On the evening of 28 February, a squad of RELA members raided the encampment, attacking and beating workers with kicks, punches, and batons, and arrested 61 workers who were sent to the Lenggeng detention camp. Eyewitnesses stated that diplomats from the Embassy, who tried to intervene, telling the RELA captain that the men had legal papers and passports, were ignored. A number of the workers were seriously injured. Upon investigation, all 61 workers were found to have valid travel documents and to have entered Malaysia legally.

Retaliation against migrant workers for labour dispute: In April, a group of 68 migrant workers from India involved in a labour dispute with their Shah Alam-based company were fired for asserting their rights. While the proceedings were in court, the employer allegedly called in a RELA squad who placed them in a detention camp for nine days until their legal status could be proven. In July, a gang of hired thugs entered the workers’ dormitory, intimidated the workers, ordered them out of their rooms, and then threw their belongings into the street.

Fate of women workers in the hands of insensible judges!

21 Mar 2012, 9pm

If men and women workers are paid differently for the same task, it’s not discrimination, it’s employment issue. If men are allowed to vote and women not, it’s not discrimination, it’s government policy. If men can have 4 wives and women must be loyal with one husband, it’s not discrimination, just privilege. If men can abuse women and women must obey men all the time, it’s not discrimination, just way of life.  If women and men workers have 2 different retirement age, it’s not discrimination, it is strictly industrial issue.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 Would any one of you agree to the above statement? I’m sure you are not that senseless but unfortunately the learned judges in our country are proving to be one. I’m referring to the Appeals court rules today who dismissed the appeal of 8 women workers in their 60s fighting for fair retirement age. Quoting FMT  “Court of Appeal rules in favour of plastic manufacturer, Guppy Plastic Industries, saying the company had the right terminate its female employees when they reached the age of 50.”

Some exchanges in the court that really pissed of the affected workers. The 66 year old judge said that the 8 workers accepted the employer’s ruling that women should retire at the age of 50 while men at 55. He further said that this matter should be dealt by Union and not the Court….He added on that this is about wrongful dismissal and not about discriminative policy!!!

Fact is:  Guppy Plastic Workers Union was registered by the government on 27 Apr 1998 after 3 attempts but was denied recognition by the employer. Nevertheless, they wrote a letter to the management on 9 Jan 2000 to nullify the new procedures @ ruling that was ignorantly signed by the workers as most of them were illiterate. On 10 Jan 2000, the union circulate notice advising all workers not to sign the new  ruling especially  if they don’t understand. On the same day the union  reported the violations in the new ruling to the Industrial Relations Department and on 28 Feb 2000, reported to the Director General of Labour and the Human Resource Minister.

Almost one year later, the Guppy management sacked about 11 workers on 18 Jun 2001 with 24 hours notice because they are 50 years old and above. Immediately the union (still not given recognition) wrote a letter to the management demanding the workers to be reinstated since they did not agree with the new ruling!! Then they made report to the Industrial Relation/Labour/Human Resource Ministry between 6-23 July 2001.

In fact, when the union learnt that there is another factory run by Guppy in Prai, they went to Prai and met the workers and discovered they too had to sign the new rulings. A report was lodged at the Penang IRD office on 25 Oct & 25 Nov 2001 against the violations carried by the new ruling which includes work hours, retirement age, right to be member of union and other vague rules that can be defined as the employer wishes. On 8 Jan 2002, Penang EXCO member, Dato Dr. Toh Kin Woon who sympathized with the workers wrote a letter to the IRD Director asking him to intervene and resolve the issues related to the new rules  that  violates Employment Act and the Federal Constitution!

Today, after 11 years, the ‘learned judge’ –  can give such absurd explanation.

For the second time within a month, the working class has lost 2 cases involving Guppy Plastic workers (i) the sacking of 3 women union leaders, 4 days after they wrote letter to their management seeking recognition of the union in 1998 and (ii) sacking of 8 women workers because they ‘signed a new contract’ with new ruling by the company in 2001 which was protested vehemently by the workers/union.

Obviously this country lacks activist  judges, laws that protects rights of workers, rights of unions and rights of women. It’s time to remove the conformists that blatantly violate human rights!

Letchimi Devi

Appeal on gender discrimination decision quashed

Last updated on 21 March 2012 – 06:20pm

S.Tamarai Chelvi
newsdesk@thesundaily.com

Suaram coordinator S.Arutchelvam speaks to the women at the Putrajaya court complex. Sunpix/Kamariduan Mohd Nor

PUTRAJAYA (March 21, 2012): An appeal by eight former female workers of a plastic company, all aged more than 60 years old now, claiming gender discrimination on retirement age, was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, today.

The panel of judges led by Datuk K.N.Segara, who sat with Datuk Azhar Ma’ah and Datuk Azahar Mohamad upheld the High Court’s decision to quash an Industrial Court decision.

The judges ordered RM10,000 in costs to be paid to the respondents.

“The Industrial Court had erred in failing to take into consideration relevant matters, but took into consideration irrelevent matters,” said Segara.

He said the company had adopted industry norms for retirement age.

The respondents had produced Collective Agreements (CA) by unions in other companies in the plastic industry to show norms or practice on retirement age, Segara said.

“The employees should have objected at the time of introduction of the retirement age policy,” he said adding that the employees failed to object and accepted the matter at that time.

After the decision, the employees and their family members, who were present in court, walked out as a sign of protest.

Eight employees; Gan Soh Eng, 61, M.Janama, 64, I.Iyyamah, 65, V.Pereyarka, 64, S.Danalachumy, 63, S. Tolasiammah, 63, P.Marri, 65 and S.Letchmi, 62, who had worked at Guppy Plastic Industries Sdn Bhd had filed their appeal on April 20, 2010.

They were employed as production operators, cleaners and general workers.

On Jan 1, 2001, the company introduced the Employment Handbook, which contains its retirement policy.

The compulsory retirement age for male workers was stipulated as 55 years-old and for female workers is was 50 years-old.

It was implemented through, a letter dated June 18, 2001, informing employees that they had attained their retirement age and to be retired on July 7, 2001.

The employees wanted to remain in employment for as long as they are able to.

The eight made representations that they were dismissed without just cause and excuse, which was received by the Industrial Relations Department on July 24, 2001.

The Industrial Court found in favour of the employees.

The company then filed a judicial review application in the High Court against the Industrial Court decision and it was allowed with costs on July 21, 2010.

The company had contended that the employees were lawfully retired in accordance with the contractual retirement age stipulated in the Employment Handbook.

According the High Court judge, the employees failed to object to the retirement policy as per the Employment Handbook.

Lawyer K.Ragunath, who represented the employees submitted it as gender discrimination based on age.

He said that nearly 90 percent of the female employees were re-employed on yearly contract basis after the age of 50.

Lawyer Wong Keat Ching, who represents the company said this is not gender discrimination in breach of the Constitution.

She said there are different type of jobs in the company.

The Industrial court failed to consider evidence that showed the norm on retirement age in the industry, she added.

Eight women lose gender discrimination suit

G Vinod

| March 21, 2012

Court of Appeal rules in favour of plastic manufacturer, Guppy Plastic Industries, saying the company had the right terminate its female employees when they reached the age of 50.

PETALING JAYA: Eight former female employees of a plastic manufacturing company lost their appeal in a gender discrimination suit.

In making the ruling, Justice KN Segara, who lead a three-man bench, said it was straight forward case and it did not involve gender discrimination.

“Guppy Plastic Industries followed procedures based on its guide book when it terminated its female employees,” said Segara.

In July 2001, eight female employees filed a suit against the plastic company when they were forced to retire based on a new regulation listed in a handbook introduced by the employer.

The handbook says that all women employees in the company will be terminated once they reach the age of 50, as they would be prone to suffer medical problems.

The case was then taken to the Industrial Court which duly ruled in favour of the workers in its ruling in 2008, saying Guppy Plastic Industries’ regulation was archaic.

However, the company sought a judicial review and in April 2010, the High Court ruled in favour of Guppy Plastic Industries.

Unhappy with the verdict, the workers took the matter with the Court of Appeal the same year.

PSM: ‘Judgment ridiculous‘

Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) secretary-general S Arutchelvan criticised Segara and called his judgment ‘ridiculous’.

“Everyone was laughing at Segara’s verdict in the court. We even walked out in disgust,” said an irate Arutchelvan.

The sacked workers were represented by former Bar Council president, K Ragunath.

Arutchelvan said that it was unfair of Guppy to simply introduce a new ruling in the middle of the women’s employment without getting an endorsement from the workers’ union.

“With this ruling, a company can terminate all its female staff saying they are medically unfit even when the employer has no valid medical proof to back their claims,” said Arutchelvan.

Malaysia is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Discrimination Against Women.

“Segara even downplayed the importance of the convention when Ragunath pointed out the matter during the hearing,” alleged Arutchlevan.

(Free Malaysia Today)

COURT RULES NO GENDER BIAS IN WORKERS’ RETIREMENT AGE

UPDATED @ 03:07:25 PM 21-03-2012

By Clara Chooi

March 21, 2012

PUTRAJAYA, March 21 — The Court of Appeal today dismissed an application by female workers claiming gender discrimination in being forced to retire earlier than male colleagues.

A three-man bench led by Datuk K. N. Segara upheld a 2010 High Court ruling on the 11-year-old case, which had overturned an initial Industrial Court’s 2008 decision in favour of the eight plastic industry workers.

They were forced to retire in June 2001 after the company, Guppy Plastic Industries, enforced a then-new employee handbook rule stipulating a retirement age of 50 for female employees and 55 for male employees.

When reading the panel’s judgement before the court today, Segara discarded the appellants’ argument for discrimination, saying the case was a straightforward matter based on facts.

The panel agreed that the Industrial Court had in 2008 erred in its judgement when it failed to take into consideration relevant factors presented before it, such as the respondent’s submission of several Collective Agreements (CAs) from other firms in the same industry that stipulated the same retirement ages for both male and female employees.

“It is our unanimous view that the appeal should be dismissed.

“We are entirely in agreement with the High Court judge that the Industrial Court had erred by failing to take into consideration the relevant factors and taking into consideration the irrelevant factors,” he said.

The Industrial Court, Segara added, had failed to consider whether it was “fair and reasonable” for Guppy Plastic to “adapt to industry norms for the retirement ages of male and female employees as implemented by other companies”.

The group of workers, upon hearing the decision, stood up to leave the courtroom before the end of the panel’s judgement, as a sign of protest.

The appellants’ counsel, Ragunath Kesavan had earlier raised Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women or “Cedaw” convention of which Malaysia is a member, to argue his case for gender discrimination.

He told the court that during the hearing before the Industrial Court, Guppy Plastics had not furnished medical proof or a report from the Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) to support its argument that women above 50 are physically unfit to resume their duties.

The Industrial Court, he added, had then decided there was discrimination in the difference between the retirement ages for men and women and said the burden laid on the company to prove their reason for the retirement policy.

Ragunath added that it was also discovered that upon the retirement of its employees, Guppy Industries had “re-hired” 90 per cent on an annual contract basis.

This, he said, meant the “re-hired” workers would no longer be entitled to the benefits offered to them when they were full-time employees.

“There is a big difference when you take away a person’s right as a permanent employee than a contract worker,” he pointed out.

The respondent’s counsel later told the court that the matter did not involve gender bias, pointing out that at the time the company’s retirement policy was introduced, Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution had not yet been amended to include the word “gender”.

“There is no government guideline on how to fix a retirement age. Neither is it against public policy. So the company did what’s best, which is to refer to industry practices,” the counsel said.

The appeal was dismissed with costs at RM10,000.

Speaking to reporters later, Ragunath expressed disappointment, saying the court should have been at the forefront of standing up for constitutional rights.

(Malaysian Insider)

A BLOW TO GENDER EQUALITY!

Appeal court’s appalling decision  

Putrajaya, 21 March 2012

Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) would like to express its total disappointment with the Appeals Court unanimous decision today in dismissing the application of eight women workers from Guppy Industries.

The three-man bench led by Datuk K. N. Segara was dim-witted as they acted like an apologist to the employer. The judge further went to ridicule and suggest that this case has nothing to do with gender inequality, discrimination nor constitutional rights. Two human – one male and one female;, having two retirement age and not supported by any rationale argument except that other factories practice this, yet for the learned judge this is not discrimination.

Once the court said that the appeal was dismissed, the affected workers rightfully walked out and were not ready to hear the judges explanation. This was because during the entire court proceeding, the Judge was acting in such a bias manner that his verdict was predicted.

Datuk K.N. Segara seems to imply that whatever the employer says even if it is not backed with scientific evidence should be alright as long as it comes from the employer. He dismisses that Industrial court verdict which said that the burden is with the employer to prove that these workers cannot work beyond age 50.

What was so blatant about this judgment is that a rule book in which this new discrimination law was stated was actually introduced very much later after they were employed.  The Judge felt that it is fine to introduce these new laws half-way even though the Union and workers then protested against it. The unintelligent judge also told the lawyer that he needs to help the workers form Unions not realizing that the entire union leadership was sacked by the employer when they found out that they were forming a Union.

The Guppy employer dismissed the workers at the age of 50 but offered them all reemployment as contract workers. By employing them as contract workers, the workers will lose more rights and benefits since they were previously permanent workers. By employing them again simply means that the women workers were still capable of working beyond 50 and he even employed one of the worker at the age of 50. The lawyers for the workers, Ragunath Kesavan also showed proved that out of the 29 workers reemployed above 50 years old, 26 were women which is around 90%. This fact itself is enough to justify that the employer was pulling a fast one when he said women workers cannot perform after the age of 50. But all this points seems to fall on the deaf ears of the learned judge who says the company followed practices of other Industries.

The Industrial court which initially ruled in favor of the workers said that this Guppy Union policy was stone age practice and slammed the employer and called the termination unlawfully. Today the Appeal court judges seem to justify these Stone Age discrimination policies.

It was truly blatant that employers can get away with this. What do you expect if we have dumb judges who are themselves bias and do not have a clue what is Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution and CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women)

The workers will now bring their matter to the Federal Court hoping that sanity still exist in our courts.

S.Arutchelvan

23 aduan kepada JPP dalam 4 tahun, 4 aduan kepada Menteri Sumber Manusia

…….namun Mahkamah menghukum UNIONIST!

Kronologi Perjuangan Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Guppy Plastic Industries Sdn Bhd

22 Julai 1997:  Majikan telah mengumumkan kenaikan gaji pokok sebanyak 10 sen

23 Julai 1997:  Pekerja tidak puas hati dan telah naik ke pejabat untuk berjumpa dengan Pengurus Besar dan meminta beliau menaikkan gaji pokok tetapi ia tidak disetuju

24 Julai 1997:  Semua pekerja berkumpul di kawasan kilang untuk mengadakan satu perbincangan dengan Encik Goh tetapi pengurus enggan berbincang apa-apa pada hari itu dan menyuruh mereka datang pada kesokan harinya.

25 Julai 1997:  Encik Goh telah membawa masuk seorang polis dan kemudian panggil pekerja secara berbaris-baris masuk

Memo kepada semua pekerja Guppy oleh pihak majikan Guppy tentang kenaikan gaji pokok sebanyak 10 sen dan elaun pengangkutan RM1.00 sehari atau 50 sen elaun pengangkutan dan 60 sen kenaikan kadar gaji sehari.

26 Julai 1997:  Majikan memanggil beberapa pekerja secara persendirian dan berkata mereka tidak sepatutnya membuat tuntutan sedemikian.

Encik Goh mengakui bawa masuk polis dan meminta maaf tapi berkata bahawa polis adalah kawannya.

28 Julai 1997:  Pengurus pamir memo baru dimana pekerja diugut akan didenda atau di penjarakan jika mereka mogok

30 Julai 1997:  Jawatankuasa Pekerja-Pekerja Guppy Plastic Industries telah menulis satusuratkepada pihak majikan Guppy meminta mengadakan satu rundingan untuk membincang beberapa isu. Antaranya ialah kenaikan gaji pokok yang lebih berasas, elaun shif, pengangkutan, makanan dan sebagainya.

10 Ogos 1997: Aduan polis terhadap pengurusan kilang Guppy oleh pekerja-pekerja Guppy Plastic kerana mengugut akan memenjara dan mendenda pekerja kerana meluahkan rasa tidak puas hati dengan kenaikan gaji yang terlalu minima (Report No. 8965/97).

7 Sept 1997:    Jawatankuasa Pekerja-Pekerja Guppy sekali lagi menulissuratiaitusuratperingatan kepada pihak majikan Guppy meminta mengadakan rundingan dengan wakil pekerja untuk membincangkan masalah-masalah pekerja.

Nota: Hanya setelah semua cara berbincang dengan majikan gagal, baru pekerja telah mengambil usaha untuk menubuhkan Kesatuan untuk menjaga kepentingan mereka.

16 Nov 1997:   Mesyuarat penubuhan Kesatuan Sekerja diadakan di Dewan MCA, Balakong.

7 Dis 1997:      J/kuasa Penaja Kesatuan pergi ke Jabatan Hal Ehwal Kesatuan Sekerja untuk menghantar permohonan Kesatuan Sekerja.

15 Feb 1998:   Jawatankuasa Penaja Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Guppy Plastic meminta pengurusan Guppy mengadakan rundingan tentang beberapa masalah pekerja seperti masa makan tengahari, bulan puasa, kerja hari Ahad, cuti sakit, penampalan memo dan sebagainya.

13 Mac 1998:  Majikan telah memanggil beberapa AJK dengan serta merta tanpa notis. Majikan menegur kesalahan alamat Setiausaha dalamsuratawal Jawatankuasa Penaja dan juga memaklumkan bahawa beberapa perkara darisuratbertarikh 15 Feb 1998 telah dilaksanakan.

21 Mac 1998:  Jawatankuasa Penaja menulis satusuratterimakasih atas kesudian pihak majikan melaksanakan permintaan pekerja dan pada masa yang sama meminta majikan memberi masa yang secukupnya untuk AJK kesatuan sebelum mengadakan sesuatu mesyuarat. Jawatankuasa Penaja juga meminta maaf atas kesalahan alamat

27 Apr 1998:   Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Guppy Plastic Industries Sdn Bhd telah diluluskan dan didaftarkan di bawah Akta Kesatuan Sekerja 1998. No. sijil pendaftaran 813.

5 May 1998:    Jawatankuasa Penaja Kesatuan mengedarkansuratpekeliling (dalam 3 bahasa – B.Malaysia, Mandarin dan Tamil) bersama sijil pendaftaran kesatuan kepada pekerja-pekerja Guppy tentang kelulusan Kesatuan Sekerja Guppy.

6 May 1998:    Ahli Jawatankuasa Kerja telah membuat satu perjumpaan untuk membincangkan cara-cara memberitahu pekerja-pekerja tentang penerimaansuratkelulusan kesatuan dari Jabatan Hal Ehwal Kesatuan Sekerja. Di bincangkan juga pelaksanaan tugas-tugas kesatuan seperti penyediaan Borang Keahlian, kutipan duit ahli dan sebagainya.

7 May 1998:    Pekerja-pekerja telah diedarkansuratpekeliling untuk memaklumkan tentang kelulusan kesatuan

17 May 1998:  AJK Kesatuan mengadakan perjumpaan untuk membuat kerja-kerja kesatuan seperti membentangkan contoh borang keahlian, letter head, chop kesatuan, resit bayaran, buku akaun, buku peraturan kesatuan untuk pekerja lain, jadual waktu berjumpa pekerja dan masalah-masalah pekerja lain.

18 May 1998:  Setiausaha Kesatuan  meminta kebenaran untuk melekat sijil pendaftaran Kesatuan di pondok penjaga dan di kantin daripada En. Taufik (H.R.D) dan En. Goh Boon King (P.K.). Tidak diberi kebenaran untuk melekat di mana-mana di premis kilang Guppy.

22 May 1998:  Kerja-kerja mengisi borang keahlian di kalangan ahli-ahli lama dan baru serta mengutip duit yuran masuk dan yuran bulanan. Kerja-kerja tersebut dijalankan oleh 7 orang AJK Kesatuan.

27 May 1998:  Pihak majikan yang terdiri daripada En. Simon, En. Taufik, En. Goh Boon King dan En. Lauta telah memanggil 3 orang ahli AJK iaitu Pn. Koyilvani, Cik Roshamiza dan Pn. Ratna untuk memberi amaran terakhir melalui surat kepada mereka. Pihak majikan telah berbicara selama 2-3 jam dengan setiap AJK tersebut 3 perkara utama iaitu – aduan polis yang dibuat oleh beberapa pekerja Guppy pada 10 Ogos 1997 tentang ugutan majikan, isu Saksama dan penubuhan Kesatuan Sekerja.

28 May 1998: Pihak Kesatuan telah memberikan satu surat berkenaan perjumpaan 27 May 1998 di antara pihak majikan dan Pengerusi Kesatuan untuk menyatakan rasa tidak puas hati dengan beberapa perkara iaitu: cara 3 orang AJK tersebut dipanggil untuk perjumpaan tersebut, tuduhan yang dilemparkan seperti mengaitkan AJK dengan isu keluaran SAKSAMA. Selain itu pihak kesatuan juga berterimakasih kepada En. Goh Boon King untuk mengadakan rundingan seperti yang diminta oleh Kesatuan selama ini.

28 May 1998:  Beberapa pekerja shif malam telah memberitahu Pengerusi Kesatuan bahawa En. Taufik bertanya kepada pekerja kenapa mereka masuk Union dan menentang Guppy walhal Guppy ada sediakan pelbagai kemudahan.

Simon dan Taufik telah pergi ke pejabat CDC. Mereka berjumpa dengan Sdra Arul dan Sivarajan. Semasa pertemuan, pihak SAKSAMA diberitahu bahwa kilang Guppy menyediakan banyak kemudahan untuk pekerja dan ingin tahu pekerja mana yang beri maklumat. Mereka berjanji tidak ada apa-apa tindakan akan diambil terhadap mereka. Arul dan Siva minta penjelasan supaya boleh beri pandangan majikan dalam SAKSAMA tetapi mereka cakap akan fikirkan. Arul dan Siva juga berkata tiada pekerja yang terlibat dalam penerbitan isu SAKSAMA.

29 May 1998:  Ahli Jawatankuasa (Pn. Ratna) telah menalipon En. Rosli dari Jabatan Hal Ehwal Kesatuan untuk bertanya tentang keengganan pihak majikan mengiktiraf kesatuan dan tentang masalah lain. Beliau telah suruh kesatuan mengumpulkan semua borang keahlian yang semestinya ¾ daripada keseluruhan pekerja dan datang berjumpa dengannya.

30 May 1998:  Pihak Kesatuan telah memberikan satu surat meminta pengiktirafan Kesatuan Sekerja Guppy daripada pihak majikan seperti yang dinasihatkan oleh En. Rosli dari Jabatan Hal Ehwal Kesatuan

31 May 1998: AJK telah membuat satu perjumpaan untuk membincangkan isu-isu berikut: (a) surat amaran terakhir-27 May (b) perbincangan dengan En. Rosli (c) surat pengiktirafan kesatuan, yuran bulanan, pengisian borang ahli dan jadual waktu jumpa pekerja-pekerja.

1 Jun 1998:      Pengurus Kilang (Goh Boon King) telah berjumpa dengan 5 orang supervisor production dan memberitahu mereka bahawa pekerja-pekerja telah membuat aduan terhadap supervisor bahwa mereka tidak membuat kerja di production line dengan baik.

Seorang pekerja telah berjumpa Pengerusi untuk memaklumkan bahawa Madam Wong (Supervisor) telah memarahi pekerja-pekerja di bawahnya kerana memasuki Union. Katanya, sesiapa yang masuk Union mestilah datang ke kerja 10 min lebih awal dan tidak boleh bercakap semasa bekerja.

Pada malam tersebut juga seorang Supervisor bernama Salasiah telah menalipon Pengerusi Kesatuan untuk memberitahu bahwa dia telah diberi surat amaran dan dipaksa tanda tangan surat tersebut. Jika tidak tanda tangan, dia diugut akan dihentikan kerja tanpa memberi pampasan.

4 Jun 1998:      7 orang AJK telah diberi surat pergantungan kerja atas alasan berikut:
(i) memberikan maklumat fitnah kepada pihak luar/mencemarkan nama syarikat
(ii) mengugut dan mengancam keselamatan pekerja
(iii) memaksa pekerja masuk Kesatuan
(iv) menjalankan aktiviti tidak berfaedah masa kerja

5 Jun 1998:      Pukul 9.00pagi, AJK telah berjumpa dengan Pengarah Hal Ehwal Kesatuan Sekerja Selangor Tuan Hairi untuk membuat aduan tentang penggantungan kerja. Beliau berkata perkara ini harus di buat aduan di Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan. Beliau juga memberi maklumat berikut:
(i) Sediakan Borang A untuk mendapatkan pengiktirafan Kesatuan dari majikan. Kalau majikan tidak  beri pengiktirafan dalam masa 21 hari, buat aduan kepada Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan – Borang C perlu dihantar.
(ii) AJK Kesatuan yang sah di bawah undang-undang juga boleh menjalankan kempen di luar premis kilang.

Pukul 2.45 tengahari, AJK telah berjumpa dengan Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan iaitu Tuan Johari. Kami telah membuat satu aduan bertulis tentang penggantungan kerja AJK Kesatuan. Beliau menasihatkan kami untuk menyediakan Borang A bersama buku peraturan Kesatuan dan hantar kepada pihak majikan dan salinannya kepada pihak IRD dan pihak Hal-Ehwal Kesatuan.

Pukul 3.30pm, AJK telah menyerahkan satu salinan aduan tersebut di pejabat Tuan Lim Ah Lek (Menteri Sumber Manusia)

8 Jun 1998:      Borang A bersama buku peraturan Kesatuan telah dihantar kepada pihak majikan Guppy Plastic Industries melalui pos laju.

Pada waktu pagi iaitu antara pukul 7.30 – 8.00, ahli AJK Kesatuan Pn. Rahimah dan Cik Roshamiza telah berkempen di luar premis Kilang Guppy: bertemu dengan pekerja-pekerja Guppy. Salah seorang pekerja bernama Cik Zaitun Ali memberitahu bahawa dia ada khabar bahawa Pengurus Kilang mungkin akan kena saman.

Waktu tengahari pula (12.30 – 2.00), Pn. Rahimah dan Pn. Koyilvani telah ke kilang Guppy untuk berkempen.

Waktu petang (5.30), Pn. Koyilvani menerima satu panggilan dari seorang pekerja Guppy bernama Malini yang memberitahu bahwa pihak majikan telah mengugut supervisor-supervisor untuk menandatangani satu surat yang mengaitkan AJK Kesatuan Sekerja Guppy dengan isu SAKSAMA. Diberitahu juga bahawa hal ini akan di bawa ke mahkamah oleh Goh Boon King pada hari Jumaat ini (12/6/1998)

Antara pukul 12.00 hingga 1.00 tengahari seorang pekerja Guppy iaitu Malini telah berjumpa Pn. Koyilvani di luar kilang Guppy. Dia memberitahu bahawa pagi tersebut En.Goh telah menyuruh Line F untuk membuat overtime kerana barang diperlukan segera. 5 orang pekerja line tersebut enggan membuat O.T kerana amat marah dengan tuduhan Pengurus Besar (Goh Chun Piau) sebelum ini yang mengatakan mereka itu malas dan makan gaji buta. Akhirnya, Goh Boon King telah memujuk 2 daripada pekerja tersebut untuk membuat overtime.

9 Jun 1998:      Salah seorang pekerja shif malam Guppy iaitu En. Maniam telah menalipon AJK iaitu Pn. Suzana bahawa Simon telah menemuinya dan meminta dia menandatangani satu surat. Kandungannya ialah: adakah anda masuk Union? Dan adakah kamu dipaksa memasuki Union? Bila Maniam enggan tanda tangan, Simon merayu, katanya, “tolonglah taukeh, awak mesti sign surat ini”.

AJK Suzana menalipon Taufik meminta mengirim surat klinik. Taufik pujuk Suzanah datang ambil sendiri. Dia juga menyatakan bahawa dirinya amat kesal dengan apa yang sedang berlaku.

10 Jun 1998:    Pukul 10 pagi, Pn. Koyilvani menerima panggilan daripada Malini (pekerja Guppy) melaporkan bahawa pihak majikan memanggil setiap line (5 orang) naik ke pejabat untuk menandatangani satu surat secara paksa. Kalau mereka tanda tangan, majikan tidak akan memberhentikan kerja mereka. Kandungan surat tersebut dari maklumat yang diberi oleh pekerja ialah:
(i) Adakah mereka yang masuk Kesatuan akan diberi 3 bulan bonus?
(ii) Apa kebaikan masuk Kesatuan?
(iii) Kesatuan itu diluluskan oleh pihak majikan
(iv) Isu Guppy dalam Saksama ada kaitan dengan AJK – itu sebabnya semua AJK di gantung kerja selama 14 hari.
(v) Goh Boon King yang memberi keizinan untuk pekerja tubuhkan Kesatuan Sekerja

12 Jun 1998:        7 orang AJK telah membuat satu aduan polis di Kajang (No. report 7778/98) terhadap pihak pengurusan Guppy Plastik kerana pihak pengurusan menuduh mereka menganggu pekerja-pekerja Guppy Plastik dan juga memaksa pekerja-pekerja Guppy menandatangani surat yang membuat pelbagai tuduhan terhadap pihak Kesatuan Guppy Plastik. Aduan dibuat untuk tujuan keselamatan. Pegawai Penyiasat ialah En. Shahrin.

14 Jun 1998:        AJK telah mengadakan satu mesyuarat umum dengan pekerja-pekerja Guppy Plastik dimana kehadirannya ialah seramai 20 orang. Ia bertujuan menerangkan perkembangan Kesatuan sejak ia diluluskan dan sikap majikan terhadap Kesatuan.

15 Jun 1998:        AJK telah membuat aduan ke-2 di Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan (En. Johari) tentang: (i) majikan memaksa pekerja tandatangan sepucuk surat yang membuat tuduhan palsu terhadap pihak kesatuan  (ii) majikan mencemarkan nama kesatuan

En. Johari telah menyatakan bahawa ke tujuh orang AJK yang digantung kerja boleh masuk kerja pada 18 Jun. Jika majikan tidak membenarkan mereka bekerja, beliau meminta AJK membuat aduan segera kepada pihak IRD, nama pegawai yang diberi ialah En. Kesavan.

17 Jun 1998:        AJK telah membuka satu buku akaun di Perwira Affin Bank dengan wang kesatuan sebanyak RM1,568 di masukkan bagi bilangan ahli seramai 196 orang

Semua AJK menerima surat dari pihak majikan yang meminta mereka datang ke pejabat pada keesokkan hari untuk mendengar keputusan penyiasatan. 3 AJK iaitu Pn. Koyilvani, Pn. Ratna dan Cik Ros (masing-masing memegang jawatan Pengerusi, Bendahari dan Setiausaha) di suruh hadir pada pukul 10.30pagi manakala 4 AJK lain diminta hadir pada pukul 4.00 petang.

Pada waktu malam, 7 AJK telah bermesyuarat untuk membincangkan perkara tersebut.

Pada hari tersebut juga, AJK telah menerima berita bahawa 2 orang pekerja shif malam telah dihentikan kerja pada pukul 3.30pagi atas alasan mereka tertidur semasa bekerja. 2 pekerja tersebut dihentikan oleh Ah Chai (supervisor mereka) dan En. Goh Choon Piaw.

18 Jun 1998:    Pada pukul 8.00pagi, 3 AJK iaitu Ros, Vani dan Rahimah telah masuk kerja. Pada pukul 9.00 pagi, pengawal telah memanggil Ros dan Vani kerana Simon nak berjumpa mereka. Simon berkata “dalam masa penggantungan, anda tidak boleh kerja.”. Bila AJK bertanya, bukankah 14 hari itu telah tamat Simon berkata bahwa dia hanya mengira 14 hari kerja, tidak termasuk cuti.” Katanya lagi bahawa mereka harus datang pada pukul 10.00 pagi ke pejabat dan majikan berhak membuat 3 keputusan iaitu melanjutkan tempoh gantung, bekukan gaji dan bekukan gaji dan bonus selama setahun atau buang kerja tanpa sebarang ganti rugi.

Pada pukul 10.30pagi, ketiga AJK iaitu Ros, Vani dan Ratna telah masuk pejabat dan tunggu sehingga pukul 11.00 pagi. Simon telah mengarahkan 3 AJK untuk masuk bilik mesyuarat satu per satu. Koyilvani telah masuk dahulu. Sebelum sidang dimulakan, Vani telah meminta mereka semua mengenalkan diri. Mereka yang hadir ialah Taufik dan Simon sebagai pegawai penyiasat, Ng Tee Yee-pegawai pendakwa, Ng Seng Kiat – ketua panel, Goh Choon Piow – ahli panel wakil majikan dan Richard Ho- ahli panel biasa.

Taufik memberitahu bahawa dia telah siasat shif 1 dan 2 dan ada semua saksi. Simon berkata bahawa dia telah siasat shif 3 dan 6 orang pekerja telah memberi keterangan. Kemudian sidang dikendalikan oleh Seng Kiat, Richard, Choon Piow dalam Bahasa Inggeris. Vani kata dia tidak faham. Maka Taufik telah duduk di sebelahnya untuk perterjemahan.

Kata mereka, “kita dapati awak bersalah dan dipecat 24 jam dengan serta merta. Oleh kerana kamu telah kerja lama, kamu diberi 2 pilihan iaitu pampasan 3 bulan dan 2 minggu gaji penuh jika kamu mengaku bersalah. Jika kamu tidak mengaku salah, kamu hanya diberi gaji 14 hari gaji sahaja.

Simon banyak campur tangan semasa Seng Kiat sedang memberi keterangan. Dia juga berkata kepada Vani “awak tidak boleh soal kami, dengar saja cakap kami, kami tidak mahu jawab soalan kamu.” Kami nak bagi keputusan iaitu awak dibuang kerja. Semua adalah di pecat.”

Bila Vani tidak mengaku salah, dia diberi pilihan ke dua iaitu hanya 14 hari gaji.

Bila Vani keluar dan Ros masuk, semua mengenalkan diri dan dia disuruh dengar apa yang mereka cakap. Ros diberitahu bahawa dirinya didapati bersalah atas 3 sebab seperti yang terdapat dalam notis pemberhentian iaitu memberi maklumat tidak benar dan fitnah, mengedarkan risalah, menggunakan masa kerja untuk kegiatan tidak berfaedah. Ros juga diberi 2 pilihan dan Ros mengaku tidak bersalah.

Bila Ratna masuk, perkara yang sama seperti di atas berlaku. Bila Ratna bertanya, “Boleh saya tahu siapa saksi-saksi itu?” Simon berkata, “you tak perlu tahu apa-apa, we don’t have to tell you anything”. Ratna juga mengaku tidak bersalah.

Pada pukul 4.00 petang,  4 AJK iaitu Pn. Rahimah, Pn. Pabilah, Pn. Suzana dan Pn. Zaidah telah masuk sekali ke pejabat. Hanya Simon, Taufik dan Ng Seng Kiat ada dalam bilik mesyuarat. Simon berkata bahwa ‘dalam penyiasatan 12 hari ini, kamu semua didapati tidak bersalah. Oleh itu kamu diberi gaji penuh. Boleh mula kerja hari ini. Dalam masa bekerja, kamu semua tidak dibenarkan berjalan sesuka hati atau membuat aktiviti lain yang tidak berfaedah.” Dia juga berkata bahawa kebanyakan respondent telah mengatakan bahwa 4 orang AJK itu tidak terlibat manakala 3 orang lagi memang bersalah kerana mereka selalu datang awal untuk jumpa pekerja semua shif.

19 Jun 1998:    Pekerja-pekerja Guppy telah berbincang dan mengambil keputusan untuk menulis satu surat kepada pihak majikan membantah pembuangan 3 orang AJK tersebut. Surat tersebut dihantar pada 24 Jun 1998 dengan 103 orang pekerja Guppy menandatangani surat tersebut.

20 Jun 1998:    AJK, Pn. Vani telah berjumpa dengan pekerja-pekerja Guppy diluar Guppy Plastik dan pekerja-pekerja telah meluahkan rasa tidak puas hati terhadap apa yang berlaku ke atas 3 orang AJK dan mereka berkata ‘jangan risau, kami akan bersatu padu dan akan menyokong apa saja tindakan kesatuan dan akan cuba mendapatkan balik kerja untuk 3 AJK. Kami juga sanggup memulakan tabung sekiranya AJK yang dihentikan menghadapi sebarang masalah kewangan.”

21 Jun 1998:    Aduan ke-3 kepada pihak IRD terhadap pihak majikan Guppy yang mengugut dan memangsakan ahli-ahli kesatuan sekerja Guppy Plastik Industries Sdn Bhd

Aduan ke-4 kepada pihak IRD terhadap pihak pengurusan Guppy Plastik yang menghalang aktiviti Kesatuan (ancaman terhadap kesatuan, tomahan dan tuduhan terhadap AJK kesatuan, pemecatan/penggantungan kerja)

Aduan ke-5 kepada pihak IRD tentang pemangsaan ke atas kesatuan sekerja dengan membuang 3 orang pemimpin kesatuan sekerja Guppy Plastik secara tidak sah.

23 Jun 1998:    Aduan ke-6 kepada IRD terhadap majikan Guppy Plastic yang tidak memberikan pengiktirafan sementara kepada Kesatuan Sekerja Guppy Plastic atas alasan ahli tidak mencukupi dan pekerja dipaksa memasuki kesatuan.

24 Jun 1998:    Lebih daripada 100 pekerja menandatangani petisyen membantah pemecatan 3 pegawai kesatuan.

Borang C lengkap dengan butir-butir ahli Kesatuan Sekerja telah dihantar kepada Ketua Pengarah, Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan

30 Jun 1998:    Aduan ke-7 kepada IRD: isu pemangsaan kesatuan sekerja

1 July 1998:     Surat dari IRD, meminta AJK Kesatuan Sekerja Guppy menghadiri satu mesyuarat pada 14 Julai untuk membincang aduan Kesatuan mengenai campurtangan majikan dalam kesatuan sekerja

8 July 1998:     Aduan ke-8 kepada IRD tentang taktik-taktik kotor yang digunakan oleh pihak majikan Guppy untuk memangsakan pekerja-pekerja Guppy dari menyertai kesatuan sekerja dan melemahkan kesatuan sekerja.

13 July 1998:   Majikan Guppy telah menampal satu memo yang memaparkan kelebihan majikan Guppy seperti bonus 2.5 bulan setahun kepada semua pekerja, kenaikan gaji setiap tahun berbanding kilang-kilang lain dan lain-lain faedah. Memo tersebut juga memaparkan isu pemecatan 3 orang ahli kesatuan. Pekerja-pekerja mendapati maklumat dalam memo itu bukanlah benar semuanya. Oleh itu Kesatuan telah mengambil keputusan untuk membalas memo tersebut.

14 July 1998:   Surat dari IRD meminta AJK Kesatuan dan pihak majikan Guppy untuk membincang mengenai aduan kesatuan pekerja-pekerja Guppy Plastik.

24 July 1998:   Pihak IRD (Damansara) telah menghantar satu surat kepada ke tiga-tiga AJK yang telah dipecat kerja untuk menghadiri mesyuarat pada 7 Ogos 1998 untuk membincang isu ‘Representasi untuk diambil bekerja di bawah seksyen 20, Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967’

5 Ogos 1998:   Kesatuan Sekerja telah menghantar satu surat membalas memo 13 Julai 1998

14 Ogos 98:     Dialog antara pihak IRD, 3 AJK yang dipecat dan pihak majikan Guppy. Dalam dialog tersebut beberapa tuduhan telah digugurkan iaitu (i) menggunakan masa kerja dan premis syarikat untuk menjalankan kegiatan tidak berfaedah kepada syarikat dan (ii) memaksa dan mengugut pekerja menyertai Kesatuan. Dalam mesyuarat ini juga tawaran pihak majikan Guppy tidak diterima oleh 3 AJK manakala tuntutan 3 AJK untuk diambil semula kerja tidak diberi kata putus oleh pihak majikan Guppy.

22 & 24 Ogos: Pengerusi Kesatuan, Vani menalipon IRD untuk mengetahui keputusan majikan tentang pengambilan semula kerja 3 AJK: majikan Guppy masih belum memberi kata putus.

26 Ogos 98:     Pengerusi Kesatuan menalipon IRD (Pn. Moryati) dan diberitahu bahawa pihak majikan enggan mengambil 3 AJK yang dipecat bekerja semula.

18 Sept 98:      3 AJK Kesatuan Sekerja Guppy telah menemui Pn Moryati untuk mengetahui tindakan seterusnya yang akan diambil terhadap kes pemberhentian kerja.

3 AJK ini juga menemui En. Awang Riduan dari ibu pejabat Hal Ehwal Kesatuan untuk membincangkan masalah-masalah pekerja dan pengiktirafan kesatuan sekerja.

28 Sep 1998:   Kesatuan membuat aduan kepada YB Menteri Sumber Manusia meminta campurtangan untuk menyelesaikan masalah pemangsaan terhadap AJK dan ahli Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Guppy. 4 isu utama diutarakan isitu isu pengiktirafan kesatuan, pemecatan AJK Kesatuan, penindasan dan penganiyaan berterusan terhadap pekerja-pekerja Guppy dan masalah-masalah pekerjaan am di Guppy seperti ketiadaan kemudahan pengangkutan dan layanan buruk terhadap pekerja.

9 Ogos 1999:   Membuat aduan kepada JPP (Aduan ke-9) meminta sekali lagi untuk menyiasat tindak-tanduk pihak majikan Guppy yang menghalang pekerja memasuki kesatuan, mengugut dan membuli pekerja yang mahu menjadi ahli kesatuan.

27 Ogos 99:     Sekali lagi kesatuan membuat aduan kepada JPP (Aduan ke-10) untuk menyiasat majikan Guppy yang membuat tuduhan palsu terhadap naib pengerusi kesatuan dan terus memangsakan kesatuan sekerja.

9 Jan 2000:      Kesatuan bagi pihak pekerja-pekerja yang menandatangani kontrak baru atas paksaan majikan telah menulis suart kepada majikan untuk menarik balik surat perjanjian tersebut.

10 Jan 2000:    Surat Pekeliling dari Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Guppy Plastic Industries (KPPG) kepada semua pekerja, memberi nasihat agar jangan menandatangani Buku Panduan Syarat-Syarat & Peraturan Pekerjaan tanpa memahami dengan jelas kandungan buku tersebut. Juga dinasihatkan untuk memberitahu kesatuan sekiranya pihak majikan memaksa sesiapa untuk menandatangani Buku Panduan tersebut.

Aduan (ke-11) di bawah Seksyen 8, 59(1) dan 4(1) Akta Perhubungan Perindustrian 1967 oleh KPPG kepada Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan mengenai Buku Panduan Syarat-Syarat & Peraturan Pekerjaan yang mencabuli hak pekerja dan ahli kesatuan sekerja.

28 Feb 2000:   Kesatuan meminta YB Menteri Sumber Manusia campurtangan dalam isu penindasan pekerja di Guppy dan pemangsaan terhadap kesatuan sekerja. Kesatuan juga meminta YB menggunakan kuasanya untuk mengiktiraf kesatuan.

Aduan juga dibuat kepada Ketua Pengarah Buruh meminta beliau campurtangan dan menyelesaikan segala kepincangan dan penindasan yang berlaku di Guppy. Antara perkara yang diutarakan ialah taktik kotor majikan untuk memaksa pekerja tandatangan kontrak baru tersebut di mana ia menganiyai hak pekerja, syarat-syarat pekerjaan yang terlalu am dan diinterpretasi mengikut situasi.

23 Ogos 2000: Pihak majikan enggan mengiktiraf kesatuan atas alasan tidak mempunyai ahli majoriti.

10 Nov 2000:   Pihak majikan Guppy terus memangsakan AJK Kesatuan dengan memberi surat tunjuk sebab kepada 2 AJK atas alasan mereka tidak memohon cuti 3 hari sebelumnya. Walaupun amalan biasa tidak begitu dan AJK tersebut seperti biasa telah memaklumkan kepada penyelia masing-masing, tindakan sengaja diambil. Seterusnya bila pihak pengerusi dan bendahari kesatuan memaklumkan yang mereka akan mewakili kedua AJK semasa siasatan dalaman pada 27 November, mereka tidak dibenarkan masuk ke kilang dan siasatan dalaman di jalankan pada tarikh lain tanpa saksi bagi pihak AJK.

29 Nov 2000:   Sehubungan dengan perkara di atas, kesatuan membuat aduan (ke-12) kepada Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan melalui surat bertarikh 29 Nov dan 2 Dis 2000.

18 Jun 2001:    11 orang pekerja diberhenti kerja dengan notis 24 jam dengan alasan umur mereka sudah melebihi 50 tahun.

29 Jun 2001:    20 pekerja mengadu kepada Kesatuan bahawa pihak majikan telah memecat mereka dengan 24 jam notis atas alasan mereka sudah mencapai umur persaraan.

2 Julai 2001:    Surat aduan kepada pihak majikan meminta pekerja-pekerja tersebut diambil semula untuk kerja. Surat tersebut juga menegaskan pekerja-pekerja Guppy tidak bersetuju dengan kandungan Buku Panduan Syarat-Syarat & Peraturan Pekerjaan.

6 July 2001:     Kesatuan bagi pihak pekerja-pekerja wanita yang berumur 50 tahun ke atas membuat satu aduan di JPP kerana pihak majikan Guppy telah memecat pekerja-pekerja berumur 50 tahun ke atas secara tidak sah dengan memberi notis 24 jam. Aduan sama ditujukan kepada pihak majikan membantah tindakan mereka dan meminta pekerja-pekerja tersebut diambil semula. Surat tersebut disertakan dengan tandatangan 12 orang mangsa. Pihak majikan Guppy yang marah dengan tindakan kesatuan telah memburukkan nama kesatuan dengan menuduh Kesatuan memaksa 12 orang pekerja tersebut tandatangan surat bantahan tersebut.

23 Julai 2001: Surat kepada majikan daripada Kesatuan mengenai pemecatan pekerja-pekerja berumur 51-53 tahun secara tidak sah. Surat ini juga menyentuh tentang surat Kesatuan kepada pihak majikan bertarikh 9 & 10 January 2001 membantah isu umur persaraan dan perkara-perkara lain. Ia juga menyentuh tentang mesyuarat bersama antara pihak majikan, Jabatan Buruh, Jabatan Perhubungan Perindustrian, Kementerian Sumber Manusia dan KPPG mengenai bantahan pekerja terhadap syarat umur persaraan. Ia juga menyentuh tentang aduan dari pekerja bahawa majikan memaksa mereka untuk menandatangani Buku Panduan Syarat-Syarat & Peraturan Pekerjaan.

23 Ogos 2001: Pihak majikan Guppy kali ini campurtangan pula dalam urusan/aktiviti kesatuan. Pihak kesatuan telah mencadangkan kutipan derma kepada salah seorang pekerja yang ditimpa kemalangan dan berada dalam keadaan serius. Maka AJK-AJK berkenaan yang mengutip sumbangan dishif pagi telah menyerahkan sumbangan tersebut kepada pekerja tersebut. Manakala kutipan sumbangan shif 2 dan 3 pula tidak sampai ke tangan kesatuan. Pihak majikan pula telah mengugut 2 AJK Kesatuan untuk menyerahkan kutipan sumbangan shif pagi sebelum pukul lima dan sekiranya gagal akan diserahkan kepada polis dan akan dijadikan kes curi. Tuduhan-tuduhan palsu yang sengaja dilemparkan untuk mengikis semua AJK dari kilang Guppy terus dibuat.

25 Ogos 01:     2 AJK yang terbabit (Sdri Rahimah selaku naib Pengerusi & Visaletchumi selaku timbalan bendahari) dalam isu tersebut di gantung kerja atas alasan menyerahkan wang kutipan tersebut kepada pengerusi Kesatuan tanpa izin majikan dan seterusnya mereka mencemarkan nama AJK dengan tuduhan mencuri. Muslihat pihak majikan untuk memangsakan AJK dan ahli kesatuan Guppy berterusan.

3 Sept 2001:    Kesatuan menulis surat kepada Menteri Sumber Manusia memohon beliau campurtangan dalam isu pemangsaan ahli-ahli kesatuan.

25 Sept 2001:  Aduan (ke-13) kepada Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan terhadap majikan yang melanggar undang-undang Buruh (isu pekerja-pekerja Guppy di Prai)

26 Sept 2001:  Surat kepada JPP (ke-14) mengenai siasatan dalaman terhadap 2 AJK tersebut yang berat sebelah.

27 Sept 2001:  Kesatuan telah menghadiri rundingan damai di antara pekerja-pekerja terbabit dengan isu persaraan dan majikan yang diatur oleh JPP.

1 Oct 2001:     Kesatuan telah membuat aduan terhadap majikan kepada Pengarah Buruh Pulau Pinang mengenai layanan buruk syarikat terhadap pekerja – masalah pekerja yang diutarakan adalah berkaitan isu kenaikan gaji, bonus, cuti sakit, cuti tahunan, kenaikan pangkat dan kerja lebih masa.

3 Oct 2001:     Kedua-dua AJK yang di tuduh mencuri dipecat selepas siasatan dalaman yang tidak mengikut amalan undang-undang dijalankan. Kes difail di IRD dibawah Seksyen 20.

25 Oct 2001:   Kesatuan menulis surat kepada Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan (ke-15) Penang untuk membantah pelaksanaan Buku Panduan Syarat-Syarat & Peraturan Pekerjaan yang bercanggah dengan Akta Pekerjaan 1955 dan Perlembagaan Persekutuan Negara. Antara isu-isu tersebut ialah berkaitan Notis Penamatan, Waktu Bekerja, Umur Persaraan dan kenaikan gaji tahunan.

29 Okt 2001:   Aduan (ke-16) di bawah Seksyen 8 kepada Pengarah JPP terhadap majikan yang melakukan penindasan dan memangsakan AJK-AJK kesatuan.

29-30 Okt 01:  Dua orang ahli jawatankuasa kecil kesatuan di Prai iaitu Kumaresan dan Suriakala telah dibuang kerja. Aduan dihantar kepada Pengarah IRD mengenai isu pemangsaan ini.

25 Nov 2001:   Surat dari Kesatuan kepada Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan (ke-17) membantah pelaksanaan Buku Panduan Syarat-Syarat & Peraturan Pekerjaan oleh pihak syarikat Guppy. Sebanyak 32 perkara di bawa ke perhatian Pengarah JPP termasuk isu umur persaraan.

Disember 2001 – Jun 2002: Kesatuan telah menghantar 3 pucuk surat kepada pihak majikan berhubung isu pengiktirafan kesatuan. Tapi tiada respon dari majikan.

8 Jan 2002:      Surat dari Dato Dr. Toh Kin Woon (EXCO Negeri Pulau Pinang) kepada Pengarah Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan meminta campurtangan menyelesaikan aduan pekerja-pekerja Guppy Plastic Industries membantah pelaksanaan Buku Panduan Syarat-Syarat & Peraturan Pekerjaan.

21 Jan 2002:    Pihak Kesatuan telah ke IRD Penang untuk membuat rundingan berhubung isu pemecatan kerja 2 AJk di Prai. Kedua-dua kes kemudian telah di rujuk ke Mahkamah Industri.

9 Feb 2002:     Berikutan aduan kesatuan mengenai Buku Peraturan, Jabatan Buruh Butterworth telah mengadakan satu rundingan di antara para pekerja dan pegawai Jab Buruh.

21 Mac 2002:  Kesatuan telah mengadakan perbincangan dengan pegawai Jabatan Hal Ehwal Kesatuan Selangor mengenai urusan kesatuan.

8 Apr 2002:     Pegawai Jab Hal Ehwal Kesatuan, Pn. Siti Norhayati melawat pihak kesatuan di Cheras Jaya untuk membincang masalah-masalah kesatuan.

4 Jul 2002:       Kesatuan berjumpa dengan pegawai di Jabatan Perhubungan Industri di Putrajaya berkenaan semua kes pemecatan yang telah dirujuk.

2 Ogos 2005:   Pernyataan Kes yang difail oleh IRO bagi pihak pekerja-pekerja (9 orang) yang dihentikan kerja atas alasan mencapai umur persaraan, di Mahkamah Industri

5 Jan 2006:      2 AJK (Sdri Rahimah dan Visaletchumi) menang kes di Mahkamah Perusahaan dengan masing-masing menerima pampasan tapi mereka dilarang mengumumkan jumlah yang diterima kepada awam.

31.5.2006:       Kes pemecatan 3 pemimpin kesatuan: Perbicaraan semula dijalankan di Mahkamah Perusahaan 14 (No. 14(2)/4-707/98). Award 965 telah menolak tuntutan 3 pekerja tersebut iaitu pembuangan kerja secara tak sah.

19.7.2006:       Permohonan Semakan dalam Mahkamah Tinggi oleh 3 pemimpin kesatuan yang kalah perbicaraan di Mah Perindustrian.

4 Dis 2007:      Kesatuan menang kes pemangsaan ahli-ahli kesatuan di Mahkamah Perusahaan

6 May 2008:    Dalam kes pemangsaan kesatuan, mahkamah meminta majikan memberi lebih ruang kepada kesatuan untuk berfungsi termasuk menyingkirkan peraturan-peraturan dalam buku panduan pekerja yang menghalang aktiviti kesatuan. Pekerja migrant boleh jadi ahli kesatuan. Majikan setuju untuk membina hubungan dengan Jawatankuasa Kesatuan (Baru)

3 Julai 2008:    Kes umur persaraan: Keputusan Kes Mahkamah Perusahaan [No. 26 (14)/4-244/05, Award No. 1147] dibuat di bawah seksyen 30 Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, memihak pihak pekerja.

13 Ogos 2008: Permohonan untuk perintah certiorari di Mahkamah Tinggi oleh pihak majikan (Goh Boon King, perayu) untuk membatalkan keputusan kes umur persaraan.

14.12.2009:     Mahkamah Tinggi mendapati pembuangan kerja 3 pemimpin Kesatuan Guppy adalah tidak adil, terlalu keras dan salah! Kes dirujuk semula ke mahkamah perindustrian untuk pengiraan pampasan dan gantirugi.

13 April 2010: Kes Umur Persaraan: pihak pekerja kalah di Mah Tinggi. Notis rayuan difail.

Oct 2011:        Pihak majikan Guppy mula bincang tentang pembayaran gantirugi tetapi majikan mula mengertak mereka dan berkata  dan meminta mereka mengambil 60% dan merahsiakan kemenangan mereka dan jika mereka enggan merahsiakan kemenangan mereka, maka Syarikat akan membuat rayuan di mahkamah rayuan dan ini mungkin akan mengambil lebih masa lagi.

30 Okt 2011: 3 orang pekerja ini merasakan bahawa pembuangan kerja mereka adalah tidak sah. 3 pekerja ini membuat kemputusan untuk menghebohkan sahaja kemenangan mereka. Sidang akhbar di hadapan syarikat Guppy.

31 Oct 2011:   Isu umur persaraan – selepas menunggu 1.5 tahun, pekerja- pekerja wanita yang kini berumur 60 tahun ke atas merayu kepada Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia untuk mempercepatkan pendengaran kes mereka – melalui memorandum

12 Jan 2012:    Perbicaraan kes di Mahkamah Rayuan untuk isu umur persaraan [W2-02-1194-10]. Kes ditunda ke 21 Mar 2012.

21 Feb 2012:   Perbicaraan kes 3 pemimpin kesatuan di Mahkamah Rayuan: Keputusan menyebelahi pihak majikan.

——————————————————————————————————————–

Young People Gathering at Templer Park!!

17 March 2012, 9.00 a.m. Templer Park

About 30 young adults age 14-22 years old were organised by the PSM Kajang Branch for a outing at Templer Park, Rawang to enjoy the green jungle and the fresh water. It was refreshing. The weather was good and the kids sure did enjoy the water fall, jungle tracking and team building games.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 We forgot our camera though, luckily most of us had mobile phone to capture the moments!!!

The outing ended with a brief interactive session. We talked about how family and society perceive them. Their respond wasn’t really shocking – ‘poriki’, useless, ‘vetti’, naughty, and  so on. Well towards the end of our dialogue, manage to commit them to organise one activity at their residential area that would benefit the community – so that they can get good name – Cheras Perdana youth wanted to do ‘gotong royong’, Tmn. Delima team wanted to organise futsal and Kajang Utama youth team eager to organise telematch.

Our best wishes to the young adults.

Retirement Age Discrimination: Case in Appeals Court 21 Mar 2012

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Jawatankuasa Memperjuangkan Umur Persaraan Pekerja Wanita
c/o No 8, Tingkat 2, Jalan Balakong, Batu 11, Jalan Cheras, 43000 Kajang Selangor
Tel: 016-3733692 Fax: 03-87374772

To,
(i) ALL EDITORS Of Media and Newspaper Publication
(ii) ALL WOMEN NGOs

Dear Sir/Madam,

ANOTHER LANDMARK CASE ON GENDER DISCRIMINATION: 8 WOMEN FIGHTING FOR FAIR RETIREMENT AGE

Eight women who were unjustly sacked by their employer Guppy Plastic Industries with 24 hours notice 10 years ago finally got a hearing date from the Appeals Court to challenge the High Court decision that favored the employer.

The women were appalled by their employer’s decision to terminate them on the grounds that they are 50 when males are terminated only at 55! The Industrial court ruled that it was a discrimination policy and Stone Age law but the High Court overturned it. Now the matter goes to the Appeals court. The details of the case are:

Date: 21-03-2012 (Wednesday)
Time: 09.00am
Venue: Appeals Court, Putra Jaya

They filed the appeal on 20 April 2010 and waited longer than 1½ year to be heard. Their family members and many activists would be present. If they win, it would be a good precedent.

We would like your presence at the Court  to support the struggle of these women to be treated with dignity and fairness.

For further clarification, please call Koyilvani 016-3733692 or Sevan 012-3762023.

Thank you