A NATIONAL UNION FOR WORKERS IN THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the early declarations of policy by the Government is the encouragement of the formation of national unions of workers. The Opposition does not find fault with this policy. In fact, the Opposition supports and welcomes this policy. But then, Sir, the declaration of a policy is one thing, and the method employed to implement that policy is quite another thing. I do not propose now, Sir, to go into details the many acts of suggestive intimidation and of the many manipulations that are being practised by the P.A.P. trade union leaders in an endeavour to win over uncommitted unions and organised workers.

Today I wish to speak on a national union for workers in the petroleum industry. I want to make it clear that I am not speaking as adviser to the Singapore Petroleum Workers Union, but that I am speaking today as a trade unionist. Sir, the distribution of oil has been classified as an essential service under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance. It is, therefore, imperative that everything must be done to see to it that industrial peace and justice are not upset as a result of irresponsible activities on the part of employers and unions alike.

Sir, when the Government came into power in June 1959, there were in existence four trade unions representing workers in the petroleum industry. The Singapore Petroleum Workers Union, the oldest union, was registered in 1952. The Shell Employees Union, the Stanvac Employees Union and the Caltex Employees Union came into being in succeeding years. To strengthen themselves, these four unions formed into a Federation of Oil Workers Unions in 1958. Hon. Members will recollect that with the formation of this Federation, there was a joint demand on the oil companies for recognition and for a bonus. And if I remember rightly, the advisers to this Federation at that time were the Hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law.

Sir, after the Government had made known its policy on national unions, the Shell Employees Union, the Caltex Employees Union and the Stanvac Employees Union held several meetings with a view to the formation of a national union. It was because of the deliberate exclusion of the Singapore Petroleum Workers Union, which was then and still is the oldest registered union, that these discussions did not result in the formation of a truly national union for oil workers. The Shell Employees Union and the Caltex Employees Union became amalgamated into a National Union of Oil Workers. The Stanvac Employees Union, however, pulled out of the discussions.

Sir, the N.U.O.W., which is led by P.A.P. members, was registered on the 27th January, 1960. And consequent upon this registration, the Stanvac Employees Union was notified by the Registrar of Trade Unions that it would be deregistered. This was obviously, Sir, due to the Government playing politics in this particular field. If the Stanvac Employees Union had toed the line and agreed to become absorbed into the National Union of Oil Workers, then the Singapore Petroleum Workers Union would have been deregistered for the same obvious reason. Sir, because of the registration in January 1960 of the P.A.P.-controlled N.U.O.W., because of the deregistration of the Stanvac Employees Union which refused to become absorbed into the NU.O.W., and because of the P.A.P.-controlled T.U.C.'s acceptance of affiliation of the newly registered P.A.P.-controlled N.U.O.W. and their unjustified non-acceptance of affiliation of the Singapore Petroleum Workers Union, which was registered in 1952, it became obvious to people outside that the P.A.P. was playing party politics in this particular sector.

Sir, it was also inevitable that there would be trade union rivalry in the petroleum industry. As a trade unionist, I could see that this rivalry would be to the detriment of the workers in the industry. So when I was approached in February this year by the Singapore Petroleum Workers Union to be its honorary adviser, I accepted the appointment on one condition: that the S.P.W.U. agreed to empower me to see the Minister for Labour and Law to take steps towards the formation of a truly national union of oil workers. With this authority, Sir, I saw the Minister for Labour and Law and offered my services to bring unity among the oil workers. Under the chairmanship of the Minister, Sir, there was a meeting with representatives of the N.U.O.W. and the Secretary-General of the T.U.C. At this meeting I put up my suggestions for the formation of a truly national union of oil workers and I was told that I would be informed at a later date of the views of the N.U.O.W. No such information materialised.

Sir, rival union activities intensified. The leaders of the P A.P.-controlled N.U.O.W. in campaigning for members made full and free use of the Minister's name. They intimated that the Minister had told them that he would deregister the S.P.W.U. So why join the S.P.W.U. which had earned the displeasure of the Minister? The S.P.W.U. then, in an attempt to resolve this issue, requested the oil companies to conduct a secret ballot among the employees to ascertain which union the employees would wish to have to represent them. The N.U.O.W. objected to this and intimated that the proper thing to do was to conduct an industry-wide secret ballot of all direct employees to ascertain which union should be the union to survive to represent the workers in the petroleum industry. Because of the intimation of the N.U.O.W., the S.P.W.U. then requested the Minister for Labour and Law to conduct such an industry-wide secret ballot of all direct employees. This request, Sir, did not elicit any reply from the Minister for some time. The S.P.W.U. then called a general meeting and explained the situation to its members. At this particular meeting it was unanimously resolved that strike notices should be issued to the oil companies to gain recognition.

Sir, the issue of these strike notices coincided with the sending of a letter by the Minister to the S.P.W.U. inviting them to send representatives to a meeting together with representatives of the N.U.O.W. and of the oil companies to discuss the arrangement for conducting an industry-wide secret ballot of all direct employees. Press reports, Sir, in this connection indicated that the Minister was very, very angry indeed with the S.P.W.U. for having sent strike notices, and it was also indicated in the Press that the Minister threatened to take action against the S.P.W.U. unless the S.P.W.U. withdrew the strike notices.

Sir, this meeting arranged by the Minister duly took place in the Ministry under his chairmanship. At this meeting the Minister quite rightly pointed out to the representatives of the S.P.W.U. that there could be no discussion on the arrangement for conducting an industry-wide secret ballot of all direct employees unless the S.P.W.U. withdrew the strike notices. The representatives of the S.P.W.U., in order to discharge their responsibilities to their members, elicited from the Minister that the strike notices were not contrary to the laws of the State and that should an industry-wide secret ballot take place, the union winning the ballot would survive. The representatives of the S.P.W.U. told the Minister that they had no power to withdraw the strike notices but that they would go back to the general body and advise them of the wishes of the Minister. The meeting then terminated.

The S.P.W.U., Sir, issued a circular to their members calling them to a general meeting and informing them of what took place at the meeting in the Ministry of Labour and Law. This circular telling the facts obviously got under the skin or the Minister and he rushed to the Press and denied that he ever gave an assurance at that meeting to the representatives of the S.P.W.U. that should an industry-wide secret ballot take place the union winning the ballot would survive. As was to be expected, Sir, this caused great resentment in the minds of the members of the S.P.W.U. Therefore, I was asked to attend their general meeting because it was felt that the meeting might become highly critical of this kind of double talk. I therefore attended the meeting. And I must say, Sir, that that meeting was very, very firm in its feelings against the Minister for denying what they believed their representatives had told them the truth. There was strong talk of not wanting to withdraw the strike notices. Sir, I was able to pacify the meeting. I explained to them that they should not take heed of any kind of double talk that had been going on; that if any industry-wide secret ballot were to take place, it would be ridiculous and foolish on the part of the Government to ignore the union that came out successful in a ballot conducted by the Government. Therefore, the meeting should take no heed of whether or not the Minister did or did not give an assurance. I was also able, Sir, to persuade the meeting to withdraw the strike notices, because I explained to them that it was a proper thing to do; that if the discussions at the Labour Ministry with all the parties concerned were to be conducted in an atmosphere of cordiality and in a spirit of goodwill, then the strike notices should be withdrawn.

Sir, some spies of the Minister rushed to him and misinformed him of my speech at that general meeting. And behaving in a manner that is typical of the Minister, he rushed into press and accused me of saying things that I did not say and threatened a probe into my alleged utterances.

Sir, a probe in this particular context can only mean one thing - a form of suggestive intimidation. I read this Press report when I was in Brunei. The Hon, the Prime Minister was also there attending the Sultan's birthday celebrations. And believe me, Sir, I had a good laugh about how silly a P.A.P. Minister could be. Sir, this kind of suggestive intimidation is really typical of the Minister for Labour and Law. The public has not yet forgotten the threat that he issued against an employer - the threat of using the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance on an employer. The public has not yet forgotten that.

Sir, even if I had, as misreported by the spies of the Minister, said the things that it was alleged that I had said, surely it was in the exercise of my democratic rights; or are we to understand that under the P.A.P. Government there is now no longer freedom of speech as there is now no longer freedom of the Press as stated by the Member for Hong Lim?

Sir, the meeting then agreed to withdraw the strike notices, and so the representatives of the S.P.W.U. attended another meeting at the Labour Ministry. At this meeting the N.U.O.W. turned about face and did not agree to an industry-wide secret ballot of all direct employees although it was their original demand. And they then insisted that the secret ballot should only be confined to members of the unions. Sir, if the Minister for Labour and Law had really been impartial, he would have insisted that the N.U.O.W. stick to their original demand. But then, Sir, could one expect a P.A.P. Minister to render a slap to a P.A.P.-controlled union? So the second meeting was again abortive.

A third meeting took place again on the 11th of October. Nothing came out of it. But it was left to the two unions to talk among themselves and find a way out of this difficulty. The S.P.W.U. then wrote a letter after this meeting to the N.U.O.W., inviting them to a meeting to discuss ways and means to resolve their differences and form a truly national union for oil workers.

Sir, while this correspondence was going on as to when, where and how such a meeting should take place, the Justice Chua Court of Inquiry submitted its report to the Minister for Labour and Law. This report had been given publicity in the Press. Among other things, the Court recommended that to put an end to this union rivalry it was imperative that one national union be created. The Court also found that the action taken by the N.U.O.W. was a strike within the meaning of the laws of the State. As the N.U.O.W. had not complied with the law by giving a 14-day strike notice, the N.U.O.W. had therefore indulged in an illegal strike. The union leaders and the N.U.O.W. are therefore liable to prosecution.

Sir, the report of the Justice Chua Court of Inquiry came out in the Press on the 24th of October. The S.P.W.U. submitted demands to the three oil companies for better conditions of employment and these demands were given prominence in the Press on the 25th of October. On the 26th of October - just a big knife. The union was told by the Registrar of Trade Unions that the Registrar was satisfied that this union should be deregistered. Both unions were then told by the Registrar of Trade Unions that they would be deregistered. Sir, the action against the N.U.O.W. was called for because of the findings of the Justice Chua Court of Inquiry. The N.U.O.W. had indulged in an illegal strike. The leaders of the N.U.O.W. had behaved in an irresponsible manner. Therefore, it was quite right that the union should be deregistered. But why penalise the S. P.W.U. also for an act committed by a rival union?

Sir, according to the notice issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions, the ground for such proposed cancellation was that "the Registrar is satisfied that the trade union is likely to be used against the interest of workmen in the petroleum industry." Let us take note of the operative words "the trade union is likely to be used" and not "the trade union has been used" against the interest of workmen in the petroleum industry. Sir, is it against the interest of workmen for the union to submit demands on the employers for improved conditions of employment? Or is it because the Government is very anxious to protect the interest of employers, and that is why the R.T.U. had to clamp down on the trade union which had submitted demands to the employers for improved conditions of employment? Sir, if the Registrar of Trade Unions had not taken that action against the S.P.W.U., the union and the employers today would be sitting round a table negotiating for a new wage agreement for workmen in the petroleum industry and certain benefits were bound to accrue. And yet the ground for the cancellation of registration is that the union is likely to be used against the interest of workmen in the industry.

Sir, during the general election, the P.A.P. promised that it would help to raise the standard of living and help to improve the conditions of the workers in the State. I do not want to suggest, Sir, that the P.A.P. has forgotten its promise, but if it has not forgotten its promise, how can we reconcile this with the fact that the Government had to close down the union one day after it had sent in a demand for improved conditions of employment for workmen in the State of Singapore?

Sir, the N.U.O.W. have accepted the justification for the deregistration. Obviously, they could not protest because they were in the wrong; but the S.P.W.U. have strongly protested against this unjustifiable action. They claim that it is not fair and justifiable on the part of the Government to punish them for an irresponsible act perpetrated by a P.A.P.-controlled union. They say that they should not be punished for what they did not do. I would like to know what the Government proposes to do about this. It is not right and proper that this union should be deregistered. But then again one can ask the question, "Will this solve the situation in the petroleum industry?" But I, Sir, know the leadership of the S.P.W.U. quite well, and I can say this, that this leadership is prepared to reorganise the union and bring in the leaders of the N.U.O.W. to form a truly national union of petroleum workers.

4.50 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Member for Cairnhill gave notice of his proposed adjournment speech under the heading of "A National Union for Workers in the Petroleum Industry", I was under the impression that he was going to entertain the House with his expert experience as the former Minister for Labour and Welfare, but instead he proclaims himself to be a trade unionist.

I believe that the object of the hon. Member's adjournment speech is to find a way to solve the dissatisfaction of the workers in the petroleum industry. After hearing his speech, I rise, as the acting Minister for Labour and Law, to speak on the fundamental issues, but I shall not talk at length by going into the details of the negotiations for which the Government provided the facilities.

However, Mr Speaker, I would like to state that the union that the Member for Cairnhill alleges to have been in existence since 1952 was not known as the S.P.W.U. It was not until the end of August 1955 that that union changed its name and called itself the S.P.W.U. By that time, there were already on the register the Shell Employees Union and the Stanvac Employees Union, the membership of each of which was open to workers in the respective oil company. Besides, the Caltex Employees Union, which was registered in October 1955, was actually in the course of organisation by then. Moreover, not withstanding the assumption of its new name, the rules of the S.P.W.U. remained confined to workers employed by oil-dealers and were not open to workers employed by oil companies until the end of November 1957.

The above facts show clearly that it is not at all correct to say that the S.P.W.U. is the oldest union catering for workers in the oil industry and that the other unions in the oil industry are splinter unions.

The Member for Cairnhill has said that the Government has deviated from its declared policy of bringing about unity among the workers by the formation of one union for each industry instead of having splinter or yellow unions.

Now let me give some facts about the emergence of the N.U.O.W. About six months after the assumption of office of the P.A.P. Government in June 1959, the N.U.O.W. applied for registration as a new union. There were then already on the register, the S.P.W.U., the Shell Employees Union, the Stanvac Employees Union and the Caltex Employees Union. The application was forthwith refused by the Registrar on the ground that the Trade Unions Ordinance had already been amended to empower the Registrar to refuse registration of any splinter union. The applicants accordingly withdrew their application. Is there then any truth in the allegation that the P.A.P. Government was encouraging the formation of any splinter union?

At the end of January 1960, the Shell Employees Union and the Caltex Employees Union effected a voluntary amalgamation and adopted the title of "N.U.O.W." with new rules which opened its membership to all workers in the oil industry. The Registrar had no power to refuse such an amalgamation, which was accordingly registered. This was how the N.U.O.W. came into existence. The registration of this amalgamation was, in fact, the marriage of two unions, one of which was registered before the S.P.W.U. came into being under that title, and the other one before the S.P.W.U. amended its rules to accept employees in oil companies as its members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I was not present during the negotiations which were held in the Ministry of Labour, I feel that I am not in a position to state exactly what transpired at those meetings. The Government has no intention of backing the N.U.O.W. at the expense of the S.P.W.U.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this matter dragged on until 21st October, 1960, when the Court of Inquiry was appointed under the then Industrial Courts Ordinance (Chapter 151) to inquire into the causes and circumstances of the dispute between the Standard-Vacuum Oil Company and the N.U.O.W., resulting in the dismissal of an employee. The Court submitted its Report and recommended, amongst other things, the formation at the earliest possible moment of one single union for all employees in the oil industry, because otherwise the increasing rivalry between the unions might, in the opinion of the Court, lead to other larger and even more serious incidents than the one which the Court inquired into.

4.59 p.m.

Mr G. Kandasamy (Kampong Kapor): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill prefaced his speech with the remark that he supported Government's policy of unification of trade unions. If he supports that policy, then he must realise that the unification of trade unions - amalgamation or federation in the initial stages - can only take place with the ultimate aim of amalgamating the several unions that are in the same industry. The trade unions have generally accepted this policy and have, since June 1959, worked towards achieving unification. It is in this spirit that the Stanvac Employees Union, the Shell Employees Union and the Caltex Employees Union amalgamated and formed the National Union of Oil Workers. At the time the amalgamation was made and registered, the three unions were affiliates of the Singapore Trades Union Congress. It is the normal practice that where three unions have been affiliates of the Congress and have since amalgamated, the new union that has been registered is considered as an affiliate in place of the names of the three unions which will be deleted from the records of the Congress. The National Union of Oil Workers became an affiliate of the T.U.C. I must inform the House that before the amalgamation, those three unions were affiliated to the T.U.C. as far back as 1958. In 1958, the Trades Union Congress did make efforts to bring in the Singapore Petroleum Workers Union as well. At that time, the S.P.W.U. refused to affiliate with the T.U.C. It was only after the National Union of Oil Workers became an affiliate of the T.U.C. that the S.P.W.U. wished to become an affiliate of the T.U.C. It was at this, time that the dispute between the two unions reached the stage where all parties, the Minister and the T.U.C., were very concerned that this dispute, or inter-union rivalry for members might develop to the extent that it might harm union relationship and might discourage members from remaining in unions.

The T.U.C. made a conscious effort to bring about amalgamation at the last meeting that was held in the Minister's office. That meeting was attended by the S.P.W.U. representatives, the N.U.O.W. representatives and the T.U.C. representatives. The object of the meeting was to find ways and means of unifying these two unions. Both unions adopted different approaches, and after some discussion, the Vice-President of the S.P.W.U. himself made a proposal that a selected number of representatives from the two unions should hold meetings to draft a new constitution for a new single union. The proposal was a sound one and the Minister accepted it. The T.U.C. also accepted it. What happened was that a paid officer of the S.P.W.U. - one might call him a paid clerk, not an executive officer of the union, but a paid clerk - protested against this proposal. Nevertheless, the T.U.C. and the Minister recommended this proposal submitted by the Vice-President of the S.P.W.U., and asked the two unions to consider it. Two days later, we read in the papers that the Vice-President of the S.P.W.U. had been expelled from the unions. After that the S.P.W.U. invited the N.U.O.W. to a meeting at their headquarters. The N.U.O.W. did not reject the invitation. They accepted it, but suggested that. as a result of the inter-union rivalry, feelings had become so bad that it was better to have the meeting in a neutral place. And the venue suggested was the T.U.C.

An hon. Member: It is not neutral!

Mr Kandasamy: The S.P.W.U. later suggested the Y.M.C.A. Probably they thought the Y.M.C.A. was neutral. The N.U.O.W. accepted the proposal. But just two hours before the meeting was scheduled to be held, the S.P.W.U. again cancelled it.

Now, the Member for Cairnhill can have only one motive for bringing up this question here, because I am sure, as the honorary adviser to the S.P.W.U., he is well aware that meetings have been taking place; that five representatives of the S.P.W.U. and five representatives of the N.U.O.W. have been meeting on several occasions to draft a constitution. And if we have the interest of the unions at heart, and if we believe that these two unions should unite and that there should be one and only one union for the oil workers in the oil industry, as recommended by Justice Chua at the Court of Inquiry, then we should work towards that. But the speech of the Member for Cairnhill makes it quite clear that it is not his intention that this meeting should be a success.

The Trades Union Congress, Sir, have made it very clear to the representatives of the S.P.W.U. and the N.U.O.W. that the best thing that can happen in this situation is for the two unions to agree upon a constitution, and having agreed upon a constitution, then let the members elect whom they want as their leaders. But not so the S.P.W.U. As the Member for Cairnhill himself remarked just now, the S.P.W.U. made this grand gesture, "Come and join the S.P.W.U. As for the leaders, we will arrange that. We will fix that." If this is the attitude of the S.P.W.U. as regards arranging leaders and fixing leaders, then the trade union will not be a trade union, but it will be a company-controlled union. I am surprised, Sir, that the Member for Cairnhill, who spoke as a trade unionist, should at this juncture, when one might call it "peace talks" are being carried out, when there is a possibility that a new constitution will be adopted, when there is a possibility that these two unions will come together, make this, one might say, deliberate attempt to keep them apart.

The Government's order to cancel the registration of the two unions was no doubt motivated by the recommendation of the Court of Inquiry to have one single union. In order to achieve one single union, notices went out that the registration of two unions should be cancelled, and after the cancellation, a single union should be created. There is no suggestion, either in the T.U.C. or anywhere else, as to what type of union should be created or who should be its leaders. What is important is that there should be one single union in the oil industry for the oil workers and managed by the oil workers.

Tun Lim Yew Hock rose -

Mr Speaker: Tun Lim, is it a point of order?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: No, Sir.

Mr Speaker: There is no right of reply.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes past Five o'clock to Tuesday, 29th November, 1960.