INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate on Second Reading resumed.

7.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker: The debate on the Second Reading of the Bill may now proceed. The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, though I am grateful to the Minister for Labour for presenting before this House a Bill to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1962, I have some comments to make, especially in relation to the proposed amendments.

My first comment is in respect of clause 8 of the Bill in which it is proposed to include new section 15A in the Ordinance. I gladly welcome the move to bring the question of union recognition by an employer within the scope of the Ordinance by treating recognition as an industrial matter. But my concern is that the question of union recognition does not seem to be adequately dealt with in the proposed amendment. I refer to the fact that a union may not be granted recognition by an employer if the result of a secret ballot shows that the trade union does not represent the majority of the employees or class of employees in respect of whom the right to represent is claimed by the trade union, as stated in subsection (3) of the proposed section 15A.

Sir, I am bringing up this point because, once this Bill is passed by this House and becomes law, the question of union recognition becomes very vital and crucial to any union, and until a union has been accorded recognition by an employer in accordance with the provisions of the proposed section, the union has no right to represent the employees vis-a-vis the employers.

This problem of union recognition does not arise in the case of an established industry or undertaking where unionisation has taken place or has been taking place for some time. In such a case, the provision for union recognition as set out in the proposed section is adequate, because unionisation of workers will have taken place. The problem then would likely be one of whether Union A or Union B should be given the right to represent the workers. In such a situation, where two rival unions compete for the right to represent the workers - I repeat once more here - I agree that the provision of the proposed amendment deals adequately with the problem of resolving which union is to be accorded the right to represent the employees. I do not think there will be any disagreement among Members in this House that they would not consider it unfair that the union which obtains the majority of votes in a secret ballot should be given the sole right to represent the workers vis-a-vis the employer. What I have in mind is this, that in the case of a new industry or undertaking where unionisation is in the process of taking place and in such a case where a union has only started to move in and organise the workers, it is plain common sense that it will take some time before the union can enrol the majority of workers in such industry or undertaking to become members of the union.

I have been given to understand by the Pioneer Industries Employees' Union that the workers in such industry or undertaking are often reluctant to become members of the union until they are convinced that the union can do something for them in relation to their benefits, terms and conditions of service. But this means, in effect, that the workers expect the union to obtain a favourable collective agreement on their behalf before they consent to become members of the union. This I can assure you, Sir, can make things rather difficult for the union, because when negotiations for a collective agreement break down - and this is highly probable in the case of a first collective agreement - the matter will be referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court whose practice in the case of a first collective agreement is to make an award that follows the minimum provisions of the prevailing employment Ordinance in Singapore. It is not difficult to understand here why these workers question the purpose of a union when it is unable to obtain for them benefits over and above those laid down in the relevant employment Ordinances.

To come to the point, it would be hardly conducive to industrial peace to allow a situation to develop where an employer can refuse recognition to a union solely on the ground that it does not represent the majority of the employees. So to prevent such a situation I suggest that some provision be made for the Minister to direct, at his discretion, that any union be accorded recognition by an employer, notwithstanding the fact that such a provision will have the effectiveness of the proposed section 15A. Such a provision, of course, is subject to the fact that only one union is involved in this question of union recognition.

As I have stated earlier, Sir, where two or more unions are competing for recognition it is only fair that the union which obtains the majority of votes in a secret ballot is entitled to represent the workers comprised in the secret ballot. To extend this principle of majority to a situation where only one union is seeking recognition from an employer is to create unnecessary industrial unrest and injustice because, as I have said earlier, in the case of a new industry or undertaking, it may be difficult for a union to organise the majority of the workers until some time has elapsed.

The last point I would like to make in respect of this question of union recognition is that some provision must be made to safeguard the interests of workers who are members of a union which has lost out in secret ballots where there are two unions competing for the right to represent the workers. Now, according to the provisions of the proposed section l5A, only a successful union will be recognised as a negotiating body for the workers. But, as it often happens, the members of the unsuccessful union are liable to be victimised by the employers. I am fully aware that sections 75, 76 and 77 of the Ordinance provide legal protection for such workers who have been victimised by the employers. The difficulty lies in enforcing or seeking the legal protection provided under the Ordinance. The difficulty lies in the fact that no employer will be so foolish as to state in writing the true reasons why he had victimised a worker. It may be that the latter is engaged in trade union activities and also the fact that the worker, being a human being, is so perfect that an employer cannot find any fault in his conduct or competence or efficiency as to warrant his justification for the dismissal of the employee. I will deal with this point more fully later. For the present, I only wish to add that the successful prosecution of an employer under the provisions of sections 75, 76 and 77 of the Ordinance must be dependent on circumstantial evidence in the absence of better evidence.

An employer may tell a worker in the privacy of his office that it is detrimental to the interests of the worker if he persists in continuing his union activities. If the employer is brought to court and if he denies that he ever made such a statement, then it is the worker's word against the employer as to whether such a statement was ever made by the employer.

Considering the difficulty facing a worker when he seeks to obtain redress through the ordinary law court, it is no surprise that the worker would prefer to have his legitimate grievance or complaint dealt with by the Industrial Arbitration Court.

Sir, the point I want to make here is that the proposed section l5A should provide that where two or more unions compete for the right to represent the workers, those workers who have been members of the unsuccessful union up to the time of the secret ballot and still continue to be members of the unsuccessful union in spite of the fact that this union has no locus standi in the eyes of the employer, should be brought before the Arbitration Court by the unsuccessful union. As I see it, this question of union recognition should be properly treated as a question of the definition of the relationship between an employer and a union in respect of a collective agreement and other incidental matters thereof. While an employer is entitled to refuse to deal with any union other than the one to whom he has accorded recognition, in accordance with the provision of the proposed section 15A., he should not be allowed to seek refuge behind the provisions of this section when he has committed an act of injustice which is within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Arbitration Court to direct.

At this juncture, I think I should remind Members that the Industrial Arbitration Court grants hearing only to an employer or to a union - an individual worker has no right to appear before the Industrial Arbitration Court. The Industrial Arbitration Court grants hearing only to an employer. So there is no opportunity for an individual worker, if he has grievances, to appear before the Court. Even no union can appear on his behalf, because, you see, it is not recognised by the employer. Under the provisions of this proposed section 15A, the plight of those workers who are members of the union which lost out in the secret ballot is most unenviable. Any dispute the workers may have with their employer cannot be brought before the Industrial Arbitration Court, because under the provisions of section 20 (a) of the Ordinance, a joint application by both the employer and the union is necessary for the reference of the dispute to the Industrial Arbitration Court. In the situation as I am describing now, the employer will not consent to make a joint application with the union which the employer is entitled not to recognise as a representative of the workers, and the union which is accorded recognition by the employer will be entitled to refuse to take up the case of these workers who are not their members. This, in effect, leaves such workers without the right of redress to the Industrial Arbitration Court. Under the provisions of the present Ordinance, the Minister may direct such a dispute as I have described to be referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court in accordance with the provisions of section 28 (b) . But my only concern is whether the enactment of the proposed section 15A will have any effect on the Minister's right to intervene in the situation I have described before. If the Minister for Labour can give me an assurance that it is still possible, after the enactment of the proposed section 15A, for workers who are members of a union which lost out in a secret ballot to obtain redress through the Industrial Arbitration Court in the event of any dispute arising between them and the employer, I shall be most satisfied.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to comment on another section of the Bill which is section 18 where it is proposed to delete the existing subsections (2) and (3) of section 39 of the Ordinance and insert in place thereof another five subsections. My interest lies with the proposed subsection (6) wherein it is stated that an appeal from the decision of a referee to the Court shall be made in the prescribed manner within 14 days from the date of the referee's decision. I am of the opinion that the 14 days' limit for the making of an appeal is inadequate. My reasons for saying so are, (a) it is nowhere stated in any of the proposed subsections of section 39 that the referee must make his award in writing or that the referee must give the grounds of his decision together with his decision. I do not see how a person can make an appeal unless he knows what he is appealing from. The present system of making available transcripts of court proceedings to the parties is highly unsatisfactory, because of apparent understaffing in the Industrial Arbitration Court. It may take a party as long as three months to obtain such transcripts. I have been given to understand that some unions had made representations to the Industrial Arbitration Court in respect of this delay in obtaining Court transcripts and had been told by the Court officer that the Court is under no obligation to supply Court transcripts to any party. While I agree that the Court officer is correct in making such a statement, the fact remains that the party to any proceedings before the Industrial Arbitration Court has to wait for months before he can lay his hands on Court transcripts for which he has to pay quite a sum of money.

Another point is that no union can afford to employ a staff of stenographers at its own expense to take down Court proceedings for its own use. I am not making this criticism of the Industrial Arbitration Court for the purpose of running it down. What I want to emphasize is that the provisions of making an appeal within 14 days is impracticable in the light of the present staff situation in the Industrial Arbitration Court. I would suggest that the phrase "notice of appeal" be inserted in place of appeal in the proposed subsection (6) and that a longer time period be given for filing an appeal under the provisions of this Ordinance.

Then in section 22 of the Bill wherein it is proposed to delete subsection (2) of section 79 of the Ordinance and insert in place thereof seven new subsections, I am of the opinion that the proposed amendment does not add to the efficiency of section 79 and the proposed prosecution of an employer in respect of offences under section 75 or 77 is cumbersome as the existing mode of prosecution under the present provisions of this Ordinance. The crux of the matter, as far as the National Trades Union Congress is concerned, is whether the written consent of the Public Prosecutor is necessary before any prosecution can be instituted under the provisions of section 79. As I have said earlier, it is difficult enough to institute prosecution proceedings against an employer in respect of any offences under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance without making it more difficult by requiring that the Public Prosecutor must be satisfied that such a prosecution must have a chance of success before he would give his consent to the prosecution being instituted. In effect, this means that any complaint by a worker against his employer must have a double trial before he can obtain satisfaction for his complaint. First before the Public Prosecutor, and then before the trial judge. I am not speculating on the probable effect of the proposed amendment, but I am speaking from bitter experience. The National Trades Union Congress has submitted several cases to the then State Advocate-General, now the Attorney-General, for his necessary consent before instituting prosecution proceedings. In such cases as the British Eastern (Malaya) Ltd, and the Singer Sewing Machine Co., where some employees were dismissed by the employers in highly suspicious circumstances, no consent to the institution of prosecution proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance was obtained because the Attorney-General was of the opinion that there was no sufficient case. Only in one case that involved Lim Teck Lee & Co. was consent given to institute a prosecution. Even then I am given to understand that the police is not pressing forward with this prosecution. It is the contention of the National Trades Union Congress that, in view of the unsatisfactory mode of instituting prosecution proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, the most suitable manner of instituting prosecution proceedings should be as provided for under the provisions of section 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 132). In advocating such a procedure, I have in mind that the Public Prosecutor is already overburdened with work and that it will take some time for him to examine the facts of the case before he can decide whether to give his whole consent to the institution of any prosecution proceedings under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. I can see no strong objection to the adoption of the procedure laid down in Chapter 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code, except that possibly the Government of Singapore has no confidence in the incumbents on the Bench in the Magistrate's Court, for surely a magistrate will be able to put a stop to any frivolous prosecution when he comes across it.

In any event, there are sufficient safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent a person from being unduly inconvenienced by any complaint laid before the magistrate. I presume from the term "public officers" referred to in the proposed subsection, the Minister has in mind any Government employee other than a police officer. He is not very concerned as to who makes an investigation. I would have thought that the police officer, by the nature of his training, should be the proper person to make any investigation in respect of an offence under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance!

Under the procedure laid down in the proposed amendment, it may take a long time before consent to institute prosecution proceedings can be given. In the meantime, the worker who has been injured by an offence in respect of which consent to institute prosecution proceedings is sought, justifiably feels that his time is being wasted. Where an ordinary worker is concerned, I feel happier if he is to appear before a magistrate and told by him that he has no case against his employer.

I personally think that it is not only sufficient to ensure that justice is done, but it is also important to ensure that justice is seen to be done. As far as an ordinary worker is concerned, it appears to him that justice is not done where the decision to institute prosecution proceedings for an offence under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance is left solely in the hands of the Public Prosecutor. After all is over, he will still be left with the feeling that no action has ever been taken on his case.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am rather surprised that the Member for Bras Basah and the Member for Telok Blangah have still got so much to say on this Bill. In fact, the amendments contained in this Bill were based on a memorandum submitted by the N.T.U.C. at the end of 1964 and throughout the whole of 1965, we have spent much time with the representative of the N.T.U.C. to work out the amendments in this Bill. In fact, the amendments contained in this Bill were mainly proposals made by the N.T.U.C. and in many committee meetings we have already explained ---

Mr Ho See Beng: On a point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong resumed his seat.

Mr Ho See Beng: I can only agree with the Minister for Labour that some amendments were effected in consultation with the N.T.U.C. representative, but not all the amendments in the Industrial Relations Ordinance. In our deliberations with the officials of the Ministry of Labour, we told them that we would reserve our right to comment. So we did not fully agree with all the amendments, but we did agree with some amendments. We did not make any comment on those amendments we agreed. I am only commenting on all those amendments on which we still have some area of disagreement with the Ministry of Labour.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Nevertheless, the whole of this amendment is based on the proposals made by the N.T.U.C. Of course, we cannot say that every proposal made by the N.T.U.C. must be accepted by the Government. Some of the proposals can be accepted, but some of them, we think, are demanding too much and will not be in the interest of industry as a whole. So we have rejected some of these proposals, and we have given full explanations to the representative of the N.T.U.C. I think the N.T.U.C. has developed into such a big organisation that sometimes its left hand may not know what its right hand is doing. I cannot blame it for that, because the N.T.U.C. is now representing about 75 per cent of our working population.

However, let me come to the points raised by the Members. One of the points raised by the Member for Bras Basah is that he has some misgivings about clause 8 of this amendment Bill. He said that it is not adequate enough to deal with unions seeking recognition, especially the unions which are in the pioneering industries. I think he has not read the Bill as a whole. He came across this clause 8 and he found that under new section 15A there will be a provision: `No trade union of employees which has not been given recognition by an employer in the prescribed manner may serve on that employer a notice under section 16 of this Ordinance.' So he came to the conclusion that unions in the pioneering industries may not be able to seek recognition because of this clause.

I would like to point out to him that there is still another clause in the Bill - clause 23 - which seeks to amend section 81 of the Ordinance and this provision empowers the Minister to make regulations governing the recognition of trade unions, and I must inform the House that the representatives of the N.T.U.C. have, in fact, worked out the regulations to be published governing the recognition of trade unions.

Now in these regulations which will be published if this Bill is passed, one of the things which is provided is that a trade union of employees may serve on an employer a claim for recognition in the prescribed form and that once this claim is served on him, he must give recognition to that union within seven working days, unless he has some reason for not recognising it. In this case then, the union will have the right to notify the Commissioner for Labour who will direct that a secret ballot be taken in accordance with the directions given by him within a reasonable period, and once the secret ballot has decided that the union is representing the majority of the workers, the employer must recognise it.

At present, there is no law to provide that an employer must recognise a trade union, but if this Bill is passed and the regulations which we are going to make are published, then there will be something legally binding on the employer to recognise the union. So the point raised by the Member for Bras Basah will not arise here.

Then the Member also complained that there are not enough safeguards for the workers if they are victimised by employers. In other words, he is complaining that section 77 is not adequate enough to let our trade unions prosecute employers who are found to be victimising workers. Now, I would like to remind Members that in October this year the N.T.U.C. held its Second Annual Delegates Conference, and the then Secretary-General, Mr Devan Nair, made a report to the N.T.U.C. for and on behalf of the Central Committee of the N.T.U.C. In one of the passages in this report, he said ---

Mr Speaker: Would the Minister give the citation?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Yes. This is the Secretary-General's report for and on behalf of the Central Committee of the N.T.U.C. which was presented to the N.T.U.C. Conference in October 1965. In page 18 of this report, Mr Devan Nair, among other things, said:

`On the proposed amendments to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, several discussions took place in the State Economic Consultative Committee as well as directly between the N.T.U.C. and the Government. The Government is happy to announce that as a result of these discussions, several major changes will be made to the Industrial Relations Ordinance. These changes will be contained in a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1966", which the Government has agreed to introduce at the next sitting of the Legislative Assembly of Singapore.'

Now, among the amendments envisaged by the Bill would be provisions covering the following matters. There are several matters here - (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g), I quote:

`(g) A more efficient and simplified procedure to deal with contraventions by employers under section 77 of the Ordinance.'.

So here it is very clear that the then Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C. was quite satisfied that the Bill, which is now being debated here, provides a more efficient and simplified procedure to deal with contraventions of the Ordinance. I do not know why the Member still wants to raise this question since their Secretary-General had agreed that what is provided in this Bill is adequate enough to deal with contraventions of the Ordinance.

I think the N.T.U.C., of course, would like to be given the power to prosecute employers as soon as they dismiss their workers. This would be an ideal case for the N.T.U.C. and for the trade unions, but I am afraid the Government cannot allow this, because once we make it a law that employers would be prosecuted whenever they dismiss their workers, then I am sure nobody would like to bring in their capital to this country.

8.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Order. Moment of, interruption. Debate to be resumed, what day, Mr Minister?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: 31st December.

Mr Speaker: That is tomorrow. Will you move the adjournment, Mr Minister?