CUEPACS Wants Contract Employees Be Absorbed To Permanent Posts

Malaysian workers have lost the right to regular employment - permanent employment until retirement, when this Malaysian government abandoned the rights and welfare of Malaysian workers and their families...A perusal of our labour laws in Malaysia clearly indicate that the employment relationship should be a permanent employment relationship. Entitlements to annual leave, medical leave, and even termination lay-off benefits also indicate clear increases in entitlement based on the number of years of service... Retirement Age - and, even now the government's move, to increase retirement age all underlies the entitlement to permanent employment

AS SUCH, we must campaign for:-

an end of short-term contract employment, and 

an end of any other forms of employment agreements or arrangements - that completely destroy direct employment relationship between workers and the principal (being the owner/operator of workplaces). And this means, the contractor for labour need to be abolished, and all workers who work at any workplace, especially those involved in the core operations must be all be employees of the said principal. No more 'contract labour', 'agency workers', 'outsourced workers',....

CUEPACS wants this and is calling for all contract employees to be absorded to permanent status - and this must also be the case for all other workers...including those in private sector. [One permissible exception may be migrant workers - whose contract must be for the full 3-5 years, agreed period that migrant workers come to work in Malaysia - and no longer these short year to year employment contracts based on the duration of their current work passes. No migrant worker agree to come to work in a foreign country for just 1 year.]

Why we do not want short-term contracts?

- because it is UNJUST to workers, and even employers

- A worker is a human being with families/dependents - and as employment security is essential - when a worker gets employed, it is a factor that affects many personal/family decisions - i.e. where should he stay or settle down? (usually close to where he/she works), Should he rent a house or buy a family home?, Where should his/her spouse find employment?, Where should he sent his children to school?, Which temple/surau/church community should he/she join? Should he buy a car/motorbike? .....With a short-term contract for 1 year, months before the end of the contract period, there will be a lot of stress...and mental anguish - will he still be employed and be earning wages at the end of the contract period? Of course, for the employer, it is beneficial because a worker WORRIED about his employment future would more easily be oppressed - and will be compliant/submissive in the face of persecution...If he/she loses the employment, it would cause great difficulties for the worker and the family for the next employment maybe in some other town and state.... and loans all need to be paid every month...

- For the employer, there is no more PROBATION - and they are bound by their agreement to keep the said worker for the full duration of the contract period. With probation, the employer (and also worker) have a 'trial period' to determine suitability of the worker - which if found to be suitable will be converted to a permanent employment relationship until retirement age...

- Current laws of retrenchment and lay-off - do not cover short-term contracts at all - so an early termination of a short-term contract should result in having to pay the worker possibly normal monthly wages for remaining contractual period. (The present retrenchment lay-off benefits entitlement does not arise until after the worker has worked for a period of 12 months, and our current Malaysian government has failed to make clear laws to deal with this early termination of workers by reason of economic slow-down/closure of business when it comes to workers on fixed short-term contracts..)

- WOMEN will be discriminated - because if they are pregnant (even 1-2 months pregnant), no employer is logically going to employ them on a short-term employment contract. Why? To avoid maternity leave and maternity benefits, and all the other special treatment/leave that usually is a right to women as pregnancy advances. Those even on a contract, when it ends - will find that they will NOT be offered any new contract...

- Workers who maybe disabled partly, even by reason of some occupational related accident at that very same workplace, may find that employers will just let them off without offering them any new contracts..

- Now, even if the work is still there and workers are needed to do the work, most Employers to avoid the rise of the presumption of  a permanent employment relationship will just not RE-NEW contracts but just choose to get some other NEW workers... This is so WRONG - again good Malaysian government has not made any laws to prevent this and protect workers..

WHAT THEN IS THE USE OF TALKING ABOUT INCREASING RETIREMENT AGE, MATERNITY RIGHTS AND BENEFITS, ETC... WHEN THERE IS NO RIGHT FOR PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT FOR WORKERS IN MALAYSIA. YES - ABOLISH SHORT-TERM CONTRACTS & RESTORE PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT AS A GUARANTEED RIGHT FOR THE GOOD AND WELFARE OF WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES IN MALAYSIA. 

CUEPACS LEADS THE WAY ....MTUC MUST ALSO COME OUT AND DEMAND THIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT FOR ALL MALAYSIAN WORKERS...

CUEPACS Wants Contract Employees Be Absorbed To Permanent Posts

TEMERLOH, June 19 (Bernama) -- The Congress of Unions of Employees in the Public and Civil Service (CUEPACS) is hoping the government could absorb the 60,000 contract staff in the public service to permanent and pensionable posts.

Its deputy president, Azih Muda, believed that the move, besides, ensuring their future benefits, would also help to further improve the quality of the public service.

"The role of the contract staff should be appreciated as they also help in realising the government's development agenda and country's growth," he told reporters after calling on the Temerloh Municipal Council (MPT) president, Datuk Tariff Abdul Rahman, here today.

Azih said the congress also supported the suggestion by Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob recently for contract workers to be recruited through the economic stimulus package and be absorbed into permanent posts.

-- BERNAMA - 19/6/2012, CUEPACS Wants Contract Employees Be Absorbed To Permanent Posts

Malaysian Bar says NO to 'contractor for labour' and advocates just employment relationship

Malaysian Bar at their 66th Annual General Meeting on 10/3/2012 adopted unanimously a Resolution for a just employment relationship. worker and trade union rights in Malaysia. They oppose the 'contractor for labour' or the presence of any third party in an employment relationship that should be between employer (being the principal or owner of the workplace...) and the workers who work there...

Resolution on maintaining a just employment relationship, worker and trade union rights in Malaysia

Motion proposed by Charles Hector and seconded by Francis Pereira, dated 1 Mar 2012

(As amended)

Whereas:

(1) There has been a withering away of the rights of workers and/or their unions in Malaysia over the past years, and the most recent of this is the employment relationship, where Malaysia is in the process of amending (or has amended) the Employment Act 1955 vide the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2011, the result of which would be the legalisation of the “contractor for labour”, a third party, in an employment relationship which justly should be a two-party direct relationship between owner/operators of workplaces and their workers, who reasonably must be their direct employees.

(2) What the Malaysian government has done, earlier through policy and practice and now being legalised through the amendment of the Employment Act 1955, which was passed at the Dewan Rakyat on 6/10/2011 and the Senate on 22/12/2011, goes contrary also to international standards and principles concerning Decent Work and worker rights.  Avoiding employment relationship was being done by various means, agreements and contracts, which have been criticised even by the International Labour Organisation (“ILO”). Sadly, Malaysia goes even further by legalising evasion of employment relationships.

(3) Employment relationship in Malaysia, as also evident in our Employment Act, prior to this new amendment, was a two-party relationship between employer and worker (employee) between whom there will be a contract of service, whereby “the person or class of persons employed, engaged or contracted with to carry out the work shall be deemed to be an employee or employees and (a) the principal or owner of the agricultural or industrial undertaking, constructional work, trade, business or place of work; or (b) the statutory body or local government authority, shall be deemed to be the employer”.  Sadly, the Minister had the power to create exceptions to this general principle.

(4) The current amendments to the Employment Act 1955 now statutorily recognises a new third party in the employment relationship, being the “contractor for labour”, who unlike Private Employment Agencies, continue to remain the employer of workers that they supply to the principal or owner of the workplace, and as such the said principal or owner of the workplace effectively can avoid becoming employer of the workers working for them, and hence all employer obligations.

(5) This practice of using workers of third parties, without the entry of an employment relationship and/or contract of service, even though there was no provision in law that specifically allowed this, started on or about 2005 with essentially migrant workers through what was known as “outsourcing agents”, but as of 2010, it was no more just migrant workers but also local workers including those from Sabah and Sarawak.

(6) This new reality causes discrimination amongst workers, with regard to wages and other benefits, including also the right to join existing unions and/or to benefit from Collective Agreements, being agreements between worker-employees and their employers – the principal or owners of the workplace.

(7) In some workplaces, the workers who still are employees of the principal or owners of the workplace is about 50% or less, the rest workers there being  workers supplied to work by third parties, at a workplace. This results in an effective weakening of trade unions and their bargaining powers when it comes to collective agreements, including their struggle for better wages and work conditions.  The law does not provide any restrictions as to the number of non-employees at a workplace, and as such this may lead to a situation where even all workers in workplaces may one day be no more employees of the owner or principal of the workplace.

(8) Given the reality, that the workplace and all workers therein is still under the effective control and supervision of the principal or owners of the workplace, matters related to work and work condition, so many workers at the workplace, now treated as not employees of the principal or owner of the workplace, is deprived the right that any worker must have to be able to fight for better working conditions and work-related rights.  The third party suppliers really have no effective control or ability when it comes to improving working conditions and matters at the workplace.

(9) The reality today is also that these principals or owners of workplaces are getting workers from not one, but many different suppliers of workers (“contractors for labour”), which again would result in further discrimination. 

(10) The reality also is that suppliers of workers (“contractors for labour”) are supplying workers to many different workplaces, in many different sectors, and as such even if the workers (now considered) employees of these suppliers were to try to form a union, it is near impossible given this reality.  They also cannot join existing regional or national trade unions in Malaysia, given the fact that in Malaysia, unions are registered based on sectors, and it will be difficult for these worker/employees of the third party to form or join existing unions, given also that the flexibility of the situation that can result in overnight changing of which sectoral unions that they can join.  Effectively, these workers if they are employees of these suppliers have lost their basic freedom of association and the right to form and/or join trade unions.  Prior to this any new employee of the workplace can easily form/join trade unions, irrespective of whether they are local or migrant workers.

(11) The Private Employment Agency, as provided for in the Private Employment Agencies Act 1971, does the service of finding workers for workplaces, and once the workers are supplied, these workers automatically are employees of the principal or owners of the said workplace, and the private employment agency is paid a statutorily fixed rate for their services. This is certainly a better practice, not detrimental to a just employment relationship and worker rights. All suppliers of workers must be private employment agencies, confined to the providing of service of supplying workers, and not be made into employers themselves of the workers after they have supplied them to the principal or owners of workplaces.

(12) It must be pointed out that the Employment Act 1955 amendments were proceeded with and passed in both houses of Parliament, despite the fact that there was strong opposition and protest from workers, trade unions including the Malaysian Trades Union Congress and the International Trade Union Confederation (“ITUC”), and civil society groups.

We hereby resolve:

(1) That the Malaysian government immediately repeal the amendments to the Employment Act 1955 with regard to the employment relationship and the contractor for labour, introduced vide Employment (Amendment) Bill 2011, and pending repeal not put into effect the said amendments.

(2) That the Malaysian government do the needful to maintain existing 2-party employment relationships between principals or owners of workplaces as employers, and workers that work in the said workplaces as employees of the said principals and owners.

(3) That the Malaysian government promotes and protect worker and trade union rights in Malaysia, and not permit any form or discrimination at the workplace or related to work amongst workers doing the same work and/or working at workplaces of principals or owners.

(4) The Malaysian Bar takes the stand that labour suppliers and/or contractors of labour should never be or continue to be employers of workers after they are supplied, accepted and start working at the workplaces of principals or owners. Thereafter, these workers shall be employees of the principal or owners of the workplace.

(5) That the Malaysian Bar continues to struggle for the promotion and protection of worker and trade union rights in Malaysia, including for just employment relationship, basic living wages and freedom of association consistent with the Principles of Decent Work and other universally recognised standards and principles.

The motion, as amended, was unanimously carried.

Source: Malaysian Bar Website

Syed Shahir : Proposal To Restrict ‘Contractor For Labour’ to certain sectors unacceptable – Abolish ‘CFL' and ‘Outsourced Workers’ – 8/3/2012]

Minister’s Proposal To Restrict ‘Contractor For Labour’ Amendments to Plantation and Agricultural Sector Unacceptable – Abolish ‘Contractor for Labour’ and ‘Outsourced Workers’. [Media Statement – 8/3/2012]

Media Statement – 8/3/2012

Minister’s Proposal To Restrict ‘Contractor For Labour’ Amendments to Plantation and Agricultural Sector Unacceptable – Abolish ‘Contractor for Labour’ and ‘Outsourced Workers’.

What we need is the repeal of all the provisions amending the Employment Act 1955, that came in vide Employment (Amendment) Bill 2011, that was passed by the Dewan Rakyat on 6/10/2011 and thereafter the Senate on 22/12/2011. The objections to the said amendments was not just with regards to the ‘contractor for labour’ and/or outsourced workers in our factories and workplaces that are not employees of the said workplace, but also other matters including the 1 month delay allowed for employers to pay overtime of monthly waged workers and the proposed sexual harassment provisions.

It was reported that the Human Resource Minister Human Resource Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam had announced on 6/3/2012 that the “contractor for labour” amendment, that is sections 31, 33(a), 69 and 73 in the Employment Act (EA) 1955 will now only apply to the plantation and agricultural sector, and that all other sectors will be exempted. [The Sun Daily, 6/3/2012, Amendments apply only to plantation and agricultural sectors (Updated)]. It is already in our law, and today the Minister says this but tomorrow, possibly after the next General Elections, he will extend it to other sectors and/or classes of workers, and all this may be done quietly, for after all it does not have to go through Parliament.

The Minister misses the point totally for the objection of workers and trade unions is to ‘contractors for labour’, which have been called many names including ‘outsourcing agents/companies’, manpower/labour suppliers, ‘outside contractors’ or 3rd parties who have been supplying workers, now commonly called ‘outsourced workers’ to employers, being principals or owners of workplace, statutory and government bodies, without these workers thereafter becoming employees of the said principal or owners of the workplace - hence having no rights to be members of (or form) union of the said workplace and/or the respective regional or national trade union, and hence not being able to benefit from Collective Agreements. Why? It is because the said principals or owners of workplaces do not consider these ‘outsourced workers’ as their own employees – and a Collective Agreement is generally and agreement between employer and their worker-employees. This practice, we believe, have been going on since about 2005.

What we end is the end of this practice of using ‘outsourced workers’, employees of some 3rd party (the ‘contractor for labour’) at workplaces, and this phenomena is now involving not just migrant workers but also local Malaysian workers. It is disturbing that today in some of the factories, the number of these ‘outsourced workers’ is about 50% or more, and this naturally affect worker-employees of the said workplace and their unions. Effectively, it is weakening and destroying worker and/or union bargaining powers with employers who are becoming less and less dependent on their own employees. It will jeopardize our struggle for better wages, benefits, rights and better working conditions. This can be called a union busting practice that today is supported and endorsed by this Barisan Nasional government.

A reading of the Employment Act 1955 will show that it always did advocate a permanent direct employment relationship between employers and workers, to the exclusion of 3rd party labour/manpower suppliers, brokers and ‘contractors for labour’. 

Our laws have also always been clear as to who is employer and who is employee whereby it says that ‘the person or class of persons employed, engaged or contracted with to carry out the work shall be deemed to be an employee or employees and a) the principal or owner of the agricultural or industrial undertaking, constructional work, trade, business or place of work; or (b) the statutory body or local government authority, shall be deemed to be the employer’. Clearly, ‘contractors for labour’ including outsourcing agents/companies, manpower/labour suppliers, brokers, private employment agencies or other 3rd parties were never meant to be and should never be employers certainly not of workers already accepted and working for the principal or owner of workplaces. 

The Minister’s proposal hopes that workers in Malaysia will abandon our brethren workers in plantation and agricultural sector, happy that workers in their own sectors will not be affected. This will not happen for workers in Malaysia are united and will stand united, committed that it should not apply to workers of any sector or class. 

We reiterate that the government must also abolish the current already existing practice of this ‘outsourced workers’ provided by 3rd parties. Employers can use the services of private employment agencies to find them workers, but once the workers are supplied by these agencies, these workers must be employees of the place where they work – not treated and discriminated against as workers only - not employees. It is most disturbing that today, the practice of using ‘outsourced workers’ supplied by ‘contractors for labour’ may have even expanded to Government-Linked Companies(GLCs), and soon may very well extend to statutory and government bodies as well.

We call again for the immediate repeal of the provisions of the Employment Act, inserted vide the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2011, and an immediate end to the practice of ‘outsourced workers’ and ‘contractors for labour’ in Malaysia. Current ‘outsourced workers’ must be made employees of principals or owners of workplaces, and given same rights and benefits as other employees therein, including the right to form and/or join trade unions.

Pending repeal, we urge the government to not put into effect the amendments made to our Employment Act 1955 vide Employment (Amendment) Bill 2011.

All workers in Malaysia in all sectors should be treated equally without any discrimination, certainly not as being proposed by our Human Resource Minister now, which we believe is also contrary to Malaysia’s Federal Constitution that guarantees equality to all persons, and certainly discrimination at the workplace is not an exception provided for in our Constitution.

Workers united will stand together and never abandon any class or group of workers in Malaysia.

Syed Shahir Syed Mohamud
Executive Secretary of National Union of Transport Equipment & Allied Ind.Workers
(Former President of Malaysian Trades Union Congress- MTUC)

In plantation, what happens is 'outsourcing of work' - DIFFERENT from the usage of 'outsourced workers' by Plantations

The National Union of Plantation Workers(NUPW) was at one time one of the biggest trade unions in Malaysia, but today it is almost dead. Why? Because of outsourcing of work to 3rd party contractors generally.  

This is DIFFERENT from this issue of 'Contractor For Labour' and  the using of 'outsourced workers' by Plantation companies without making them their employees, hence not capable to join NUPW or benefit from Collective Agreements...

In the Plantation sector, what Plantation companies did was 'outsourcing of work' 

- The weeding work of the plantation was given to outside contractors, who then came and used their own workers to fulfill their contractual obligations.

- The work of tapping and bringing in the liquid rubber was similarly outsourced to one or more contractors, who then will use their OWN workers to do the tapping and rubber milk collections and then deliver to a specific collection point, where these are collected and then sent to the factories for processing

- The same system was also used with regards to oil palm

- In some plantations (the smaller ones usually), the Plantation companies staff/employee have been reduced to a handful - who are there just to ensure/confirm amount of rubber milk/scrap delivered or oil palm fruit delivered.

- Some plantation companies may have even outsourced their factories as well...

Now - this is NOT an issue of the 'contractor for labour' or a case where 3rd party labour/manpower suppliers are supplying plantation companies with 'outsourced workers' who then do the work (just like what an employee did before) under the control and supervision of the Plantation company...for this is what the MTUC, workers, unions and civil society is objecting to..

Note that some of the bigger plantation companies, however may be using 'outsourced workers' supplied by 'contractors for labour' - without assuming the obligation and duties of an employer. This is what the MTUC, workers and unions are protesting..

The Malaysian government did not disclose this differences which is material...and while there is currently no protest to 'outsourcing work' to outside contractors, there is still a strong protest about the using of 'outsourced workers' by the principal or plantation owners without assuming  their rightful role, duty and obligation as EMPLOYER - hence avoiding employment relationship.

With regard these contractors, who get and do this 'outsourced work' - did the pre-amendment Employment Act 1955 cover them and their workers - YES, it did, just like any other employer-employee situation. Note that the duty of maintaining employee registers is already there in the law, likewise the duty with regard to SOCSO, EPF, etc. If the Minister says that these workers were being denied their rights, then the fault lies in the Ministry and the Labour Departments for not enforcing existing laws...NUPW's concern was that many of the employees of these smaller contractors who had got 'outsourced work' from Plantation Companies were not getting their worker rights as provided in law...and the solution was enforcement - not amending the law, which really is done for a very different pupose, i.e. to legitimize 'contractors for labour, to further the avoidance of employment relations - by stating in the Act that the workers supplied remain employees of the 'contractor for labour' and not become employees of the principal or owner of the workplace.

[*The word employee and worker in Malay is 'Pekerja' - this confusion assisted the government.

**By always using the term 'contract workers' (or 'pekerja contract') confusing between workers of contractors, those under fixed term contracts, etc - again there was confusion - for the issue was really about the workers referred to commonly as 'outsourced workers' - being the one's supplied by 3rd party who do not become employees of the place of work. Why did the government not use 'outsourced workers' - but persisted to use 'contract workers'? Was it intentional for the reason to confuse.

*** The other confusing term used was 'outsourced' - for 'outsourcing of work' is already an accepted term - Why call the 'contractors for labour' - outsourcing agents/companies? Why call the workers supplied 'outsourced workers'? Would it not have been clearer calling them labour/manpower suppliers and the workers supplied by these 3rd parties.

Governments to confuse use certain words to confuse - and likewise even the Opposition MPs in the debate about the amendment got 'confused' - read the Hansard(minutes of the Dewan Rakyat proceedings) and the confusion is apparent]

MTUC says lost confidence in minister Subramaniam, wants Najib to intervene

Erosion of worker and trade union rights in Malaysia is done by the Barisan Nasional government, under the leadership of PM Najib. It is the PM who has absolute power in who he choses to be in his cabinet and who he makes Minister, so to just blame the Minister, and not the PM and the government is odd. In Malaysia, I believe no Act will be tabled, or policy made without the full blessing and approval of the Prime Minister. A loss of confidence in a Minister as such is a loss of confidence on the PM and the ruling BN government.

Let's not forget the BN MPs and Senators, who supported the amendment and no one came out with even a personal differing view.

MTUC says lost confidence in minister, wants Najib to intervene

By Farhan Darwis

February 28, 2012

SUBANG JAYA, Feb 28 — The Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) said today it had lost confidence in the human resource minister, and urged Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to intervene over controversial labour law amendments it claims will bring back slavery.

MTUC said today it had no confidence in the ability of Datuk Seri S. Subramaniam (picture) to handle their complaints over changes to the Employment Act 1955. The changes to the law will see official recognition for third-party labour providers.

Last October, the Dewan Rakyat passed the contentious amendments to the law, which MTUC claimed would “bring back slavery” and erode protection for workers as employers will no longer be directly responsible for the welfare of their employees.

The MTUC had previously warned Najib that the votes of 5.7 million workers “could decide matters” in a general election.

MTUC president Khalid Atan told reporters today at its headquarters here that it appeared as if Subramaniam saw this problem as petty and was not serious in finding a solution.

“MTUC announced that we have lost confidence in the leadership of the minister who does not take employees’ problems seriously.

“So, MTUC has come together to set up an action committee to organise an assembly as a protest against the minister,” he said.

According to Khalid, if the employees’ future was not protected the union would eventually lose its purpose.

“We have already protested but it is as if the government does not care about the union’s complaints. In fact, we have repeatedly sent letters to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak but no action has been taken until today.

“MTUC wants the prime minister to listen to the union’s complaints, not sideline employees as if they do not exist; if you can listen to others, entertain them, why not to MTUC?” he asked. - Malaysian Insider, 28/2/2012, MTUC says lost confidence in minister, wants Najib to intervene

MTUC ‘lost confidence in Dr Subra’

G Vinod | February 28, 2012

The union now wants the prime minister to resolve all matters affecting workers.

PETALING JAYA: The Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC) today declared that it has lost confidence in Human Resources Minister Dr S Subramaniam.

The MTUC wants Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak to directly resolve issues affecting workers’ rights, including the recent amendment made in the Employment Act 1955 and the sacking of two of Maybank’s staff.

Among the affiliates present in support of MTUC’s stand were the National Union of Banking Employees (NUBE) and the Government Linked Companies (GLC) Union Associations.

About 50 MTUC members were present including NUBE secretary-general J Solomon and GLC Union Associations president Mohd Shafie BP Mammal.

Solomon said the MTUC had submitted a letter yesterday voicing its lack of faith in Subramaniam to the Prime Minister’s Department.

The letter was signed by MTUC president Khalid Atan and its secretary-general Halim Mansor.

“The reason we lost confidence in Subramaniam is because of his lackadaisical attitude in dealing with issues involving workers,” said Solomon.

Last year, Subramaniam received brickbats from the MTUC when he tabled a controversial amendment to the Employment Act 1955.

The MTUC claimed that amendment would further erode workers’ right as it would allow third party to employ workers.

Nationwide rally

The minister also courted NUBE’s anger when Subramaniam was said to have failed to curb Maybank from establishing an in-house union, Mayneu, which NUBE claimed would provoke industrial disharmony.

Solomon said that Subramaniam had also ignored NUBE’s complaints over Maybank’s decision to dismiss two of its staff for participating in trade union activity.

“We have sent about six letter and had three meetings with Subramaniam since last year but he never took any action,” claimed Solomon.

Last month, Maybank terminated the employment of NUBE vice-president Abdul Jamil Jalaludeen and its honorary treasurer Chen Ka Fatt, for holding a banner that carried the word “Maybank robs poor Malaysian workers” in Geneva, Switzerland, last year.

Abdul Jamil was employed at the Maybank branch of Pulau Tikus, Penang, while Chen served at the Maybank branch at Ipoh Garden, Perak.

On what MTUC’s next course of action would be should its calls go unanswered, Solomon said MTUC may hold a nationwide rally to voice its dissatisfaction.

“We have already appointed a committee to organise the rally. It will decide on the day and venue soon,” he said.Subramanian could not be reached for his comments.- Free Malaysia Today, 28/2/2012, MTUC ‘lost confidence in Dr Subra’