In the High Court Kuala Lumpur Application for Judicial Review no. R1-25-442-10 between NUBE and (1) Industrial Court Malaysia (2) MCBA

The High Court had on 13.3.2012 dismissed NUBE’s application for Judicial Review with cost of RM2,000 to be paid by the Union to MCBA.

This case arose when NUBE contended that in relation to the Collective Agreement cognizance no 12 of 2006, banks were required to grant an additional paid holiday in substitution for public holidays which fell on Saturdays for every employee who had been placed on a 5-day week, or alternatively every employee who had abeen placed on a 5-day week shall be paid two (2) times the ordinary rate of pay for all public holidays which fell on additional rest day on Saturday.

NUBE then filed an application for interpretation under section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 at the Industrial Court for an interpretation of the Articles 5, 26, 26A, 27 and 28 of the Collective Agreement.

In Award No. 1034 of 2010, the Industrial Court held that the bank’s employees were not entitled to be compensated if a public holiday fell on a Saturday which was a non-working day.

Not satisfied with the judgment, NUBE filed an application for Judicial Review.  The High Court dismissed the application on 13.3.2012.

The Court of Appeal, in its decision on 13^th March 2012, held that the defamation suit brought by Malayan Banking Berhad (Maybank) against the National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE) and its General Secretary, J. Solomon, should proceed for full trial to determine whether or not the immunity provisions under s. 22(2) of the Trade Unions Act 1959 could apply to the Defendants as this involved a “mixed question of law and fact”.

Maybank’s suit claimed statements, which were published by the Defendants and which appeared on the Union’s website in February and March, 2011, were defamatory of the Bank in that they imputed improper conduct in relation to utilizing funds in favour of senior management at the expense of employees. The Defendants claimed, as one of their defences, that they enjoyed immunity from legal proceedings under Section 22(2) of the Trade Unions Act, 1959.

The Court of Appeal held that the earlier High Court decision of 24^th November 2011 where Maybank’s defamation suit was struck out on the grounds of such immunity be set aside.

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/319759