You are on page 1of 17




(AM110 5B)













18TH JULY 2016


Date : 17 July 2016

We hereby certify that the material, which is submitted in this assignment is entirely our own
work and has not submitted for any academic assessment other than as part fulfillment of the
assessment procedure for the programme of Diploma In Public Administration.



MATRIX NO. : 2014239008



MATRIX NO. : 2014694094



MATRIX NO. : 2014678124



1.0 Introduction of Public Sector Industrial Relation 1

2.0 Salaries and Commissions 2-3

3.0 National Joint Council 4-7

4.0 Public Services Tribunal 8-9

5.0 Public Service Department 10-11

5.0 Conclusions 12

References 13

Industrial relations is refer as a relationship between the employers and their

employees within their work surroundings. It is related to the employees employment or non-

employment, which allow the employers to recruit the employees to work with them and

ensure the acknowledgement of the employees of being accepted to join the trade union. It is

also related on which the relationship between both parties occurs on the ground there is

certain terms and conditions of work that need to be followed by both parties.

On the other hand, in terms of industrial relations in Malaysian public sector, it

indicate to the relationship between the government and public sectors workers. The role of

the government is related in public sector as an employer while employers here indicate to

the federal government, the state governments, the federal statutory authorities, the state

statutory authorities and the local authorities. The federal government is necessarily involved

in industrial relations in this sector.

Generally, the parties involved in industrial relations in the both sectors are not

constituted in the same way. Only a few employers in the private sector and some are

unionised while there is no employer union in the public sector. Other than that, the way

employees are grouped in the public sector is they may group themselves in unions or in

associations and still enjoy any of the benefits of union representation but different with the

private sector they must group themselves in trade unions to enjoy any of the benefits of

union representation.

The machineries catering for industrial relations in the public sector such as Salaries

Commissions and Salaries Committees, The Public Service Department, The Public Service

Tribunal and The Joint Councils is unique and has no comparable in the private sector.


Since the 1960s, a series of ad hoc commissions have been established to review the

salaries and other terms of service in the public sector and report their findings to the

government (Maimunah Aminuddin, 2016). Example of the most important commissions are

The Suffian Report 1967. In this report, Tun Mohamed Suffian Hashim appointed Chairman

of the Royal Commission on Salaries and Conditions of Service of the Public Service. What

came out of the Commission is the well known The Suffian Report which among others

recommended that government servants be given housing loans to build or buy houses of

their own during their tenure of government service (The Malaysian Bar, 2006). Another

important commissions are Tun Aziz report, Abdul Aziz Report, Harun Report, Ibrahim

Report and Cabinet Committee Report.

Salaries Commissions and Salaries Committees are appointed periodically by federal

government and their main function is to review salaries and other terms and conditions of

service in public sector. What is mean by the terms and conditions is it convey the meaning of

an employee carries out the duties and responsibilities assigned to him by his employer. In

return, he is entitled to wages and a number of other benefits.

In 1992, the Special Committee of the Cabinet on Salaries for the Public Sector is

establish in order to improve the existing schemes and as a result the New Remuneration

Scheme was introduced. A number of new benefits, such as paternity leave were introduced

under this system but, the key feature of the new system was that fixed annual increments

were no longer provided for. This is because to achieve with the governments aim of

improving the service of public sector employees. Instead, increments became dependant on

the employees performance measured through an annual appraisal system (Maimunah

Aminuddin, 2016).

Later in 2002, the system was again being improved and renamed with the Malaysian

Remuneration Scheme. Under this modified scheme, increments as well as promotions are to

be based not only on performance appraisals but also on the evaluation of the staff members

competencies. In this modified scheme, each employee will be evaluated on his performance

during a specially designed course which ends with an examination. It was hoped that this

scheme would ensure that performance reviews of individual employees would be more

transparent, objective and flexible (Maimunah Aminuddin, 2016)

Despite that, CUEPACS which means Congress of Unions of Employees in the Public

and Civil Services has never been satisfied with the implementation of either of these systems

and has repeatedly requested their modification or total withdraw (Maimunah Aminuddin,

2016). This is what mentioned by Omar Osman, President of CUEPACS on his comment

about the implementation of Competencies Level Assessment. He stresses that employee in

the public sectors still not clear with the issues of accuracy of the system. He also highlighted

certain public service employees also not happy with the examination component as a

measurement indicator for their individual performance (Rusli Ahmad, 2012).

However, this Malaysian Remuneration Scheme that highlight on the evaluation of

competencies level of assesment towards the staff member can provide high quality service of

the public. In this way, quality services will be consistently provided to the public and this

will assure customer satisfaction and loyalty to the government.


Employer-employee relations are critical to industrial harmony within the public

sector. Consultation between the employer and employees is the main method used to resolve

issues and problems relating to salary, allowances, perquisites and the term and conditions of

service of public sector employees. (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2004)

The National Joint Councils (NJCs) were originally set up in 1973, where three

Councils were established to replace the two Whitley Councils machinery of the United

Kingdom, established in 1953. (Maimunah Aminuddin, 2016).

Before 1973, the public service was segmented into three broad divisions. All trade

unions and staff associations within a particular sector were represented in their respective

NJCs. In 1979, the government revamped the NJCs and segmented it into five divisions. The

National Joint Council is purely an administrative which the design is to be consultative and

not negotiate in character.

There are three National Joint Councils namely, NJC for employees in the

Management and Professional Group, NJC for Science and Technology employees in the

support group and NJC for General Workers in the Support Group. However, these councils

not available for Police Forces and Armed Forces, Senior Managerial Group and public

servants where SSB/SSM does not apply. These councils act as a consultation between

representatives of the federal government and of public sector employees on matters related

to remunerations, allowances, perquisites etc of public sector employees as a whole.

These NJCs are forum for discussion between unions representing the employees in

the public sector and the government. The reason why NJCs provide a forum for discussion

and consultation is to prevent or resolves differences. Unlike the private sector where unions

which represent more than 50% of the workforce in a particular category in an organisation

can apply to be recognised as the bargaining agent, the public sector unions are not extended

the same privilege.

Although the government deals with or consults the trade unions on certain issues as

the representative of the public employees in question, no recognition is given to the trade

unions as legal bargaining agents.

Previously, NJCs is responsible to negotiate wages and benefits for employees in the

public sector. The government in 1979 repealed the earlier executive order which permitted

the National Joint Council to "negotiate" with the government to matters pertaining to pay

and other conditions of employment. However, due to the strained relationship between

the government and the public sector trade unions, the government withdrew what it

considered as bargaining rights in 1979. This is lead to the functions of councils were

severely limited.

The Councils can be described as a form of joint consultation in that they provide a

channel of communication for the government to receive feedback from the unions in the

public service on the views of the public sector workers. In other words, the unions itself are

actually become a spokesman between the government and the employees. Therefore, the

word consultation is the best words to describe the interaction between the NJCs in both


The constitution of the National Joint Council allows all trade unions and associations

within each sector of the public service to be represented in the council. The union

representatives from each sector will then elect a body/committee that will function as the

staff side and subsequently make representations to the of official side-the employer.

This arrangement somewhat dissolves the identity of the individual trade unions in their

relationship with the government.

Therefore, the staff side in the National Joint Council is merely a committee which

has no standing in law to engage in collective bargaining (unless of course if the government

accepts or allows them to negotiate). There are therefore five separate NJCs through which

each of the five sectors may discuss with the relevant official side.

To ensure there is coordination in the NJCs' dealings with the official side (employer)

the NJCs have established a NJC Coordinating Committee which functions as a forum for the

five NJCs to discuss and present a common stand on labour-management issues. Since the

late 1960's the public sector unions have not engaged in any formal collective bargaining

resulting in a collective agreement of some sort.

The NJCs are supported by Department Joint Councils at the lower levels of the

public sector. The Department Joint Council (DJC), on the other hand is a forum for

discussion between management and employees at the departmental level. Its function is to

obtain the views of the employees on issues of common concern such as matters affecting

work efficiency and staff welfare in the unit involved. Therefore, the councils were

constituted to serve as for consultation between representatives of the ministry/ department/

statutory authority/local authority concerned and representatives of that ministry.

The service circular 1/79 calls for a network of department joint councils to discuss

issues within the power of the department heads. Unfortunately, most of the joint councils are

inactive, rarely meeting to discuss and resolve matters. In fact, many Departments have yet to

form Department Joint Councils.

Although the National Joint Council is the primary platform for the employer-

employee relationship, there are other channels too. The large National Trade unions do

negotiate directly with the PSD and the Ministry or the government as in the recent case

between the National Union of Teaching Profession and the Ministry of Education over the

revamping of the teachers' schemes of service. The CUEPACS also holds talks with the

government over issues common to all public employees. Therefore, there are some parallel

though not formally established platforms, for the conduct of employer-employee

relationship on a collective basis.


In 1997, a Public Services Tribunal was established to determine in regard to

anomalies in the implementation of the Cabinet Committee Report (CCR) on salaries and

terms and conditions of services.

The Public Service Tribunal (PST) is constituted by the Public Service Tribunal Act in

1977 and began operations in 1978. PST is an arbitration tribunal where its main function is

to determine any dispute in regard to any anomaly arising from the implementation of the

recommendations of salaries commissions and salaries committees referred to it under the

Act. However, it has been abolished in the year 2000.

According to the Public Service Tribunal Act, an "anomaly" is: (a) any situation,

affecting the remuneration or terms or conditions of service of any public officer or class or

group of public officers and arising from the implementation of the recommendations of a

Salaries Commission, that constitutes a departure or deviation from, the principles underlying

the recommendations of the Salaries Commission and which remains a departure or deviation

from the principles in the recommendations of the Cabinet Committee; or (b) any situation,

affecting the remuneration or terms or conditions of service of any public officer or class or

group of public officers and arising from the implementation of the recommendations of the

Cabinet Committee, that constitutes a departure or deviation from the principles underlying

the recommendations of the Cabinet Committee. (Muneto Ozaki, 1988)

In other words, we can say any breach that affecting the remuneration or terms or

conditions of service could be reported to the Public Services Tribunal.

Such anomalies was first referred to the Public Services Department (PSD), where the

PSD rejected a workers claim that CCR was being incorrectly implemented, an appeal could

be made to the Tribunal.

A dispute over an alleged anomaly may be referred by the public officer/staff

association/trade union affected (the "aggrieved person") to the Negotiations Division of the

Public Services Department. If the dispute is not resolved through negotiation, it may then be

referred by either party to the Public Service Tribunal for arbitration.

Once a dispute has been referred for negotiation or arbitration, the Public Service

Tribunal Act makes it unlawful for any "aggrieved person", or for any member of a trade

union or staff association which is an "aggrieved person", to go on strike or to do anything

described in the Act as a "proscribed industrial action". The decision of the Tribunal is "final

and conclusive, and shall be binding on the Government and on all parties to the anomaly,

and [shall not] be challenged. (Muneto Ozaki, 1988)

Furthermore, the decision is to be implemented as soon as is practicable, and in any

case no later than six months from the date on which the decision was delivered. The PST has

considerable powers to summon witnesses to give evidence before the Tribunal or produce

documents in their possession, including the power to issue an arrest warrant if any person

fails to appear. It can also receive any evidence, written or oral, it thinks necessary or

desirable, even if such evidence would be inadmissible in a court of law. (Muneto Ozaki,


Finally, the PST, like the Industrial Court, is not a court of law and is therefore not the

final authority on questions of law. It is therefore subject to the supervisory jurisdiction

exercised by the law courts over subordinate courts and tribunals.


Public Services Department (PSD) or Jabatan Pertahanan Awam (JPA) is one of the

important federal agencies that is headed by the Director General of Public service. Public

service department serves federal government as human resource department or acts as the

personnel department and it looks after practically all public sector employees. This Public

Service Department is under the Prime Ministerss Department and is the foremost human

resource management agency in the public sector in Malaysia. All aspects of human resource

management come within the jurisdiction of the PSD. (Maimunah Aminuddin, 2016).

The objectives of PSD is to rationalise the size of the public service by conducting a

comprehensive manpower through a structured and systematic human resource planning.

Second, to provide with public service with service schemes and organisational structure that

is relevant, flexible and able to respond to current needs of the people. On the other hand,

PSD is also establish to develop the best and competent human capital to meet the public

services strategic needs trough dynamic training policies and sponsorship programmes.

Moreover, for the management of civil servants and development of human resource

management policies through strategic and effective service policies formulation and


The main functions of Public Service Department (PSD) is to implement the

recommendations of Salaries Commissions and Salaries Committees once accepted by the

government. The PSD is accountable in several aspects in playing their roles and function.

Firstly, by planning to determine the roles of public sector, organizational sizes and structure

of the public agencies, the requirement and development of human resource, pension and

retirement benefits, the implications of privatization/separation on the public sector human

resource and to develop public sector alliances and networking.

The functions of PSD is in the aspects of development. They are responsible to

determine the organisational development policies, career development policy, to develop

career path, succession planning and to determine training policy. Next is the last aspects of

functions by management for managing the appointment, emplacement, remuneration,

promotion, retirement benefits, service conditions, employer-employee relations, training and

human resource database. It also to formulate and clarify policies and to manage policy

monitoring and evaluations.

The Public Service Department is thus responsible for all planning and

implementation of personnelrelated functions in the public service. Its activities include

supervising the National Joint Councils. (Maimunah Aminuddin, 2016).


As, conclusion, it is clear that the state is concerned with the problems which exist in

this industrial relations and the government take initiatives to resolve or to minimizes this

problem by the establishment of machineries in the the public sector industrial relations.

There is a genuine desire to bring about a more systematic approach to resolving them by

playing the roles of each machinery is accountable for. These are the machinery is important

in handling industrial conflicts so that industrial disputes do not occur or can be prevent.

The examples of some machineries that are establish in the public sector industrial

relations in public sector is Salaries and Committees, National Joint Council, Public Service

Tribunal and Public Service Departments out of the multiple machineries that has been

establish in Malaysia as mention above. This machinery has their own roles and functions to

be implemented that is distinguish from each others. They are responsible in implementing

their own policies and task that is obligated to them. Thus, this machineries is important in

the public sector industrial relations to ensure all necessary requirements is fulfil accordingly.


1. A profile of the public service of Malaysia: Current good practices and new developments in public

service management. (2004). London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

2. Industrial Relations in the Public Sector. (n.d.). Retrieved July 15, 2016, from

3. TOPIC 2 TRADE UNIONS. (n.d.). Retrieved July 17, 2016, from

4. Spicer, D. P., & Ahmad, R. (2006). Cognitive processing models in performance appraisal:

Evidence from the Malaysian education system. Human Res Manag J Human Resource Management

Journal, 16(2), 214-230. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2006.00007.x (n.d.). Retrieved July 17, 2016, from