PROBLEMS IN THE RECOGNITION PROCESS:

Recognition is the acknowledgment by the employer that a trade union has the right or the
locus standi to represent part or the whole workforce of the organization in collective
bargaining.

Since the employer's recognition is required before the trade union may take part in
collective bargaining, the drawn-out and challenging processes make it difficult for a union
to operate effectively. Anti-union tactics used by companies to prevent collective bargaining
might make things worse. Sabah Forest Industries ('SFI') is a case study of this technique.
Since 2003, the employer has continuously requested court appeals to prevent the trade
union from being recognized. The DGIR claimed that the employer was to blame for the
delay in the recognition process since they had first rejected the request for recognition,
raised objections, and filed an application or applications with the High Court for judicial
review. Technical issues such as misspellings on the application form, the employer's
absence from the meeting to cast secret ballots, and improper notice delivery were the
foundation for the complaints and the court review request.

Besides that,

Due to the wide discretion that the legislation provides the DGTU to decide whether the
trade union is a part of comparable trades, vocations, and industries of the workers, the
discretion granted to him/her in the requests for recognition has been a source of
controversy. In one instance, the Federal Court in the case of Electrical Industry Workers
Union v. Registrar of Trade Unions had rejected to intervene with the DGTU's discretionary
powers in evaluating the competence of the trade union and also refused to provide any
guidelines for the use of authority. The DGTU is serving as a mediator in the recognition
dispute between the trade union and the employer, thus the respondents contend that he
should have the authority to decide whether the two cases are identical. A component of
the process for achieving industrial harmony is the mediation step, in which the impartial
DGTU acts in the interests of both sides. The DGTU does not act arbitrarily when doing his
duties since as part of investigations, his office arranges meetings with both employers and
employees for interviews as well as site inspections. The DGTU establishes criteria to judge
the problem of competence throughout the investigation and gathers pertinent data. To
assess the skill of the trade union, it is controversial to say if the DGTU is definitely an expert
in the relevant sector.

Furthermore,

For the four kinds of employees, there is no legislative interpretation. In the matter of HSBC
Bank Malaysia v. Menteri Sumber Manusia, Malaysia & Anor, the proper test to establish
these individuals' competence is laid down. The court ruled that the Minister should use the
employees' job titles and descriptions rather than their job grades when determining
whether they fit into one of the four categories since the latter cannot be utilized as an
indicator, benchmark, or yardstick. For the employer, contesting the recognition claim on
the aforementioned basis has grown common. Employers often take advantage of positions
in different ways when a worker's responsibilities vary from one corporate organization to
another. For instance, companies use strategies like job position restructuring in their
separate organizations, which calls into doubt the employees' ability to vote. Despite the 14-
day timeframe set out in Regulation 6 of the IRR 2009, the respondent said that the
employer sometimes refused to comply and purposely postponed submitting the list of
employees to the DGIR.

Last but not least,

The government has yet to ratify ILO Convention No. 87. In its response to the ILO governing
body, the government stated that the main justification for not adhering to ILO Convention
No. 87 is that "it would enable the formation of general unions, which might be led by
persons having nothing to do with the activities or interests of unions, and pursuing political
or even subversive aims." Malaysia further emphasizes that although she has not signed ILO
Convention No. 87, Article 10(1) of the Federal Constitution nevertheless protects the
freedom to create and join a union. Due to Malaysia's ratification of ILO Convention No. 98,
the right to collective bargaining is recognized. With the exception of circumstances
"affecting the security, public order, and economic well-being of the country," workers are
allowed to participate in collective bargaining with the employer without intervention. The
ILO's regulations would immediately lessen governmental involvement in union formation
and operations, which is inconsistent with Malaysia's government's national security
strategy. According to the administration, offering employees a simple route to demand
high-wage arrangements makes the deal less appealing to international investors.

In conclusion, it can be shown that Malaysian workers have the freedom to organize and
join a union. To address the concerns brought up in the aforementioned debate, the current
laws must be improved and amended.