Malaysian Trades Unions Congress

Sarawak Division 

15 MAY 2008 

POSITION PAPER ON  

Decision by Previous Minister of to the Minister of Human Resources to allow grant request by Sarawak Timber Association (STA)to exempt all workers engaged in Forestry Undertakings in non  urban areas from certain provisions of the Amended Sarawak Labour Ordinance 

1.       MTUC has been made aware that the Ministry of HR has worked hand in hand with the STA to exempt employees timber industry in non-urban areas from certain provisions of the SLO. The relevant sections were
 

·             S11 - Guaranteed Week

·             S104 – Holidays

·             S 105 - Hours of Work

·             S105A – Shift Work

·             S105B – Rest Day

·             S105C – Work on Rest Day

·             S105D - Annual leave
 

2.          In Sarawak almost all timber workers are in non urban areas so the Minister’s order means that almost all workers in the industry will be denied protection accorded to them my Parliament.
 

CONTRACT OF SERVICE/CONTRACT FOR SERVICE/EPF
 

3.       It must be borne in mind that the SLO only covers workers who are employed under a contract OF service. It has been a prevalent practice for the timber industry to treat workers in the upstream and logging operations as contractors ie. employed under a contract FOR service, thus avoiding EPF contributions. EPF Figures would strongly suggest that the timber industry did not contribute EPF for the vast majority of timber workers.
 

4.       However for purpose of SOCSO they register these workers as employees because SOCSO is very cheap and the employers do not have to buy insurance once they contribute to SOCSO.  When the workers dies of employment injuries, their families cannot claim SOCSO as they are not deemed to be insured person because they are contractors.  See Batang Balleh and numerous other Industrual Coirt and SOCSi Appellate Board cases
 

5.       It is indeed strange that STA now wants to exempt these workers from the SLO when they never threat them as employees under a contract OF service. MTUC is more than happy if STA now insist on all timber employers contribute to EPF for all workers in the timber industry. 

STA’S RATIONAL 

6.       STA’s rational for the exemption  are:
 

·         That certain entrench policies/ practices will be offended by the amended provisions

·         It would be impractical for both employees and employers to implement  the said provisions

·         The implementation of these provisions will have negative impact on employer/employee relationships
 

7.       The Chairman of STA has now stated ( Borneo Post 8 May 2007) that the request for exemptions were not aim at denying workers their rights but more to allow the industry to come out with a comprehensive remuneration package that is more suited to the industry.
 

8.       This is indeed amusing as there is nothing in the SO to prevent employers to provide a better remuneration to their employees.   The SLO provide for statutory minimum benefits.  Certainly no employers need to seek exemption to provide better benefits than the provisions of the SLO.
 

9.       First and foremost let MTUC states that the STA’s arguments that the above sections were not practical to be implemented is nothing more than a cloak to hide the real agenda- i.e. to cut cost of productions by denying their workers basic rights guaranteed by the amended SLO.  By seeking to exempt all workers including those in down stream and trading of timber products only goes to show their real agenda.
 

10.     Certainly we fail to see how it can be impractical to implement all the said sections in a plywood factory in an industrial estate in Demak Laut, Kemena, Lanang or Baram.
 

11.     Their argument that there are certain entrenched practices and policies only goes to show that they are unwilling to change these entrenched practices that has served the interests of employers, not workers.
 

12.     S11 - Guaranteed Week
 

·         Guaranteed week is a provision to prevent daily workers to be exploited and to enable them to obtain a decent living.   It is to prevent employer who engaged daily paid workers to work on any day and time as they pleased.  By exempting timber workers from S 11, it would mean that daily paid workers will be left without work (AND WITHOUT PAY)   for days and weeks due to bad weather whilst stuck in the timber camps and with no practical means to go back to their longhouses. How can they survive?

·         Business risk due to bad weather surely must be borne by millionaires and listed companies, not poor daily paid workers who earn as little as 20 dollars a day.
 

13.     S104 – Public Holidays
 

·         For STA to argue that it is inconvenient for workers in timber camps to take public holidays and that they usually take their off day or leave during pay day, is ill informed.

·         There is nothing in the current SLO to prevent employers to substitute public holidays (including religious holidays) with another day in lieu. The only Public holidays that cannot be substituted are Labour Day, Merdeka, and birthdays of Agung & TYT. - For good reasons.
 

·         If timber employers still require workers to work on these 4 Public Holidays, then simply pay them overtime/Public holiday rates. – This is another example of STA wanting to continue to exploit workers.
 

14.     S 105- Hours of Work
 

·         This section give workers mandatory rest after 4 hours of work- What employer want to challenge such basic human rights?
 

·         STA reasons- in timber camps workers work from dawn until sunset to maximize production only goes to shows that workers are treated like slaves to maximize profits.  No wonder workplace accidents and fatalities are the highest in the timber industry.
 

15.     S105A – Shift Work
 

·         MTUC again fail to see the ration to exempt for this section that regulates shift work and actually enable employers to manage their employees’ working hours in an orderly manner and to meet exigencies of services where production needs to be continuing.
 

16.     S105B – Rest Day
 

·         After working from sunrise to sunset, STA expect timber workers to work everyday without a rest day as long as weather permits clearly shows how such the entrench practices that borders on slavery has been going on in the timber camp for decades.
 

17.     S105C – Work on Rest Day
 

·         This clearly showed that STA is only interested in not paying workers for work done on rest day.  It is not an impractical to implement issue.  It is a refusal to pay issue.
 

18.     S105D - Annual leave,
 

·         If STA’s argument that workers take leave /off day during pay day, what is the problem with annual leave? It is still the prerogative of employers to determine and approve annual leave, They can schedule it, they can roster it, so long they pay annual leave. Again a question of money and denying annual leave that has been mandated by Parliament.
 

19.     In conclusion all STA wants is to continue to deny all workers in the timber industry fundamental rights to:
 

·         Public holidays,

·         Half an hour rest after 4 hours of work,

·         A rest day after working continuous for 6 days,

·         Overtime payment for working in excess of normal hours of work

·         Even annual leave.
 

20.     Their rational that they need workers to work non stop from sunlight till sundown without break and to work everyday for months is the main reason why the workplace accidents and fatality rate of the timber industry is the highest. Workers are literally paying with their life and blood. Now they even want to deny payments like annual leave and overtime.
 

21.     For daily paid workers they even want absolute right to determine the number of days work. This means that they can ask a daily paid worker to come only one day a week or if the weather is good.  So in a wet season, the worker cannot even earn any wages at all. Business risk must rest with employers, not poor workers.
 

22.     This is totally irresponsible from an industry that has made billions of ringgit and has spawned some of the country’s richest billionaires.  It is indicative of an industry that not only exploits the state’s natural resources, but also its employees, who are mainly from kampongs and longhouses.
 

23.     We failed to understand why timber employers, billionaires and millionaires should be exempted from these provisions, when other employers in other industries are willingly and gracefully granting to their employees. 

·         What is the difference of a worker in a plywood factory in Demak Laut Industrial Estate compared to a metal factory?

·         What is the difference between workers in a furniture shop compared to a worker in a Computer shop?

·         And what is the difference between the timber industry in Sarawak compared to Sabah and West Malaysia, where employers there never seek exemption??  

24.     Please take note that these basic and fundamental provisions are legislated by parliament with the aim to provide protection to workers. The amendment was long overdue for 45 years and only just implemented recently.
 

[back to top]