Salary Increment Malaysia Labour Law
Instead of telling employees a vague “we`ll discuss it at a later date” regarding salary, employers need to be communicative and set dates for these conversations. With regard to terengganu Bus Co Sdn Bhd v Transport Workers Union [8] and Malayan Agricultural Procedure Association v National Union of Plantation Workers [9], the Labour Court ruled unanimously that an increase in the minimum wage of RM 50 applies to all categories of hotel employees. This is due, first, to the fact that the General Court found that, in its application lodged at the hearing of Case No 26, paragraph 4/2-657/08, the trade union proposed the minimum wage and the maximum salary, as set out in Annex A to the trade union`s proposal for 6. Collective agreement, and the tribunal notes that the union has in fact requested an increase of RM50 over the previous wage structure for all categories of workers. Thus, the General Court also finds that there is nothing unusual or new where the European Union requests that those RM50s apply to all categories. The Court also notes that, at the hearing in Case No 26(4)/2-657/08, the hotel did not raise any objections to the EU proposal or submit a counter-proposal. Second, the court also agreed with the union`s argument that if the RM50 were only awarded to those earning RM350 or less, it would create confusion and uncertainty in the salary structure of hotel employees. In addition, based on the two examples in the case, the court considers that if the court adopted the interpretation requested by the hotel, it would certainly cause the dissatisfaction of the leaders. Based on the above, the court recalls that RM50 should be applied to all categories of hotel employees.
[10] The union Pertanian Malaysia Berhad (union) filed an action against Bank Pertanian Malaysia Berhad (Bank) on the grounds that the bank had violated Article 4 of the Collective Agreement (CA) with regard to the annual wage increase. Parliament had recently passed new laws to set the minimum wage for workers. On 23.09.2011, the National Wage Advisory Council Act 2011 came into force and, with the power conferred on the Minister, the Minimum Wage Ordinance 2012 was issued, in which the minimum wages for the Malaysian Peninsula are RM900 and in Eastern Malaysia RM800. Some people support the minimum wage law because it raises the standard of living of workers, reduces poverty and makes businesses more efficient. On the other hand, this minimum wage law has been rejected by some people, where they argue that if it is high enough to be effective, why it increases the unemployment rate, especially among workers with very low productivity due to inexperience or disability, which then harms less skilled workers and possibly excludes a group from the labor market, it is also less effective and more harmful to the economy than other methods of poverty alleviation. In addition, the increase in the minimum wage, regardless of the work performed, was increased to a monthly net salary of employees not exceeding RM2000 compared to the new amendment to the Employment Act [4], the previous wage threshold for coverage was RM1500 under the old law. Statistics show that wages in Malaysia have risen by only 2% over the past decade, while labour productivity rates have risen by more than 6%. This gap, or rather this distortion, is not healthy, when the government saw this unhealthy development, it saw the need to resolve and “correct” this imbalance by changing the old law, as another good way to overcome this situation. According to the Department of Human Resources (“MOHR”), this should increase the proportion of employees protected by the EA from 50% to 70%. This amendment is supplemented by a corresponding change in the possibility of appealing to the Director-General of Labour (“DGL”) in respect of contributions to their employment contracts. [5] The Department of Human Resources` initiative to amend the law was motivated by the need to improve the protection and well-being of the working community. Low wage growth relative to labor productivity also shows the decline in wages, especially those with low-skilled labor inefficiencies in the labor market.
Statistics show that in 2010, about 30.6% of total basic earners lived below RM720 per month, which is below the income line. [6] With the government`s decision to improve the labor market in our country by changing the law and passing a new wage law, this gives the worker more hope to improve their lifestyle. An employee`s salary should always be based on their skills and experience. They should not be based on their age, background or gender and should be an equitable representation of the role they play. The court took into account that its decision not to grant a salary increase affected all employees of the bank (not just the executives covered by the CA) and acknowledged that the bank`s decision not to grant the increase for 2020 was “with the aim of maintaining the sustainability of the bank`s operations as well as the livelihood of all its employees given the uncertainty in the future financial situation of the bank”. in light of the unprecedented economic crisis caused by Covid-19″. There is a case related to this salary increase in which the hotel industry occurred between Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Hotel, Bar Dan Restoran Semenanjung Malaysia vs Perangsang Hotel & Properties Sdn Bhd (Quality Hotel Shah Alam) [7], where the problem is solved in this way given our rising cost of living and our inflationary environment, what is a reasonable wage increase that should be given to employees in the hospitality industry? The union argued that the bank`s failure to pay the annual wage increases constituted a violation of Article 4 of the CA. Under the new proposal, the government is pushing to increase maternity leave from 60 days to 90 days. However, as the law is still under review, there is no information on whether the leave will be paid or not.
After finding that the annual wage increases were discretionary, the court found that the bank`s decision not to grant the surtaxes did not violate section 4. In particular, the court rejected the union`s argument that wage increases should be paid because the bank was profitable in 2019. The court ruled that “the annual salary increase would become the bank`s future monthly commitment and not just a one-time payment to its employees, so the bank`s previous profit is irrelevant in determining the payment of the annual salary increase to executives.” In the event of the expiry of a fixed-term employment contract or if a service contract of indefinite duration is terminated due to termination by one of the parties, the salary shall be paid no later than the day of termination of the contract. The salary is also paid on the last day of employment if the employer terminates the contract by paying a salary instead of a dismissal, a breach of contract by the employee or a dismissal for misconduct. In the meantime, if the contract is terminated by the employee by paying a salary instead of a notice period, without notice for breach of contract, and if the dependants have been exposed to violence or illness not specified in the contract, the salary must be paid no later than the third day after termination. “The problem is that these employers don`t feel the need to give raises because they don`t have to,” he told The Sun yesterday. Is a labour market test required as a precursor to a short- or long-term visa? Are class or class actions allowed, or are employees only allowed to assert their labour and employment claims individually? Abdul Halim added that the government should consider requiring the EPF (Employees` Provident Fund) to deduct the 11% contribution of employees based on their total income for the month, as opposed to their current base salary. .
