When the Trade Union Act 1959 was amended to remove the narrow scope of trade union representation, the objective was to facilitate an increase in trade union membership.
Thus, the restrictive definition of a trade union being “within any particular establishment, trade, occupation or industry or within any similar trades, occupation or industries” was deleted.
Following these changes, trade unions were given liberty to amend their constitutions to expand their scope of membership.
While this may well be consonant with the government’s objective to widen the scope of trade union membership, it cannot be the intention of Parliament to permit the destruction of existing trade unions by allowing for duplicate or rival trade unions to be registered by the director general of the Department of Trade Unions of the Ministry of Human Resources.
One example involves the National Union of Employees in Companies Manufacturing Rubber Products, registered in 1962 (Registration number 314), making it one of the oldest industrial trade unions in the country.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN), Maybank a/c 507246118995 or CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a pledge or schedule an auto donation to Aliran every month or every quarter
- Become an Aliran member
On 17 April 2025, the director general of trade unions registered a rival union with the registered named “National Union of Employees in Companies Manufacturing Rubber Products (2) 2024” under registration number 1285!
One does not need analytical skills to conclude that both the 63-year-old union (registered in 1962) and the rival union (registered on 17 April 2025) are identical in name except for the inclusion of the numbers “(2) 2024” in the latter.
To worsen the situation, the director general has even allowed the scope of union membership of the new rival union to be identical to that of the 63-year-old union!
With this registration, the rival union has now sought union recognition from the same companies granted recognition to the 63-year-old union many decades ago!
Sadly, the director general’s decision to permit the registration of a rival union has led to a situation where the rival union is attempting to entice union members from the 63-year-old union – a situation that ought to qualify as ‘union busting’.
Surely that cannot be the intention of Parliament when the Trade Union Act was amended! And, surely, the director general ought to have been mindful of Parliament’s intention before he registering the rival union.
The director general ought to have been guided by the provisions of Section 12(3)(e)(i) of the Trade Union Act in considering the application to register the rival union.
This section reads as follows:
12(3) The Director General shall refuse to register a trade union if – (e) the name under which the trade union is to be registered is – (i) identical to that of any other existing trade union, or so nearly resembles the name of such other trade union as, in the opinion of the Director General, is likely to deceive the public or the members of either trade union.
Given these provisions, the director general ought to have acted objectively and not perversely in registering the rival union.
The registration of the rival union, with both identical name and membership scope, amounts to a licence to split an existing trade union’s membership, which is antithetical to Parliament’s intention to promote healthy growth of trade union membership density.
Therefore, the director general must immediately stop the unhealthy registration of rival trade unions.
What has happened to the National Union of Employees in Companies Manufacturing Rubber Products (Registration number 314 of 1962) may well repeat itself with any other existing union.
The gravity of the situation needs to be grasped by all existing trade unions. All that is needed, going by the precedent set by the director general, is to parrot the name of an existing union, add some numerics (say (2) 2026 or so forth) and, lo and behold, a long-established trade union would be confronted with a rival union!
Without any shadow of doubt, the consequences would lead to the fragmentation of the membership of the existing union – a situation that was never intended when the Trade Union Act was amended!
By permitting the registration of a rival union, despite the provisions of Section 12(3)(e)(i) of the Trade Union Act, the director general has, inadvertently or otherwise, legitimised the ‘subdivision’ of existing trade unions.
The director general has also created an ideal environment for unscrupulous characters, either acting on their own or in collusion with anti-labour ‘people of interest’, to plot the weakening of the already fragmented trade union movement.
Given this, the director general must cease the registration of copycats of existing unions either with identical names or membership scopes.
AGENDA RAKYAT - Lima perkara utama
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
