INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 26(1)(4)/2-100/08 BETWEEN KESATUAN PEKERJA-PEKERJA KELAB SEMENANJUNG MALAYSIA AND TROPICANA GOLF

AND COUNTRY RESORT BHD AWARD NO : 1081 OF 2011 Before : AHMAD TERRIRUDIN BIN MOHD SALLEH - CHAIRMAN Venue : Industrial Court Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur Mr. Nesan a/l S.V. Thangavelu - Employer's Panel Mr. Alaku a/l S.P. Viswanathan - Employee's Panel 19.12.2007 21.02.2008, 31.03.2008, 20.06.2008, 21.07.2008, 13.11.2008, 05.12.2008, 07.07.2009, 16.09.2009, & 03.05.2011 11.04.2008, 25.08.2008, 16.12.2008, 08.03.2011, 25.04.2008, 13.10.2008, 05.01.2009, 13.04.2011,

Panel Members : Date Reference : Dates of Mention :

Dates of Hearing : Representation :

12.01.2009, 14.01.2009, 04.03.2009, 11.03.2009, 06.05.2009 & 30.03.2010 Mr. S. Muhendaran from Messrs Muhendaran Sri Counsel for the Union Mr. Frank C.H. Loh from Messrs Stanley Chang & Partners Counsel for the Respondent / Company
1

Reference: This is a reference made on 19.12.2007 under section 26(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1967 pertaining to the trade dispute involving the first Collective Agreement between Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Kelab Semenanjung Malaysia (the Union) and Tropicana Golf & Country Resort Bhd (the Club). AWARD (NO. 1081 OF 2011) This trade dispute was over the Collective Agreement between Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Kelab Semenanjung Malaysia (the Union) and Tropicana Golf And Country Resort Bhd (the Club). This is the first Collective Agreement (the CA) between the parties. Background In this case it is to be noted that the said proposed CA contains 43 articles and initially all are in dispute. However, after few mentions the parties informed the court that out of 43 articles in the Union's Statement Of Case, 12 articles were fully agreed upon by the parties, leaving 31 articles in dispute. As for the agreed articles the parties have tendered in court List of Agreed Articles and Disputed Articles and marked it as Exhibit U1. Therefore, the following articles needs to be resolved : Article 1(b) and (c) : Parties To The Agreement Article 2 : Title Article 4 : Duration, Modification and Termination of Agreement
2

Article 5 : Scope and Interpretation of Agreement Article 7 : Grievance Procedure Article 9 : Recognition of Union Article 11: Union Subscription Article 12 : Leave on Trade Union Business Article 13 : Probation Article 15 : Promotion Article 16(d) : Recruitment, Termination and Vacancies Article 17 : Annual Bonus Article 18 : Housing Allowance Article 19 : Acting Allowance Article 20 : Duty Meal Article 21 : Cost of Living Allowance Article 24 : Transport Pick-Up Location Article 25 : Working Hours and Split Shift Allowance Article 26 : Rest Day Article 28 : Overtime Article 29 : Medical Leave Article 30 : Medical Benefit Article 32 : Annual Leave Article 33 : Haj Leave Article 35 : Special Paid Leave Article 36 : Group Term Life Article 37 : Employee's Provident Fund Article 38 : Retirement Age Article 39 : Existing Benefit Article 40 : Job Grades, Salary Scales and Annual Increment

Article 41 : Funeral Expenses Article 42 : Industrial Accident The Union and the Club had both filed their respective pleadings. As for other documents there were tendered as follows: (a) (b) (c) (e) (f) (g) Comparative Table of the Disputed Articles; List of Agreed and Disputed Article (U1); Working Hours (U2); Job Grade & Salary Structure For Non Executive Position (U4); Comparative Table of Job and Salary Structure (U5); and Union's Bundle of Documents (UBD).

(d ) Job Grade, Wage Structure and Annual Increment (U3);

It is pertinent to note that apart from the Statement In Reply (SIR), the Club did not submit any exhibits. In this case, the parties did not call any witnesses. The court proceeded to hear oral submissions from the counsels representing the respective parties. At that same time also the parties did submit their written submissions. The Law In dealing with CA the court is well aware that CA is not a commercial agreement. Thus, the court is of the view that a reasonable and pragmatic approach, shown of an excess of legal learning is therefore called for when construing a CA (see: Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja
4

Perkayuan v. Syarikat Jengka Sdn Bhd [1997] 2 CLJ 276). For the second point, the court refers to the case of PIHP (Selangor) Bhd v. Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Hotel, Bar & Restoran Semenanjung Malaysia & Anor [2005] 2 MLJ 769 at page 775 where the High Court held as follows: It is significant to note that by convention and practice, proceedings on collective agreements in the Industrial Court are fairly informal. There is one cardinal rule however, that is the party that proposes a change must prove his case. In addition, the court is of the view that a CA should be a speaking CA. In other words the articles in the CA should be able not only to deliver the needs of the disputed parties but also to strike the balance between them. The court is also aware that in handing down a CA this court must have regard to the public interest, the financial implication and the effect of the award on the economy of the country, and on the industry concerned and also the probable effect in related or similar industries (section 30(4) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (the Act). The court further notes that in dealing with trade dispute the court must act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case (section 30(5) of the Act). Evaluation and Findings Before proceeding further, it is appropriate at this juncture to highlight that the Club in disputing all the proposals made by the Union did state that one of the major reasons that the company unable to accede to the requests or proposals made by the Union is because it will burden the

company financially. Therefore, it is vital for the company to tender documentary evidence at least on the financial situation of the Club at the material time and the impact on the company financially after the implementation of the CA (see : PIHP (Selangor) Bhd v. Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Hotel, Bar & Restoran Semenanjung Malaysia and Anor (supra) and Holiday Villages of Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Hotel, Bar and Restoran Semenanjung Malaysia [2011] 1 ILR page 394). However, the court finds that Club has omitted to do this. Thus, the court has no choice but to rule that the Club cannot use financial reason as an argument to reject or decline the proposals made by the Union in this CA. Bearing the above in mind, the court after having carefully perused the evidence tendered and submissions by the parties unanimously decided as follows: Article 1 (b) and (c) : Parties To The Agreement As for this proposed Article 1(b), the Club contends that the wordings of this proposed Article should be worded as follows: .......shall continue to cover the employees who are members of the Union to whom this Agreement was applicable.. The Union also proposed a similar wordings for Article 1(c). In this matter, the court agrees with the contention put up by the counsel for the Union that section 17 and section 32 of

the Act clearly states that the agreement or terms of the CA will be applicable to all workmen covered under the CA. Thus, the proposal by the Union should be adopted. Article 2 : Title Both parties agreed that Article 2 should be worded as follows: This Agreement shall be known as the Tropicana Golf and Country Resort Berhad and Club Employees Union Peninsular Malaysia.. Article 4 : Duration, Modification and Termination of Agreement In this proposal the club is requesting that the effective date should be the date the dispute was referred to the court or later. The court disagrees with the Club's contention and rules that the award to be backdated 6 months from the date on which the dispute was referred to the court (see: National Union Of Hotel, Bar & Restaurant Workers v. Casuarina Beach Hotel Sdn Bhd, Penang [1981] 1 MLLR 233). As for the duration, the court is of the view that the CA is to be in force for period of three years.

Article 5: Scope and Interpretation of Agreement (i) Article 5 (c) As for this Article, the court agrees with the Union's proposal. The court does not think that by having this Article the Union is usurping the prerogrative of the company to decide on the new job category and the salary scale. This is because the court is of the view that the proposal merely says in the event the category of employees is created. Thus, it still depends very much on the Club on the creation of new category of employees. Pertaining to the determination of the salary scale for the new category of employees (if any), the court is of opinion that the proposal is fair since it does make sense that if the company decides to have it, it is reasonable for them to discuss with the Union because it might determine the other salary scales in the other categories of employees. (ii) Article 5 (h) In view of the decision in the case of Rheem Hume (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd Banting v. Metal Industry Employees Union (1984) 1 ILR 175, the court agrees with the Union's proposal.

Article 7 (b): Grievance Procedure After weighing the matter, the court finds that although the period or number of days taken by the company to resolve matter under this proposal is longer but the court feels that it will not cause injustice to the employees. This is because at the end of the day if the matter is not resolved the Union or the Club can still raise the matter to the Ministry of Human Resources for reconciliation. The court is further of the view that the parties should try their best settle the matter internally. However to compensate the Union, the court decides that the proposed step 1, 2 and 3, the period should be 5 days and for step 4 the period should 7 days instead of 14 days. Article 9: Recognition of Union (i) Article 9(a) (v) In court's view, it is only fair if for this purpose the employees who are in the employment of the Club for continuous period should be included. The court agrees with the following wordings: Temporary employees are those employed in such capacity for a continuous period of not more than 3 months (employees with more than 3 months of service shall come within the ambit of the scope)..

(ii)

Article 9(c) The court agrees with the Union that there may be instances whereby the Union may have to call for an emergency meeting. Thus, the court agrees with the Union's proposal but with at least 3 days notice to the company.

(iii)

Article 9(d) The court agrees with the Union since there should not be any discrimination in relation to the terms and conditions of employment. The court does not think this proposal will diminish the power of the Club to reward its employees because this proposal is relating to the standard conditions of service.

(v)

Article 9(e) Pertaining to the Club's proposal to insert the new article 9(e), the court finds that sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Act has taken the reservations posed by the Club. Thus, this proposal is not necessary.

Article 11: Union Subscription The court based on the case of Holiday Villages Of Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Hotel, Bar dan Restoran Semenanjung Malaysia (supra) at page 408, the

10

court is of the view that this proposed article should not be included. Article 12 : Leave On Trade Union Business (i) Article 12 (a) The court agrees with the Union's proposal since this is in line with section 6 of the Act. (ii) Article 12 (b) The court finds that there is no need for this proposed article since it has been addressed by section 6 of the Act. Article 13: Probation (i) Article 13 (a) The court is of the view that it is fair that at the discretion of the Club the probationary period may be extended before the completion of the 3 months. However as to the proposal that the extension of the probation should be a further period of three (3) months, the court is of the view that the probationary period of 3 + 1 months is sufficient for the company to evaluate and to guide the employees. In this matter the court refers to the case of Daikoku Company Sendirian

11

Berhad v. National Union of Hotel, Bar & Restaurant Workers (1986) 1 ILR 1144 and Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Hotel, Bar dan Restoran Semenanjung Malaysia v. Perangsang Hotel & Properties Sdn Bhd (Quality Hotel Shah Alam (Award No. 1278 of 2010)). (ii) Article 13 (b) After having read the submission rendered by the parties, the court is of the view that it is appropriate not to have this proposed article as it might lead to discontent among the newly confirmed employees when it comes to implementation. (iii) Article 13 (c) The Court agrees with the Union's proposal based on the reason forwarded in the Union's written submission. Article 15: Promotion (i) Article 15 (a) The court agrees with the Union's proposal as the wording is clearer and unambiguous. (ii) Article 15 (c) and (e) It is the contention of the Club that the proposed point

12

of entry into appropriate salary for promoted employees by the Union is not suitable. This is because the Club has its own entry point and therefore should be allowed to continue with the present practice. Secondly, Article 15(c) has covered the salary for the promoted employees. For this proposed article, the court after having the opportunity to read and scrutinize the evidence tendered decided that it was reasonable, fair and equitable to grant the Union's request. This is because the proposed provision is similar to the provision used in the collective agreements of the Berjaya Golf Resort Berhad and Club Employees Union Peninsular Malaysia (Berjaya Golf Resort) and Bukit Kiara Resort Berhad and Club Employees Union Peninsular Malaysia (Bukit Kiara Resort Berhad) (pages 8 of Tab 3 of UBD) and other clubs cited in the UBD. As for the Club's contention that the present practice is sufficient to cover the proposed article, the court finds that the club did not produce any evidence to support this. (iii) Article 15 (f) The court did not find this practice has been adopted by the some clubs in the similar industry. Thus, the court has to decline the Union's proposal.

13

Article 16 (d) : Recruitment, Termination and Vacancies The court did not agree with this proposal since the Club has the prerogative on how to run its business (see: Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Felda Plantations Sdn Bhd v. Felda Plantations Sdn Bhd [2009] 3 ILR 294). Article 17 : Annual Bonus (i) Article 17 (a), (b) and (c) In court's view the Club should have the discretion on whether or not to give bonus to its employees but taking into account the practice of other clubs in the Klang Valley, the court agrees with the Union's proposal but the annual bonus should be only for one month. The granting of annual should not include those who resigns voluntarily for the company. (ii) Article 17 (d) The court did not see this has been the practice of other clubs in the Klang Valley. Therefore, the court has to reject this proposal. Article 18 : Housing Allowance The court notes that other clubs in the Klang Valley did give Housing Allowance. As such, the court did not find the demand is unreasonable but the amount should be RM100.00.
14

Article 19: Acting Allowance The court discovers that the Club is willing to give RM2.00 per day for Acting Allowance. However, the court agrees that the amount is too low and having regards to the other clubs in Klang Valley, the court feels that the amount of RM5.00 per day is reasonable. Article 20: Duty Meal (i) Article 20(a) As for this Article the club is willing to give RM2.80 but it was rejected by Union because of the rising cost of food items. The court agrees with the argument put forward by the Union but the amount should be RM3.50. (ii) Article 20 (b) The court did not find this practice has been adopted by the some clubs in the similar industry. Thus, the court has to decline the Union's proposal. Article 21: Cost Of Living Allowance The court notes that other clubs did give Living Allowance. As such, the court did not find the demand is unreasonable but justified. As such, the amount should be RM150.00 per month.

15

Article 24: Transport Pick-Up Location (i) Article 24 (a) The court agrees with the Union's proposal. However, the court is of the view that the Club should be allowed to vary the pre-destined pick-up location /and or schedule after discussing with Union. (ii) Article 24 (b) As for the transport for employees who do not use the club's transport the court finds RM100.00 per month is reasonable. (iii) Article 24 (c) The Union has withdrawn the proposal. (iv) Article 24 (d) In court's view this proposal is fair because the employees might move from their residential location to another area where there is no free transport. Article 25: Working Hours and Split Shift Allowance In deciding this, the court is of the view that in determining the working hours the interest of the company should be considered together with the interest of the employees. At

16

the same time, based on the UBD, the court also considers the practice of the other clubs in Klang Valley in this matter. (i) Article 25(a) In this matter the Union is proposing the normal working hours per week as follows: (a) (b) Office and Administration employees - 40 hours per week Operation employees - 48 hours per week

The other clubs in the Klang Valley are as follows: (i) Article 23.01 of the CA of the Kelab Taman Perdana DiRaja, Kuala Lumpur and Club Employees Union Peninsular Malaysia (page 11 Tab 1 of UBD) has stated as follows: (a) (b) (ii) Office 39 hours Operation employees : 42 hours and Administration employees:

Article 24(A) of Berjaya Golf Club (page 10 of Tab 2 of UBD) as follows: (a) (b) Office and Administration employees : 46.5 hours Operation employees : 48 hours

17

(iii)

Article 26(a) of Bukit Kiara Resort Berhad (page 12 of Tab 3 of UBD): (a) (b) Office and Administration employees : 46.5 hours Operation employees: 48 hours

(iv)

Article 23 of the CA of Kelab Golf Negara Subang and Employees (KGNS) (page 12 of Tab 4 of UBD): (a) (b) Office and Administration employees: hours Operation employees: 48 hours 44

(v)

Article 14 of the CA of Royal Selangor Golf Club (RSGC) (page 11 of Tab 5 of UBD): (a) (b) (c) Administration employees: 44 hours Field employees : 45 hours Operation Department : 48 hours.

Having the above in mind, the court finds that working hours per week shall be as follows: (a) (b) Office and Administration employees : 44 hours Operation Employees : 48 hours

18

(ii)

Article 25(b) In term of daily working hours, taking into account the practice of other clubs in the Klang Valley, the court agrees with the Club's contention that similar provisions adopted by the other Clubs within the Klang Valley may not be necessary right for the Club and the nature of the business and the needs of the customers/members who have gotten very used to the manner and operation of the business/service. Therefore, the court accepts the Club's proposal except for office employees whereby their working hours shall be from 8.30 am to 5.30 pm (Monday to Friday).

(iii) Article 25(c) As for this article the court agrees to adopt wordings as stated in Article 25 of the club's proposal (C1). (iv) Article 25(d) The court finds this proposed article not in any other collective agreements cited by the Union. Secondly, the court is of the view that if at all the employees are required to work beyond working hours or call back to work the company will have to pay them overtime. As such, this proposed article should be removed.

19

(v)

Article 25(e) This proposed article has been Agreed in the UBD.

(vi)

Article 25(f) and (g) Pertaining to this proposed article, the court agrees with Union's proposal of RM4.00 for the allowance only for employees who have to perform split shift duty (see: Daikoku Company Sendirian Berhad v. National Union of Hotel Bar & Restaurant Workers [1986] 1 ILR December (A) 1144 at page 1153).

Article 26(a) : Rest Day In this matter, the court is of the view that the Club be allowed to maintain that all employees are to be given only one rest day and other operational employees be given one (1) rest day in each week which in turn shall be determined in accordance with the company's roster. Article 28: Overtime (i) Article 28(a) As for this proposed article, the court notes that the only disagreement between the parties is the fact that the Union suggested that the overtime should be done with the consent of the employees whilst the company

20

on the other hand suggested that the employee shall not refuse to work overtime. In order to strike the balance between the parties the court is of the opinion that the following wordings should be adopted in the CA: Overtime is work done in excess of the normal hours of work. Overtime shall be at the request of the Club with the consent of the employees but such consent shall be not unreasonably withheld. (ii) Article 28 (c) Taking into account the practice of other clubs in the Klang Valley in particular the CA of Kelab Taman Perdana DiRaja Kuala Lumpur (page 15 of Tab1 of UBD), the court agrees with formula proposed by the Union. Article 29 : Medical Leave (i) Article 29(d) It is the Union's contention that paid leave benefits may be used for an employee's own illness or injury or for the purpose of receiving medical care, treatment or diagnosis. Further, the Union contends that these type of illness take most amount of time for recovery and healing. Thus, it is not logical neither reasonable to expect employees to shoulder both the cost of medical

21

treatment and family commitments without their monthly earnings. To counter the Union's request, the Club contends that the proposed article will burden the Club financially. However, as stated in the earlier part of this award, the Club is not in position to plead financial incapability since it has not been proved. In deciding this, the court after comparing with the other clubs in the Klang Valley (as stated in the UBD) agrees with the Union's request that this proposed article should be inserted in the CA. However, the employees are granted leave are as follows: (a) (b) (c) three (3) months on full pay; four (4) months on half pay; and ......... four (4) months on no pay.

Article 30: Medical Benefit (i) Article 30(a) The club's proposal is to limit the proposed benefits to RM360.00 per annum, the employees are eligible for medical treatment by the Club's panel of medical doctors and no portion of the maximum medical fee allowable for each year shall be carried over to the following year. The court after comparing with the other Clubs in the Klang Valley finds that these clubs did not put any capping for out-patient medical treatment. The

22

court also believes that the key to retain the employees in the company is to offer greater benefits. Thus, the court is of the view that there should not be any monetary capping for the medical examination and outpatient treatment for the employees of the Club but the said medical treatment and out-patient treatment must be by the Club's Panel of Doctors, Government Hospitals or by a Specialist recommended by the Club's doctors at the expense of the Club, which shall include the cost of consultation and prescribed medicine. (ii) Article 30(b) As for this proposed article, the court agrees with the Union's proposal since it is consistent with other clubs in the Klang Valley. Thus, the proposed article should be read as follows: Employees shall be entitled for

hospitalisation or in-patient treatment by the Government Hospitals or on recommended by the club's Panel of Doctors, by a specialist or a Private Hospital at the expense of the Club subject to the limit prescribed below : (a) Second seventy class ringgit ward charges per at day

Government Hospital or a maximum of (RM70.00)

23

towards room at any Club's Panel of Hospitals or clinics; (b) A maximum of one thousand five hundred ringgit (RM1,500.00) per every twelve months period commencing from the first day of hospitalisation towards cost of medicine; (c) A maximum of three thousand ringgit (RM3000.00) per every twelve month period commencing from the first day of hospitalisation towards the cost of surgical operation, consultation, investigation or other specialist fees excluding cost of medicine provided such Club's Medical hospitalised doctors Officer or or or any in patient treatment is recommended by the Government Specialist any

recommended by them. (iii) Article 30(c) : Maternity Benefit The Union's proposal is to request the Club to pay for the maternity costs for its female employees. However, the court has to reject this proposal because the court did not see that this benefit has been applied by other clubs in the Klang Valley.

24

(iv)

Article 30(d) As for this article the court rules that other than in the case of emergency the medical treatment must be by the Club's Panel of Doctors Government Hospitals or by a Specialist recommended by the Club's doctors.

(v)

Article 30(e) The court cannot accept the Club's proposal because the Club cannot withdraw unilaterally the medical benefits which has been mutually agreed by the parties.

(vi)

Article 30(f) The court agrees with the Club's proposal since it is a basic rule that for any claim it has to supported by receipts or bills.

(vii) Article 30(g) The court is of the view all terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy should be enclosed in the CA as an appendix. In addition, the court is of the view there should be no capping for hospitalisation. Article 32: Annual Leave (i) Article 32 (a) The court accepts Union's proposal since it is true that

25

the Union's proposal for paid leave is the lowest compared to the rest of the clubs in the Klang Valley. (ii) Article 32 (b) The court has to decline this proposal. This is because after taking into the practice of other clubs in the Klang Valley the court notes that none of these clubs has this provision. (iii) Article 32(c), (f) and (g) The court agrees with the Union's proposal since most clubs have these provisions. Article 33: Haj Leave The court notes that based on the UBD only two clubs are having this provision. In this matter, the court agrees with the Union's proposal but the leave is unpaid leave. The court is also of the view that in order to avoid the Club from having problems to arrange suitable and knowledgeable replacement during the Haj leave, a provision must be put the said proposed article requiring the concerned employee should give a written notice that he/she is going for a Haj to the company 2 months before the pilgrimage leave together with documents of proof issued by Lembaga Urusan Tabung Haji.

26

Article 35: Special Paid Leave (a) Article 35(a) The court agrees with the Club's proposal but with special paid leave. (b) Article 35(b) and (c) As for this proposed article, the court is of the view that the Club may at its discretion grant paid leave to employees who are selected to attend sports as National Representative. In relation to the proposed Article 35 (c), the court finds that it is too wide and the Union should have detailed the type of National Service Programmes applicable to the employees of the Club. Article 36: Group Term Life The court finds that since the Club have a Group Personal Accident Insurance policy for all it employees so it is sufficient. Article 37: Employee's Provident Fund The court did not find this practice has been adopted by some clubs in the similar industry. Thus, the court has to decline the Union's proposal.

27

Article 38: Retirement Age The court agrees with Union's proposal since a similar provision has adopted by the clubs in the Klang Valley. Article 39: Existing Benefits In this matter, the court notes that the parties only disputing the second paragraph of the proposed Articles. The court sees no harm for having this paragraph since it will encourage the employees to enhance their career or skills . Article 40 : Job Grades, Salary Scales and Annual Increment The court notes that the Union's proposal on job grades is based on the collective agreements of KGNS and RSGC (Appendix 1, Tab 4 and Article 26 of pages 19 and 20 of TAB 5 UBD). The court after having the privilege to peruse the Union's proposal (U5), the Club's proposal and salary scales practised by the other clubs in the Klang Valley finds that there is a need for the salary scales for the employees of the Club to be revised. Thus, the court feels the minimum salary for each position in the Club should be increased by RM100.00. Pertaining to the annual increment, the court notes that based on the Union's proposal (U5), the union is demanding an average increment of 7% from the minimum salary. In court's view, the court finds the request is fair and reasonable. As for the maximum salary, based on U5, the court notes that the employee's will have an average of 10 annual increments from

28

the minimum salary before reaching maximum salary. Thus, the new maximum salary must be calculated based on the increment of RM100.00 for the minimum salary and 10 annual increments. Article 41: Funeral Expenses This proposed articles is not provided by other clubs in the Klang Valley but the Club is willing to give RM300.00. Thus, the court agrees with Club's proposal. Article 42: Industrial Accident The court discovers that there is no similar provision adopted by the other clubs in the Klang Valley. Therefore, the court agrees with the Club's proposal to limit the said period to a maximum of two months. Conclusion In handing down its award this court reiterates that it did, as is required by section 30(4) of Act, in its deliberations, "have regard to the public interest, the financial implication and the effect of the award on the economy of the country, and on the industry concerned and also the probable effect in related or similar industries", and did also as required by section 30(5) of Act, "act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case". For this court to be extravagant in its awarding of increased monetary benefits to the employees of the Club it would not only have a detrimental effect on the Club itself but also on its

29

workers as well as on the club industry generally. However, the court at the same time must also taken into consideration the public interest. This court in deliberating on the award was unanimous in its decisions. The parties may now draw up their CA incorporating the Articles that were either not in dispute or which were agreed to by the parties together with the Award of this court on the disputed Articles which has been decided by the court and to present it for cognisance. The parties are urged to take care to be consistent with regard to both terminology as well as the numbering of the Articles and Clauses when drawing up the new CA. HANDED DOWN AND DATED THIS 27 th DAY OF JULY 2011 -signedAHMAD TERRIRUDIN BIN MOHD SALLEH CHAIRMAN MALAYSIA INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR

30