Mahkamah tangguh rundingan bantuan perayaan NUBE-MCBA sementara rayuan diputuskan

The High Court in Kuala Lumpur has delayed a mandate for the Malaya Commercial Banks Association (MCBA) and the Malaysia Bank Employees Union (NUBE) to resume negotiations over employee holiday pay, while the MCBA's appeal is being heard. In Kuala Lumpur, the High Court delayed the enforcement of a ruling that required MCBA and NUBE to resume negotiations about holiday pay for workers, while awaiting the outcome of MCBA's appeal at the Court of Appeals.

Judge Norliza Othman granted the request to delay the order after finding that MCBA could suffer serious losses that would be difficult to recover if it were not granted. She said the Court of Appeals' decision would directly impact this dispute, as if MCBA succeeds in its appeal, the matter referred to the Companies Court would need to be discussed again.

"The core issue of this application for delay touches on the fundamental matter in the dispute between the two parties," she said. The dispute involves payment of a monthly holiday bonus equal to one month's salary for B40 and M40 category eligible members. MCBA paid this in 2023 but refused to continue it in 2024. The dispute was later referred by the Labor Minister to the Companies Court.

NUBE also challenged the referral of the dispute over the 20-year collective agreement, arguing that both parties should use the internal dispute resolution mechanism under Article 4(5) of their collective agreement. On February 13, the High Court granted NUBE's request to review the appeal, canceling two referrals made by ministers and directing both parties to resume negotiations using the agreed mechanism.

The MCBA and the minister subsequently filed an appeal, prompting the union to seek a delay in the High Court's decision pending the appeal. The appeal is scheduled for March 22 next year. In her judgment, Norliza stated that a delay order requires "special circumstances," while the likelihood or possibility of success of the appeal is not a matter to be considered at this level.

She also rejected NUBE's argument that the holiday pay issue only involves financial claims. "If the money is paid, there is a risk that it cannot be fully recovered from each member if the Court of Appeals rules in favor of the union that they are not required to make the payment," she said. Norliza noted that a delay order does not require "special circumstances," and the merits or possibility of success of the appeal is not a consideration at this stage.

She also rejected NUBE's claim that the holiday pay issue only involves financial claims. "If the money is paid, there is a risk that it cannot be fully recovered from each member if the Court of Appeals rules in favor of the union that they are not required to make the payment," she said. Norliza stated that NUBE would not suffer any loss if the union is successful in the appeal, as both parties could still resume negotiations.

She said the consideration of the interests of both parties clearly favors granting the delay order.