Veteran trade unionist warns move could split membership and weaken collective bargaining
PETALING JAYA: A veteran trade unionist has raised concerns over the registration of what he described as a “duplicate” trade union, warning that recent amendments to the Trade Union Act 1959 may have been misapplied in a move that risks fragmenting organised labour.
K. Veeriah said the approval of a new union bearing a name and scope of membership almost identical to that of a long-established union had unsettled the labour movement.
He was referring to the National Union of Employees in Companies Manufacturing Rubber Products, which was registered in 1962 under Registration No. 314.
On April 17 this year, the Department of Trade Unions registered another body under the name National Union of Employees in Companies Manufacturing Rubber Products (2) 2024, assigned Registration No. 1285.
Veeriah said the near-identical naming, differing only by the addition of numerals, had the potential to cause widespread confusion among workers and employers.
“To worsen the situation, the scope of membership approved for the newly registered union mirrors that of the existing union,” he told theSun.
He added that the new union had begun seeking recognition from companies that have long recognised the original body.
Veeriah described the development as a form of union busting, arguing that the existence of two unions with identical identities would divide worker representation and weaken collective bargaining power.
He said amendments to the Trade Union Act 1959 were intended to broaden union membership by removing restrictive definitions, not to enable the formation of rival unions with identical names and coverage.
“That could not have been Parliament’s intention when the Act was amended,” he said.
The amended law was gazetted on Jan 12, 2024, and came into force on Sept 15.
Veeriah also pointed to provisions requiring the Director-General of Trade Unions to refuse registration if a proposed union’s name is identical to, or closely resembles, that of an existing union in a way that could mislead or confuse.
He said Section 12(3)(e)(i) should have guided the assessment of the application.
“In allowing the registration of a union with both an identical name and identical scope of membership, the authorities have effectively opened the door to the division of an existing union’s membership,” he said.
Veeriah warned that the move could set a precedent with far-reaching implications for the labour movement.
“What has happened could easily be repeated with other established unions. All it would take is to replicate an existing union’s name, add numerals and a long-standing union could suddenly face a rival body,” he said.
He added that such fragmentation could weaken organised labour and create space for unscrupulous parties to undermine unions, whether acting independently or in the interests of groups opposed to collective representation.
However, Veeriah stressed that he fully supported the principle of freedom of association.
“Freedom of association must be upheld, but setting newly registered unions against existing ones runs counter to the objective of strengthening trade union membership,” he said.
theSun has contacted the department for comment and, as at press time, had yet to receive a response.
The newspaper has sighted an official registration certificate confirming the union’s registration under Malaysian law.
