A three-member bench chaired by Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Abdul Rahman Sebli denied Valeo Malaysia Sdn Bhd’s application for leave to appeal and set aside a Court of Appeal’s decision.
Rahman said the four questions of law posed by the company failed to satisfy the necessary criteria under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
To secure leave, applicants must satisfy the court that the appeal raises novel legal and constitutional questions of public importance for the first time.
Rahman, who sat with Justices Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil and Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera, ordered the company to pay RM30,000 each in costs to the DG and the National Union of Transport Equipment & Allied Industries Workers.
Senior federal counsel Nurhafizza Azizan and federal counsel Muhairi Noh represented the DG and the government, while lawyers Muhendaran Suppiah and Chong Wan Loo represented the union.
Counsel Shamesh Jeevaretnam, Kumarrapan Ramasamy and Pravin Kausar represented the company, which was the applicant.
A three-member Court of Appeal bench had previously ruled that the DG could not be accused of failing to investigate complaints raised by the company, which produces automotive parts, regarding a secret ballot conducted to determine if the workers agreed to union representation.
Justice Azizah Nawawi, who sat with Justices See Mee Chun and Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh, said the company had failed to file a precise complaint regarding the alleged breaches by the DG, despite being given two months to do so.
Azizah noted that hand-written letters allegedly obtained from the workers, which the company claimed showed brainwashing by union representatives, were never submitted to the DG for consideration before the granting of recognition.
Earlier, Justice Quay Chew Soon, sitting in the High Court in Penang, had said in his written grounds that the DG had acted reasonably in granting recognition to the union following the secret ballot held on Dec 14, 2021.
He said the secret ballot showed that a majority of the company’s employees wanted the National Union of Transport Equipment & Allied Industries Workers to represent them.
Quay expressed satisfaction that the DG’s decision was free from illegality, irrationality, unreasonableness or procedural impropriety.
According to the facts of the case, a majority of the 500-plus workers sought union representation for future collective bargaining and industrial disputes.
However, the company refused to voluntarily recognise the union.
The DG’s secret ballot revealed that 56.82% of the workers supported union representation, surpassing the 51% majority required by law.
Dissatisfied with the decision to issue Form F to recognise the union, the company subsequently filed a judicial review in the High Court to overturn the decision.