The Sun Media Corporation today offered a RM1 million retrenchment scheme for the 56 staff it laid off on Jan 11 but the offer was immediately rejected by the National Union of Journalists.

The new offer comes following the management's rejection yesterday of the proposed settlement benefits suggested by 26 journalists and photographers who were affected by the Jan 11 retrenchment.

The company said it could not meet initial demand as it was facing financial difficulties.

However, the daily's managing director Phillip Karuppiah in a statement today said the company will pay the retrenchment benefits in line with the relevant clauses under the Collective Agreement.

He added this will also include a two-month bonus for 2001 to eligible staff, payment of indemnity in lieu of notice, and payment for accrued annual leave and off days.

"This compensation package is similar to the benefits given to the 256 staff retrenched last week," said Phillip.

The Feb 28 retrenchment, the largest in the media industry since the 1960s, was carried out because the company wanted to make the publication "viable".

In a tripartite meeting at the Human Resources Ministry on Feb 19, Phillip had asked the NUJ - Sun Branch to submit a proposal for a compensation package for the first batch of retrenched staff.

The terms asked for by the axed staff, among others, include 12 months' full salary as compensation for the loss of employment, the 1998 contractual bonus, 2001 bonus as based on the collective agreement between NUJ and The Sun management, all due wages until to the settlement date of mid-March, and retrenchments benefit based on the revised 2002 salary (as stipulated in Article 10 of the CA).

The proposed package put forward by the daily today however contained no mention of the compensation for the loss of employment (12 months), the 1998 bonus, and the revised salary for 2002.

'Bare minimum'

NUJ-Sun branch chairman K Kannan when contacted said they were very unhappy with the "bare minimum" offered by the management.

"What about the 1998 bonus that was promised in writing by the management last November"? he asked.

P Vijian, the branch secretary, said the management should offer other compensation to the staff since they have not complied fully with the CA - the staff had been retrenched without prior notice.

The management is pushing the axed staff against the wall, forcing them to accept what is "thrown their way", said Kannan. "They (the management) must be made to pay for putting us out of a job," he said.

"It looks like the management does not want to settle things amicably", he said, adding that "they feel they cannot be touched by the law".

The union is once again urging Human Resources Minister Fong Chan Onn to intervene on their behalf so that the management will not delay the compensation offer for the axed staff.

"They (the management) are clearly exploiting the sacked staff by dragging their feet in settling the matter."

"We are not asking for the sky, we only want what is legitimately ours," said Kannan.

Accept and move on

Yet another issue that the union is unhappy about is that the retrenchment benefits will only be paid based on the 2001 salary.

The staff were sacked on Jan 11, 2002. "This effectively means that retrenchments benefits and other pay-outs must be based on the 2002 salary which should include an increment," said Kannan.

"The management has not responded to this," he added.

In his statement today, Phillip hoped the affected staff will accept the latest package so that they can "move on with their lives".

He also said this will enable the management to focus on the task of revamping and relaunching the paper.

However, an irate Kanan said: "If they have the money for a revamp and relaunch, then they should have the money to pay the staff they had unfairly sacked."