Legal practitioners and unionists found themselves at odds as to whether lawyers should be given minimal roles in representing workers and employers in trade disputes both during the conciliation period and in the Industrial Court.

The debate erupted during a discussion at the Bar Council's Industrial Adjudication Reform workshop today.

While the unionists claimed that trade disputes should be argued between employers and workers, members of the Bar felt that the workers would face more hardship and abuse if they were not properly represented.

The issue was first raised by Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) financial secretary A Sivananthan when commenting on the proposal by lawyer N Sivabalah that lawyers must be allowed to represent parties during the conciliation process to expedite settlement.

"The speaker (Sivabalah) claims that cases are delayed because lawyers cannot make representations before conciliatory officers. But the truth is, it is due to their absence that cases are disposed of faster," quipped Sivananthan.

He said lawyers should be barred from representing any parties especially in cases where the worker is represented by a union.

He argued that trade disputes have a tripartite relationship among the workers or union, the employer and the government which is represented by the Human Resources Ministry, and has nothing to do with lawyers .

"We do not need another party to add into the dispute. And also everything now is money. Big companies can very much afford good lawyers unlike the workers," he said.

Non-Metallic and Mineral Product Manufacturers Employees Union general secretary S Somahsundram agreed, saying that lawyers should be barred in collective agreement (CA) disputes.

"We (union leaders) have repeatedly objected against companies being represented by lawyers in CA negotiations and disputes.

"But the court has always rejected our objections, which is unfair as Section 30(5) of the Industrial Relations Act promotes equity and good conscience between parties," he said.

However, Sivananthan and Somahsundram assured the lawyers, who appeared both amused and irritated with their statements, that the union does recognise their contribution in the industrial jurisprudence.

A role

In response to this, Court of Appeal judge Gopal Sri Ram said that although lawyers are not helpful in most trade technicalities, they play a role in improving the industrial laws which would benefit the workers.

"In the early days, indeed union unions were very poor, but now they are financially stable. I'm sure they can afford lawyers. They should let the lawyers stay," said Gopal who was one of the speakers.

Another speaker, KP Gengadharan pointed out that only 15 percent of the total workforce in the country is represented by the union.

"If lawyers are not allowed any role in trade disputes then what about those workers who have no union representative? He has to present the case by himself.

"As for money, the union organisations also impose a certain fee to workers to represent them. These union representatives also can cause delays as they are involved in many cases," said the lawyer.

Workers abused

Gengadharan revealed that the absence of lawyers at the conciliation stage has resulted in some workers being abused by conciliatory officers.

"During the conciliation, the officers would ask parties to prepare a written submission. The officers would offer to do the submissions for them (the workers) for a fee, from RM1,000 to RM2,000. If a lawyer is present, this would not have happened.

"This written submission has become a business. In worse cases, the worker would approach a lawyer to prepare the written submission but when he presents it, the officer would in turn say that the submission was wrongly written and compel the worker to pay him for a new one," he said.

Gengadharan also claimed that the council had complained about this to the ministry but little improvement has been made.

Meanwhile, Sivabalah said lawyers do not promote industrial strife between workers and employers and will always work to have the dispute settled as fast as possible.

"When we are referred to a case, the first thing we ask is whether there is a room for an amicable settlement.

"When there is none we explain to the clients the chances of the case. That is always the method adopted by most lawyers," he added.