Non Compliance : Collective agreement - Articles - Bonus and annual increment - Financial and business hardship as reason for non compliance - Whether proved - Directors given increase of emolument payments - Effect of - Whether tantamount to special circumstances under s 56(2)(c), Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Whether due compliance to order

This was an application pursuant to s 56(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ('Act') for an order of non-compliance of Articles 24 and 36 of the 1st Collective Agreement between the company and the union. The impugned Articles were: (1) Article 24 (on Bonus): To pay all eligible employees Bonus as per Article 23 (a) and; (2) Article 36 (on Annual Increment). The company conceded that it had failed to comply with the two articles due to its poor and critical financial status as well as business hardship. Therefore, the only issue for the court to determine was whether financial hardship was proved by the company. If proved, it may amount to special circumstances as prescribed under s 56(2)(c) of the Act, which will enable the court to consider varying or setting aside the terms of the CA. The union in its attempt to nullify the arguments advanced by the company, sought to rely on an earlier award of a trade dispute case involving the same parties.

Held:

(1) The court had no issues to rely on evidence which was quoted from the previous award and comments made therein, provided that they were relevant, reliable and able to assist the court to a just and equitable finding, more so in this current case where the company decided not to rely on any witnesses. (para 17)

(2) There was an increase of emolument payments to its Directors despite claiming financial difficulties. It showed that the company was financially sound and should have been able to comply with the impugned articles. The court concurred with the union's averments that the company was actually able to comply with the impugned articles. (para 22)