12 See Paul Weiler, “Reconcilable Differences: New Directions in Canadian Labour Law,” Carswell Toronto, 1980, 25; John Pencavel, “The legal framework for collective bargaining in developing economies” (1996) at 10. Collective bargaining is the best mechanism for achieving a cordial relationship between employers and workers. It is also an effective forum for agreeing on the terms of employment. To achieve these objectives, labour relations systems in a country must provide a legal mechanism for the parties to bargain collectively for the conclusion of a collective agreement. The ILO has adopted a convention that provides Member States with a framework for passing laws that would facilitate such a mechanism. In this regard, Malaysia passed the Industrial Relations Act of 1967, which provides, among other things, a collective bargaining mechanism. In this article, we will discuss the extent of the right of Malaysian workers to collective bargaining within ILO standards. We argue here that Malaysian workers and their unions, despite the available legal mechanism that facilitates collective bargaining between the two parties, face difficulties in negotiating with their employers. 53 The case of Menteri Sumber Manusia v.
Association of Bank Officers, Peninsular Malaysia (1999) 2 M.L.J. 337 states that workers employed in leadership positions collectively negotiate unions made up exclusively of workers of their species. However, the case also shows that the concept of “executive capacity1 is broad, contrary to the ILO`s position.” In this case, the promotion of bank receivers and auditors to the status of “internal official” removed them from the jurisdiction of membership of the National Union of Bank Employees and placed them in the team of an executive union. 11 See the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights in the Workplace. See also Convention 154 on the promotion of collective bargaining; Convention was adopted in 1981. This Convention does not enter into force under Convention 98. Its adoption was intended to encourage Member States to redouble their efforts to achieve the objectives of previous instruments of freedom of association. 31 See Ozaki, M., “Labour relations in the public service: Method of determining employment conditions,” (1987) 126 International Labour Review 286 . Note in particular the definition of Ozaki`s public service, a term that he says refers to “all levels of public administration (provincial and local national) and encompasses public education, postal and public health services, but excludes national railways and all other public enterprises or enterprises.” Note that the definition of “public service,” as it exists in a given country, is essential in determining the extent of the exclusion of public servants from collective bargaining in that country.