Can somebody please enlighten me as to why this is happening?
MAS acted correctly
KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia Airlines was right in dismissing one of its leading stewardesses in 2000 for being pregnant with her third child, the industrial court found.
As such, court chairman Datuk Ahmadi Asnawi threw out V. Sheela Devi’s claims for wrongful dismissal.
He said the 1999 collective agreement between MAS and the Malaysian Airlines System Employees Union Peninsular Malaysia clearly stated that in the event a stewardess became pregnant after having two surviving children, the company could terminate her services.
“Article 27(j) of the CA is a private law and it does not contravene her constitutional rights or public policy as in the case of Beatrice Fernandez.
“MAS has every right to dismiss her if she does not resign,” said Ahmadi.
He also dismissed Sheela Devi’s contention that MAS had actually condoned the pregnancy by granting her one-month unpaid leave after being informed about the third pregnancy.
“She was already on unpaid leave from Jan 27, 1998, as she was pregnant with her second child,” he said.
“The leave continued until the child was delivered and subsequently till she told the company about her third pregnancy in July 1999.
“The one-month extended leave was granted on a humanitarian basis and upon her application so that she could find suitable ground work.”
Sheela Devi delivered her third child on Feb 20, 2000, and a domestic inquiry was held and concluded in April 2000.
The inquiry found her guilty of contravening the CA and she was dismissed on June 1, 2000.
The Fernandez case referred to by Ahmadi involved another MAS stewardess who was dismissed in 1991 after she refused to resign when she became pregnant with a third child.
Fernandez, who had been a MAS employee for 11 years, lost a 14-year court battle against the airline when the Federal Court in March last year refused to grant her leave to appeal, stating that she was bound by the terms of the CA then.
Following the case and outcry where MAS was accused of gender discrimination, MAS and Maseu signed a letter of exchange on May 3 last year allowing female flight attendants to have three children instead of two.
What the h*ll is wrong with having three children? What is wrong with being pregnant with a third child if a stewardess has two surviving children?
And I thought Malaysia is a free country. Free, as in, you may have however many children as long as you are in a position to raise them. And it’s NOT that we’re living in an over-populated country, you know.
It is perfectly fine with me if a stewardess is pregnant and is not allowed to be working on board an aircraft – that is for her own safety and the benefits of other stewardesses. And it is also fine with me if the stewardess has reached a certain age limit and is transferred to the ground. But to dismiss an employee because she is pregnant with her third child?! This is akin to laying down the rules as to how many times you can make love to your husband. Crazy.
I believe this must be stated in her contract when she first signed up as a stewardess.. It’s pretty reasonable, isn’t it? Imagine every air stewardess becoming pregnant with more than 2 children….surely MAS will have to “tutup kedai”.
pelf: Yes, I read and understood that particular sentence perfectly well. What I don’t understand is, WHY? What is the rationale behind this phrase in the collective agreement? Why is it that a stewardess CANNOT have 3 children and still work as a stewardess? Are those people (whoever drafted the agreement) positive that a woman cannot look good after three pregnancies?
malaysia is still a developing country lor…it will never be a free country with the racial term they have during independence.
if you take a american airline, you will notice that there are stewardesses who are 40 plus. Try that in Malaysia Airlines.
pelf: Hhaha, but AGE is not what I’m talking about, though you do have a point there. I’m just very amazed at the kind of biased limitations MAS puts on women. Especially women who can and will bear more than two children. I just don’t see why they think it’s “not right”.
It’s a cruel little world. :(
pelf: *sob*
hmmm… i bet that clause exist on the contracts of many other asian airlines as well… would be good to get idris jala to clarify that =)
pelf: OK, I’m doing it – sending an enquiry because I couldn’t find an email address :(
I also think that rule is ridiculous!
pelf: I sent MAS an enquiry, we shall now see what they have to say – that is, assuming that the enquiry is read and replied to :)
Maybe it’s because if you have 3 child pregnancies, you will have to take more maternity holidays? In the case of air stewardess, you can’t work with a big belly…hence, it’s different from other jobs (eg office jobs where you can still work until month-7 or 8 of pregnancy? I don’t know).
Also, being an air-stewardess mean you have to be away for a long time, I don’t think a mother would want to be away from their newborn baby. So…in the end, all the holidays add up to 1 year. For 3 children, it’ll be 3 years of holiday?
The mother should not agree to the contract at the first place… if she really planned to have more than 2 children.
P.S: Everybody please don’t hate me for saying this. I’m just explaining based on logical thinking.. =)
pelf: Well, you do have a few points there, although there are Mums who have the ability to get back to shape after giving birth. And when it comes to one’s financial situation, I am sure one has not much choice but to leave the baby to the baby-sitter or some relatives (which is becoming such a norm these days). But we shall see what’s their explaination *grins*
sadly. that’s how the industry works, even for other airlines as well.
pelf: Yea, sad.. And we’re teaching our kids that “beauty is only skin deep.” Yeah, right.
Er…you got me wrong somewhere. I didnt mention anything about body shape after giving birth.. I’m talking about the long maternity holidays needed and the body shape during pregnancy. So it doesn’t matter whether the mum can get back into shape or not after giving birth, really….because that’s not the issue.
pelf: When I discussed this with a friend of mine today, she gave me this same answer..
I was pleased yet perplexed after reading some comments here.
Try to understand this, MALAYSIAN LAW (SUPREME LAW OF OUR LAND) allows five children. MAS on the other hand provided a contract contradicting Malaysian Law. Understand so far?
Now picture this. If you are in her shoes . . .get it?
We all plan for our families…every now and then God decides to intervene…..
Is this fair? Please look through http://www.muststopthis.blogspot.com, and judge for yourself. If MAS continues to do as they are doing, indirectly asking its female crew to either keep your job, or terminate your pregnancy, then we should ask ourselves if this can be morally accepted. So if you are choosing to fly MAS, think of the high fares, as well as its high handedness in dealing with such cases. You are better off flying Air Asia!
as for Andrew, open your eyes, …..and mind! You have a brain surely, so rationalise it!
If this is so, long maternity and all, and if that gives the right to shortchange its employees, whats stopping say IKEA, from doing the same? or howwbout DHL? You know why? Because this other companies have conscience(I think I spelt it right..Ha Ha). On the other hand Malaysian companies don’t! This is the way they treat senior staff who helped them get their awards. Other Malaysian factories are disposing toxic waste in to the river, bury this waste in unoccupied land. You have read this in our local dailies every now and then…does it make it right? Lets do our part, if MAS management eyes are shut (they did use govt money to bail themselves out)then we as responsible and civic conscious members of the public should wake them up. If we don’t spend our money with them . . .then they will know!