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.
If you think this post might benefit other bloggers:
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!
alliedmartster, I’m just saying maybe…what I said might be wrong, might be right. I don’t know.
If you really hate the law of discrimination by MAS, why do you sign the contract at the first place? That’s my question. If you don’t agree with the terms, don’t sign it. As simple as that. If you sign the contract, don’t go around saying how unfair it is…because your signature is the prove that you agree to obey all their terms and conditions.
come on..you are smart. Think. Obviously you don’t have the facts, so it appears that I am biased against MAS.
Fact: Did you know that the stewardess in question was terminated after the CA expired?
Fact: Did you know that Malaysian Law permits 5 children per female worker?
Fact: This you may not know, MAS Collective agreement has a clause that states if CA is not equal or better than Malaysian Labour Law, then it is superceeded by the Country’s standards .. . .
look into this blog….www.muststopthis.blogspot.com and support if you think it is unfair. Thats all. The oobjective here is to EDUCATE those who seem to be ignorant about this, whilst continue to spend their money on an Airline which is not worthy.
pelf, I think you should do something about this person spamming with his site.
And to alliedmartster, I have my own opinion, you have yours..So stop forcing your opinion on others.
You state the facts, but where is the proof?
I don’t support MAS; I’m merely giving a possible rational opinion based on my limited knowledge. I’ve already explained why the MAS law could POSSIBLY be different from other companies’ law, so I wouldn’t want to repeat myself (since you’re so smart, go back to the top and read it).
Oh..and stop asking ppl not to use MAS for air travel..because it’s not gonna work, you’re wasting your time. If you think you’re so right, bring the case to the court. (I’m also pretty sure that if MAS is giving away free flights, you’ll be one of the first to jump in.)
I’m not gonna reply to this topic anymore (there’s no need to because I’m not defending any side), so go ahead and say whatever you want. It’s pelf’s blog, not a Malaysian High Court.. lol! Pelf, sorry for any inconvenience.
Have fun!
Sorry pelf, no personal attacks, just sharing my thoughts.
It was also a string in your blog.
Anyways, proof you say? if you look into that blog, all the proof is there, printed from Ministry of Human resources, as well as press articles previously printed, along with memos from WAO, AWAM, SII, and others who share their thoughts on this.
Andrew, I hope that you don’t have to suffer injustice in your lifetime. Because, once you do, it is statements like yours which will push you to the limits.
WOW.. We do have some really good points here and there, don’t we? I really should sit down and think about it, since I am sooo eager to learn about the rationale behind that particular clause. But since I am in KL right now, I shall leave it as it is until I can get back to it.
Meanwhile, thanks a bunch to those of you who have actively given your views - you may continue discussing this topic if you’d like to, but as a rule of thumb, we will all do it politely, OK?
Sorry, if it seems rude on my part.
I am not imposing my thoughts, but just can’t quite accept ignorance.
Do look into my blog. It only serves one purpose. To show proof that MAS’s policy of terminating its stewardesses having three children is discriminatory, and to inform all those that seek information that it is what it is! Plain Gender Discrimination. period.
Appreciate your space in allowing me to share.
godspeed.
pelf: No problem :)) As long as there’s no bloodshed.. Hhaha, kidding..
fair or unfair it is already agreed upon in the collective agreement. either amend it or live with it.
pelf: I did not raise the “fair or unfair” question. I raised the “why” question.
Live with it. . .you say. Ok, I guess we should all accept it and live with it. Much like we live with corruption in our daily lives! It felt good when, my company vehicle was slapped with a ’show up’ order to puspakom for a rear hood which was previously approved. On presenting the vehicle to puspakom, our driver was told that we will be slapped with a RM300 summons for our company, and RM300 to the driver for being the driver of an illegally modified vehicle. (despite having previous approval)
As the Manager in charge, a runner approached our driver saying that this can be settled by a RM300 ‘kopi money’. I refuse to resort to this, and gave our driver an order to returnj with the summons. ..He came back to the office, and said that JPJ did not issue any summons. It felt good, I tell you, when I turned down the offer to bribe.
Why am I telling you this? Because, here with this case it is not much different. I have to defend my wife and our position of ‘not getting bullied’ by a CA that was lop sided. One that does not subscribe to the country’s laws. And having response from people like you spur me further. People that seem to brush aside the very issues that affect our community. FYI, the court case is up for mention, on the third day of chinese new year. And I wonder why? First they assigned this case to an Industrial court without a chairman (FYI, CHairman of a particular court is like a judge , an arbitrator..) It wasn’t until 6 months later that she was appointed. And then they scheduled the case for mention on the third day of CNy…is it because perhaps there will be no reporters to cover it? Perhaps! Perhaps the issue of discriminating the fairer sex is in our culture…just perhaps. But definately, one thing is for sure, continue to ignore issues like this. There is a GREAT future for all of us.
Woah… You guys do have a lot to say. Coming from both men, I’m proud to say that they’re still many of us who are able to defend us women! Haha! It’s obvious Aandrew and alliedmartster are having a heated argument here, and they both do have some strong points. That’s because there is no right or wrong in stating an opinion, it’s just the way you perceive that opinion that makes it different. So as a person who always see two-sides of things, (heheh), I’d say they both have strong points which are equally logical in its own sense.
However, I’d say I personally agree with Pelf, that the issue is WHY must that agreement be amended as such. Maybe its like what Andrew says, that MAS has their reasons to implement such terms. Fair enough, but as to answering WHY SHOULD there be such a reason, still does not make it justifiable enough.
Cause by doing so, it only further proves that there is a strong discriminatory act placed upon women. this is obviously going against malaysia’s principle and the ratification made in 1995 by Malaysia to prohibit gender discrimination in line with the United Nations Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Cedaw).
Anyway, again, thats only my view. You may not see things the way I see it, but that’s the beauty egoistic nature of human mind. Hee. I know this issue is not that current, but reality is, discrimination is still around, and it would probably be forever debated. I’m so lucky to come upon this issue at the last minute, (I’ve been looking up on past 30-days issue only) cos now i have something to argue about for my HRM assignment! Hahah! Cheers.
Oh, and Daniel, ‘dismissed’ for being pregnant with third child, basically says you’re terminated (in a nicer way) =)