Judicial Review in Trade Union Recognition Process: A Comparative Analysis Between Malaysia and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trade unions play a central role in upholding employees' rights through collective bargaining action with employers to improve the terms and conditions of employment and to resolve any conflicts within the employment relationship.The trade union recognition process is a prerequisite for collective bargaining in Malaysia.Trade unions are facing challenges in obtaining recognition from employers due to judicial review applications made by employers to the High Court.The aim of this study is to analyse the grounds of judicial review applications in the trade union recognition process in Malaysia and Canada.The qualitative method is adopted in this study in the form of content analysis of the judicial review cases in the trade union recognition process in Malaysia and Canada.Additionally, this study also involves content analysis of relevant laws on the trade union recognition process in Malaysia and Canada.The findings show that there are two grounds for challenge in judicial review applications in Malaysia.First, on the minister's decision regarding the capacity of workers to vote in the secret ballot.Secondly, on the minister's decision to declare the competency of the trade union.In Canada, employers filed for judicial reviews of the certification on the grounds of breach of the principle of natural justice, error of law, and jurisdictional issue.This study expands the knowledge of the trade union recognition process and judicial review principles.For practitioners, this study is useful for trade unionists and employers to understand the current situation in the trade union recognition process and its challenges.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".