SUBJECT INDEX
DISMISSAL
Attendance - Lateness - Whether the claimant had been late to work - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Claimant staying back late to make up for man-hours lost - Company failing to issue him a show-cause letter - Company issuing show-cause letters to all other employees who came late - Effect of - Whether the company by its conduct had condoned his actions - Effect of - Whether the company had been serious about taking action against the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Astana Integrasi (M) Sdn Bhd v. Charanjit Singh Maghar Singh
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh)
[2013] 1 ILR 101
Breach of company rules and policies - Carelessness - Claimant disclosing information to third parties - Whether the claimant had been negligent in doing so - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Terms and conditions governing claimant's employment - Position and seniority of the claimant in the company - Business of the company - Seriousness of the claimant's negligence - Whether it had constituted a breach of confidentiality with Tamco - Factors to consider - Implications to the company - Whether the company had been justified in dismissing the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Robert Ti v. ECM Libra Avenue Securities Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy)
[2013] 1 ILR 112
Breach of company rules and policies - Carelessness - Claimant disclosing information to third parties - Whether he had been in breach of his terms and conditions of employment - Whether he had been aware of his breach - Perusal of the claimant's employment contract - Effect of - Whether the company had been justified in dismissing the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Robert Ti v. ECM Libra Avenue Securities Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy)
[2013] 1 ILR 112
Breach of company rules and policies - Unauthorised receipt of gratification - Whether proven against the claimant - Evaluation of the evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the company had discharged its burden of proof - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Golden Hope Fibreboard Sdn Bhd v. Sarizal Razali
(Soo Ai Lin)
[2013] 1 ILR 207
Insubordination - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Whether there had been a gap in the company's case - What the company should have done - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Astana Integrasi (M) Sdn Bhd v. Charanjit Singh Maghar Singh
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh)
[2013] 1 ILR 101
Misconduct - Demotion - Taking company van back home without permission - Whether demotion just or equitable - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 26(2)
Kesatuan Pencantuman Pekerja-Pekerja Tenaga Nasional Berhad v. Tenaga Nasional Berhad
(Mary Shakila G Azariah)
[2013] 1 ILR 221
Misconduct - Dismissed for failing to adhere to company's set procedures - Claimant found guilty of authorising 20 pallets of drinks to be loaded onto unauthorised lorry that went missing - Charge not specifying procedures breached by claimant - Whether finding of guilt against claimant questionable - Company not having standard set procedures - Whether company failing to have an effective control mechanism or monitoring of movement of lorries transporting goods from and to designated areas - Whether claimant dismissed with just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Balachandran Murugappan v. Yeo Hiap Seng (Malaysia) Bhd
(Hapipah Monel)
[2013] 1 ILR 150
Misconduct - Money lending activities - Claimant accused of money lending activities - Whether the charge had been proven against the claimant - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Claimant admitting to lending monies to company employees - Effect of - Claimant's reaction to the letters issued by the company - How the claimant should have reacted - The claimant's duty as an employee of the company - Effect of - Whether the company's actions towards him had been reasonable - Factors to consider - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Maran Matchap v. United More Sdn Bhd
(Rajendran Nayagam)
[2013] 1 ILR 162
Misconduct - Sexual harassment - Claimant charged in criminal court but given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal - What that meant - Whether it had proven the claimant's innocence - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Vasuthevan Athaly v. Freescale Semiconductor (M) Sdn Bhd
(Yamuna Menon)
[2013] 1 ILR 73
Misconduct - Sexual harassment - Whether the charges had been proven against the claimant - Evaluation of the evidence - Effect of - Whether the company's actions had been reasonable - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Vasuthevan Athaly v. Freescale Semiconductor (M) Sdn Bhd
(Yamuna Menon)
[2013] 1 ILR 73
Performance - Poor performance - Whether the company had discharged its burden of proof - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Whether the claimant had been aware of his poor performance - Claimant informed after his termination - Whether the company's actions had been reasonable - Whether it had been an afterthought on the part of the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Wong Chung Ming v. Minami Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz)
[2013] 1 ILR 188
Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Benefits withdrawn from the claimant - Whether the withdrawal of benefits had been carried out with mala fide intent - Whether there had been victimisation by company - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Ong Wing Sang, Allen v. Ranhill Bersekutu Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned)
[2013] 1 ILR 167
Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Claimant not consulted - Whether claimant had been informed of pending retrenchment - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether he had been given ample notice to look for a job elsewhere - Whether the Code of Conduct for Industrial Harmony had been adhered to - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) - Code of Conduct for Industrial Harmony 1975, arts. 21 & 22
Ong Wing Sang, Allen v. Ranhill Bersekutu Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned)
[2013] 1 ILR 167
Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Claimant not offered alternative employment by the company - Reasons for the same - Whether the company had acted reasonably - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) - Code of Conduct for Industrial Harmony 1975, arts. 21 & 22
Ong Wing Sang, Allen v. Ranhill Bersekutu Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned)
[2013] 1 ILR 167
Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Whether the company had departed from LIFO principles - Whether the reasons for its departure had been acceptable - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether dismissal with just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Ong Wing Sang, Allen v. Ranhill Bersekutu Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned)
[2013] 1 ILR 167
Retrenchment - Redundancy - Reasons for the claimant's retrenchment - Whether it had purely been a business decision - Intention of the company - Whether bona fide - Evaluation of the evidence - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Ong Wing Sang, Allen v. Ranhill Bersekutu Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned)
[2013] 1 ILR 167
Retrenchment - Redundancy - Whether company declining in business - Whether efforts made to provide claimant with employment before retrenchment - Whether function of claimant ceased to exist - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Ismail Hj Awab v. Cypark Sdn Bhd
(Hapipah Monel)
[2013] 1 ILR 142
Retrenchment - Redundancy - Whether redundancy proved - Whether company's profit or business declined to justify retrenchment exercise - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Muhammad Asyraf Nuruddin & Yang Lain v. Opcom Cables Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila G Azariah)
[2013] 1 ILR 10
Retrenchment - Reorganisation - Claimant retrenched - Whether the company had been suffering losses as alleged - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Claimant paid non-contractual margin cost profit payments - What that meant - Why the company made such payments - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Wong Chung Ming v. Minami Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz)
[2013] 1 ILR 188
Retrenchment - Reorganisation - Claimant retrenched - Whether the claimant had been the only one retrenched - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the reorganisation by the company had been carried out bona fide - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Wong Chung Ming v. Minami Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz)
[2013] 1 ILR 188
DOMESTIC INQUIRY
Procedural impropriety - Charges - Whether the charges had been criminal or quasi-criminal in nature - Evaluation of the charges - Effect of - Whether the charges had lacked material particulars - Effect of - Whether the charges had been void ab initio - What that meant - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Golden Hope Fibreboard Sdn Bhd v. Sarizal Razali
(Soo Ai Lin)
[2013] 1 ILR 207
Procedural impropriety - Charges - Whether the charges had been dependent on one another - Perusal of the wording of the charges - Effect of
Golden Hope Fibreboard Sdn Bhd v. Sarizal Razali
(Soo Ai Lin)
[2013] 1 ILR 207
EVIDENCE
Admissions - Claimant admitting to disclosing the information - Claimant admitting to seriousness of allegations - Effect of - Claimant failing to dispute his admissions - Whether the reasons for his failure to dispute had been convincing - Factors to consider - Effect of
Robert Ti v. ECM Libra Avenue Securities Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy)
[2013] 1 ILR 112
Adverse inference - Non-production of material witness - Who should have called Ms. Sharen to testify - Whether her evidence had been relevant and crucial - Factors to consider - Effect of - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g)
Robert Ti v. ECM Libra Avenue Securities Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy)
[2013] 1 ILR 112
Documentary evidence - Findings of the DI - DI finding the claimant not guilty of the charge - Management overruling the DI's findings and dismissing the claimant - Effect of - Whether the company's actions had been reasonable
Vasuthevan Athaly v. Freescale Semiconductor (M) Sdn Bhd
(Yamuna Menon)
[2013] 1 ILR 73
Documentary evidence - Findings of the DI - DI recommending a lesser punishment than dismissal - Company choosing to ignore DI's recommendations - No reasons given for company's departure from DI's recommendations - Effect of - Whether the company's actions had been reasonable - Whether dismissal with just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Golden Hope Fibreboard Sdn Bhd v. Sarizal Razali
(Soo Ai Lin)
[2013] 1 ILR 207
INDUSTRIAL COURT
Jurisdiction - Extra-territorial jurisdiction - The first company incorporated overseas - Whether the first company had been the claimant's employer - Evaluation of the evidence - Effect of - Whether the Industrial Court had extra-territorial jurisdiction - Intention of the legislation - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Wolfgang Grimm v. Atwood Oceanic Pacific Limited & Anor
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye)
[2013] 1 ILR 133
INDEKS PERKARA
KETERANGAN
Saksi - Percanggahan dalam keterangan saksi - Sama ada keterangan tersebut secara automatik tidak boleh diterima dan mencabar kredibiliti saksi - Apa yang harus diambil kira – Kesannya
Toh Kah Fat & Satu Lagi lwn. Bandar Penggaram Associated Chinese Schools
(Roslan Mat Nor)
[2013] 1 ILR 25
MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN
Remedi - Penempatan semula - Sama ada sesuai diawardkan - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira
Toh Kah Fat & Satu Lagi lwn. Bandar Penggaram Associated Chinese Schools
(Roslan Mat Nor)
[2013] 1 ILR 25
PEMBUANGAN KERJA
Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - Cuti sakit - Syarikat meragui kesahihan sijil cuti sakit penuntut - Sama ada syarikat mempunyai alasan yang munasabah untuk meraguinya - Penjelasan yang diberikan oleh doktor - Sama ada ianya munasabah dan wajar diterima oleh syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada salah laku tersebut berjaya dibuktikan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja penuntut dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Arkitek Simon Heng Sdn Bhd lwn. Zulkifly Mohd Shariff
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz)
[2013] 1 ILR 48
Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - Cuti sakit - Syarikat meragui kesahihan sijil cuti sakit penuntut - Sama ada keraguan syarikat berdasarkan perasaan syak wasangka sahaja - Sama ada keraguan berdasarkan syak wasangka sahaja harus diterima - Sama ada salah laku tersebut berjaya dibuktikan - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja penuntut dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Arkitek Simon Heng Sdn Bhd lwn. Zulkifly Mohd Shariff
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz)
[2013] 1 ILR 48
Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - Cuti sakit - Syarikat meragui kesahihan sijil cuti sakit penuntut - Sama ada penuntut mengambil cuti sakit yang melampau - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja penuntut dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Arkitek Simon Heng Sdn Bhd lwn. Zulkifly Mohd Shariff
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz)
[2013] 1 ILR 48
Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - Cuti sakit - Syarikat meragui kesahihan sijil cuti sakit penuntut - Syarikat meminta diagnosis penyakit penuntut - Sama ada tindakan syarikat berpatutan - Sama ada permintaan syarikat untuk diagnosis penuntut melanggar hubungan sulit doktor-pesakit - Sama ada keenganan penuntut memberikan kebenaran kepada syarikat adalah berasas - Sama ada penuntut enggan bekerjasama dengan syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada salah laku tersebut berjaya dibuktikan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja penuntut dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Arkitek Simon Heng Sdn Bhd lwn. Zulkifly Mohd Shariff
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz)
[2013] 1 ILR 48
Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - Cuti sakit - Syarikat meragui kesahihan sijil cuti sakit penuntut - Apa yang sepatutnya dilakukan oleh syarikat - Syarikat hanya membuat laporan kepada MMC setelah penuntut dibuang kerja - Keputusan MMC - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja penuntut dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Arkitek Simon Heng Sdn Bhd lwn. Zulkifly Mohd Shariff
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz)
[2013] 1 ILR 48
Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - Cuti sakit - Syarikat meragui kesahihan sijil cuti sakit penuntut - Sama ada syarikat mempunyai alasan yang munasabah untuk meraguinya - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Penuntut tidak membuat tuntutan perubatan - Sama ada itu wajar untuk menimbulkan keraguan syarikat - Sama ada pembuangan kerja penuntut dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Arkitek Simon Heng Sdn Bhd lwn. Zulkifly Mohd Shariff
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz)
[2013] 1 ILR 48
Prosedur - Karakter penuntut - Dapatan kes-kes lain yang melibatkan kelakuan atau karakter tidak jujur penuntut - Sama ada boleh diambil kira oleh mahkamah - Sama ada memprejudiskan kes penuntut - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Tan Poh Thiam lwn. Daily Fresh Foods Sdn Bhd
(Roslan Mat Nor)
[2013] 1 ILR 1
Salah laku - Penyediaan dan pengedaran surat kepada pihak luar sekolah - Sama ada pihak penuntut terlibat di dalam penyediaan dan pengedaran surat tersebut - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada salah laku tersebut berjaya dibuktikan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja pihak penuntut dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Toh Kah Fat & Satu Lagi lwn. Bandar Penggaram Associated Chinese Schools
(Roslan Mat Nor)
[2013] 1 ILR 25
SIASATAN DALAMAN
Kesilapan prosedur - Pihak penuntut tidak diberitahu tentang hak mereka untuk memanggil saksi mereka - Kesannya - Sama ada siasatan dalaman yang dijalankan melanggari prinsip-prinsip perbicaraan yang adil dan keadilan asasi - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Toh Kah Fat & Satu Lagi lwn. Bandar Penggaram Associated Chinese Schools
(Roslan Mat Nor)
[2013] 1 ILR 25