| << Back | BULLETIN 04/2014 |
|
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 3 of 2014) SUBJECT INDEX CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT Terms and conditions - Notice of termination - Bank terminating the claimant's employment in contravention of the contract of employment - Effect of - No reasons proffered by the bank - Whether the bank had acted reasonably - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Terms and conditions - Retirement age - Claimant's employment letter containing a clause on the age of retirement - Whether the claimant had been aware of it - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether his cessation of employment upon attaining the age of retirement had been valid Terms and conditions - Retirement benefits - No documents adduced to show such an agreement between the parties - Whether it could still be claimed by the claimant Terms and conditions - Retirement age - Whether the claimant had a reasonable expectation to work beyond his retirement age - Conduct of the company towards him - The claimant's actions DISMISSAL Absenteeism - Whether the claimant had been absent without leave - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Whether proven by the company - Whether the company had been justified in dismissing him - Actions of the company - Reasonableness of the company - Factors to consider - Effect of - Claimant's defence - Whether acceptable - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Breach of company rules and policies - Criminal conviction - Claimant arrested by the ACA for corruption and charged in Sessions Court - Claimant subsequently found guilty of charges and punished accordingly - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Breach of company rules and policies - Dishonesty - Claimant having an outside business but failing to declare it - Company's Business Conduct Policy requiring claimant to make annual declarations - Claimant lying in declarations - Claimant's defence - Effect of - Whether it had justified his actions - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the misconduct had been proven by the company - Evaluation of the evidence - Effect of - Whether the claimant's conduct had led him to lose the trust and confidence of his employer - Position of the claimant in the company - Whether he had been aware of the policy - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Breach of company rules and policies - Medical leave - Claimant accused of submitting a forged MC - Whether investigations carried out by the company had been sufficient and in compliance with the rules of natural justice - Evidence adduced - Claimant covered by the Collective Agreement - What the company should have done Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Gross negligence - Claimant identifying the wrong pipe to be cut by the contractor - Company incurring losses - Whether the claimant had complied with the company's SOP - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether charges proven by the company - Whether it had been a serious misconduct - Position held by the claimant - Claimant's experience - Whether his dismissal had been justified - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Gross negligence - Whether the claimant had been negligent in carrying out his duty - Evaluation of the evidence adduced - Justifications and defences put forward by the claimant - Whether acceptable - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been aware of the correct procedures to follow - Whether he had wilfully disobeyed it - What the claimant should have done - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Whether the claimant had failed to conduct a preliminary interview with the customer - Factors to consider - What the claimant's role in the bank had been - Effect of - Whether charge proven by the bank - Effect of Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Whether the claimant had failed to hand over the offer letter to the customer - Whether it had specifically been his duty to hand over the offer letter - Perusal of the bank's Manual and contents - Effect of - Whether the charge had been proven against the claimant - Whether it had been a serious misconduct - Whether his dismissal had been justified - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Whether the claimant had failed to verify the customer''s signature on the offer letter - Whether it had been his duty to do so - Perusal of the bank's Manual and contents - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been in breach of it - Whether it had been the bank's practice - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Breach of company rules and policies - Theft - Whether proven by the company - Whether the company had acted hastily towards him - Factors to consider - Effect of - Claimant's conduct upon being faced with the charges - What he should have done - Whether it had been a serious misconduct - Position held by the claimant - Whether his dismissal had been justified - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Breach of company rules and policies - Theft - Whether the claimant had misappropriated the bereavement collections - Evaluation of the evidence adduced - Claimant's defence - Whether tenable - Effect of - Whether the company's actions had been reasonable - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Breach of company rules and policies - Unauthorised receipt of gratification - Claimant allegedly accepting bribes from COW3 - Whether proven - Evaluation of the evidence - Effect of - Whether the company had acted reasonably in thinking the claimant had been guilty of the charges - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Constructive dismissal - Claimant only raising issue of constructive dismissal after arrest by the Anti-Corruption Agency - Whether his claim had been an afterthought - Factors to consider Constructive dismissal - Whether the claimant had been constructively dismissed - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - School's actions towards her - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Insubordination - Whether proven by the college - Claimants' responses and defence - Whether acceptable - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Misconduct - Whether proven against the claimants - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Explanations of the claimants - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Misconduct - Claimant accused of submitting a forged MC - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Claimant denying the charges - The company's actions towards him - Whether the company had been reasonable in dismissing the claimant - What the company should have done - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Notice of termination - Forced resignation - Whether the claimant had been forced to resign - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Claimant failing to meet sales targets set by the bank - Whether he had been warned and given sufficient opportunity to improve - Evaluation of the evidence - Effect of Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Claimant failing to meet sales targets set by the bank - Whether proven by the bank - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been aware of the sales targets he had needed to meet - Whether the sales targets had been set unilaterally by the bank - Evidence adduced - Conduct of the claimant - Whether the bank's actions had been reasonable under the circumstances - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) DOMESTIC INQUIRY Absence of - Whether the bank's failure to conduct a domestic inquiry had amounted to it following improper procedures - Factors to consider - Whether the claimant had been aware of the bank's dissatisfaction with his performance - Show cause letter issued to the claimant - Whether that had been sufficient - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Absence of - Whether fatal to the company's case Charges - Certain discrepancies in the charges - Whether could be forgiven - Whether the charges against the claimant had been defective - Factors to consider - Effect of - Purpose of the charges - Whether the claimant had understood the charges and been able to defend himself - Whether the charges had been void ab initio - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Procedural impropriety - Whether the DI had been properly conducted and valid - Factors to consider EVIDENCE Adverse inference - College failing to call person who could give best evidence on the matter - Whether an adverse inference ought to be drawn against them - Factors to consider - Effect of - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) Burden of proof - Claimant alleging forced resignation and/or constructive dismissal - Whether she had satisfied the burden - Evidence adduced Burden of proof - Whether the company had reasonable grounds to believe that the claimant had committed the misconduct - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of Documentary evidence - Charge - Charge in the show cause letter - Whether it had been ill conceived - Factors to consider - Whether the claimant had understood the charge he had to answer - Whether he had been prejudiced by the bad charge - Effect of Documentary evidence - Discovery - Whether the discovery of documents sought had related to the dismissal - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether disclosure should be allowed - The intention of the disclosure - Whether it had been an abuse of court process - Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to order discovery as sought - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 29(g) Documentary evidence - Findings of the Domestic Inquiry - Punishment recommended by the DI not followed by the bank - What the bank should have done Witness - Credibility - Whether the claimant had been a credible witness - What the claimant's answers in cross-examination had shown INDUSTRIAL COURT Jurisdiction - Application filed for discovery of documents relating to third parties not related to the dismissal - Whether ought to be allowed - Factors to consider - Powers of the Industrial Court - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20, 27, 28 and 29 (a), (b), (c), (g) & Industrial Court Rules 1967, rr. 16, 21B (a) and (b) Jurisdiction - Extra territorial jurisdiction - Ghim Li incorporated in Singapore - What that had meant - Whether Ghim Li had been the claimant's employer - Factors to consider - Evaluation of the evidence - Claimant's conduct - Perusal of claimant's scope of work - Effect of - Whether the Industrial Court had extra-territorial jurisdiction - Industrial Relations Act 1967 Procedure - Consolidation of actions - When it should be allowed - Whether consolidation ought to be allowed here - Factors to consider - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 29(g) Procedure - Pleadings - Whether NUBE's re-amended SOC had been in compliance with r. 9 of the Industrial Court Rules 1967 and s. 54 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Factors to consider - Whether the pleadings ought to be rejected Remedies - Reinstatement - Whether suitable to grant in the circumstances - Factors to consider - Claimant's years of service with the bank - Whether his integrity had been in question - Whether he had an unblemished record with the bank - Whether the bank had been in a position to place him in its organisation - Effect of NON-COMPLIANCE Collective Agreement - Objections to the complainant's representative in proceedings - Reasons for the objections - Evaluation of the legislation - Effect of - Who could represent the complainant - Factors to consider - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 27(1)(a) & 27(2)(a) TRADE DISPUTE Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions of service - Objections raised in relation to NUBE's pleadings - Whether the pleadings had been in compliance with r. 9 of the Industrial Court Rules 1967 and s. 54 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Factors to consider - Whether NUBE's pleadings ought to be rejected - Industrial Relations Act, 1967 s. 54 & Industrial Court Rules 1967, r. 9 INDEKS PERKARA KETERANGAN Pengakuan - YM mengaku kepada salah laku tersebut - Kesannya - Sama ada pengakuan beliau telah dilakukan secara sukarela - Sama ada YM memahami kesan dan akibat daripada pengakuan tersebut - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Keterangan yang dikemukakan MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN Hukuman - Faktor peringanan atau mitigasi - Sama ada wujud dalam kes ini - Tempoh kerja YM dan penerimaan award oleh beliau - Sama ada harus diambil kira MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN Hukuman - Perubahan - Sama ada harus diubah di dalam kes ini - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Kesannya PEMBUANGAN KERJA Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - Penipuan - YM didakwa menipu berkenaan tuntutan perbatuannya - Sama ada dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) |
|
| Copyright Mylawbox Sdn Bhd | Subscribe | Unsubscribe |
