<< Back BULLETIN 07/2015

LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 6 of 2015)

SUBJECT INDEX

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT

Type of - Fixed-term contract - Whether the claimant had been employed under a genuine fixed-term contract - Factors to consider - Effect of - Type of work carried out by the claimant - Whether seasonal in nature - Intention of the company from the evidence adduced - Whether the claimant had in effect been a permanent employee of the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of
Choo Poh Hong v. TNB Properties Sdn Bhd
(Yamuna Menon) [2015] 2 ILR 557 cljlaw labourlaw

Type of - Fixed-term contract - Whether the claimant had been employed under a genuine fixed-term contract - Factors to consider - Effect of - Intention of the company from the evidence adduced
Jeremy John Figgins v. Kenneison Brothers Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2015] 2 ILR 671 cljlaw labourlaw

Type of - Fixed-term contract - Whether the claimant had been given an extension to his contract - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Company not being aware of this extension until informed by the claimant - Whether the person issuing the extension had been authorised by the company to do so - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the extension had been valid
Jeremy John Figgins v. Kenneison Brothers Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2015] 2 ILR 671 cljlaw labourlaw

Type of - Fixed-term contract - Whether the fixed-term contract had come to an end - Factors to consider - Whether he had been dismissed - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Jeremy John Figgins v. Kenneison Brothers Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2015] 2 ILR 671 cljlaw labourlaw

DISMISSAL

Abandonment - Claimant absent from work without informing his superiors at the earliest opportunity - Whether the claimant had abandoned his job - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the claimant had adhered to the company's rules and policies - Whether the claimant had repeatedly committed the same misconduct - Whether it had been a serious misconduct - Whether his dismissal had been without just cause and excuse
Norhisham Molhit v. Takaful Nasional Sdn Bhd
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2015] 2 ILR 579 cljlaw labourlaw

Absenteeism - Claimant failing to turn up to work for two days - Reasons for the same - Whether it had been acceptable - The company's conduct towards him - Effect of - Whether this charge had been proven by the company - Evidence adduced
Lim Teong Yen v. Expeditors (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2015] 2 ILR 519 cljlaw labourlaw

Absenteeism - Whether the claimant had been absent without leave - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Whether proven by the company - Conduct of the company towards him - Whether the company had been justified in dismissing him - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Norhisham Molhit v. Takaful Nasional Sdn Bhd
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2015] 2 ILR 579 cljlaw labourlaw

Constructive dismissal - Whether proven by the claimants - Whether the respondent company had breached a fundamental term of their contracts of employment - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Whether dismissals without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Hamizat Othman & Anor v. Perunding BHR
(Sulaiman Ismail) [2015] 2 ILR 637 cljlaw labourlaw

Misconduct - Whether the claimant had deliberately and wilfully tampered with the security cameras - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Quality of the evidence - Whether the company had reasonable grounds to believe that he had committed the misconduct - Whether the company's case had been based purely on suspicion and conjecture - Factors to consider - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Manimaran Marimuthu v. MK Electric (M) Sdn Bhd
(Yamuna Menon) [2015] 2 ILR 653 cljlaw labourlaw

Notice of termination - Forced resignation - Whether the claimants had been forced to resign - Respondent company putting up a Form and making signing of it compulsory - Claimants objecting to contents and refusing to sign - Company then putting up memo indicating that employees who refuse to sign the Form no longer employees of the company - Claimants' conduct thereafter - Whether they had abandoned their employment - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of
Hamizat Othman & Anor v. Perunding BHR
(Sulaiman Ismail) [2015] 2 ILR 637 cljlaw labourlaw

Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Whether it had been sufficient to discharge the company's burden of proof - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been given warnings and a chance to improve - Position held by the claimant in the company - Whether it had been necessary to warn him - Factors to consider - Effect of - Claimant deemed a "very good performer" just two months earlier - Whether the company's conduct had been in breach of the rules of natural justice - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Lim Teong Yen v. Expeditors (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2015] 2 ILR 519 cljlaw labourlaw

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimants applying for VSS - Whether it had been done voluntarily - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Whether the claimants had been dismissed by the club - Whether dismissals without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Abdul Aziz Ismail & Ors v. Royal Selangor Club
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2015] 2 ILR 546 cljlaw labourlaw

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Club employing foreign workers after claimants left - Exercise of management's prerogative - Whether the club had exercised it bona fide - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of
Abdul Aziz Ismail & Ors v. Royal Selangor Club
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2015] 2 ILR 546 cljlaw labourlaw

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Whether the claimants had applied for VSS voluntarily - Conduct of the claimants - Whether they had been warned of the VSS exercise - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether they had been dismissed by the club - Whether the VSS exercise had been carried out bona fide - Whether dismissals without just cause and excuse
Abdul Aziz Ismail & Ors v. Royal Selangor Club
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2015] 2 ILR 546 cljlaw labourlaw

EVIDENCE

Adverse inference - Non-production of a material witness - Claimant failing to produce Lim Wee Kiat as a witness - The role played by Lim Wee Kiat in the claimant's employment with the company - Whether an adverse inference should be drawn against the claimant - Factors to consider
Jeremy John Figgins v. Kenneison Brothers Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2015] 2 ILR 671 cljlaw labourlaw

Burden of proof - Whether discharged by the company to show just dismissal - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Choo Poh Hong v. TNB Properties Sdn Bhd
(Yamuna Menon) [2015] 2 ILR 557 cljlaw labourlaw

Preliminary objection - Company refusing to commence negotiations with the union on the CA - Company challenging jurisdiction of the IC to hear the matter - Reasons for the same - Whether the company's preliminary objection ought to be allowed - Factors to consider - Effect of
Kesatuan Kakitangan Eksekutif Industri Minuman Semenanjung Malaysia v. Malaysia Milk Sendirian Berhad
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2015] 2 ILR 508 cljlaw labourlaw

INDUSTRIAL COURT

Jurisdiction - Challenge to - Union accorded recognition by the Minister - Minister's decision subsequently quashed - What it had meant - Effect of - Whether the union had been competent parties to commence collective bargaining for the CA - Effect of - Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 9(5) & 26(2)
Kesatuan Kakitangan Eksekutif Industri Minuman Semenanjung Malaysia v. Malaysia Milk Sendirian Berhad
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2015] 2 ILR 508 cljlaw labourlaw

Jurisdiction - Whether the matter had been settled in the Industrial Relations Department - Whether the Industrial Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter when settlement effected at the Industrial Relations Department - Chronology of facts at the Industrial Relations Department - Whether a settlement had in effect been reached - Effect of
Choo Poh Hong v. TNB Properties Sdn Bhd
(Yamuna Menon) [2015] 2 ILR 557 cljlaw labourlaw

Remedies - Compensation - Claimant claiming for the loss of 1,000 units of shares - Whether it ought to be allowed - Factors to consider - Effect of
Lim Teong Yen v. Expeditors (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2015] 2 ILR 519 cljlaw labourlaw

Remedies - Compensation - Claimant claiming for profit-sharing from the company - Whether it ought to be allowed - Factors to consider - Effect of
Lim Teong Yen v. Expeditors (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2015] 2 ILR 519 cljlaw labourlaw

LABOUR LAW

Industrial Court - Joining of parties - Whether third party can be made liable to pay award notwithstanding it was not employer - Whether there was sufficient nexus between party to be joined and party named in reference - Test - Reasonable factual or legal nexus test - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 29(a), (b), 32(1)(a), 56(1) and (2)(a)(i)
Asnah Ahmad v. Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia & Ors
(Mohd Zawawi Salleh JCA, Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JCA, Idrus Harun JCA) [2015] 2 ILR 469 cljlaw labourlaw

INDEKS PERKARA

KETERANGAN

Keterangan dokumentar - Sama ada YM merupakan seorang pekerja syarikat responden - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Penelitiannya - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada syarikat berjaya membuktikan bahawa YM bukan seorang pekerja - Sama ada tindakan syarikat memberhentikan perkhidmatan YM adalah munasabah - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Rosli Abdul Raman lwn. Velosi (M) Sdn Bhd
(Sapini Mat Saman) [2015] 2 ILR 609 cljlaw labourlaw

Saksi - Keterangan yang bercanggah - YM memberi keterangan yang bercanggah dalam Pernyataan Saksinya dan semasa di mahkamah - Sama ada beliau merupakan saksi yang dapat dipercayai - Kesannya
Lee Kin Meng lwn. Linear Cooling Tower Sdn Bhd
(Rasidah Chik) [2015] 2 ILR 682 cljlaw labourlaw

MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN

Remedi - Pampasan - Apa yang wajar diawardkan - YM hanya bekerja dengan syarikat selama lapan hari - Kesannya
Rosli Abdul Raman lwn. Velosi (M) Sdn Bhd
(Sapini Mat Saman) [2015] 2 ILR 609 cljlaw labourlaw

PEMBUANGAN KERJA

Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - Penyebaran maklumat sulit - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Jawatan yang dipegang oleh YM dalam syarikat - Syarikat telah menyebarkan memo berkenaan dengan penyebaran maklumat sulit - Sama ada YM mempunyai pengetahuan mengetahui memo tersebut - Sama ada tindakan YM merupakan satu salahlaku yang serius - Kewajipan dan tanggungjawab YM kepada syarikat responden
Lee Kin Meng lwn. Linear Cooling Tower Sdn Bhd
(Rasidah Chik) [2015] 2 ILR 682 cljlaw labourlaw

Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - Penyebaran maklumat sulit - YM didakwa menyebarkan maklumat mengenai VSS kepada perkerja-pekerja syarikat - Sama ada dibuktikan oleh syarikat responden atas tahap imbangan kebarangkalian - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan syarikat memberhentikan perkhidmatan YM adalah wajar - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada salahlaku YM adalah serius - Sama ada tindakan syarikat dapat dipertahankan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Lee Kin Meng lwn. Linear Cooling Tower Sdn Bhd
(Rasidah Chik) [2015] 2 ILR 682 cljlaw labourlaw

Notis penamatan - Peletakan jawatan secara paksa - Sama ada YM telah dipaksa meletak jawatan - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya
Razali Husain lwn. Sapura Research Sdn Bhd
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2015] 2 ILR 593 cljlaw labourlaw

Notis penamatan - YM tidak memberi tiga bulan notis sepertimana tertera di dalam kontrak pekerjaannya - Sama ada merupakan suatu kemungkiran kontrak pekerjaannya - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Tingkahlaku syarikat terhadapnya - Kesannya
Song Kim Loy lwn. Lab Dom AVMM Suisse (M) Sdn Bhd
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2015] 2 ILR 621 cljlaw labourlaw

Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif - Perpindahan - YM dipindahkan ke jabatan Q&RM - Sebab untuk perpindahan tersebut - Sama ada telah dilakukan secara bona fide - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada perpindahan tersebut merupakan suatu hukuman ke atasnya - Terma dan syarat kontrak perkhidmatan YM - Penelitian - Sama ada syarikat berhak untuk memindahkan YM sepertimana dilakukan - Kesannya - Sama ada syarikat melalui tindakannya menunjukkan niat untuk tidak lagi terikat dengan terma dan syarat perkhidmatan YM - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Razali Husain lwn. Sapura Research Sdn Bhd
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2015] 2 ILR 593 cljlaw labourlaw

Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif - Perpindahan - YM dipindahkan ke jabatan Q&RM - YM tidak membantah perpindahan tersebut atau mengemukakan aduan terhadapnya - Kesannya - Sama ada beliau bersetuju dengan perpindahan tersebut - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya
Razali Husain lwn. Sapura Research Sdn Bhd
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2015] 2 ILR 593 cljlaw labourlaw

Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif - Status - YM dipindah ke jabatan dimana beliau tidak mempunyai kakitangan dibawahnya - Sama ada itu merupakan suatu penganiayaan kepadanya - Syarikat mengamalkan pelaporan matrix secara menegak dan melintang - Sama ada merupakan satu perlanggaran terma perjanjian pekerjaannya sehingga ke akar umbi - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif berjaya dibuktikan oleh YM - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Razali Husain lwn. Sapura Research Sdn Bhd
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2015] 2 ILR 593 cljlaw labourlaw

Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif - Taraf - YM mengumumkan kenaikan pangkatnya melalui memorandum syarikat - Sama ada memorandum tersebut dikeluarkan dengan kebenaran syarikat - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Tindakbalas syarikat kepada memorandum tersebut - Sama ada merupakan suatu kemungkiran kontrak sehingga ke akar umbi - Alasan yang dikemukakan oleh syarikat - Sama ada dapat diterima - Sama ada YM telah dibuang kerja secara konstruktif
Song Kim Loy lwn. Lab Dom AVMM Suisse (M) Sdn Bhd
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2015] 2 ILR 621 cljlaw labourlaw

Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif - Taraf - YM mengumumkan kenaikan pangkatnya melalui memorandum syarikat - Sama ada syarikat telah memboikot YM selepas itu - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Tindakan yang diambil oleh YM - Sama ada YM lewat dalam meletak jawatan - Sama ada YM telah dibuang kerja secara konstruktif
Song Kim Loy lwn. Lab Dom AVMM Suisse (M) Sdn Bhd
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2015] 2 ILR 621 cljlaw labourlaw

Penghematan - Lebihan tenaga pekerja - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat responden - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada pemberhentian YM berdasarkan alasan ini adalah munasabah - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada syarikat responden telah bertindak secara mala fide terhadap YM - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Maimunah Gendong lwn. Eastool Industries Sdn Bhd
(Sapini Mat Saman) [2015] 2 ILR 536 cljlaw labourlaw

Penghematan - YM telah diberhentikan kerja atas alasan lebihan tenaga pekerja - Sama ada prinsip LIFO telah dipatuhi oleh syarikat responden - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - YM ditawarkan kerja di tempat lain dengan gaji yang lebih rendah - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Maimunah Gendong lwn. Eastool Industries Sdn Bhd
(Sapini Mat Saman) [2015] 2 ILR 536 cljlaw labourlaw

Prestasi kerja - Prestasi kerja yang tidak memuaskan - Sama ada dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada penamatan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Song Kim Loy lwn. Lab Dom AVMM Suisse (M) Sdn Bhd
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2015] 2 ILR 621 cljlaw labourlaw

Salahlaku - Sama ada YM telah melakukan salahlaku yang mewajarkan pembuangan kerjanya - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Rosli Abdul Raman lwn. Velosi (M) Sdn Bhd
(Sapini Mat Saman) [2015] 2 ILR 609 cljlaw labourlaw

PERTIKAIAN PERDAGANGAN

Artikel berkenaan dengan bonus - Sama ada cadangan kesatuan bagi bonus tahunan tanpa mengambil kira pencapaian syarikat dan pekerja-pekerjanya adalah munasabah - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Keadaaan kewangan syarikat - Kesannya - Amalan syarikat berdasarkan Perjanjian Kolektif yang lama - Sama ada wajar dikekalkan
Kesatuan Sekerja Pembuatan Barangan Galian Bukan Logam lwn. OP Industries (M) Sdn Bhd
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2015] 2 ILR 485 cljlaw labourlaw

Artikel berkenaan dengan penyelarasan gaji - Sama ada penyelarasan gaji sebanyak 10% atas gaji pokok adalah munasabah - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Kandungan artikel dalam Perjanjian Kolektif yang lama
Kesatuan Sekerja Pembuatan Barangan Galian Bukan Logam lwn. OP Industries (M) Sdn Bhd
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2015] 2 ILR 485 cljlaw labourlaw

Artikel berkenaan dengan skala gaji - Apa yang munasabah diawardkan - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Peruntukan artikel di dalam Perjanjian Kolektif yang lama - Kesannya
Kesatuan Sekerja Pembuatan Barangan Galian Bukan Logam lwn. OP Industries (M) Sdn Bhd
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2015] 2 ILR 485 cljlaw labourlaw

SIASATAN DALAMAN

Kesilapan prosedur - Sama ada SD tersebut telah dijalankan secara teratur dan sah serta telah mematuhi prinsip keadilan asasi - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya
Lee Kin Meng lwn. Linear Cooling Tower Sdn Bhd
(Rasidah Chik) [2015] 2 ILR 682 cljlaw labourlaw

UNDANG-UNDANG BURUH

Pekerjaan - Gaji - Perintah Gaji Minimum 2012 ('perintah') - Penguatkuasaan - Kadar gaji minimum bagi sektor swasta ditetapkan sebanyak RM900 - Sama ada majikan masih membayar gaji terdahulu sebanyak RM450 walaupun perintah telah berkuatkuasa - Sama ada majikan membuat permohonan kepada Majlis Perundingan Gaji Negara untuk penangguhan pelaksanaan perintah terhadapnya - Sama ada rundingan diadakan sebelum perintah berkuatkuasa - Sama ada perayu perlu mematuhi gaji minimum sebagaimana kehendak s. 24(4) Akta Majlis Perundingan Gaji Negara 2011 - Sama ada sebarang pelanggaran merupakan satu kesalahan di bawah s. 43 Akta Majlis Perundingan Gaji Negara 2011
Gagah Perkasa Security Services Sdn Bhd lwn. Mohamed Abdul Rashid & Yang Lain
(Abu Bakar Katar PK) [2015] 2 ILR 478 cljlaw labourlaw

Copyright Mylawbox Sdn Bhd Subscribe | Unsubscribe