PETER JAMES WILLIAM DYER v. YAYASAN UEM
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
PARAMALINGAM J DORAISAMY
AWARD NO. 1014 OF 2019 [CASE NO: 30(32)(19)/4-800/17]
21 MARCH 2019

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Type of – Fixed-term contract – Whether the claimant’s contracts of employment had been genuine fixed-term contracts – Perusal of the contents of the contracts – What it had indicated – What the intentions of the parties to the contracts had been – Expatriate claimant whose employment had been subject to obtaining a work permit or employment pass – Effect of – Whether the company had been in a position to offer him permanent employment – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether the claimant’s contract had come to a natural end – Whether he had been dismissed – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Type of – Fixed-term contract – Whether the claimant had been given assurances by the company that his employment would be permanent in nature – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Claimant’s actions – What it had shown – Whether his contracts of employment had been genuine fixed-term contracts – Whether there had been a dismissal – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse

INDUSTRIAL COURT: Jurisdiction – Claimant’s representations to the DGIR had stated the date of his dismissal as being 30 June 2016 – Whether he had still been in the company’s employ on that date – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter

ALLAN CHOY KIM LEONG v. CANON MARKETING (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
PARAMALINGAM J DORAISAMY
AWARD NO. 1181 OF 2019 [CASE NO: 30(15)/4-1761/18]
11 APRIL 2019

DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – Whether mere reorganisation, in this case reshuffling, had been sufficient to justify a retrenchment – Whether the claimant’s job and functions had remained in existence – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the claimant’s retrenchment had been carried out bona fide

DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – Whether the claimant’s position had become redundant – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Evaluation of the evidence – Whether an actual redundancy situation had existed – Company’s actions towards him – What it had shown – Whether the company had suffered a “challenging economic climate” – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether the company had acted bona fide – Effect of – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse

SUPERMARKET WORKER WAS UNFAIRLY DISMISSED OVER INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES TO 17-YEAR-OLD COLLEAGUE
Tesco employee unfairly dismissed
A supermarket worker was unfairly dismissed after managers carried out a flawed investigation into ‘inappropriate’ messages he sent to a 17-year-old colleague, a Scottish tribunal has ruled. The Dundee tribunal said various Tesco managers failed to carry out a fair investigation into comments the worker, who was referred to as S in court documents, made towards a younger co-worker on Facebook, as well as a subsequent comment made in person. S was 39 at the time.

Read More

JUNE’S TOP FIVE EMPLOYMENT LAW CASES
Five most read tribunals of last month
1. Railway worker who lowered crossing barrier onto car was not unfairly dismissed
A railway crossing keeper was fairly sacked after he admitted bumping a car with a crossing barrier to “teach its driver a lesson”, a south London employment tribunal (ET) ruled. Mr A McKay worked for Network Rail as a crossing keeper from May 2005 until he was dismissed on 12 January 2018 following allegations of gross misconduct after the incident involving a car he felt had failed to respect warning alarms. McKay brought claims of unfair dismissal to the ET, however Judge Katherine Andrews ruled in favour of Network Rail, saying it had reasonable grounds to dismiss McKay and carried out a fair investigation..

Read More