|
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 7 of 2017)
SUBJECT INDEX
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
Terms and conditions – Hours of work – Whether the claimant had
performed the required number of hours of work as per her contract –
Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Her explanations –
Whether could be accepted
Normalina Mansor v. MSU Holdings Sdn Bhd
(Noor Ruwena Mohd Nurdin) [2017] 3 ILR 183
DISMISSAL
Breach of company rules and policies – Conflict of interest – Whether the
claimant had disclosed confidential information belonging to the company
– Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Position held by the
claimant – Whether her actions had been a blatant breach of the
company's policy and her Contract – Factors to consider – Claimant not
benefiting – Whether relevant – What the claimant should have done
Normalina Mansor v. MSU Holdings Sdn Bhd
(Noor Ruwena Mohd Nurdin) [2017] 3 ILR 183
Breach of company rules and policies – Drunkenness – Whether the
claimant had been drunk and had misbehaved with the hotel staff and
guests – Whether proven by the company – Evidence adduced –
Evaluation of – Effect of – Claimant admitting to the same and extending
his apologies to all parties concerned – Whether his conduct had justified
the company dismissing him – Factors to consider – Whether dismissal
without just cause and excuse
Sebastian Matthias Boehme v. Siemens Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila G Azariah) [2017] 3 ILR 50
Breach of company rules and policies – Negligence – Whether the
claimant had allegedly omitted to examine the 13 sealed CIT security
canvas bags with cash consignment in the trolley, before pushing the said
trolley through Door 5 – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of –
Whether it had been a part of the claimant's SOP – Whether the charge
had been proven by the company – Claimant's defence – Whether
acceptable – Factors to consider – Company's actions towards him –
Whether reasonable – Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse –
Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Richard Paul Yanaprakasan v. Safeguards G4S Sdn Bhd
(Sarojini Kandasamy) [2017] 3 ILR 63
Constructive dismissal – Benefits – Claimant not paid his EPF and
SOCSO contributions for many months – Whether it had amounted to a
fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of his contract of
employment – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of –
Claimant's duties in the company as the CFO – Whether he had
discharged them properly – Factors to consider – Whether the claimant by
his conduct had abandoned his employment – What the claimant should
have done
Lee Jyh Kiong v. Nakamichi Corporation Berhad
(Duncan Sikodol) [2017] 3 ILR 26
Constructive dismissal – Salary – Claimant allegedly not paid his salary
for many months – Whether proven by him – Whether it had amounted to
a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of his contract of
employment – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Whether had
been sufficient to prove his claim – Effect of – Claimant's actions – What
it had shown – Claimant's job functions as the CFO –Whether he had
discharged them diligently – What he should have done – Whether his
constructive dismissal claim had been genuine – Factors to consider –
Whether he had waived the breach by delaying in walking out of his
employment – Whether he had been constructively dismissed by the
company – Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse – Evidence
Act 1950, s. 114(g) and Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Lee Jyh Kiong v. Nakamichi Corporation Berhad
(Duncan Sikodol) [2017] 3 ILR 26
Constructive dismissal – Status – Claimant suspended pending the
outcome of the investigation and the DI – Whether it had amounted to a
fundamental breach that had gone to the root of her Contract – Factors to
consider – Effect of – Whether the company by its conduct had evinced an
intention to no longer be bound by the contract of employment – Whether
the claimant had succeeded in proving constructive dismissal – Whether
dismissal without just cause or excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967,
ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Normalina Mansor v. MSU Holdings Sdn Bhd
(Noor Ruwena Mohd Nurdin) [2017] 3 ILR 183
Misconduct – Sexual harassment – Claimant accused of sexually
harassing the staff of the hotel and its guests – Whether proven by the
company – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Claimant
admitting to the same and extending his apologies to all parties concerned
– What that had meant – Whether the company had acted reasonably in
dismissing him – Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse –
Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Sebastian Matthias Boehme v. Siemens Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila G Azariah) [2017] 3 ILR 50
Misconduct – Whether the claimant had assaulted the staff of the hotel and
its guests – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Position
held by the claimant in the company – Effect of – Whether the charge had
been proven against him – How his actions had reflected on the reputation
of the company – Whether it had justified his dismissal
Sebastian Matthias Boehme v. Siemens Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila G Azariah) [2017] 3 ILR 50
Notice of termination – Forced resignation – Whether the claimant had
been “chased out” of his employment – Factors to consider – Evidence
adduced – Effect of – Whether he had been dismissed by the respondent
company – Whether dismissal with just cause and excuse
Ahmad Zaini Omar v. Bella Vista Waterfront Resort & Spa /
Langkawi Aman Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2017] 3 ILR 14
Performance – Unsatisfactory performance – Whether the claimant had
performed poorly in his post – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced –
Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether proven by the respondent company –
Whether the respondent company had followed the necessary procedures
as set out in the contract of employment before terminating him –
Implications of the same – Whether the respondent company's actions had
been reasonable – Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse –
Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Robert Scully v. Persatuan Bolasepak Pulau Pinang
(Domnic Selvam S Gnanapragasam) [2017] 3 ILR 40
Victimisation – Claimant allegedly omitting to examine the sealed CIT
security canvas bags with cash consignment in the trolley, before pushing
it through Door 5 – Whether there had been victimisation practised by the
company towards him – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced –
Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether the company had acted reasonably in
dismissing him – Whether the company had acted with mala fide intention
towards him – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Richard Paul Yanaprakasan v. Safeguards G4S Sdn Bhd
(Sarojini Kandasamy) [2017] 3 ILR 63
DOMESTIC INQUIRY
Charges – Whether the charges against the claimant had been vague and
imprecise – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether she had been given
ample time to prepare her defence for the DI – Whether she had availed
herself to that opportunity
Normalina Mansor v. MSU Holdings Sdn Bhd
(Noor Ruwena Mohd Nurdin) [2017] 3 ILR 183
Procedural impropriety – Whether the proceedings of the DI had
conformed to the rules of natural justice – Factors to consider – Evidence
adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether the DI conducted had to
have all the trappings of a formal trial in a court of law – Whether that
meant that it could have carte blanche to trample over all the rules of natural
justice and evidential burden
Richard Paul Yanaprakasan v. Safeguards G4S Sdn Bhd
(Sarojini Kandasamy) [2017] 3 ILR 63
EVIDENCE
Documentary evidence – Findings of the DI – Whether perverse – Factors
to consider – Effect of
Richard Paul Yanaprakasan v. Safeguards G4S Sdn Bhd
(Sarojini Kandasamy) [2017] 3 ILR 63
INDUSTRIAL COURT
Procedure – Action – Parties – Joinder – Complainant seeking to join a
party at the non-compliance stage – Whether it ought to be allowed –
Factors to consider – Effect of – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 29(a)
Lee Kee Meng v. Comcolor Graphics Sdn Bhd & Ors
(Ishak Mohd Yusoff) [2017] 3 ILR 218
Procedure – Action – Parties seeking to rely on earlier trade dispute award
for current proceedings – Whether ought to be allowed – Factors to
consider – Effect of
Paper And Paper Products Manufacturing Employees' Union v. Polyplus Packages Sdn Bhd
(Ishak Mohd Yusoff) [2017] 3 ILR 1
Remedies – Backwages – Claimant employed under a fixed-term contract
– How much compensation under this head of damages he had been
entitled to claim – Factors to consider – Effect of
Ahmad Zaini Omar v. Bella Vista Waterfront Resort & Spa / Langkawi Aman Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2017] 3 ILR 14
Remedies – Backwages – What had been a suitable amount to award to
the claimant who had been on a fixed-term contract – Factors to consider
Robert Scully v. Persatuan Bolasepak Pulau Pinang
(Domnic Selvam S Gnanapragasam) [2017] 3 ILR 40
Remedies – Compensation in lieu of reinstatement – Claimant employed
under a fixed-term contract – Whether he had had a legitimate expectation
to be reinstated – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether he had been
entitled to claim compensation under this head of damages
Ahmad Zaini Omar v. Bella Vista Waterfront Resort & Spa / Langkawi Aman Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2017] 3 ILR 14
Remedies – Compensation in lieu of reinstatement – Claimant on a fixed-term
contract – Whether he had been entitled to the same – Factors to
consider
Robert Scully v. Persatuan Bolasepak Pulau Pinang
(Domnic Selvam S Gnanapragasam) [2017] 3 ILR 40
NON-COMPLIANCE
Award – Complainant seeking to enforce the said Award against a party
that had been declared as not his employer in the said Award – Whether
his application ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of –
Whether there had existed a reasonable factual or legal nexus between the
two companies – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Industrial Relations Act
1967, s. 56(2)(c)
Lee Kee Meng v. Comcolor Graphics Sdn Bhd & Ors
(Ishak Mohd Yusoff) [2017] 3 ILR 218
Collective Agreement – Articles on bonus and annual increments –
Whether there had been non-compliance by the company of the said
articles in the said collective agreement – Whether the company had
succeeded in establishing ‘special circumstances' to justify its
non-compliance with the said articles – Factors to consider – Evidence
adduced – Effect of – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 56(2)(c)
Paper And Paper Products Manufacturing Employees' Union v. Polyplus Packages Sdn Bhd
(Ishak Mohd Yusoff) [2017] 3 ILR 1
TRADE DISPUTE
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on
bonus payments – Whether it ought to be contractual – Factors to consider
– Effect of
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Logam v. Southern Steel Mesh Sdn Bhd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2017] 3 ILR 96
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on
duration and termination of the CA – Factors to consider – Effect of –
Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 30(7)
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Logam v. Southern Steel Mesh Sdn Bhd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2017] 3 ILR 96
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on
exclusion clause – Who should be excluded from the benefits under the
CA – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Logam v. Southern Steel Mesh Sdn Bhd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2017] 3 ILR 96
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on
existing benefits – Whether the existing clause ought to be maintained in
the new CA – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Logam v. Southern Steel Mesh Sdn Bhd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2017] 3 ILR 96
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on
hours of work – Whether the company required the flexibility to make
changes to the hours of work within the agreed working hours, in order to
meet its business and operational requirements – Whether such changes
had to be made in consultation with the Union Works Committee –
Evidence adduced – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether it was
sufficient for the company to give the union notice of such changes
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Logam v. Southern Steel Mesh Sdn Bhd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2017] 3 ILR 96
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on
medical attention – What would be a reasonable amount to award for
outpatient treatment for the workers and clinical consultation for their
legal spouse and dependents – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Logam v. Southern Steel Mesh Sdn Bhd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2017] 3 ILR 96
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on
retirement/retirement benefits – Determination of the age of retirement
and/or optional retirement – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether the
existing retirement benefits ought to be maintained – Financial capacity of
the company – Effect of
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Logam v. Southern Steel Mesh Sdn Bhd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2017] 3 ILR 96
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on
salary adjustment – What would be a reasonable percentage to award –
Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the
company had the financial capacity to pay
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Logam v. Southern Steel Mesh Sdn Bhd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2017] 3 ILR 96
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on
salary scales – Whether the existing provisions on salary scales ought to
be maintained – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of
– Whether the union's proposal ought to be allowed
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Logam v. Southern Steel Mesh Sdn Bhd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2017] 3 ILR 96
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on shift
allowance – What would be a fair and reasonable amount to award for the
respective shifts – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Logam v. Southern Steel Mesh Sdn Bhd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2017] 3 ILR 96
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on
transport subsidy – What would be a reasonable amount to award –
Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Logam v. Southern Steel Mesh Sdn Bhd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2017] 3 ILR 96
INDEKS PERKARA
KETERANGAN
Saksi – Keterangan saksi syarikat responden hanya bersandarkan
keterangan lisan – Sama ada memadai untuk membuktikan pertuduhan
terhadap YM – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Kesannya
Leong Yuen Cheong lwn. Insafoam Insulation Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Sapini Mat Saman) [2017] 3 ILR 138
KONTRAK PERKHIDMATAN
Notis penamatan – YM diserahkan dua surat tunjuk sebab – YM
diberhentikan bagi salah laku yang dinyatakan di dalam surat tunjuk sebab
pertama sahaja – Sama ada pertuduhan di dalam surat tunjuk sebab kedua
harus diambil kira dan perlu diberi penilaian – Faktor-faktor yang harus
dipertimbangkan – Kesannya
Mohd Helmi Ibrahim lwn. Yayasan Angkasawan Malaysia
(Jamhirah Ali) [2017] 3 ILR 62
PEMBUANGAN KERJA
Kedatangan – Kelewatan – Sama ada YM telah datang lewat ke kerja –
Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan –
Kesannya – Sama ada salah laku ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh pihak syarikat
terhadapnya – Pembelaan YM – Sama ada dapat diterima – Kesannya –
Sama ada salah laku YM tersebut merupakan satu salah laku yang serius
– Jawatan yang dipegang oleh YM – Apa yang beliau sepatutnya lakukan
– Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan
bersebab – Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Mohd Helmi Ibrahim lwn. Yayasan Angkasawan Malaysia
(Jamhirah Ali) [2017] 3 ILR 162
Kedatangan – Sama ada YM telah keluar awal dari pejabat semasa waktu
bekerja rasmi tanpa kebenaran – Keterangan yang dikemukakan –
Kesannya – Sama ada salah laku ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat
terhadapnya – Sama ada salah laku ini mewajarkan pembuangan kerjanya
– Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan
– Kesannya
Mohd Helmi Ibrahim lwn. Yayasan Angkasawan Malaysia
(Jamhirah Ali) [2017] 3 ILR 162
Ketidakhadiran – Sama ada YM tidak hadir ke kerja tanpa kebenaran –
Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Penilaian keterangan – Kesannya – Sama
ada ianya merupakan suatu salah laku yang serius – Faktor-faktor yang
harus diambil kira – Jawatan yang disandang oleh YM – Kesannya –
Pembelaannya – Sama ada dapat diterima – Sama ada pembuangan kerja
YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Mohd Helmi Ibrahim lwn. Yayasan Angkasawan Malaysia
(Jamhirah Ali) [2017] 3 ILR 162
Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif – Penurunan pangkat – YM
ditugaskan semula ke Ground Services Unit – Sebab untuk penugasan
semula tersebut – Sama ada telah dilakukan secara bona fide – Faktor-faktor
yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan –
Kesannya – Sama ada penugasan semula 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 tindakan syarikat tersebut
merupakan kemungkiran fundamental yang telah menyentuh akar umbi
kontrak pekerjaan YM dengannya – Sama ada syarikat melalui
tindakannya menunjukkan niat untuk tidak lagi terikat dengan terma dan
syarat perkhidmatan YM – Sama ada YM telah dibuang kerja secara
konstruktif – Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil
dan bersebab – Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Noorzalina Razlan lwn. Airasia Berhad
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2017] 3 ILR 147
Prestasi kerja – Prestasi kerja yang tidak memuaskan – Sama ada
pertuduhan ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat responden terhadap YM –
Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya – Syarikat responden tidak
memberi peluang kepada YM untuk menghabiskan baki tempoh
percubaannya atau memberi kaunseling atau latihan kepadanya untuk
memperbaiki prestasi kerjanya – Sama ada tindakan syarikat responden
tersebut merupakan suatu amalan perburuhan yang baik – Kesannya –
Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
– Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Leong Yuen Cheong lwn. Insafoam Insulation Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Sapini Mat Saman) [2017] 3 ILR 138
Salah laku – YM gagal melakukan taklimat ERB – Sama ada ia merupakan
tanggungjawabnya – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya –
Pembelaan YM – Sama ada dapat diterima – Faktor-faktor yang harus
diambil kira – Sama ada salah laku ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat
terhadap YM – Sama ada salah laku ini merupakan suatu salah laku yang
serius yang mewajarkan pembuangan kerjanya – Tindakan syarikat
terhadapnya – Sama ada menunjukkan tindakan prihatin seorang majikan
– Sama ada YM telah dibuang kerja secara konstruktif
Noorzalina Razlan lwn. Airasia Berhad
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2017] 3 ILR 147
SIASATAN DALAMAN
Kemungkiran prosedur – Sama ada inkuiri dalaman telah dijalankan
secara teratur – Sama ada ianya telah mengikuti prinsip keadilan asasi –
Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Kesannya – Sama ada inkuiri
dalaman yang telah dijalankan itu adalah cacat, tidak teratur dan
berlawanan dengan undang-undang
Noorzalina Razlan lwn. Airasia Berhad
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2017] 3 ILR 147
|