| BULLETIN 10/2015 | |
|
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 9 of 2015) SUBJECT INDEX DISMISSAL Breach of company rules and policies - Dishonesty - Claimant attempting to smuggle in cigarettes into the UK above the allowed limit - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Claimant admitting to the offence and receiving an adult caution - What that meant - Whether her misconduct had warranted her dismissal - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Constructive dismissal - Change in job functions - Claimants' posts terminated before the expiry of their contracts - Reasons for the same - Whether there had been mala fide intent on the part of the company in terminating the appointments - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the claimants had been terminated - Both serving in their substantive posts - Whether any disciplinary action had been taken against them - Whether they had been dismissed - Factors to consider - Whether they had instead walked out of their employment - Whether the claimants had succeeded in proving constructive dismissal - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) Constructive dismissal - Change in job functions - Whether the company had failed to provide them with offices and other facilities to enable them to resume their work in their substantive posts - Whether the claimants had brought these hardships up to the company - Evidence adduced - Whether there had been a fundamental breach going to the root of their contracts of employment - Whether the claimants had been constructively dismissed - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Misconduct - Claimant attempting to smuggle in 8200 sticks of cigarettes - Claimant detained by UK Customs and deported back - Whether her actions had constituted a serious misconduct - Factors to consider - Whether the claimant had been aware of her actions - Claimant's defence - Whether could be accepted - Whether the company had reasonable grounds to believe in her guilt - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Misconduct - Claimant attempting to smuggle in 8200 sticks of cigarettes into the UK - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Claimant's position in the company - Whether her conduct had been acceptable - Whether her misconduct had been serious - Whether the company had been justified in dismissing her - Claimant's length of service in the company - Whether should be taken into account - Whether the claimant's conduct had destroyed the trust reposed in her by the company - Whether the company had been justified in dismissing her - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Notice of termination - Forced resignation - Whether the claimant had been forced to resign - Factors to consider - Whether the claimant had performance issues - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Claimant advised to shape up or ship out - Whether that had constituted forcing her to resign - What forced resignation meant - Whether the claimant had resigned voluntarily EVIDENCE Documentary evidence - Whether the claimant had been a workman - Factors to consider - Claimant's position in the company - Claimant executing a Consultant Agreement with the company - Perusal of the terms of the agreement - Effect of - Whether his services had been pursuant to a contract for service - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the company had intended to create an employer-employee relationship with the claimant - Claimant's conduct - Effect of Documentary evidence - Whether the claimant had been a workman - Whether the remedy under s. 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 had been available to him - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2 & 20(1) Witness - Credibility - Whose evidence more credible - Factors to consider - Effect of INDUSTRIAL COURT Jurisdiction - Whether the Industrial Court had the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claimants' claims - Whether the claimants had been subject to the Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000 - Preliminary objection raised by company - Whether ought to be allowed - Factors to consider - Effect of Punishment - Mitigating factors - Whether dismissal had been too harsh under the circumstances of the case - Company the national carrier of Malaysia - Claimant in uniform when detained - Whether her actions had tarnished the image of the company - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether her dismissal had been justified TRADE DISPUTE Collective Agreement - Article on annual leave - Whether the workmen's annual leave could be automatically deducted in the event of a plant shutdown - Perusal of the article in the CA - Intention of the CA - Effect of - Whether the respondent company had acted equitably - Factors to consider Collective Agreement - Article on COLA - Whether it had been appropriate at the moment - Factors to consider - Company's attitude to providing better benefits to its workers - Whether it should be considered in the next CA instead Collective Agreement - Article on grades, salary and salary range - Union proposing current practice be retained - Financial capacity of the company - Whether viable - Whether the union's proposal is similar to those existing in comparable organisations - Factors to consider - Whether the union's proposal should be accepted Collective Agreement - Article on retirement benefits - Union proposing the company increases its EPF contributions by 2% making it 15% as a reward for the workers loyalty to it - Whether 2% had been reasonable - Factors to consider - What would be a reasonable additional percentage to contribute Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions of the CA - Article on annual increment - Whether it should be increased - Factors to consider - Whether the company should be more transparent in its financial status declaration - Reasons for the same Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions of the CA - Article on meal allowance (overtime) - Whether it should be increased - Factors to consider - Effect of - What would be a reasonable increase to allow Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions of the CA - Article on medical attention - Union proposing to include the company's Group Medical Insurance Scheme - Whether it would add to the company's financial burden - Factors to consider - Whether it should be allowed - Effect of Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions of the CA - Article on paid public holiday - Whether it should be increased - Factors to consider - Whether the comparable companies had been suitable to compare with - Effect of Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions of the CA - Article on retirement - Union proposing optional retirement for female employees at 50 and for male employees at 55 - Whether it should be allowed - Factors to consider - Effect of - Current workforce of the company consisting of more foreign workers Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions of the CA - Article on retirement benefits - Whether it should be increased - Factors to consider - Whether the comparable companies had been suitable to compare with - Effect of - Whether it would add to the financial burden of the company Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions of the CA - Article on salary structure - Whether it should be increased - Factors to consider - Whether an increase had been inevitable - Whether guidance could be derived from the five comparable companies Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions of the CA - Article on the scope of the CA - Who is to be covered under the CA - Whether the provisions of the 1st CA is to be maintained - Factors to consider - Effect of Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions of the CA - Article on travelling subsidy - Whether the provisions in the 1st CA should be maintained - Factors to consider - What the current practise of the company had been - Whether it had been more beneficial to the parties - Effect of Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions of the CA - Whether it should cover foreign workers - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether copies of the CA in Bahasa Malaysia should be distributed to the workers - Method of distribution - Effect of INDEKS PERKARA KETERANGAN Inferens bertentangan - Dua laporan penilaian prestasi telah dijalankan ke atas YM - Kedua-dua orang yang menyediakan laporan-laporan tersebut tidak dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan - Kedua-dua orang tersebut tidak disapina oleh syarikat - Kesannya - Sama ada mereka merupakan saksi yang penting - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada inferens bertentangan harus dibuat terhadap syarikat MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN Remedi - Hukuman - Hukuman buang kerja YM - Sama ada setimpal dengan salah lakunya - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Tempoh perkhidmatan YM dengan syarikat Remedi - Pampasan galang ganti pengembalian ke jawatan asal - Sama ada harus diawardkan kepada YM - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - YM masih di dalam tempoh percubaan - YM hanya berkhidmat dengan syarikat selama 11 bulan - Kesannya PEMBUANGAN KERJA Ketidakpatuhan terhadap polisi syarikat - Kecuaian - Penyebaran emel berkenaan ahli lembaga pengarah syarikat - Sama ada YM telah melanggar polisi IT syarikat dengan menyebarkan emel tersebut - Kesannya - Penelitian kandungan emel tersebut - Sama ada tindakan syarikat responden memberhentikan perkhidmatan YM adalah wajar - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada YM telah dibuang kerja secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Ketidakpatuhan terhadap polisi syarikat - Kecuaian - YM menyebarkan emel berkenaan ahli lembaga pengarah syarikat - YM mengaku terhadap pertuduhan-pertuduhan yang dikenakan terhadapnya - Kesannya - Sebab beliau mengaku - Tempoh perkhidmatan YM dengan syarikat responden - Rekod disiplin beliau dengan syarikat sepanjang tempoh perkhidmatannya - Sama ada diambil kira oleh syarikat - COW4 memberi syor untuk membuang kerja YM seorang diri - Sama ada itu telah memprejudiskan YM - Sama ada itu menunjukkan ketidakwajaran tindakan syarikat - Apa yang syarikat responden sepatutnya lakukan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tidak wajar, tidak munasabah dan terlalu berat - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab Ketidakturutan - Sama ada YM telah memasuki bilik COW8 selepas dilarang - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada YM gagal untuk mengikuti arahan syarikat - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Sama ada salah laku tersebut mewajarkan pembuangan kerjanya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab Ketidakturutan - Sama ada YM telah menuding jari dan menjerit kepada pegawai atasannya - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Penjelasan YM - Sama ada dapat diterima - Apa yang YM sepatutnya lakukan - Sama ada salah laku tersebut mewajarkan pembuangan kerjanya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Prestasi kerja - Prestasi kerja yang tidak memuaskan - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Tindakan syarikat - Apa yang syarikat seharusnya lakukan - Sama ada tindakan syarikat berpatutan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Prestasi kerja - Prestasi kerja yang tidak memuaskan - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Sama ada YM telah diberikan tempoh masa yang berpatutan untuk memperbaiki prestasi kerjanya - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab Salah laku - Sama ada bahagian YM telah memulangkan baju tetamu dengan `iron mark' setelah dihantar ke dobi dan untuk diseterika - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Alasan YM - Sama ada dapat diterima - Sama ada salah laku ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Sama ada ia mewajarkan pembuangan kerja YM Salah laku - Sama ada YM gagal memastikan panel-panel cermin di dalam dan juga di luar De Twin Lounge adalah bersih - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Alasan YM - Sama ada dapat diterima - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada ia merupakan satu salah laku yang serius - Jawatan yang disandang oleh YM - Syarikat tidak mengalami kerugian ataupun masalah berurusniaga dengan pihak-pihak yang mengadakan majlis ataupun dengan tetamu-tetamu hotel - Sama ada YM telah melakukan salah laku tersebut dengan sengaja ataupun berniat untuk ingkar perintah - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada salah laku ini mewajarkan pembuangan kerja YM - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan dengan alasan yang adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Salah laku - Sama ada YM gagal mematuhi arahan penjenamaan semula - Sama ada dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Penelitian keterangan - Kesannya - Alasan YM - Sama ada dapat diterima - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Salah laku - Sama ada YM gagal memberitahu syarikat tentang penukaran tarikh penyemburan oleh Pest Control - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada salah laku ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Alasan YM - Sama ada dapat diterima - Kesannya - Sama ada salah laku ini mewajarkan pembuangan kerja YM Salah laku - Sama ada YM gagal membersihkan bilik-bilik tetamu - Sama ada salah laku ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Alasan YM - Sama ada dapat diterima - Sama ada syarikat sedar akan masalah kekurangan pekerja yang dihadapi oleh YM - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - YM diarahkan menyediakan prosedur pembersihan bilik tetamu - Arahan tersebut gagal dilaksanakan - Sama ada ianya merupakan satu salah laku yang serius - Sama ada salah laku ini mewajarkan pembuangan kerja YM - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan berasas Salah laku - Sama ada YM terlibat dalam insiden kehilangan subang mutiara yang tertinggal di bilik tetamu - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada salah laku ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Sama ada syarikat mempunyai prosedur yang mantap berkenaan perkara ini - Alasan YM - Sama ada dapat diterima - Kesannya - Sama ada salah laku ini mewajarkan pembuangan kerja YM SIASATAN DALAMAN Kesilapan prosedur - Sama ada siasatan dalaman telah dijalankan mengikut prinsip keadilan asasi - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya |
|
| Copyright Mylawbox Sdn Bhd | Subscribe | Unsubscribe |
