|
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 10 of 2016)
SUBJECT INDEX
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash award of Industrial Court - Employee's post as lecturer at university subjected to employee obtaining PhD - Failure to obtain PhD - Termination from employment - Whether university entitled to terminate employee - Industrial Court held that employee was dismissed without just cause or excuse - Whether findings of Industrial Court based on unpleaded issue - Whether Industrial Court ought not to consider issue not raised in pleadings - Whether award of Industrial Court ought to be quashed - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(1) - Industrial Court Rules, r. 9(3)
Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia v. Nik Roskiman Abdul Samad & Anor
(Azizul Azmi Adnan JC) [2016] 4 ILR 1
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Pleadings - Issue not pleaded - Whether parties bound by their pleadings - Whether Industrial Court could depart from pleadings - Factual basis for finding of unjust dismissal - Whether pleaded in Statement of Case
Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia v. Nik Roskiman Abdul Samad & Anor
(Azizul Azmi Adnan JC) [2016] 4 ILR 1
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
Notice of termination - Contents of - Who had been the claimant's employer - Factors to consider - Effect of
Ng Kuok Tin v. Sarawak Energy Berhad & Anor
(Ani Ak Solep) [2016] 4 ILR 76
Terms and conditions - Notice of termination - Who had been the claimant's employer at the material time - Factors to consider
Lee Kee Meng v. Comcolor Graphics Sdn Bhd & Ors
(Rosenani Abd Rahman) [2016] 4 ILR 45
DISMISSAL
Insubordination - Claimant failing to attend the Clarification Meeting despite being asked thrice - Whether it had constituted insubordination - What his refusal had shown - Whether this charge had been proven against him - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Claimant's defence - Whether acceptable - Whether his actions had justified the company dismissing him - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Shaun Khee Tuck Keat v. Carigali Hess Operating Company Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2016] 4 ILR 112
Insubordination - Claimant raising his voice against the management of the company when he was handed his termination letter - Reasons for the same - Whether could be accepted - Whether insubordination had been successfully proven against him - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Whether his dismissal had been justified under the circumstances - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Lee Kee Meng v. Comcolor Graphics Sdn Bhd & Ors
(Rosenani Abd Rahman) [2016] 4 ILR 45
Insubordination - Claimant refusing to attend the performance review and training program arranged for her - Whether her refusal had constituted insubordinate behaviour - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the charges had been proven by the company - Whether the company had acted reasonably in dismissing her - Actions of the company towards her - Whether the claimant's dismissal had been justified - Whether dismissal with just cause and excuse
Lee Ai Chin v. Fujiaire Sales & Services Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2016] 4 ILR 56
Insubordination - Whether the claimant had failed to comply with a legitimate order of the company - Factors to consider - Whether the company had exercised its management prerogative fairly - Whether the claimant had acted in conflict of interest with the duties, responsibilities and loyalty that she had owed the company as her employer - Whether her dismissal had been justified under the circumstances
Lee Ai Chin v. Fujiaire Sales & Services Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2016] 4 ILR 56
Misconduct - Sexual harassment - Claimant accused of sexually harassing COW2 and COW3 - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Whether it had been sufficiently serious to warrant his dismissal - Whether he had been victimised by the company - Factors to consider - Effect of - 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)
Shaun Khee Tuck Keat v. Carrigali Hess Operating Company Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2016] 4 ILR 112
Misconduct - Sexual harassment - Whether the claimant had sexually harassed COW2 and COW3 - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Claimant's defence - Whether could be accepted - Whether supported by any evidence - Effect of - Whether he had been aware of the company's Policy on sexual harassment - Whether his actions had justified the company dismissing him - Whether the company's actions of carrying out investigations on him had been mala fide - Whether the company had merely been doing its duty - Factors to consider - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Employment Act 1955, s. 81C
Shaun Khee Tuck Keat v. Carrigali Hess Operating Company Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2016] 4 ILR 112
Misconduct - Whether the claimant had been negligent in not attending to the payment of sales tax from December 2008 to July 2011 - Whether it had been part of her duties - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether this misconduct had been proven against her - Whether her dismissal had been with just cause and excuse
Theivarani Muniandy v. Nadin Management Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2016] 4 ILR 189
Misconduct - Whether the claimant had knowingly allowed the rubber stamp of her signature to be used on company issued cheques - Evidence adduced - No loss suffered by the company - Effect of - Whether the company had been aware of the use of such rubber stamp - Whether the use of the rubber stamp had been abused by the claimant - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the claimant had been proven by the company - Whether the company had acted reasonably in dismissing her - Whether dismissal with just cause and excuse
Theivarani Muniandy v. Nadin Management Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2016] 4 ILR 189
Misconduct - Whether the claimant had removed the assets of the company without the consent of the Directors and without paying for it - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the misconduct had been proven against her
Theivarani Muniandy v. Nadin Management Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2016] 4 ILR 189
Misconduct - Whether the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the claimant had been proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the company had acted reasonably in dismissing him - Whether dismissal with just cause and excuse
Lee Kee Meng v. Comcolor Graphics Sdn Bhd & Ors
(Rosenani Abd Rahman) [2016] 4 ILR 45
Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Whether the claimant had been guilty of lack of planning and monitoring that had caused some stations to run on tight capacity - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether this charge had been proven against him
Ng Kuok Tin v. Sarawak Energy Berhad & Anor
(Ani Ak Solep) [2016] 4 ILR 76
Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Whether the claimant had been under-performing - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether appraisals had been conducted on him - Whether he had been aware of the appraisals - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the company's decision to terminate him had been reasonable - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Ng Kuok Tin v. Sarawak Energy Berhad & Anor
(Ani Ak Solep) [2016] 4 ILR 76
Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Whether the claimant had failed to perform his job to the standard that had been expected of him as the Manager of the Sibu Power Station - Evidence adduced - Whether the charge had been proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether it had justified his dismissal - Claimant's tenure of service with the company and its predecessor - Whether should have been taken into account - What the company should have done - Whether the claimant had been dismissed without just cause and excuse
Ng Kuok Tin v. Sarawak Energy Berhad & Anor
(Ani Ak Solep)
Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Whether the claimant had possessed the required experience and skill for the expanded role - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Company's actions towards him - Whether COW1 and COW2 had been in a position to make that decision - Whether that decision had been arrived at fairly - Factors to consider - Whether it had shown mala fide intent on the part of the company - What the company should have done
Jaswant Singh Sapuran Singh v. Global Process Systems Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2016] 4 ILR 15
Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Whether the claimant's role in the company had ceased to exist - Evidence adduced - Claimant's functions and duties taken over by a new hire - Effect of - Whether he had been surplus to the company's needs - Factors to consider - Company's actions towards him - Whether it had been an unfair labour practice
Jaswant Singh Sapuran Singh v. Global Process Systems Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2016] 4 ILR 15
Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Whether the retrenchment had been carried out bona fide - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of - Whether the claimant's replacement had been better suited for the job - Whether the claimant's seniority, qualifications and contributions had been taken into account by the company - Effect of - Whether his dismissal had been with just cause and excuse
Jaswant Singh Sapuran Singh v. Global Process Systems Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2016] 4 ILR 15
DOMESTIC INQUIRY
Absence of - Claimant not issued a show cause letter - Whether the claimant had been given a chance to be heard - Factors to consider - Actions of the company towards her - What it had shown - Effect of
Theivarani Muniandy v. Nadin Management Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2016] 4 ILR 189
Absence of - Whether the claimant had been given a chance to be heard - Actions of the company towards him - Whether it had constituted a breach of natural justice - Factors to consider - Effect of
Lee Kee Meng v. Comcolor Graphics Sdn Bhd & Ors
(Rosenani Abd Rahman) [2016] 4 ILR 45
Charges - Whether he had been disadvantaged in preparing his defence - Evidence adduced - Whether he had been given access to whatever he had required in the end - Effect of
Shaun Khee Tuck Keat v. Carrigali Hess Operating Company Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2016] 4 ILR 112
Charges - Whether they had been vague, imprecise and lacking in material particulars - Factors to consider - Effect of
Shaun Khee Tuck Keat v. Carrigali Hess Operating Company Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2016] 4 ILR 112
Procedural impropriety - Committee of Investigation Hearing (`COI') carried out - Whether it had been carried out mala fide - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the claimant had needed to answer the charges which had stemmed from the committee's investigations
Ng Kuok Tin v. Sarawak Energy Berhad & Anor
(Ani Ak Solep)
EVIDENCE
Documentary evidence - Findings of the COI - COI recommending that the claimant be given a warning letter and have his performance monitored closely - Company deciding to go against the recommendation and dismissing him - Whether the company had been reasonable in acting as it had - Factors to consider
Ng Kuok Tin v. Sarawak Energy Berhad & Anor
(Ani Ak Solep)
Witness - Whether COW2 and COW3 had been witnesses of truth on what had transpired that night - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether they had borne a grudge against the claimant
Shaun Khee Tuck Keat v. Carigali Hess Operating Company Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2016] 4 ILR 112
Witness - Whether there had been differences in the company's evidence in court - Whether those discrepancies had been serious enough to affect its case against the claimant - Factors to consider - Effect of
Shaun Khee Tuck Keat v. Carigali Hess Operating Company Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2016] 4 ILR 112
INDUSTRIAL COURT
Procedure - Pleadings - Company's Statement in Reply - Whether it had contained multiple irregularities unsubstantiated by evidence - Whether the company had cast its net too wide - Factors to consider
Theivarani Muniandy v. Nadin Management Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2016] 4 ILR 189
Remedies - Punishment - Whether the punishment of dismissal had been too harsh under the circumstances - Factors to consider - Claimant serving the company since 1981 without infractions - Effect of - Whether the recommendations of the COI would have been more appropriate
Ng Kuok Tin v. Sarawak Energy Berhad & Anor
(Ani Ak Solep)
LABOUR LAW
Employment - Dismissal - Termination from employment - Employee's post as lecturer at university subjected to employee obtaining PhD - Failure to obtain PhD - Whether university entitled to terminate employee - Industrial Court held that employee was dismissed without just cause or excuse - Whether findings of Industrial Court based on unpleaded issue - Whether Industrial Court ought not to consider issue not raised in pleadings - Whether award of Industrial Court ought to be quashed - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(1) - Industrial Court Rules, r. 9(3)
Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia v. Nik Roskiman Abdul Samad & Anor
(Azizul Azmi Adnan Jc) [2016] 4 ILR 1
INDEKS PERKARA
KETERANGAN
Inferens yang bertentangan - Kegagalan mengemukakan saksi penting - Ms. Kim tidak hadir di mahkamah - Sama ada inferens yang bertentangan harus dianggap terhadap syarikat - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Kesannya
Selvarani Mariappen lwn. Seniharta Sdn Bhd / Lanson Place Ambassador Kuala Lumpur
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2016] 4 ILR 154
Keterangan dokumentari - Dapatan SD - SD mendapati YM tidak bersalah atas pertuduhan yang dikenakan terhadapnya - Syarikat responden masih menamatkan perkhidmatan YM - Sama ada tindakan syarikat responden adalah wajar - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira
Mary Ebenezer Anthony lwn. Hume Roofing Products Sdn Bhd
(Rasidah Chik) [2016] 4 ILR 27
Keterangan dokumentari - Nota-nota SD - Sama ada tepat dan menggambarkan sepenuhnya prosiding SD yang telah dijalankan - Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya
Mary Ebenezer Anthony lwn. Hume Roofing Products Sdn Bhd
(Rasidah Chik) [2016] 4 ILR 27
Keterangan dokumentari - Surat-surat amaran dikeluarkan terhadap YM semasa beliau menjawat jawatan Pemandu - Sama ada surat-surat amaran tersebut dapat ditimbulkan balik dan dikemukakan semula terhadap beliau semasa beliau menjawat jawatan Pemotong Besi - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Kesannya
Rajoo Perumal lwn. Schmolz Bickenbach Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2016] 4 ILR 141
Saksi - Kegagalan memanggil - Syarikat gagal untuk memanggil Ms. Kim untuk memberi keterangan - Sebabnya - Sama ada dapat diterima - Ms. Kim memberi keterangan di SD dan keterangannya telah dirakam - Sama ada dapat diterima oleh mahkamah - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Kesannya
Selvarani Mariappen lwn. Seniharta Sdn Bhd / Lanson Place Ambassador Kuala Lumpur
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2016] 4 ILR 154
Saksi - Kegagalan memanggil - Syarikat responden gagal untuk memanggil Heizri dan pihak polis untuk membuktikan kesnya terhadap YM - Kesannya - Sama ada keterangan YM dapat disangkal
Hamzani Abd Halim lwn. Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad
(Tan Ghee Phaik) [2016] 4 ILR 167
KONTRAK PERKHIDMATAN
Kekecewaan kontrak - YM ditamatkan perkhidmatan dan diambil bekerja semula - Lesen agensi keselamatan pihak syarikat responden dibatalkan oleh Kementerian Dalam Negeri - Kesannya - Sama ada pihak syarikat responden terhalang dari memulihkan pekerjaan YM disebabkan "kekecewaan kontrak" - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada permohonan YM harus dibenarkan - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Kadir Harun lwn. Kawalan Prima Sdn Bhd
(Sapini Mat Saman) [2016] 4 ILR 136
Terma dan syarat - Keesahan - YM merupakan ahli kesatuan syarikat responden dan terikat kepada terma dan syarat Perjanjian Bersama - Sama ada terma dan syarat GPA syarikat responden mengikat beliau - Penelitian terma dan syarat Perjanjian Bersama – Kesannya
Hamzani Abd Halim lwn. Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad
(Tan Ghee Phaik) [2016] 4 ILR 167
MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN
Bidang kuasa - Sama ada Mahkamah Perusahaan terikat dengan prosiding atau hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh Mahkamah Majistret - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada Mahkamah Perusahaan mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk mendengar kes ini – Kesannya
Hamzani Abd Halim lwn. Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad
(Tan Ghee Phaik) [2016] 4 ILR 167
Remedi - Pengembalian semula ke jawatan asal - Sama ada sesuai diawardkan kepada YM - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - YM diawardkan gaji tertunggak - Pengiraan jumlah yang harus diawardkan
Hamzani Abd Halim lwn. Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad
(Tan Ghee Phaik) [2016] 4 ILR 167
PEMBUANGAN KERJA
Ketidakpatuhan terhadap polisi dan peraturan syarikat - Cuti sakit - Sama ada YM telah mengambil cuti rehat dan cuti sakit yang berlebihan - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Sama ada dakwaan ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh pihak syarikat terhadapnya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja beliau telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Rajoo Perumal lwn. Schmolz Bickenbach Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2016] 4 ILR 141
Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - Ketidakjujuran - YM dituduh menandatangani DO dan Gate Pass tanpa kebenaran atau autoriti - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat responden atas tahap imbangan kebarangkalian - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - YM mengaku tidak mempunyai autoriti atau kebenaran untuk berbuat demikian - Kesannya - Tindakan syarikat responden terhadapnya - Sama ada munasabah - Sama ada tindakan YM tergolong kepada salah laku yang serius - Sama ada syarikat responden telah hilang kepercayaan terhadap YM - Sama ada tindakan syarikat menamatkan perkhidmatannya telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Mary Ebenezer Anthony lwn. Hume Roofing Products Sdn Bhd
(Rasidah Chik) [2016] 4 ILR 27
Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - Ketidakjujuran - YM menandatangani DO dan Gate Pass - Sama ada beliau mempunyai kuasa atau kebenaran untuk berbuat demikian - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada pertuduhan ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat responden - Sama ada tindakan syarikat responden menamatkan perkhidmatan YM adalah suatu tindakan yang wajar - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Mary Ebenezer Anthony lwn. Hume Roofing Products Sdn Bhd
(Rasidah Chik) [2016] 4 ILR 27
Ketidakpatuhan terhadap polisi syarikat - Pergaduhan - YM didakwa telah bergaduh dengan Heizri - Sama ada imej atau reputasi syarikat responden telah terjejas akibat kejadian tersebut - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada suatu kelakuan yang terjatuh di bawah perenggan 6.2 GPA secara ipso facto memberi hak kepada syarikat responden untuk memecat pekerja tersebut - Apa yang syarikat responden harus lakukan - Sama ada penamatan perkhidmatan YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Hamzani Abd Halim lwn. Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad
(Tan Ghee Phaik) [2016] 4 ILR 167
Ketidakpatuhan terhadap polisi syarikat - Pergaduhan - YM didakwa telah bergaduh dengan Heizri bertentangan dengan terma dan syarat GPA syarikat responden - Sama ada YM telah mencetuskan pergaduhan tersebut - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Tindakan yang diambil oleh syarikat responden - Sama ada syarikat responden telah menjalankan penyiasatannya secara betul - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Apa yang syarikat responden sepatutnya lakukan - Sama ada dakwaan ini berjaya dibuktikan terhadap YM - Sama ada penamatan perkhidmatan YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Hamzani Abd Halim lwn. Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad
(Tan Ghee Phaik) [2016] 4 ILR 167
Ketidakturutan - Sama ada tindakan YM meninggalkan tempat kerja buat sementara merupakan satu salah laku - Sama ada pertuduhan ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Alasan YM - Sama ada dapat diterima - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Selvarani Mariappen lwn. Seniharta Sdn Bhd / Lanson Place Ambassador Kuala Lumpur
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2016] 4 ILR 154
Ketidakturutan - Sama ada YM gagal mengikuti arahan-arahan pihak syarikat - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Pihak syarikat gagal untuk memperincikan bila dan apakah arahan yang telah diberikan kepada beliau – Kesannya
Rajoo Perumal lwn. Schmolz Bickenbach Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2016] 4 ILR 141
Ketidakturutan - Sama ada YM gagal mengikuti arahan-arahan pihak syarikat mengenai pemotongan besi - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Sama ada dakwaan ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh pihak syarikat terhadapnya
Rajoo Perumal lwn. Schmolz Bickenbach Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2016] 4 ILR 141
Ketidakturutan - Sama ada YM ingkar perintah melalui keengganannya membuka pintu 1616 bagi pekerja kawalan serangga - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Penjelasan YM - Sama ada dapat diterima - Sama ada pertuduhan ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat terhadapnya - Sama ada salah laku tersebut merupakan suatu salah laku yang serius - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Selvarani Mariappen lwn. Seniharta Sdn Bhd / Lanson Place Ambassador Kuala Lumpur
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2016] 4 ILR 154
Ketidakturutan - Sama ada YM telah bertengkar dengan pegawai atasannya yang menyebabkan kacau ganggu di kilang - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada dakwaan ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh pihak syarikat terhadapnya
Rajoo Perumal lwn. Schmolz Bickenbach Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2016] 4 ILR 141
Prestasi kerja - Prestasi kerja yang tidak memuaskan - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh pihak syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada YM dimaklumkan tentang prestasi kerjanya yang tidak memuaskan dan diberi peluang untuk memperbaikinya - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Apa yang pihak syarikat seharusnya lakukan - Sama ada tindakan pihak syarikat adalah berpatutan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Rajoo Perumal lwn. Schmolz Bickenbach Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Siti Salwa Musa) [2016] 4 ILR 141
Salah laku - YM didakwa bergaduh dengan Heizri - Pembelaan beliau - Sama ada dapat diterima - Heizri tidak dipanggil sebagai saksi - Kesannya - Sama ada YM melalui tindakannya hanya mempertahankan diri dan teman wanitanya - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada salah laku tersebut berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat responden - Sama ada salah laku tersebut mewajarkan pembuangan kerja YM - Sama ada penamatan perkhidmatan YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Hamzani Abd Halim lwn. Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad
(Tan Ghee Phaik) [2016] 4 ILR 167
Salah laku jenayah - YM mengaku bersalah di Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah Seremban di bawah s. 159 Kanun Keseksaan - Sama ada pengakuan tersebut telah dibuat secara sukarela dan dapat diterima - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan syarikat responden menggunakan pengakuan ini sebagai alasan untuk memberhentikan perkhidmatan beliau adalah betul - Sama ada pembuangan kerja beliau telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Hamzani Abd Halim lwn. Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad
(Tan Ghee Phaik) [2016] 4 ILR 167
SIASATAN DALAMAN
Kesilapan prosedur - Sama ada prosiding SD yang dijalankan telah mematuhi prinsip keadilan asasi - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira
Mary Ebenezer Anthony lwn. Hume Roofing Products Sdn Bhd
(Rasidah Chik) [2016] 4 ILR 27
|