| << Back | BULLETIN 12/2014 |
|
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 11 of 2014) SUBJECT INDEX DISMISSAL Breach of company rules and policies - Conflict of interest with the company’s business - Claimants setting up an enterprise carrying out similar business to the company - Whether the company’s Board sanction had been obtained - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Duty of the claimants towards the company - Positions held by the claimants in the company - Whether this charge had been established against them - Whether the company had successfully discharged its burden of proof - Effect of - Whether dismissals without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Misconduct - Irregularities found in invoicing for work done for two entities - Claimants failing to give explanations - Conduct of the claimants instead - Effect of - What it had meant - Whether the company had been justified in dismissing them - Whether dismissals without just cause and excuse Notice of termination - Forced resignation - Whether the claimant had been forced to resign - Contents of his resignation letter - Claimant’s conduct thereafter - Whether he had been put under a compulsion to resign - Evidence adduced - Effect of Notice of termination - Forced resignation - Whether the claimant had been forced to resign - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Whether proven by the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) DOMESTIC INQUIRY Charges - Whether defective - Factors to consider - Effect of EMPLOYMENT Unfair dismissal - Picketing - Appeal from Court of Appeal - Lawful trade union picketing by employees against employer bank - Picketers barged into lobby and banking hall - Bank issued letters of suspension to 15 employees - Appellants found guilty and dismissed from service while five others not dismissed - Whether there was unequal treatment in dismissing appellants EVIDENCE Preliminary objection - Whether the collective agreement had complied with s. 14(2)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Whether it had been void - Factors to consider - Effect of - When a collective agreement would be deemed void - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 14(2)(c), 14(3) & 17(1) Preliminary objection - Whether the collective agreement had expired - Factors to consider - Words used therein - Effect of the said collective agreement being an award of court - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 14(2)(b) INDUSTRIAL COURT Jurisdiction - Whether the Industrial Court could review punishment imposed on a workman in a trade dispute - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 30(5) Procedure - Action - Company in the midst of being wound-up and obtaining a Restraining Order in the High Court - Whether the Restraining Order bound the Industrial Court - Factors to consider - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20 and Companies Act 1965, s. 176(10) LABOUR LAW Industrial Court - Unfair dismissal - Award - Compensation in lieu of reinstatement - Second respondent had passed compulsory retirement age when award handed down - Whether there was legal basis for second respondent to be awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement - Whether Industrial Court fell into error in awarding compensation - Whether award should be quashed - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(1), (3), 30(5) Trade union - Picketing - Lawful trade union picketing by employees against employer bank - Picketers barged into lobby and banking hall - Bank issued letters of suspension to 15 employees - Appellants found guilty and dismissed from service while five others not dismissed - Punishment of dismissal - Whether warranted and proportionate to findings of misconduct - Whether courts below took into consideration that appellants were long standing employees of bank - Whether there was unequal treatment in dismissing appellants NON-COMPLIANCE Collective Agreement - Article on meal allowance - Basic wages of affected workmen increased pursuant to the Minimum Wages Order 2012 - Meal allowances of affected workmen stopped - Whether basic wages had included monetary allowances - Factors to consider - Rationale behind the Minimum Wages Order 2012 - Effect of - Conduct of the respondents - Whether it had smacked of discrimination Collective Agreement - Article on meal allowance - Respondents admitting to breaching the article in the said collective agreement - Whether there had been special circumstances to vary the award - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether non-compliance ought to be ordered TRADE DISPUTE Collective Agreement - Article on terms of employment of Sales Advisors - Union accorded recognition by the respondent company - Whether the terms and conditions of Sales Advisors had been confidential in nature - Respondent company not referring dispute under s. 9(1A) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - What that had meant - Effect ofKesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perdagangan v. UMW Toyota Motor Sdn Bhd (Susila Sithamparam) [2014] 4 ILR 330  
Collective Agreement - Article on terms of employment of Sales Advisors - Whether the union had the right to bargain on the same - Factors to consider - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 9(1A) Punishment order - Aggrieved workman found guilty of misconduct and demoted as punishment - Aggrieved workman receiving same wages despite demotion - Whether the respondent company had acted within its managerial prerogative - Factors to consider - Effect of Punishment order - Aggrieved workman found guilty of misconduct and demoted as punishment - Whether the misconduct had been proven against her - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Whether it had been a serious misconduct - Factors to consider - Whether the demotion order had been a proper exercise of the respondent company’s managerial powers TRADE UNION Company promoting the union President - Whether the promotion had been in accordance with its past practice - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the promotion had been unlawful - What the company should have done - Whether the promotion had been an unfair labour practice Company promoting the union President without his consent - Reasons for the same - Whether it had been an attempt by the company to interfere in and disrupt union activities - Evidence adduced - Whether it had been an unlawful labour practice - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 4(1) & 5(1)(a), (c) & (e) Union lodging a complaint against the company pursuant to s. 4 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Company promoting the union President without his consent - Whether it had been an attempt to interfere and disrupt the union’s activities - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 4 & 8 INDEKS PERKARA KETERANGAN Saksi - Kredibiliti - Sama ada keterangan COW2, COW5 dan CLW5 dapat diterima - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN Remedi - Pampasan - Jumlah yang seharusnya diawardkan - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira Remedi - Pengembalian semula YM ke jawatannya - Sama ada praktikal - Syarikat digulung dan kini berada di bawah tanggungan Pegawai Penerima PEMBUANGAN KERJA Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif - Syarikat responden menawar pakej pekerjaan yang baru kepada YM tanpa perbincangan dengannya - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh YM - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif - Syarikat responden menawar pakej pekerjaan yang baru kepada YM tanpa perbincangan dengannya - Sama ada merupakan suatu pemecahan terma-terma asas kontrak pekerjaannya yang asal - Penilaian terma dan syarat tawaran pakej pekerjaan yang baru berbanding dengan kontrak perkhidmatan YM yang asal - Sama ada syarikat responden telah melakukan suatu kemungkiran fundamental terhadap kontrak perkhidmatan YM - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada YM telah dbuang kerja secara konstruktif Penghematan - Sama ada YM diberhentikan secara adil dan bersebab - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Syarikat digulung dan kini di bawah tanggungan Pegawai Penerima - Tiada keterangan daripada pihak syarikat - Kesannya - Apa yang sepatutnya dilakukan oleh Pegawai Penerima Salah laku - Sama ada YM bekerja dengan syarikat lain sewaktu bekerja dengan syarikat responden - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Tindakan syarikat responden - Sama ada YM telah digantung kerja atau diberhentikan perkhidmatan - Penilaian keterangan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab Salah laku - Sama ada YM bekerja dengan syarikat lain sewaktu bekerja dengan syarikat responden - Sama ada syarikat berjaya membuktikan salah laku tersebut terhadap YM - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Penjelasan YM - Sama ada dapat diterima - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil and bersebab Salah laku - Sama ada YM telah menghasut pekerja-pekerja lain untuk memboikot kerja lebih masa - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Tempoh perkhidmatan YM di syarikat - Apa yang seharusnya beliau lakukan - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan dengan sebab yang adil dan munasabah Salah laku - Sama ada YM telah menghasut pekerja-pekerja lain untuk memboikot kerja lebih masa - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Pembelaan YM - Sama ada dapat diterima SIASATAN DALAMAN Pertuduhan - Sama ada pertuduhan yang dikenakan ke atas YM adalah defektif - YM tidak menimbulkan isu ini dengan syarikat sebelum ini - Kesannya - Sama ada YM keliru dengan kandungan pertuduhan tersebut - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya |
|
| Copyright Mylawbox Sdn Bhd | Subscribe | Unsubscribe |