If you can't view the message, please click here.
|
|||||||||||||||
CASE HIGHLIGHTS |
|||||||||||||||
KESATUAN EKSEKUTIF CANON OPTO (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD lwn. CANON OPTO (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD Abstrak – Penetapan tangga gaji maksima adalah selaras dengan amalan perhubungan perusahaan serta prinsip penetapan gaji. Ini wajib diamalkan oleh majikan walaupun tidak disentuh dalam satu-satu award Mahkamah Perusahaan. MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN: Award – Ketakpatuhan – Aduan – Aduan oleh Kesatuan Sekerja tentang ketakpatuhan award oleh syarikat – Penyelarasan dan kenaikan gaji tahunan – Sama ada award menetapkan tempoh masa untuk penyelarasan dan kenaikan gaji – Sama ada terma dalam award terpakai apabila tamat tempoh yang ditetapkan – Sama ada terdapat ketakpatuhan oleh syarikat – Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 56 KESATUAN SEKERJA: Award – Ketakpatuhan – Penyelarasan dan kenaikan gaji tahunan – Aduan oleh Kesatuan Sekerja tentang ketakpatuhan award oleh syarikat – Sama ada award menetapkan tempoh masa untuk penyelarasan dan kenaikan gaji – Sama ada terma dalam award terpakai apabila tamat tempoh yang ditetapkan – Sama ada terdapat ketakpatuhan oleh syarikat – Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 56 NON-METALIC MINERAL PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. PGF INSULATION SDN BHD Abstract – The party that proposes fundamental changes to the pay out of annual bonus and annual increment and seeks to amend salary scale, must prove such proposed changes with valid justifications. TRADE DISPUTE: Collective agreement – Terms and conditions – Articles – Dispute on articles pertaining to promotion, bonus, annual increment, retrospective benefits and salary scale – Proposals ought to be accepted – Factors considered |
|||||||||||||||
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 7 of 2023) |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
JUDICIAL QUOTES |
|||||||||||||||
"Be that as it may, the law cannot be so alienated from nor insulated and isolated from the harsh realities of life and the rough and tumble of it all. The realities of life would include for many the need to travel long distances for those who work outstation so that they may be with their families either on weekends or even a mid-week journey home. In the final analysis, the question that ought to have been asked is whether the journey in commuting is made by the employee because of his work and not for other economic or social pursuits. ... A man’s best investment is still to invest time and energy into his family and to make deposits, as they say, into the emotional bank account of his wife and children. We would be so bold to say that every employer would encourage its employee to build a strong and stable family as part of its corporate social responsibility to its stakeholders which would certainly include its employees." - Per Lee Swee Seng JCA in Sathiaseelan Nagappan v Ketua Pengarah, Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial [2023] 3 ILR 18 |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|