If you can't view the message, please click here.

IN THIS ISSUE BULLETIN 02/2018
www.cljlaw.com
www.mylawbox.com
www.labourlawbox.com
www.clj-ebooks.com
(Available with separate subscription plan)

LATEST HIGHLIGHTS
CASE HIGHLIGHTS

NADIA ABDUL JAMIL v. SAMADHI RETREATS SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
TAN GHEE PHAIK
AWARD NO. 1587 OF 2017 [CASE NO: 13(14)/4-569/13]
1 NOVEMBER 2017

DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal - Change in job scope - Claimant instructed to do work for COW2's other businesses - Whether it had been part of her job scope - Perusal of the contract of employment - Effect of - Claimant doing work for other businesses previously - Whether it had amounted to acquiescence - What she should have done - Whether the respondent company's actions had been a fundamental breach that had gone to the root of the contract of employment - Whether the claimant had been constructively dismissed

DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal - Change in job scope - Whether the claimant by her actions had elected to affirm the contract of employment - Factors to consider - Claimant subsequently walking out of her employment - Whether her actions had amounted to her abandoning her job - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the respondent company by its actions had repudiated the contract of employment - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)

DISMISSAL: Insubordination - Whether the claimant had refused to follow the lawful instructions of COW2 - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Whether she had in fact been the one in breach of her employment contract

MOHD SHAFIQ HELMI SOHARI v. NEXT LOGISTICS SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
ANNA NG FUI CHOO
AWARD NO. 1774 OF 2017 [CASE NO: 3/4-937/15]
8 DECEMBER 2017

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Notice of termination - Company issuing the claimant a backdated termination letter - Whether it had taken the law into its own hands by doing so - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the company's actions of failing to pay him half pay, during his period of suspension, despite agreeing to pay him earlier, had tantamounted to an unfair labour practice

DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Whether the claimant had allowed the company's competitor to enter the warehouse without permission - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Whether the company had proven the charge on a balance of probability - What its actions had shown - Claimant's defence - Whether could be accepted - Whether the claimant's dismissal had been carried out with just cause and excuse

DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Whether the claimant had failed to follow the company's procedures by allowing the company's competitor to enter the warehouse without permission - Evidence adduced - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether there had been any written procedures in place - Whether the company had succeeded in proving these charges against him - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse

DOMESTIC INQUIRY: Procedural impropriety - Whether the DI conducted had been valid - Factors to consider - Effect of

EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence - Notes of the DI - Whether it had been accurate - Evidence adduced - Effect of - What it had shown - Whether the DI had been conducted according to the rules of natural justice

LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 1 of 201)
Award Parties Citation Links
1338/2017 Shahrazad Mohamad v. Millesime Hotel Sdn Bhd [Case No: 16/4-643/17] [2018] 1 ILR 1 cljlaw
labourlaw
1495/2017 Teh Poh Ghim v. QSR Trading Sdn Bhd [Case No: 3/4-561/16] [2018] 1 ILR 5 cljlaw
labourlaw
1575/2017 Wong Mei Yoke v. Tien Wah Press (Malaya) Sdn Bhd [Case No: 18(12)/4-135/16] [2018] 1 ILR 20 cljlaw
labourlaw
1587/2017 Nadia Abdul Jamil v. Samadhi Retreats Sdn Bhd [Case No: 13(14)/4-569/13] [2018] 1 ILR 36 cljlaw
labourlaw
1629/2017 Lars Kruse Thomsen v. Hot - Can Sdn Bhd [Case No: 18(12)/4-1042/14] [2018] 1 ILR 52 cljlaw
labourlaw
1650/2017 Quek Lee Fun v. Good Spiral Sdn Bhd [Case No: 19/4-38/16] [2018] 1 ILR 67 cljlaw
labourlaw
1651/2017 M Sivalingam Muniandy v. Lord WBK Haulage Sdn Bhd [Case No: 9/4-1287/13] [2018] 1 ILR 82 cljlaw
labourlaw
1659/2017 Tan Sim Hong lwn. Scope Manufacturers (M) Sdn Bhd [No. Kes: 10/4-1199/15] [2018] 1 ILR 95 cljlaw
labourlaw
1705/2017 Simon Anthonysamy v. Royal Selangor Club [Case No: 4/4-661/15] [2018] 1 ILR 109 cljlaw
labourlaw
1710/2017 All Malayan Estates Staff Union v. Revertex (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [Case No: 16/3-1234/15] [2018] 1 ILR 129 cljlaw
labourlaw
1757/2017 Ratna Azah Rosli lwn. Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia [No. Kes: 6(24)/4-357/13] [2018] 1 ILR 137 cljlaw
labourlaw
1774/2017 Mohd Shafiq Helmi Sohari v. Next Logistics Sdn Bhd [Case No: 3/4-937/15] [2018] 1 ILR 155 cljlaw
labourlaw
1784/2017 Haszeri Hussin v. Hong Leong Islamic Bank Berhad [Case No: 12/4-58/15] [2018] 1 ILR 171 cljlaw
labourlaw
1796/2017 Chan Weng Hoi lwn. Sime Darby Industrial Sdn Bhd [Kes No: 6/4-76/15] [2018] 1 ILR 214 cljlaw
labourlaw
To Subject Index
ARTICLE HIGHLIGHT

ARE UBER DRIVERS EMPLOYEES OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS? FIRST AUSTRALIAN CASE POINTS TO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
AUSTRALIA

Uber drivers in Victoria deemed independent contractors
In December 2017, we published an article considering how courts in the United States and the United Kingdom had treated Uber drivers – that is, whether they were considered employees or independent contractors. Since then, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has handed down a decision that suggests that Uber drivers, at least in Victoria, might actually be independent contractors.

Read More

CARILLION PLC GOES INTO LIQUIDATION: HOW DOES IT AFFECT THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP?
UK

Position of Carillion employees may be different from that of most employees in similar situation
News broke this week that construction giant Carillion Plc has gone into compulsory liquidation. It has since been confirmed that the High Court has appointed the Official Receiver as liquidator of Carillion Plc and its group companies. This will be of concern to many people, but particularly to the 43,000 individuals employed by Carillion, some 20,000 of which are based in the UK. This is a complicated matter given the number of public sector contracts held by the Carillion group. Full details of how Carillion’s liquidation will be managed are yet to emerge, but The Official Receiver has announced that its priority is to ensure the continuity of public services whilst securing the best outcome for creditors.

Read More

Copyright Mylawbox Sdn Bhd Subscribe | Unsubscribe