|
PAPER AND PAPER PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. ORNAPAPER INDUSTRY (M) SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
PARAMALINGAM J DORAISAMY
EMPLOYER’S PANEL: SABRI ISHAK
EMPLOYEE’S PANEL: MATHIALAGHAN VERARAGHAVAN
AWARD NO. 688 OF 2020 [CASE NO: 22(15)(21)(26)(13)(1)/2-509/08]
1 JUNE 2020
TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Preliminary objection raised on whether the union had the locus standi to proceed with the case where none of its members had been company employees – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of
MOHD ROZI OTHMAN v. SURIA STRATEGIC ENERGY RESOURCES SDN BHD
(consolidated with Case No.: 12/4-159/19, 12/4-160/19, 12/4-161/19, 12/4-162/19, 12/4-163/19, 12/4-164/19, 12/4-165/19, 12/4-166/19, 12/4-167/19, 12/4-168/19, 12/4-169/19, 12/4-172/19, 12/4-174/19, 12/4-175/19, 12/4-179/19, 12/4-180/19, 12/4-181/19, 12/4-183/19, 12/4-271/19, 12/4-173/19, 12/4-174/19, via Interim Award No. 1689 of 2019 dated 11 June 2019)
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
NOOR RUWENA MOHD NURDIN
AWARD NO. 691 OF 2020 [CASE NO: 12/4-158/19]
1 JUNE 2020
CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT: Terms and conditions – Whether the claimants had been on fixed-term contracts and had known that it had had an end date – Whether the company had promised them renewals on their respective contracts of employment – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Claimants’ actions – What it had shown – Evidence Act 1950, ss. 101 & 103
DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – Claimants’ employments terminated and GTM and independent consultants appointed by company to perform tasks – Functions of GTM and the independent contractors upon appointment – Whether these appointments had been intended to victimise the claimants – Whether these appointments had been a management prerogative – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether there had been a redundancy situation in the company at the material time which had led to their “retrenchment”
DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – Claimants’ employments terminated due to a redundancy situation arising from the cancellation of the Projects by the Government – Whether the Government’s decision to cancel the projects had been carried out mala fide – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether a genuine redundancy situation had existed to justify their dismissals – Whether the claimants’ retrenchments had been carried out bona fide
DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – Whether the company had complied with due process in carrying out the claimants’ retrenchments – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the claimants had been given enough time to find alternative employment – Whether there had been any legal obligation on the company to consult or warn its employees before undertaking a retrenchment exercise – Effect of – Whether LIFO had been applicable in the present case where all the company’s employees had been terminated
DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – Whether this had been an ordinary retrenchment case where a company had downsized and discharged its surplus employees – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Company stating financial unsustainability in retaining the claimants due to the suspension and subsequent termination of the Projects rather than being in a dire financial situation – What that had meant – Whether the Government had made a business decision (through MoF Inc., its investment arm) in relation to the Projects as it had been a matter of national concern – Effect of – Whether the termination of the claimants’ employments had been carried out in accordance with accepted standards and procedures
EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence – Claimants seeking to introduce new evidence after the completion of the hearing of the case and whilst the award was being written – The way in which the evidence had sought to be introduced – Whether it had been fair to the company – Whether it had been equitable to allow it – Factors to consider – Whether parties had been bound by their pleadings
|
