MOHD REDHA TALIB v. PADIBERAS NASIONAL BERHAD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
NOOR RUWENA DATO’ MOHD NURDIN
AWARD NO. 1002 OF 2017 [CASE NO: 12(14)/4-307/14]
17 JULY 2017

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Existence of – Whether there had existed a post-retirement contract of employment between the parties – Whether the elements to show the existence of a contract had been fulfilled – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the claimant by virtue of his retirement had ceased to be an employee of the company – Whether the claimant had been dismissed by the company

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Type of – Claimant offered a conditional contract of employment which did not materialise – Retired claimant – Whether retirement always justified the termination of service of a workman – Whether he had ceased employment with the company after his retirement – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Whether the remedy of reinstatement had been available to him – Where the proper forum for redress had been for him – Whether he had been dismissed by the company – Whether his dismissal had been with just cause and excuse

INDUSTRIAL COURT: Jurisdiction – Retired claimant – Whether his retirement had brought his contract of employment to an end – Whether the remedy under s. 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 had been available to him – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to hear this matter – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2 & 20(1)

INDUSTRIAL COURT: Remedies – Reinstatement – Whether the remedy of reinstatement had been available to the claimant – Factors to consider – Effect of

JUSTEEN CLEMENTS v. MATRIX GLOBAL SCHOOLS (MATRIX GLOBAL EDUCATION SDN BHD)
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
ANDERSEN ONG WAI LEONG
AWARD NO. 1024 OF 2017 [CASE NO: 19/4-1622/16]
24 JULY 2017

INDUSTRIAL COURT: Jurisdiction – Whether the Industrial Court had the jurisdiction to stay its own proceedings – Factors to consider – Effect of – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 29(g)

INDUSTRIAL COURT: Procedure – Action – Whether the Industrial Court had the jurisdiction to stay its own proceedings pending arbitration – Whether the Arbitration Act had applied to it – Factors to consider – Effect of – Arbitration Act 2005, s. 10 & Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 29(g)

RESTRAINTS OF TRADE AND REPUDIATION: WHY EMPLOYERS NEED TO BE CAREFUL WHEN DIRECTING DEPARTING EMPLOYEES TO GO ON GARDENING LEAVE
AUSTRALIA
Employment
Court can find implied right to direct employee to go on gardening leave
Restraints of trade: When will directions by employers to departing employees constitute repudiation? A recent NSW Supreme Court decision has upheld the validity of an employer’s direction to place a departing employee on gardening leave as well as enforcing a six month post-employment non-compete restraints of trade. The judgment confirms that if an employer is careful not to repudiate the employment agreement, it can direct a senior employee to go on gardening leave and return company property at the time of the direction.

Read More

SUSPENSION SHOULD NOT BE A ‘KNEE-JERK’ REACTION ACCORDING TO THE RECENT HIGH COURT CASE OF AGOREYO V LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH
UK
Employment
Employers should not simply suspend employee as precautionary act for investigation
When should you suspend employees? Employers should not suspend employees as a matter of course. Suspension of employees should only be carried out when it is necessary and reasonable in the circumstances. According to ACAS’ guide on Discipline and grievances at work, suspension may be necessary and reasonable where “relationships have broken down, in gross misconduct cases or where there are risks to an employee’s or the company’s property or responsibilities to other parties. Exceptionally you may wish to consider suspension with pay where you have reasonable grounds for concern that evidence has been tampered with, destroyed or witnesses pressurised before the meeting.”

Read More