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

IN THIS ISSUE BULLETIN 10/2018
www.cljlaw.com
www.mylawbox.com
www.labourlawbox.com
www.clj-ebooks.com
(Available with separate subscription plan)

LATEST HIGHLIGHTS
CASE HIGHLIGHTS

MALAYSIAN AIRLINE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES’ UNION PENINSULAR MALAYSIA (MASEU) v. MALAYSIA AIRLINE SYSTEM BERHAD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
RAJENDRAN NAYAGAM
EMPLOYERS’ PANEL: ALAN NETTO
EMPLOYEES’ PANEL: KAMARUL BAHRAIN
AWARD NO. 1258 OF 2018 [CASE NO: 23(3)/3-254/15]
4 JUNE 2018

TRADE UNION: Whether the trade union had the locus standi to represent its members – Factors to consider – Evidence showing that at the time of the hearing of the matter, all the employees of the company had been dismissed – Effect of – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2, 18(1) & 26(2)

WORDS & PHRASES: Definition of “party” in s. 2 of the Industrial Relations Act – Whether it had included the union in the present case – Factors to consider – Effect of


THE ANDAMAN A LUXURY COLLECTION RESORT, LANGKAWI (ANDAMAN RESORT SDN BHD) v. KESATUAN KEBANGSAAN PEKERJA-PEKERJA HOTEL, BAR & RESTORAN SEMENANJUNG MALAYSIA
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
JAMHIRAH ALI
EMPLOYEES’ PANEL: GILBERT JOHN AROKIA
EMPLOYERS’ PANEL: ANANDARAJU MOOKKAPILLAI
AWARD NO. 1609 OF 2018 [CASE NO: 7(13)/3-208/14]
13 JULY 2018

TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Whether the hotel could utilise the service charge of the employees in order to comply with the Minimum Wages Order 2012 – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Reasoning behind the introduction of minimum wages and service charge – Whether service charge had been part of “wages” – Legislations to consider – Effect of – Whether the workmen had been subject to the Employment Act 1955 – Factors to consider – Effect of – Employment Act 1955, s. 2, Minimum Wages Order 2012, O. 6, National Wages Consultative Council Act 2011, ss. 2 & 23, Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, s.17A and Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 30(4), (5) & (6) and 17(2)

TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Hotel utilising the service charge of the employees in order to comply with the Minimum Wages Order 2012 – Whether the hotel’s actions had amounted to a unilateral variation of art. 12 of the 5th Collective Agreement – Factors to consider – Effect of

WORDS & PHRASES: “minimum wages” – Definition of – Legislations to consider – Effect of – National Wages Consultative Council Act 2011, ss. 2 & 23, Employment Act 1955, s. 2 and Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, s. 17A

WORDS & PHRASES: “wages” – Definition of – Whether it had included service charge – Factors to consider – Effect of – Intention of the parties – Guidelines to the National Wages Consultative Council Act 2011, Employment Act 1955, s. 2, Minimum Wages Order 2012, O. 6 & Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 30(5)

LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 9 of 2018)
Award Parties Citation Links
  Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial lwn. Yazmin Mohd Sulaiman
[Rayuan Sivil No: CB-16-01-02-2017]
[2018] 3 ILR 417 cljlaw
labourlaw
  Mohd Zamri Ismail v. Koperasi Pekebun Kecil Getah Nasional Bhd
[Civil Appeal No: W-02(A)-789-04-2016]
[2018] 3 ILR 423 cljlaw
labourlaw
1258/2018 Malaysian Airline System Employees’ Union Peninsular Malaysia (MASEU) v. Malaysia Airline System Berhad
[Case No: 23(3)/3-254/15]
[2018] 3 ILR 436 cljlaw
labourlaw
1336/2018 Azrizal Ali v. Sime Darby Auto Hyundai Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 22/4-1159/16]
[2018] 3 ILR 440 cljlaw
labourlaw
1375/2018 National Union Of Hotel, Bar & Restaurant Workers, Peninsular Malaysia v. Alor Setar Holiday Villa Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 1/1-8/18]
[2018] 3 ILR 459 cljlaw
labourlaw
1379/2018 Pream Anand Tharmalingam v. T-System Malaysia Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 31(2)/4-572/16]
[2018] 3 ILR 470 cljlaw
labourlaw
1416/2018 Teoh Boey Ean v. Control Techniques Drives (M) Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 22/4-1515/16]
[2018] 3 ILR 482 cljlaw
labourlaw
1466/2018 Marsiha Akhir v. Hewlett-Packard Multimedia Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 4/4-1417/16]
[2018] 3 ILR 499 cljlaw
labourlaw
1609/2018 The Andaman A Luxury Collection Resort, Langkawi (Andaman Resort Sdn Bhd) v. Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Hotel, Bar & Restoran Semenanjung Malaysia
[Case No: 7(13)/3-208/14]
[2018] 3 ILR 514 cljlaw
labourlaw
1665/2018 Daniel Subramaniam v. Sime Darby Plantation Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 27(7)/4-1216/16]
[2018] 3 ILR 573 cljlaw
labourlaw
To Subject Index
ARTICLE HIGHLIGHT

NO CLASS ACTION FOR UNHAPPY UBER DRIVERS: U.S. APPEALS COURT
US
Uber drivers lose critical court ruling, cannot sue company as a class
Uber Technologies Inc won a legal victory on Tuesday as a federal appeals court said drivers seeking to be classified as employees rather than independent contractors must arbitrate their claims individually, and not pursue class-action lawsuits. In a 3-0 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed a lower court judge’s denial of Uber’s motion to compel arbitration in three lawsuits. It also overturned the class certification in one of the lawsuits of thousands of California drivers who had driven for the San Francisco-based ride-hailing company since August 2009.

Read More

FOODORA TO FIGHT ALLEGED UNFAIR DISMISSAL CASE
AUSTRALIA
Former Foodora rider's case could help set precedent
Foodora will continue to fight an alleged unfair dismissal case after Australian tax authorities classified the company's food delivery riders as employees instead of independent contractors. The Australian Taxation Office and Revenue NSW started chasing Foodora for unpaid tax and superannuation before the food delivery company went into voluntary administration last month. Revenue NSW has notified Foodora's administrator the gig company owes $558,075 in payroll tax because it classified Foodora cyclists as employees and not independent contractors as claimed by the company.

Read More

Copyright Mylawbox Sdn Bhd Subscribe/Unsubscribe