CASE HIGHLIGHT
ABANG AHMAD ABANG ABDUL SAMAD v. SDH MAKMUR MOTORS SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, SARAWAK
GABRIEL GUMIS
AWARD NO. 1028 OF 2011 [CASE NO: 8/4-750/06]
DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence -
Duties of the claimant towards the company - Claimant failing to renew
licenses on time - Reasons for the same - Whether the claimant had been
grossly negligent in the discharge of her duties to the company - Conduct
of the claimant - Effect of - Whether the claimant had accepted that she
had been negligent towards the company - Sequence of events - Effect of -
Claimant tendering her resignation - Whether it had been tendered
voluntarily - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether dismissal without
just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
DISMISSAL: Absenteeism - Whether proven by the company - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been on suspension at the material time - Evaluation of the evidence - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
DISMISSAL: Insubordination - Claimant asked to attend the DI - Claimant failing to attend - Whether the claimant's refusal to attend had constituted insubordinate conduct - Effect of - Whether the charge had been proven by the company - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
DISMISSAL: Misconduct - Claimant suspended from duty pending investigations - Whether the suspension letter had been a punishment - Whether the company had complied with their TACOS - Perusal of the TACOS - Effect of - Whether the company's actions of issuing the suspension letter had been reasonable - What the company should have ideally done - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3), Employment Act 1955, s. 14(2) & Sarawak Labour Ordinance
DISMISSAL: Misconduct - Whether the claimant had been involved in instigating, preparing, issuing and signing the mass-resignation letter - Whether the mass resignation letter had existed - Evidence adduced - Effect of - What the claimant should have done in such circumstances - Position held by the claimant in the company - Whether the claimant's actions or omissions had constituted misconduct - Effect of - Whether the charge had been proven by the company - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
DOMESTIC INQUIRY: Procedural impropriety - Company carrying out a Disciplinary Committee Meeting ('DCM') - Whether the DCM had been in compliance with the company's TACOS - Effect of - Whether a DCM and a DI were the same thing - Factors to consider
DOMESTIC INQUIRY: Procedural impropriety - Whether the claimant had been given sufficient notice to attend - Sequence of events - Claimant failing to attend the DI - Claimant failing to ask for a postponement of the DI - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been aware of the allegations brought against him
DOMESTIC INQUIRY: Procedural impropriety - Constitution of the panel of inquiry - Whether it had been flawed - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the flaw could be cured by the Industrial Court