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

IN THIS ISSUE BULLETIN 11/2017
www.cljlaw.com
www.mylawbox.com
www.labourlawbox.com
www.clj-ebooks.com
(Available with separate subscription plan)

LATEST HIGHLIGHTS
CASE HIGHLIGHTS

MUHAMMAD HANIFF AZZAHARI v. TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, PENANG
DOMNIC SELVAM GNANAPRAGASAM
AWARD NO. 851 OF 2017 [CASE NO: 9/4-1022/13]
14 JUNE 2017

DISMISSAL: Misconduct – Claimant uploading the respondent company’s Letter of Censure on his Facebook page and posting various insulting comments and his personal opinion on it – Whether the misconduct had been proven by the respondent company against him – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether it had justified the respondent company dismissing him – Claimant’s explanations – Whether acceptable – Whether his conduct had been inconsistent and incompatible with the due and faithful discharge of his duties to his employer – Whether the decision to dismiss him had been justified under the circumstances – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse


KESATUAN KEBANGSAAN PEKERJA-PEKERJA HOTEL, BAR DAN RESTORAN, SEMENANJUNG MALAYSIA v. CDL HOTELS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD (GRAND MILLENNIUM KUALA LUMPUR)
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
ANNA NG FUI CHOO
EMPLOYEES’ PANEL: RIDZWAN RAMA ABDULLAH
EMPLOYERS’ PANEL: SUGUAMARAN GOVINDASAMY
AWARD NO. 1148 OF 2017 [CASE NO: 3/2-579/15]
18 AUGUST 2017

INDUSTRIAL COURT: Jurisdiction – Whether a trade dispute had existed between the parties – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether the Industrial Court had been seized with jurisdiction to hear this matter

TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on existing benefits – Whether the union’s proposals ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of

TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on individual agreement – Whether the hotel’s proposals ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether it could create havoc in the industry when it had been included extensively in other industries

TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on interpretation and implementation – Whether the union’s proposals ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of

TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on legislation – Whether a duplication of benefits in the legislation and the CA should be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of

TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on medically boarding out – Whether the union’s proposals ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of – What a medical boarding out effectively was

TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on notice of vacancy and promotion – Whether there had been an express statutory prohibition on the inclusion of a proposal on “promotion” in a collective agreement – Perusal and evaluation of legislation – Effect of – Whether the hotel’s proposals ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 13(3)

TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on paid leave for trade union courses – Whether it had come within the purview of “trade dispute” under s. 2 of the Act and should be allowed in the CA – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 2

TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on paid time-off – Whether the union’s proposals ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of

TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on recognition and scope of agreement – Whether the union’s proposal had been a standard clause and ought to be adopted – Factors to consider – Effect of

TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on retrenchment and retrenchment benefits – Whether the union’s proposals ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of

TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on salary structure – Whether the union’s proposals ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of

TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on service charge – Whether the hotel’s proposals ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether the Guidelines issued by the National Wages Consultative Council Act 2011 had been ultra vires – Perusal and evaluation of the Guidelines – Effect of

TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on sick leave and hospitalisation – Whether the status quo ought to be maintained – Factors to consider

TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on special paid leave – Whether the union’s proposals ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of

TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on uniform, laundry and shoes – Whether the union’s proposals ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of

LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 10 of 2017)
Award Parties Citation Links
  Abu Bakar Salleh & Ors v. Langkasuka Resort Sdn Bhd (Langkawi Beach Resort) & Langkawi Airport Sdn Bhd (Hotel Helang) & Anor
[Civil Appeal No: P-02(A)-1263-07-2016]
[2017] 4 ILR 1 cljlaw
labourlaw
  Fadzil Awang Kechik v. Menteri Sumber Manusia & Anor
[Judicial Review No: WA-25-95-05-2016]
[2017] 4 ILR 26 cljlaw
labourlaw
851/2017 Muhammad Haniff Azzahari v. Telekom Malaysia Berhad
[Case No: 9/4-1022/13]
[2017] 4 ILR 37 cljlaw
labourlaw
1054/2017 Persatuan Pegawai-Pegawai HSBC Bank Malaysia Berhad, Semenanjung Malaysia v. HSBC Bank Malaysia Berhad
[Case No: 22/2-728/15]
[2017] 4 ILR 44 cljlaw
labourlaw
1072/2017 Mohd Nizhar Md Kasir & Satu Lagi lwn. Malindo Airways Sdn Bhd
[No. Kes: 14/4-277/16]
[2017] 4 ILR 81 cljlaw
labourlaw
1116/2017 Norhayati Hussein v. JW Marriott Hotel Kuala Lumpur (Star Hill Hotel Sdn Bhd)
[Case No: 7(24)/4-922/11]
[2017] 4 ILR 108 cljlaw
labourlaw
1148/2017 Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Hotel, Bar Dan Restoran, Semenanjung Malaysia v. CDL Hotels (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (Grand Millennium Kuala Lumpur)
[Case No: 3/2-579/15]
[2017] 4 ILR 122 cljlaw
labourlaw
1340/2017 Ang Teck Wang v. Big Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 4/4-689/15]
[2017] 4 ILR 171 cljlaw
labourlaw
To Subject Index
ARTICLE HIGHLIGHT

HONG KONG: WHO OWNS EMPLOYEES’ WORK PRODUCT
Hong Kong

Employees instructed to sign patent over to former employer
The law recognises that employees may create valuable intellectual property during their employment, ownership of which should ordinarily rest with their employer. The recent case of Acron International Technology Ltd v Chan Yiu Wai [2017] 3 HKLRD 799 demonstrates how the law can protect an employer’s rights in respect of such intellectual property from misappropriation by an employee after the employment relationship ends.

Read More

IS YOUR NOTICE OF TERMINATION EFFECTIVE?
Australia

Notice of dismissal must specify date when employment will end
An employee has been allowed to proceed with their unfair dismissal claim because an employer did not specify their end date in the letter of termination. In the recent case of Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board v Garth Duggan [2017] FWCFB 4878 (Metropolitan Fire) the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission (Commission) found that notice of dismissal must specify the date when the employment will end, or at least provide an 'ascertainable date' in order to comply with the Fair Work Act 2009.

Read More

Copyright Mylawbox Sdn Bhd Subscribe | Unsubscribe