|
KESATUAN SEKERJA INDUSTRI ELEKTRONIK WILAYAH UTARA SEMENANJUNG MALAYSIA v. PANASONIC AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS MALAYSIA SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, PENANG
DOMNIC SELVAM GNANAPRAGASAM
EMPLOYERS' PANEL: BADRULMUNIR BABOO
EMPLOYEES' PANEL: ANUAR OTHMAN
AWARD NO. 1711 OF 2020 [CASE NO: 18/2-255/20]
26 NOVEMBER 2020
TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Across-the-board adjustments – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the current economic and health situation, partly due to the Covid-19 pandemic, augurs well for an across-the-board salary adjustment
TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Appointment and probationary period and notice of termination – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether it had been reasonable
TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Bonus – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether it is management's prerogative
TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Check-off – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Compassionate, congratulatory and paternity leave – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether it had been reasonable
TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Maternity leave – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Medical benefits – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Overtime and annual leave – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether it had been a basic requirement
TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Paid leave for union activities – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 6
TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Parties to the agreement and effective date and duration – Determination of – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 30(7)
TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Public holidays overtime – Whether it ought to be allowed - Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Employment Act 1955
TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Recognition of the union – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Renegotiation of the agreement – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Retirement benefits – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether it is best left to the discretion of the employer
TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Retrenchment and retrenchment benefits – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Termination and Lay-Off Benefits Regulations 1980
TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Salary scale and annual increment – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the prerogative to determine the job scope had been with the employer or the union
TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Transport allowances – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether it is management's prerogative
PAAT YUK CHEONG v. SEALINK SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, SARAWAK
ANI AK SOLEP
AWARD NO. 1715 OF 2020 [CASE NO: 8/4-932/18]
27 NOVEMBER 2020
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Terms and conditions – Resignation – Claimant stating “I resign” – Reasons for the same – Whether it had constituted a verbal resignation – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Company's actions towards him – What it had shown – Whether he had been under duress and undue influence when he had stated he resigned verbally – Whether the company, by its actions had forced him to resign – Effect of – Whether the company had been in breach of its obligations towards him – Whether he had been dismissed by the company – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal – Whether the conditions for constructive dismissal had been fulfilled by the claimant – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether his claim ought to be allowed
INDUSTRIAL COURT: Remedies – Punishment – Whether the punishment of dismissal had been too harsh under the circumstances – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether he had been subjected to the procedures and processes as per the Company Employee Handbook – Effect of – Whether the company's actions had been a fundamental breach that had gone to the root of his contract of employment – Whether dismissal had been justified – What the company should have done instead
|
