|
CHANG LEE MING v. NOVEL LINK (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
NOOR HAYATI MAT
AWARD NO. 886 OF 2021 [CASE NO: 16(7)(16)(7)(20)(11)/4-1743/18]
27 APRIL 2021
DISMISSAL: Insubordination – Claimant holding the position of General Manager in the company – Whether her actions of questioning the prerogative or certain eligibility of the Directors and shareholders of the company had constituted insubordinate behaviour – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether proven by the company against her – Whether it had justified her dismissal – Effect of
DISMISSAL: Insubordination – Whether an employee who manifestly displays his or her disagreement vocally as an act of disrespect to a manager or owner of a business, which could include certain gestures or who directly questions or mocks management decisions could be guilty of insubordination – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether proven by the company against her – Whether it had justified her dismissal – Effect of – Whether she had been harassed or bullied by the company – What the evidence had shown – Claimant lodging a police report against the company – Effect of
DISMISSAL: Misconduct – Claimant querying certain eligibility of the Directors and shareholders and alleging harassment and bullying by the company against her in a police report – Whether proven by the evidence – Evaluation of the evidence – Effect of – Whether it had constituted misconduct – Whether the company had acted reasonably in dismissing her – Whether dismissal with just cause and excuse
DISMISSAL: Performance – Poor performance – Whether the claimant had performed poorly in her daily tasks – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether proven by the company against her – Whether she had been given sufficient opportunity to improve – Claimant holding the position of General Manager – Whether she had been expected and hired to work independently and with minimal supervision – Whether the company had displayed any mala fide intention in dismissing her – Effect of – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
AHMAD RITZIALLI AHMAD ROSLI v. CASASL GOURMET SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
PARAMALINGAM J DORAISAMY
AWARD NO. 1042 OF 2021 [CASE NO: 22/4-868/20]
18 MAY 2021
DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Claimant leaving the company’s WhatsApp group, twice, without approval – Whether he had been in breach of either his Letter of Offer or the company’s standard operating procedures, memos, guidelines or policies – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether the company had proven the charge on a balance of probability – Claimant’s defence – Whether could be accepted – Whether it had justified his termination – Whether the claimant’s dismissal had been carried out with just cause and excuse
DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Whether the claimant had been in breach of the company’s mobile phone policy during working hours – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether the company had proven the charge on a balance of probability – Claimant’s defence – Whether could be accepted – Whether it had justified his termination – Whether the claimant’s dismissal had been carried out with just cause and excuse
DISMISSAL: Misconduct – Whether the claimant had been rude and disrespectful when dealing with the staff – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Position he had held in the Restaurant – What the evidence had shown – Whether the company had succeeded in proving the charge against him – Whether it had justified his dismissal
DISMISSAL: Misconduct – Whether the claimant had attended a job interview, during his working hours, without the company’s approval – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether he had been on duty at the material time – Whether the company had succeeded in proving the charge against him – Whether it had justified his dismissal
DISMISSAL: Performance – Poor performance – Whether the claimant had delivered sub-standard food to a very important client which had caused the company to lose a big contract – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether the company had successfully proven the charge against him – Whether it had justified his dismissal
DISMISSAL: Performance – Poor performance – Whether the claimant had improperly planned the staff schedule on the material date – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether the planning of staff schedule had been a part of his job scope – Effect of – Whether the company had successfully proven the charge against him – Whether it had justified his dismissal
DISMISSAL: Probationer – Claimant terminated based on six grounds consisting of poor performance, being in breach of the company’s policies and misconduct – Whether successfully proven by the company against him – No warning or show cause letters issued to him on his alleged misbehaviour – Effect of
INDUSTRIAL COURT: Remedies – Compensation – Backwages – Determination of amount to award the probationer claimant – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether a deduction for contributory misconduct ought to be made
|
