 |
||
|
||
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 11 of 2022) |
||
|
SUBJECT INDEX CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT Terms and conditions – Notice of termination – Company terminating the
claimant, solely based on its client’s instructions and her Contract of Service – Reasons for the claimant’s employment – Effect of – What she had agreed
to – Whether she had been dismissed with just cause and excuse DISMISSAL Breach of company rules and policies – Medical benefits – Whether the
claimant had abused his medical leave benefits – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Perusal of his Letter of Appointment – Whether the charge had successfully been established against him – Whether it had justified his dismissal – Whether dismissal without just
cause or excuse Constructive dismissal – Company declaring the matter resolved and closed,
after Kate’s withdrawal of complaint against the claimant – Claimant
insisting that the company secure a written admission and apology from Kate
on her alleged false complaint against her and a written apology from YY
Chew on her purported belligerent behaviour towards her – Whether
reasonable – Whether the company had been obliged to comply – Effect of – What the company’s conduct had shown – Whether it had amounted to a
breach of the express and/or implied terms of the claimant’s contract of
employment – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether
the company, by its conduct, had expressed an intention to no longer be
bound by the employment contract with the claimant – Effect of – Whether
it had entitled the claimant to walk out and claim constructive dismissal – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Constructive dismissal – Company’s actions in dealing with Kate’s
complaint against the claimant – Whether it had followed its own internal
grievance procedures – Claimant’s actions in turn – Whether reasonable – Whether her contention that the Chairperson of the grievance hearing had
been belligerent, abusive and had demanded her resignation during the
hearing had been supported by the evidence – Evaluation of the evidence – Effect of MACC investigation – Claimant terminated whilst still under investigation
by MACC – Whether the company had acted hastily – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – What the company should have done
instead – Whether his dismissal had been against the principle of
presumption of innocence, a basic rule of law – Effect of – Whether his
dismissal had been unfairly carried out Misconduct – Claimant arrested by MACC to carry out investigations – Whether he had blemished the company’s image and reputation – Evidence
adduced – Effect of – Whether the charge had been proven by the company
against him – Whether the company had acted hastily in dismissing him – Whether his dismissal had been against public policy – Whether dismissal
without just cause or excuse Misconduct – Whether the claimant had been guilty of patterned leave
usage, whereby, he had consistently taken leave on Fridays and Mondays – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Claimant admitting to
it – Whether the charge had successfully been proven against him – Whether it had justified his dismissal – Whether dismissal without just
cause or excus DOMESTIC INQUIRY Absence of – Whether fatal to the company’s case – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of EVIDENCE Action – Preliminary objection – Claimant raising a PO to the admissibility
of the audio recordings tendered by the company as evidence – Whether the
PO ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect
of Admissibility – Audio evidence – When a determination on its admissibility
should be made, ie, at the earliest opportunity or at the end of the trial – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether it would be
prejudicial to the party objecting to determine the matter at the end of the
trial – Effect of Documentary evidence – Company failing to tender the investigation report – Implications – Whether it had meant an investigation had not been
conducted before dismissing him – Effect of – Whether fatal to the
company’s case – Whether it had been a requirement for it to be tendered Documentary evidence – Findings of the DI – Whether it had to be taken
into consideration by the Industrial Court when determining whether
dismissal had been carried out with just cause and excuse – Factors to
consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the findings of the DI
panel had been binding on this Court Documentary evidence – Workman – Whether the founding member,
Director and Shareholder claimant had been a workman within the definition
of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 – Factors to consider – Evidence
adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Functions performed by the claimant – What it had shown – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 2 INDUSTRIAL COURT Remedies – Backwages – What would be a suitable amount to award – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Amount of time that
had passed from the date of his dismissal to the time the matter had been
remitted back to the Industrial Court for the determination of the remedies – Whether he had been in gainful employment post-dismissal – Factors to
consider – Claimant carrying out e-hailing services – Whether that had
constituted gainful employment – Evaluation of the case laws – Effect of – Industrial Relations Act 1967, Para 1 Schedule 2 Remedies – Backwages – What would be a suitable amount to award – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether he had been
in gainful employment post-dismissal – Whether any deductions ought to be
made for contributory conduct – Effect of Remedies – Compensation – Claimant claiming for his annual bonus – Whether he had been entitled to it – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of Remedies – Compensation – Interest on compensation – Claimant claiming
for 8% per annum pursuant to s. 30(1A) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 – When interest under that section became payable – Whether he had been
entitled to it – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 30(1A) Remedies – Compensation in lieu of reinstatement – Whether suitable to
award – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Age of the
claimant when he had been dismissed Remedies – Compensation in lieu of reinstatement – Whether suitable to
award – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Claimant
serving the company for four years before being dismissed Remedies – Punishment – Proportionality of punishment – Whether the
claimant’s misconduct had justified his dismissal – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Claimant serving the company for 23 years
with a clean disciplinary record – Alternative recourse that had been open
to the company for his misconduct – Company’s actions towards him – What it had shown – Whether dismissal had been the right course of action
taken by the company Remedies – Reinstatement – Whether suitable to award – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Relationship between the parties postdismissal LABOUR LAW Employment – Dismissal – Employee also President of National Union of
Flight Attendants Malaysia – Issuance of press statement in capacity as
Union leader – Whether to be considered in decision to terminate
employment – Whether role as Union leader intertwined with employment – Whether action fell within scope of trade union activities – Whether
participation in lawful activities of trade union – Whether dismissal
amounted to act of victimisation and unfair labour practice – Industrial
Relations Act 1967, s. 18 – Employment Act 1955, s. 8 – Trade Unions Act
1959, ss. 21 & 22 INDEKS PERKARA KETERANGAN Keterangan dokumentari – Sama ada YM merupakan seorang pekerja
syarikat responden – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan
yang dikemukakan – Kesannya – YM merupakan Pengarah syarikat
responden – Sama ada seseorang boleh menjadi pekerja syarikat walaupun
dilantik sebagai Pengarah – Penilaian otoriti kes-kes di Mahkamah Rayuan
dan Persekutuan – Kesannya – Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 2 MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN Remedi – Gaji kebelakang – YM digaji di bawah kontrak perkhidmatan tetap – Penentuan jumlah pampasan yang harus diawardkan kepada YM – Faktorfaktor
yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya – Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20, Jadual Kedua dan Arahan
Amalan No. 3 tahun 2019 PEMBUANGAN KERJA Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif – Cuti tanpa gaji – Sama ada tindakan
pihak hotel meletakkan YM di bawah cuti tanpa gaji, secara unilateral,
beberapa kali, merupakan satu pengingkaran terma asas kontrak
perkhidmatan antara kedua pihak – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Penilaian keterangan – Kesannya – Dunia
dilanda pandemik Covid-19 dan PKP dilaksanakan oleh Kerajaan Malaysia – Kesannya – Pihak hotel mengalami kesusutan pendapatan secara mendadak
sepanjang tempoh PKP – Sama ada tindakan pihak hotel tersebut telah
mewajarkan YM mendakwa pemecatan secara konstruktif Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif – Cuti tanpa gaji – Sama ada tindakan
pihak hotel meletakkan YM di bawah cuti tanpa gaji, secara unilateral,
mewajarkan YM meninggalkan perkhidmatannya dan mendakwa pemecatan
secara konstruktif – Kesannya – Sama ada s. 15(1) Akta Kerja 1955 harus
dipertimbangkan semula dalam keadaan di mana negara menghadapi
pandemik Covid-19 – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Kesannya – Sama ada YM telah didiskriminasi apabila dipilih dan diletak atas cuti tanpa
gaji oleh pihak hotel – Penilaian keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya – Sama ada tindakan pihak hotel tersebut telah mewajarkan YM mendakwa
pemecatan secara konstruktif – Akta Kerja 1955, s. 15(1) Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif – Gaji – Pihak responden gagal untuk
membayar gaji YM – Sama ada ianya merupakan satu kemungkiran asas
kontrak perkhidmatannya yang mewajarkan beliau menganggap dirinya
dibuang kerja secara konstruktif – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Penilaian keterangan – Kesannya – Sama
ada YM telah berjaya membuktikan pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif
oleh pihak responden – Sama ada pembuangan kerjanya telah dilakukan
secara adil dan bersebab Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif – Pemindahan – YM dipindahkan
daripada IQM Bukit Beruntung B ke IQM Bukit Beruntung A sebagai
Penolong Pengurus – Sama ada arahan pemindahan tersebut telah dilakukan
secara bona fide – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang
dikemukakan – Kesannya – Sama ada YM telah dibuang kerja secara
konstruktif – Sama ada pembuangan kerja beliau telah dilakukan secara adil
dan bersebab – Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) UNDANG-UNDANG BURUH Keselamatan sosial – Faedah hilang upaya sementara – Rayuan terhadap
keputusan Jemaah Rayuan Keselamatan Sosial – Pekerja menemui
kemalangan – Sama ada kemalangan berlaku semasa pekerja dalam
perjalanan kerja dari tempat kediaman – Sama ada kemalangan terjumlah
dalam rangkuman s. 24(1)(a) Akta Keselamatan Sosial Pekerja 1969 – Sama
ada pekerja layak menuntut faedah hilang upaya sementara UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN Semakan kehakiman – Rayuan – Majikan memecat pekerja – Keputusan
disahkan oleh Mahkamah Perusahaan – Mahkamah Tinggi menolak
permohonan semakan kehakiman pemohon – Sama ada pemohon tahu
pertuduhan terhadapnya – Sama ada pemohon diberi peluang didengar dan
membela diri – Sama ada berlaku pencabulan hak keadilan semula jadi |
||
|
