CHIN KIM MENG v. GENERAL LABELS & LABELLING (M) SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
RAJESWARI KARUPIAH
AWARD NO. 1872 OF 2023 [CASE NO: 20-4-312-22]
5 SEPTEMBER 2023

Abstract - An acceptance of a termination package consisting of salary in lieu of notice period and gratuity does not bar an employee from claiming that he had been dismissed without just cause or excuse.

LABOUR LAW: Employment - Termination - Performance - Employee served with warning letters and later transferred to another department - Duties and functions of new role not explained by employer - Employee terminated three months later purportedly for not performing to management expectations - Whether there was discussion or counselling as to in which respects employee did not fulfil expectations - Whether termination with just cause or excuse

FRANCIS LIM CHUNN LOONG v. FLEXIBLE TOP SERVICES SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
SYED NOH SAID NAZIR
AWARD NO. 2089 OF 2023 [CASE NO: 21-4-1380-20]
11 OCTOBER 2023

Abstract - The use of derogatory language towards colleagues or superior officers cannot be condoned or accepted as a norm. Using inappropriate words, coupled with being disrespectful, is a serious misbehaviour and such offensive acts would damage the working environment and relationship between the employer and the employee. An employer, in dealing with such misconduct by an employee, would have a valid and just cause in exercising its right to dismiss such employee. The suitability of an employee is based on his conduct, behaviour, attitude, right skills and competence and temperament and the best person to judge this criterion would be the employer.

LABOUR LAW: Employment - Dismissal - Constructive dismissal - Employee used abusive and vulgar words in communication with other staff - Employee transferred and re-designated - Whether there was constructive dismissal - Whether transfer and re-designation amounted to breach of fundamental terms which went to root of employee's contract - Whether employer authorised to transfer and re-designate employee

LABOUR LAW: Misconduct - Disruptive behaviour - Using foul language and making offensive remarks

Award	Parties	Citation	Links
1872/2023	Chin Kim Meng v. General Labels & Labelling (M) Sdn Bhd [Case No: 20-4-312-22]	[2023] 4 ILR 247
1952/2023	Mohd Najib Jamaludin v. Tenaga Nasional Berhad [Case No: 18-4-2768-20]	[2023] 4 ILR 262
2000/2023	Abdul Rashid Yusoh v. Grand Elite Sdn Bhd [Case No: 15(6)-4-141-21]	[2023] 4 ILR 293
2002/2023	Tan Tai Khui v. Solar District Cooling Sdn Bhd [Case No: 22-4-2968-20]	[2023] 4 ILR 322
2013/2023	Tee Hui Yu v. Dahtec Marketing Sdn Bhd [Case No: 4-4-1212-22]	[2023] 4 ILR 340
2063/2023	Suresh Ramasamy v. Hong Leong Bank Berhad [Case No: 5-4-950-21]	[2023] 4 ILR 351
2074/2023	Jessica Barthy Das Sivadas v. American Express (M) Sdn Bhd [Case No: 7-4-2398-19]	[2023] 4 ILR 374
2089/2023	Francis Lim Chunn Loong v. Flexible Top Services Sdn Bhd [Case No: 21-4-1380-20]	[2023] 4 ILR 388
2126/2023	Syed Fazal Syed Thajudeen v. Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) [Case No: 3-4-1438-20]	[2023] 4 ILR 401
2179/2023	Syed Hizam Alsagoff v. Cahya Mata Sarawak Berhad [Case No: 8-4-895-22]	[2023] 4 ILR 421

SUBJECT INDEX

"The evidence clearly shows that the claimant’s absenteeism is more to the claimant’s own aversion to coming to work due to the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. If every employee takes the position that they will not come to work because of these types of excuses despite the lawful request of the company, the company’s operation and the industry as a whole would come to a grinding halt. The documents before this court also clearly prove that the claimant’s reasons for not coming to work are unacceptable. The claimant seems to display a nonchalant and could not be bothered attitude towards his work and this can be seen from his messages to the company, for example in response to the company requesting him to settle his problem as soon as possible, the claimant’s responses were “cannot settle, wait until the cases drop”, “Not my problem, the COVID problem”.

Assuming for a moment that all essential workers in this country, ranging from food delivery workers, transporters, truckers, lorry drivers, nurses, doctors, factory workers, Government enforcement agencies’ personnel and other countless people in the workforce, had taken the same position like the claimant, what could possibly happen to this country? Fortunately, these heroic essential workers knew the immense risk involved but nevertheless were brave enough to face it for the sake of all who stayed protected in their sanctuaries and safe houses and for that, history will remember them with gratitude for a long time to come." - Per Augustine Anthony in Tee Hui Yu v Dahtec Marketing Sdn Bhd [2023] 4 ILR 340