CASE HIGHTLIGHTS

LEE LILY v. NOVARTIS CORPORATION (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
BERNARD JOHN KANNY
EMPLOYERS’ PANEL: JAMILIN TIASAN
EMPLOYEES’ PANEL: KAMARUL BAHARIN
AWARD NO. 832 OF 2019 [CASE NO: 29/6-3112/18]
1 MARCH 2019

INDUSTRIAL COURT: Remedies – Reinstatement – Annual leave entitlement – Whether the claimant had been entitled to it after she had been reinstated – Factors to consider – Effect of

INDUSTRIAL COURT: Remedies – Reinstatement – Backwages – Whether the claimant had been entitled to her full 28 months of backwages – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether she had been limited by Practice Note No. 1 or the Second Schedule of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 – Whether the Second Schedule of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 had only applied to compensation in lieu of reinstatement – Evaluation of the case laws and relevant legislation – Effect of – Industrial Relations Act 1967, Second Schedule

INDUSTRIAL COURT: Remedies – Reinstatement – Bonus – Whether the claimant had been entitled to it after she had been reinstated – Factors to consider – Effect of

INDUSTRIAL COURT: Remedies – Reinstatement – HSBC retirement benefits – Whether the claimant had been entitled to it after she had been reinstated – Factors to consider – Effect of

INDUSTRIAL COURT: Remedies – Reinstatement – Long-term service award – Whether the claimant had been entitled to it after she had been reinstated – Factors to consider – Effect of

INDUSTRIAL COURT: Remedies – Reinstatement – Share option payments – Whether the claimant had been entitled to it after she had been reinstated – Factors to consider – Effect of

INTERPRETATION: Award – What benefits and allowance had been payable to the claimant after she had been reinstated in the company – Factors to consider – Effect of – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 33(1) & the Second Schedule

HAIKHIDIL JAMALUDIN v. HICOM AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURERS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
PARAMALINGAM J DORAISAMY
AWARD NO. 835 OF 2019 [CASE NO: 30(11)/4-542/2017]
1 MARCH 2019

DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Tarnishing the image of the company – Claimant taking part in the assembly despite being told not to – What his actions had shown – Whether he had been in breach of rr. 35 and 48 of the company’s Dasar Dan Tatacara Tatatertib – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – His duties towards the company – Whether he had fulfilled them – Factors to consider – Whether his actions had amounted to serious misconduct – Whether the company’s image had been tarnished – Assembly being held peacefully – Whether that had been a relevant consideration – Whether his actions had justified his dismissal – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse

DISMISSAL: Misconduct – Whether the claimant’s participation in the assembly had constituted serious misconduct – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the charge had been proven by the company against him – What his actions had portrayed – Claimant’s defence – Whether acceptable – Effect of – Whether the company had acted reasonably in dismissing him – Whether dismissal with just cause and excuse

TRADE DISPUTE: Collective Agreement – Whether a trade dispute had existed, thus justifying the convening of the assembly by the union – Factors to consider – Whether the assembly had in effect been a strike and/or an unlawful picket – Evidence adduced – Effect of – What the union should have done instead – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 18(1) & 40(1)