CASE HIGHTLIGHTS

MAHADI MOHD NOR v. CAE KUALA LUMPUR SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
YONG SOON CHING
AWARD NO. 1910 OF 2019 [CASE NO: 26(14)/4-2940/18]
2 JULY 2019

DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Theft – Whether the claimant had removed and sold a canopy belonging to the company to third parties without authorisation – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Claimant’s defence – Whether acceptable – Whether the misconduct had been proven against the claimant – What the company should have done – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)

DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Theft – Whether the claimant had removed and sold a canopy belonging to the company to third parties without authorisation – Whether proven by the company – Whether the company’s actions of dismissing him had been too harsh under the circumstances – Factors to consider – What it should have done instead

DOMESTIC INQUIRY: Absence of – Company failing to hold a DI before dismissing the claimant – Whether one should have been held – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether the company’s failure to hold one had been fatal to its case

EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence – Show cause letter issued by the company accusing the claimant of theft – Charges of theft subsequently abandoned after consideration of the evidence – Whether the company ought to have amended the charges against him – What the company’s actions had shown – Claimant’s conduct in comparison – Effect of – Whether the company could issue a show cause letter containing a serious offence and then do nothing about it

SREDHARAN RAMAKRISHNA NAIR v. BUMI ARMADA BERHAD/BUMI ARMADA ENGINEERING SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
BERNARD JOHN KANNY
AWARD NO. 2308 OF 2019 [CASE NO: 29(4)(22)(4)/4-270/17]
20 AUGUST 2019

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Type of – Claimant entering into four contracts with three legal entities, with a clause that there would be continuous service within the Group – Whether it had been considered one continuous contract – Whether the corporate veil of the legal entities could be lifted – Factors to consider – Effect of

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Type of – Genuine fixed-term contract – Whether the claimant had entered into genuine fixed-term contracts – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of

DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – LIFO principles – Whether followed by the company – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether the claimant’s retrenchment had been rendered prima facie invalid – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse

DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – Whether the claimant’s position had become redundant – Job functions performed by the claimant – Whether his job functions had continued to exist after his dismissal – Evidence adduced – Effect of

DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – Whether the claimant’s retrenchment had been made in compliance with accepted industrial relations standards – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether the company had exercised its managerial power bona fide – Whether it had rendered the claimant’s dismissal as being without just cause and excuse

DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Reorganisation – Whether the reorganisation carried out by the company had been justified – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of the evidence – Effect of – Actions taken by the company – What it had shown