CASE HIGHTLIGHTS

LOGANATHAN MANIAM v. MURPHY SARAWAK OIL CO LTD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, JOHOR
SUMATHI MURUGIAH
AWARD NO. 448 OF 2020 [CASE NO: 16/4-235/17]
20 FEBRUARY 2020

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Fixed-term contract – Whether the claimant had been on a fixed-term contract – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of

DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Sexual harassment – Claimant addressing COW1 as “sayang” without her consent – Whether he had sexually harassed her by his actions – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether his actions had been against the company’s rules and policies – Claimant’s defence – Whether acceptable – Whether his misconduct had been serious enough to warrant his dismissal – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse

DISMISSAL: Misconduct – Claimant accused of physically harassing COW1 and asking her to carry out tasks that had not been within her scope of work as his secretary – Whether proven by the company – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Position held by the claimant in the company – Whether his actions had been abusive in nature – Effect of – Whether the charge had been proven against him – Whether it had justified his dismissal

DISMISSAL: Misconduct – Claimant accused of showering COW1 with unwanted gifts and attention – Whether proven by the company – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Claimant’s defence – Whether could be accepted – Whether it had justified his dismissal – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse

DOMESTIC INQUIRY: Procedural impropriety – Whether the DI conducted had been in breach of the rules of natural justice – Factors to consider – Effect of – Investigating Officer and Prosecuting Officer the same person – Whether they should have been different persons – Reasons for the same – Whether the DI conducted had been valid – Whether its decisions and opinions should be taken into account in these proceedings


SYAMAIZAR AZMI v. CENTRAL SUGARS REFINERY SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
REIHANA ABD RAZAK
AWARD NO. 531 OF 2020 [CASE NO: 15/4-441/19]
2 MARCH 2020

DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – Claimants retrenched – Claimants not informed or consulted with regards to the rightsizing exercise and not notified or warned about being made redundant – Effect of – Whether there had been any legal obligation on the company to consult or give advance warning to them on the possibility of retrenchment – Evidence adduced – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether the claimants’ retrenchments had been carried out bona fide

DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – Claimants retrenched – Whether the company had offered them alternative positions – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Claimants’ conduct – What it had shown

DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – Claimants retrenched – Whether the company had terminated them and appointed foreigners to replace them – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of

DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – Claimants retrenched – Whether their retrenchments had been carried out bona fide – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Whether a genuine redundancy situation had arisen in the company – Company’s actions towards them – Whether the re-organisation exercise had been a bona fide exercise of the company’s managerial prerogative to run its business operations – Company failing to follow the LIFO principle – Whether it had been mandatory to follow it – Effect of – Company following its Performance Management Systems and disciplinary records instead – Whether justified – Whether the claimants’ retrenchments had been carried out bona fide