| << Back | BULLETIN 02/2015 |
|
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 1 of 2015) SUBJECT INDEX CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT Notice of termination - Company issuing termination notice to the claimant in accordance with the contract - Whether it had amounted to a summary dismissal - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether summary dismissal now recognised in view of legislation - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20 DISMISSAL Breach of company rules and policies - Claimant sending e-mails to customers indicating internal problems - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Perusal of the contents of the e-mails - Whether the company had suffered damage or potential damage to its image - Factors to consider - Whether the company had acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant - What the company should have done - Whether dismissal with just cause and excuse Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Claimant dismissed by the company for alleged misconducts committed in another company - Both companies separate legal entities but part of the same group - Whether it had been right for the company to terminate him - Factors to consider - Evaluation of the legal principle involved - Effect of Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Claimant dismissed for failing to effectively manage the company's goods in the warehouse - Whether the misconducts had been proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Breach of company rules and policies - Theft - Whether the claimant had abused her position in the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the misconducts had been proven by the company - Whether the claimant's conduct had been serious - Claimant's attitude - Whether it had justified the company dismissing her - Factors to consider - No defence put forward by the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Constructive dismissal - Demotion - Claimant allegedly not performing and demoted as punishment - Whether proven by the bank - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the claimant's performance appraisals had been wrongly assessed - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the bank had followed its general procedures in conducting the appraisals - Whether the disciplinary action imposed on the claimant had been correct - Factors to consider - Effect of - What the bank should have done - Effect of - Whether the elements of constructive dismissal had been proven by the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Constructive dismissal - Demotion - Claimant demoted after being involved in a scuffle with a colleague - Whether the demotion had been a breach of a fundamental term of her contract of employment - Factors to consider - Claimant's conduct - Effect of - Whether it had been becoming of her position - Whether the company's actions had been reasonable - Whether constructive dismissal proven by the claimant Constructive dismissal - Hours of work - Whether she had been forced to work long hours despite her medical condition - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been constructively dismissed - Whether she had voluntarily resigned Constructive dismissal - Salary - Claimant allegedly not performing and given a reduction in salary - Whether proven by the bank - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Whether the bank's actions had been equitable under the circumstances - Claimant's length of service with the bank - Claimant's record of performance - Whether it should have been taken into account - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been constructively dismissed - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Constructive dismissal - Salary - Whether the claimant had been denied her salary - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been constructively dismissed - Whether she had voluntarily resigned Misconduct - Claimant allegedly making serious allegations against the management of Perak by way of letter - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Evaluation and effect of the evidence - Company's actions towards the claimant - Whether the company had acted inequitably and reasonably towards him - Effect of - Whether misconduct proven by the company - What the company should have done - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Misconduct - Claimant allegedly making serious allegations against the management of Perak by way of letter - Whether the punishment of dismissal had been proportionate to the claimant's misconduct - Whether the company had been reasonable in dismissing the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Misconduct - Whether the claimant had displayed unsatisfactory work ethics - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the company had proven the misconduct against the claimant - Conduct of the company - Whether it had been reasonable - What it should have done instead - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Misconduct - Claimant sending e-mail detailing internal problems to customers out of frustration - Whether there had been malicious intent on his part - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether it had justified the company dismissing him - What factors the company should have taken into consideration - Whether its decision to dismiss him had been irrational - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Notice of termination - Forced resignation - Whether the claimant had been forced to resign - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of DOMESTIC INQUIRY Charge - Whether elements of the charge had been proven against the claimant - Effect of Procedural impropriety - Charges - Whether the charges brought against the claimant had been defective for lack of particulars - Factors to consider - Whether the charges had been void ab initio Procedural impropriety - No reasons given by the panel for its decision - Whether there had been a breach of natural justice - Whether the DI had been flawed - Factors to consider - Effect of Procedural impropriety - Whether the rules of natural justice had been complied with - Effect of - Whether the findings of the DI had been perverse Procedural impropriety - Whether it had been conducted contrary to the principles of natural justice - Evidence adduced - Effect of EVIDENCE Burden of proof - Whether discharged by the claimant in this case - Evidence adduced Burden of proof - Whether on a balance of probabilities - Charges non-criminal in nature - Factors to consider Witness - Company failing to call the claimant's immediate superior who had still been in its employ - No reasons put forward by the company - Whether the evidence of this witness had been material - Factors to consider - Whether the company had succeeded in proving the misconduct against the claimant - Evidence adduced - Effect of INDUSTRIAL COURT Jurisdiction - Challenge to - Claimants offered reinstatement but rejecting it - Whether the offer for reinstatement had ousted the Industrial Court's jurisdiction to hear the case - Factors to consider - Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter Procedure - Action - One of the respondents wound-up - Whether leave of the High Court required before proceeding in the Industrial Court - Factors to consider - Effect of NON-COMPLIANCE Collective Agreement - Article on payment of bonuses - Bonuses payable at the end of the calendar year - Employees retrenched in April of the year in question - Whether they had been entitled to their bonuses pro-rated - Perusal of art. 11 of the said collective agreement - Whether it had been clear and unambiguous - Effect of - Whether there had been non-compliance by the respondent Collective Agreement - Article on payment of retrenchment benefits - Calculation of retrenchment benefits - Whether food allowance should be included in the definition of wages - Factors to consider - Effect of - Solvency of the company - Whether there had been special circumstances to vary art. 27 of the said collective agreement - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether there had been non-compliance by the respondent TRADE DISPUTE Collective Agreement - Article on annual salary increment - What would be a reasonable percentage to grant - Factors to consider - Past practice of the company Collective Agreement - Article on COLA - Whether it ought to be granted - Background and intention of COLA - Whether it should be made a permanent contractual feature - Factors to consider - Whether it had been considered part of wages Collective Agreement - Article on contractual bonus - What would be a reasonable amount to grant - Factors to consider Collective Agreement - Article on salary adjustment - What would be a reasonable percentage to grant - Factors to consider - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 30(4) INDEKS PERKARA KETERANGAN Inferens yang bertentangan - Sama ada terpakai terhadap responden di dalam kes ini - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira PEMBUANGAN KERJA Ketidakpatuhan terhadap polisi syarikat - Kecuaian - Kecuaian yang melampau - Responden mengalami kerugian - Sama ada salahlaku tersebut berjaya dibuktikan oleh pihak responden - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan PM1 dan PM2 tersebut bercanggah dengan peraturan dan prosedur syarikat responden - Penelitian peraturan-peraturan responden - Sama ada PM1 dan PM2 tahu mengenai prosedur responden - Kesannya - Sama ada PM1 dan PM2 cuai dalam menjalankan tugas - Sama ada alasan PM1 dan PM2 dapat diterima - Sama ada tindakan syarikat responden menamatkan perkhidmatan mereka adalah munasabah - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada PM1 dan PM2 telah dibuang kerja tanpa alasan yang adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) PEMBUANGAN KERJA Salahlaku - Sama ada PM1 dan PM2 cuba menyembunyikan kecuaian mereka - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada salahlaku tersebut berjaya dibuktikan oleh pihak responden - Sama ada PM1 dan PM2 telah dibuang kerja tanpa alasan yang adil dan bersebab SIASATAN DALAMAN Ketiadaan - Sama ada prosedur pembuangan kerja PM1 dan PM2 merupakan sesuatu yang cacat - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya |
|
| Copyright Mylawbox Sdn Bhd | Subscribe | Unsubscribe |
