| BULLETIN 02/2016 | |
|
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 02 of 2016) SUBJECT INDEX ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Judicial review - Certiorari - Challenge against Minister's decision to refer employee's representation to Industrial Court - Whether employer and employee reached mutual settlement on dispute - Whether exercise of Minister’s discretion reasonable - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 3 Judicial review - High Court - Certiorari - Findings of Industrial Court - Failure of Industrial Court to properly consider totality of evidence and relevant facts - Whether decision reasonable - Whether Industrial Court committed errors of law warranting intervention Rules of natural justice - Hearing by disciplinary committee - Employee dismissed from service - Whether employer complied with procedures in conduct of disciplinary proceedings - Whether employee given sufficient opportunity to be heard - Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Lembaga Pertubuhan Peladang (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1994, regs. 4(2)(c)(ii), (d), (f) & 28 CIVIL PROCEDURE Pleadings - Departure from - Whether grounds of appeal entirely different from pleaded claim - Factual assertion responded by way of general traverse - Whether operated as denial - Whether rendered respondent's case to not have bearing on appellant's pleaded case - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 18 r. 13 CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT Type of - Whether it had been a contract for service or a contract of service - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of DISMISSAL Breach of company rules and policies - Drug abuse - Whether the claimant had admitted to taking drugs to his subordinate - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Position held by the claimant in the company - Whether the charge had been proven by the company Breach of company rules and policies - Drug abuse - Whether the claimant had been guilty of taking illegal substances - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Whether the charge had been proven by the company - Company failing to lodge a police report - Whether it had been a material consideration - Whether it had justified the claimant being dismissed Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - 2nd claimant failing to ensure strict compliance of the policies on the AMLA documentation - Effect of - Her explanations - Whether could be accepted - Whether the bank had condoned the practice - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Whether she had failed in the discharge of her duties to the bank - Whether her dismissal had been justified Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - 2nd claimant failing to ensure that the reports were printed and filed - Effect on the bank - Whether serious - Whether charge proven against her Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - 2nd claimant failing to review mandatory reports - Duties and responsibilities of the 2nd claimant as the ABOM/OIC - Whether discharged by her satisfactorily - Factors to consider - 2nd claimant's defence - Whether acceptable - Whether the bank had been justified in dismissing her - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Whether it had been the duty of the 2nd claimant to tally and balance the vouchers on a daily basis - Evidence adduced - Whose duty it had been - Whether the charge had been proven against her Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Whether the 1st claimant had facilitated the breach by the CSO - Evidence adduced - Factors to consider - Whether he had failed to discharge his duties to the bank - Position held and seniority of the 1st claimant in the bank - Implications of his actions to the bank - 1st Claimant's defence - Whether acceptable - Whether the bank had been justified in dismissing him - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Whether the 1st claimant had initialled the said reports as the independent officer without checking and verifying them - Whether by doing so he had misrepresented to the bank that he had checked and verified them - Position held by the 1st claimant in the bank - Seniority of the 1st claimant in the bank - Whether he had failed in discharging his duties as the BOM - Evidence adduced - Factors to consider - Implications of his actions to the bank - 1st Claimant's defence - Whether acceptable - Whether the bank had been justified in dismissing him - Factors to consider - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Whether the 2nd claimant had been aware that a serious breach of the criss-crossing policy had occurred - Position held by the 2nd claimant in the bank - Seniority of the 2nd claimant in the bank - Whether she had failed in discharging her duties as the ABOM/OIC - Evidence adduced - Factors to consider - Implications of her actions to the bank - What she should have done - 2nd claimant's defence - Whether acceptable - Whether the bank had been justified in dismissing her _Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Whether the 2nd claimant had failed to maintain the Keyholder Register - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether it had been her duty to maintain it - Whether she had been negligent in the discharge of her duties to the bank - Whether the charge had been proven against her - Whether her dismissal had been justified Insubordination - Claimant allegedly failing to attend two key meetings - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Claimant's explanations - Whether could be accepted - Factors to consider - What he should have done - Whether the company had been justified in dismissing the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Misconduct - Harassment - Whether the claimant had unduly harassed and intimidated his subordinate - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether his behaviour had been unbecoming of his position in the company - Whether the charge had been proven by the company Notice of termination - Forced resignation - Whether the claimant had been forced to resign - Whether the claimant had been told that he would not be allowed to leave the office unless he resigned - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the claimant had resigned voluntarily Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Whether the claimant had failed to perform up to expectations - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced by the company - Whether it had been sufficient - Whether this charge had been proven by the company - No reviews or appraisals conducted on the claimant - Whether he had been given an opportunity to improve - Whether the company had been justified in dismissing him - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Probationer - Whether the claimant had been a probationer - Perusal of the contract of employment - What the intention of the parties had been - Whether "appraisal" had been synonymous with "probation period" - Factors to consider Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Company failing to comply with the Code of Conduct for Industrial Harmony - Effect of - What the company should have done - Intention of the Code Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Whether the claimant's role in the company had ceased to exist - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether she had been surplus to the company's needs - Factors to consider - Company's actions towards her - Whether it had been fair - What it should have done Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Whether the retrenchment had been carried out bona fide - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of EMPLOYMENT Contract of employment - Misconduct - Demotion of employee - Whether reduction in position must not be lower than from which employee was last promoted EVIDENCE Burden of proof - Whether discharged by the claimant in this case Burden of proof - Whether discharged by the company - Factors to consider Documentary evidence - Charges - Whether the charges brought against the claimants had been defective - Factors to consider - Whether the claimants had been confused as to what they had to answer to - Whether the claimants had been prejudiced Documentary evidence - Whether the claimant had been a workman under the Act - Factors to consider - Effect of INDUSTRIAL COURT Procedure - Action - Claimant applying to transfer proceedings from the Industrial Court in Kuching to the Industrial Court in Sandakan - Whether it ought to be allowed - Factors to consider - Company objecting to the application - Whether the company's objections had merit Procedure - Action - Company requesting for an adjournment of proceedings - Whether it ought to be allowed - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Company's actions in handling the case thus far - What it had shown - Company failing to attend any previous mentions or hearings - What the company should have done Procedure - Parties - Joinder - Joinder of CCB to the proceedings - Whether ought to be allowed - Whether it had been necessary for CCB to be the claimant's employer Procedure - Parties - Joinder - Joinder of CCB to the proceedings - Whether ought to be allowed - Whether the claimant's application had been premature - Whether it could only be made at the non-compliance stage - Factors to consider - Evaluation of case laws and legislation - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 29(a) Procedure - Parties - Joinder - Whether CCB should be joined to the proceedings - Whether there had been a legal and factual nexus between the company and CCB - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Test to be applied - Whether the joinder application ought to be allowed Procedure - Parties - Joinder - Whether the proposed parties should be joined to the proceedings - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Test to be applied - Whether the joinder application ought to be allowed Remedies - Reinstatement - Whether suitable to award - Claimant under a fixed term contract - What would be suitable to award - Determination of Remedies - Punishment - Whether the punishment of dismissal had been too harsh under the circumstances - Factors to consider - Claimant's record with the company - Whether a relevant consideration - Effect of LABOUR LAW Employment - Constructive dismissal - Demotion of employee - Employee received cash as token of appreciation for what was supposed to be free event - Issuance of unofficial receipt - Absence of policy guidelines on issuance of receipts - Whether employee's acts amounted to misconduct - Whether punishment of demotion proportionate to misconduct Reference - Reference by Minister - Challenge against Minister's decision to refer employee's representation to Industrial Court - Whether employee voluntarily resigned - Whether there was threat of termination or dismissal by employer - Admission by Minister to not have any knowledge of facts - Whether gross indication that Minister had not appreciated full factual matrix of case - Whether exercise of Minister’s discretion reasonable - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20 TRADE UNION Union lodging a complaint against the bank pursuant to s. 8(2A) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Whether made out - Factors to consider - Whether the bank had contravened ss. 4(1) and 5(1)(d) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 4(1), 5(1)(d) & 8(2A) Whether the bank had contravened ss. 4 and 5 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Perusal of the sections - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Whether those sections had covered the bank's act of subjecting the workman to disciplinary proceedings - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the union's claim had merit and ought to be allowed Whether the bank had contravened ss. 4 and 5 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Whether the union had particularised the acts of the bank that had allegedly been in violation of ss. 4(1) and 5(1)(d) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Factors to consider - Effect of INDEKS PERKARA KETERANGAN Keterangan dokumentari - Keputusan SD - Sama ada sah dan boleh dipertahankan - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira KONTRAK PERKHIDMATAN Terma dan syarat - Notis penamatan - Tiada sebab diberikan oleh syarikat responden untuk keputusannya menamatkan perkhidmatan YM - Sama ada ianya merupakan suatu penamatan simpliciter - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN Prosedur - Prosiding ex-parte - Syarikat responden gagal untuk hadir untuk perbicaraan - Sama ada prosiding harus dijalankan secara ex-parte - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 29 Remedi - Pengembalian semula ke jawatan asal - Sama ada dipohon oleh YM - Penelitian pliding - Kesannya - Sama ada tuntutan YM harus ditolak - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira PEMBUANGAN KERJA Ketidakhadiran syarikat responden - Apa yang harus dilakukan oleh mahkamah - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif - Perpindahan - YM dipindahkan ke Jabatan Jualan - Sebab untuk perpindahan tersebut - Sama ada telah dilakukan secara bona fide - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Terma dan syarat kontrak perkhidmatan YM - Penelitian - Sama ada syarikat berhak untuk memindahkan YM sepertimana dilakukan - Kesannya - Sama ada syarikat melalui tindakannya menunjukkan niat untuk tidak lagi terikat dengan terma dan syarat perkhidmatan YM - Sama ada YM telah dipecat secara konstruktif - Sama ada pembuangan kerja beliau telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif - Perpindahan - YM dipindahkan ke Jabatan Jualan - YM hanya diberikan 10 hari notis - Sama ada notis tersebut terlalu singkat - Sama ada notis tersebut telah dikeluarkan secara mala fide - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Penjelasan syarikat - Sama ada dapat diterima - Sama ada pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif berjaya dibuktikan oleh YM - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif - Perpindahan - YM dipindahkan ke Jabatan Jualan - YM tidak diberikan latihan - Sama ada wujud unsur mala fide dalam perpindahan beliau ke Jabatan Jualan - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Penjelasan syarikat - Sama ada dapat diterima - Sama ada YM telah dibuang kerja atau telah meninggalkan pekerjaannya Prestasi kerja - Prestasi kerja yang tidak memuaskan - Sama ada dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Kelakuan syarikat terhadap YM - Sama ada elemen mala fide wujud - Penelitian fakta kes - Kesannya - Sama ada syarikat telah mengikut prosedur dan amalan yang betul dalam menamatkan perkhidmatan YM - Sama ada penamatan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab Prestasi kerja - Prestasi kerja yang tidak memuaskan - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat responden - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Salah laku-salah laku - YM didakwa gagal hadir di tapak pembinaan dan mengambil cuti tanpa kebenaran - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat responden - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya PERKATAAN & ISTILAH 'Gaji minimum' - Maksud dan pengertian - Pengiraan - Sama ada merangkumi elaun tetap pekerja - Sama ada terhad kepada gaji pokok semata-mata - Perintah Gaji Minimum 2012 per. 4 - Akta Majlis Perundingan Gaji Negara 2011, ss. 2, 23 & 24 SIASATAN DALAMAN Kesilapan prosedur - Komposisi ahli panel SD - Sama ada prinsip keadilan asasi telah diikuti oleh syarikat dalam menjalankan SD tersebut - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira Kesilapan prosedur - Pertuduhan - Sama ada kandungan pertuduhan-pertuduhan terhadap YM adalah cacat - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada pertuduhan-pertuduhan tersebut cukup spesifik untuk membolehkan YM menyediakan pembelaannya - Kesannya UNDANG-UNDANG BURUH Gaji - Gaji minimum - Tuntutan kerja lebih masa - Sama ada gaji minimum terhad kepada gaji pokok - Sama ada termasuk elaun-elaun tetap - Perintah Gaji Minimum 2012 per. 4 - Akta Majlis Perundingan Gaji Negara 2011, ss. 2, 23 & 24 Mahkamah Buruh - Pendengaran - Pegawai Pendengar - Keputusan Pegawai Pendengar - Sama ada perlu membuat penemuan-penemuan fakta yang secukupnya - Sama ada perlu membuat pertanyaan dan pemeriksaan yang sewajarnya bagi mendapatkan keterangan-keterangan yang relevan - Akta Kerja 1955 Bab XV |
|
| Copyright Mylawbox Sdn Bhd | Subscribe | Unsubscribe |
