| << Back | BULLETIN 05/2015 |
|
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 4 of 2015) SUBJECT INDEX ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash Industrial Court award - Whether employee in breach of fiduciary duties by misusing company's funds - Whether employee misappropriated company's trading stock for unauthorised purpose - Whether punishment of dismissal appropriate - Whether award of scaling back of 50% of backwages excessive - Whether High Court should interfere with findings of Industrial Court CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT Notice of termination - Verbal termination - Whether the claimant had been verbally terminated by the company - Factors to consider - Evaluation of the evidence adduced - Effect of - Whose evidence had been more probable - Whether his dismissal had been without just cause and excuse DISMISSAL Breach of company rules and policies - Conflict of interest with the company's business - Company not suffering any loss due to the claimant's involvement with Artelligent - Whether there had been a requirement for the company to have suffered loss - The potential for mischief that could have been caused - Position held by the claimant in the company - Whether his conduct had been a breach of his fiduciary duties to the company - Factors to consider - Effect of Breach of company rules and policies - Conflict of interest with the company's business - Whether the claimant had been acting in conflict of interest with the company by co-founding and being a Director in Artelligent - Factors to consider - Claimant refusing to give an explanation when asked by COW6 - Whether his conduct had been acceptable - Duty of the claimant as an employee towards the company - Position held by the claimant - Whether this misconduct had been established against him - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the company had successfully discharged its burden of proof - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Breach of company rules and policies - Conflict of interest with the company's business - Whether the claimant had been acting in conflict of interest with the company by promoting the business of CEKAP - Factors to consider - Claimant admitting to promoting CEKAP - Claimant's explanations for the same - Whether acceptable - Duty of the claimant as an employee towards the company - Whether this charge had been established against the claimant - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the company had successfully discharged its burden of proof - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Breach of company rules and policies - Conflict of interest with the company's business - Whether the claimant's terms and conditions had forbidden him from being involved with a company carrying on a similar business - Perusal of his letter of appointment - Whether such a term had been implied - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the misconduct had been proven against him - Whether his dismissal had been without just cause and excuse Breach of company rules and policies - Dishonesty - Claimant removing sensitive information from the company without authorisation - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Whether it had been a serious enough misconduct to warrant her dismissal - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether her dismissal had been without just cause and excuse Breach of company rules and policies - Dishonesty - Claimant removing sensitive information from the company without authorisation - Whether she had known about the company's policy on the same - Position held by her in the company - Legal documents signed by her with the company - Whether her explanations had been acceptable - Factors to consider - Effect of - Claimant's conduct thereafter - Whether it had warranted her dismissal - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Constructive dismissal - Change in job functions - Claimant suffering from mental health problems - Doctors advising that he be given light duties - Claimant's duties changed - His response to it - Claimant only complaining after a lapse of four and a half months - Effect of - Claimant's position and seniority in the company - Whether he should have known his legal rights - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the company's actions had been reasonable - Whether there had been a fundamental breach going to the root of his contract of employment - 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 - Claimant not paid his salaries - Whether that had constituted a breach of his contract of employment - Company's actions towards him - Whether it had evinced an intention to no longer be bound by the contract of employment - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been constructively dismissed Misconduct - Breach of fiduciary duties - Whether the claimant had been in breach of his fiduciary duties as a Director - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether proven by the company - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Misconduct - Claimant allegedly misusing company time and resources in Penang - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Claimant's explanations - Whether acceptable - Whether this charge had been proven against her - Factors to consider - Effect of Misconduct - Claimant allegedly travelling to Johor Bahru during working hours and using company resources for the purpose of attending to work related matters and yet not attending the store on both those days - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Claimant's explanations - Whether this charge had been proven against her - Factors to consider - Effect of Misconduct - Claimant approaching the company solicitors for legal assistance on her personal matters - Whether it had constituted a misconduct - Evidence adduced - Her explanations - Whether acceptable - Whether this charge had been made out against her - Factors to consider - Effect of Misconduct - Claimant approving the early termination of the SVT Tenancy Agreement by SVT and approving the refund of its deposits - Whether this had constituted a misconduct - Whether this had been a business decision - Factors to consider - Effect of Misconduct - Claimant approving the wiring and plumbing works to pave way for the car wash operations at the Cheras Store - Whether it had been a misconduct - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether this charge had been proven against her Misconduct - Claimant granting a tenancy to SVT Cleaning Services and Car Wash but failing to disclose that Mr. Hari had been her husband - Whether it had constituted misconduct - Mr. Hari's participation in the transaction - Claimant's explanations - Whether this charge had been proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of Misconduct - Claimant inviting company suppliers to her son's birthday party - Whether she had put herself in a position of conflict of interest - Factors to consider - Effect of - Her explanations - Whether could be accepted - Whether this charge had been made out against her Misconduct - Claimant not obtaining quotations from at least two other potential contractors prior to her appointing Pro-Excel to do the contract work for Orbit and SVT car wash electrical works - Whether it had constituted a misconduct - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether this charge had been made out against her Misconduct - Claimant refusing to sign the renewal of the registration form - Whether it had been a conditional refusal - Why he had refused - Whether his actions had been reasonable under the circumstances - Company's actions towards him - Whether misconduct proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Misconduct - Claimant unilaterally amending the standard form contract without getting clearance from the legal department - Her explanations for the same - Whether could be accepted - Whether this charge had been proven against her - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether it had been serious enough to dismiss her - Whether her dismissal had been with just cause and excuse Misconduct - Sexual harassment - Claimant accused of sexually harassing the complainant - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Whether it had been sufficiently serious to warrant his dismissal - Position of the claimant over the complainant - Whether the company had acted reasonably in dismissing him - Factors to consider - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Misconduct - Whether the claimant had abused his authority over Captain Raththanunl - Claimant making Captain Raththanunl promote the business of CEKAP - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether his conduct had been serious enough to justify his dismissal - Whether it had gone to the root of the employer-employee relationship - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Retirement - Whether the claimant had been forced to retire - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the claimant had opted for early retirement voluntarily - Claimant's mental health condition - Whether the company had threatened to terminate his contract of service - Evaluation of the evidence - Effect of DOMESTIC INQUIRY Findings - Neither produced in court nor served on the claimant - Effect of - Whether the DI held had been improper and perverse Representation - Claimant not attending DI - DI proceeding ex-parte - Whether the findings were binding on the Court - Factors to consider EVIDENCE Documentary evidence - Whether the claimant had been a workman - Whether he had been the directing mind and will of the company - Factors to consider - Whether the claimant had been an employee - Evidence adduced - Effect of - No written contract between the parties - Whether one had been implied - Evaluation of the legislation - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2 & 20(1) INDUSTRIAL COURT Jurisdiction - Claimant removed from his position as Director of the company - Whether that had automatically brought the employment contract to an end - Principle of law to be considered - Effect of - Whether the claimant had remained a workman of the company - Whether the IC could hear and determine the matter Procedure - Pleadings - Claimant failing to plead vitiating factors - Whether could be taken into consideration - Factors to consider - Effect of Procedure - Pleadings - Company contending waiver on part of the claimant in pleading constructive dismissal but failing to plead it - Whether it ought to be allowed - Factors to consider LABOUR LAW Employment - Termination of employment - Whether Branch Manager in breach of fiduciary duties by misusing company's funds - Whether branch manager in breach of company's rules and policies - Whether element of dishonesty existed - Whether company reasonable in dismissing branch manager - Whether other avenues of punishment open to company - Branch manager's employment record with company - Whether dismissal with just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) INDEKS PERKARA KETERANGAN Inferens bertentangan - Sama ada syarikat responden gagal untuk mengemukakan saksi yang material - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada inferens bertentangan terpakai terhadap pihak responden - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Akta Keterangan 1950, s. 114(g) Inferens bertentangan - Syarikat responden gagal untuk memanggil COO/Pemangku CEO sebagai saksi - Sama ada saksi ini merupakan saksi yang material - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada inferens bertentangan terpakai dalam kes ini Pengakuan - YM mengaku kepada pertuduhan keatasnya di dalam surat penjelasannya dan di SD - Kesannya - Sama ada salahlaku ini telah dibuktikan terhadapnya - Kesannya - Sama ada kesalahannya mewajarkan beliau dibuang kerja - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira Saksi - Keterangan dengar cakap - Sama ada terpakai di Mahkamah Perusahaan PEMBUANGAN KERJA Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - Ketidakjujuran - YM didakwa mengemukakan lesen memandu yang tidak sah bagi memungut elaun motosikal - Sama ada dibuktikan oleh syarikat responden atas tahap imbangan kebarangkalian - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan syarikat memberhentikan perkhidmatan YM adalah wajar - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada salahlaku YM adalah serius - Sama ada tindakan syarikat dapat dipertahankan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Notis penamatan - Penamatan kerja secara paksa - Sama ada YM telah dipaksa meletak jawatan - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - YM hanya membantah mengenai perletakan jawatannya dua minggu selepas meletak jawatan - Kesannya - Sama ada dakwaan beliau merupakan suatu afterthought semata-mata Notis penamatan - Penamatan kerja secara paksa - Sama ada YM telah dipaksa untuk meletak jawatan - YM berhadapan dengan tindakan disiplin - Sama ada tindakan disiplin merupakan suatu pemecatan secara automatik - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kelakuan YM semasa berada dengan syarikat responden - Sama ada menyokong dakwaannya bahawa beliau telah dipaksa meletak jawatan Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh YM - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - YM hanya membangkitkannya dua tahun selepas meletak jawatan - Kesannya - Sama ada ianya merupakan suatu afterthought semata-mata Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif - Syarikat responden mengiklankan jawatan YM semasa beliau masih bertugas dengannya - Sama ada ia menunjukkan bahawa pihak responden tidak ingin lagi terikat dengan kontrak perkhidmatan YM - Jawatan yang disandang oleh YM - Sama ada munasabah untuk syarikat responden mengiklankan untuk penggantinya - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - YM menolong syarikat responden mencari penggantinya - Kesannya - Sama ada YM telah dibuang kerja secara konstruktif Penghematan - Lebihan tenaga pekerja - Sama ada syarikat responden mengalami krisis kewangan - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada pemberhentian YM berdasarkan alasan ini adalah munasabah - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada syarikat responden telah bertindak secara mala fide terhadap YM - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab Penghematan - Lebihan tenaga pekerja - Syarikat responden berpindah ke kampus baru yang mempunyai peralatan yang lebih canggih - Sama ada YM mempunyai kepakaran untuk mengendalikan bahagian penyelengaaraan di kampus baru - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Bahagian penyelenggaraan di outsource kepada pihak luar - Sama ada tindakan responden menutup bahagian penyelenggaraan adalah munasabah - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada syarikat responden telah bertindak secara mala fide terhadap YM - Kelakuan pihak responden terhadap YM - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab Penghematan - YM telah diberhentikan kerja atas alasan lebihan tenaga pekerja - Sama ada dapat dibuktikan oleh syarikat responden - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Syarikat responden membayar bonus dan mengambil pekerja baru - Sama ada tindakan tersebut konsisten dengan pendiriannya bahawa ia mengalami masalah kewangan - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada syarikat menunjukkan niat untuk tidak lagi ingin meneruskan dengan perkhidmatan YM - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab Penghematan - YM telah diberhentikan kerja atas alasan lebihan tenaga pekerja - Sama ada dapat dibuktikan oleh syarikat responden - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - YM tidak membantah kepada penamatan perkhidmatan mereka dengan serta merta - Sama ada mereka telah menerima keputusan syarikat dengan rela hati - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - YM dibayar faedah pampasan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab PENAMATAN PERKHIDMATAN Ketidakhadiran - YM mengambil cuti tanpa kebenaran syarikat - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Penjelasan YM - Sama ada dapat diterima - Tindakan syarikat - Apa yang syarikat seharusnya lakukan - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab Ketidakturutan - YM dituduh mengeluarkan kata-kata yang kesat dan biadab terhadap pegawai atasannya - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Penjelasan YM - Sama ada dapat diterima - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada salahlaku tersebut merupakan suatu salahlaku yang serius - Jawatan yang dipegang oleh YM dalam syarikat - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab SIASATAN DALAMAN Ketiadaan - Sama ada merupakan perlanggaran prinsip keadilan asasi - Tindakan disiplin belum lagi dimulakan terhadap YM - Kesannya |
|
| Copyright Mylawbox Sdn Bhd | Subscribe | Unsubscribe |
