LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 05 of 2019)

SUBJECT INDEX

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Judicial review – Certiorari – Application for – Application for an order of certiorari to quash decision of first respondent rejecting applicant's appeal for adjustment of pension – Applicant's last drawn salary adjusted to be equivalent of Crane Driver (Low Carriage) at salary grade D38 – Applicant claimed adjustment of pension should be equivalent to salary grade D5 for Crane Driver (High Portal) – Whether first respondent failed to take into account meaning of word 'portal' – Whether procedurally proper to adjust applicant's pension to that based on a lower position than the position he held at time of his retirement – Rules of natural justice – Whether breached – Whether first respondent had duty to act fairly to correct its wrongful adjustment of applicant's pension – Whether applicant had legitimate expectation – Whether first respondent's decision to dismiss applicant's appeal irrational and unreasonable – Pensions Adjustment Act 1980, ss. 3, 13
Alagan Mayalagan v. Ketua Pengarah Perkhidmatan Awam & Anor
(Faizah Jamaludin JC) [2019] 2 ILR 241

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Judicial review – Application for – Application to quash decision or ruling by presiding officer – Employees lodged complaint with Director-General of Labour ('DGL') over employer's failure to pay overtime wages and reimburse deductions made – DGL issued compliance notice to employer, directing employer to pay overtime wages and reimburse deductions made to commissions and allowances – Presiding officer proceeded with summons – Whether presiding officer erred in law – Whether presiding officer acted within jurisdiction in proceeding with full hearing of summons – Whether presiding officer made ruling or decision – Whether decision final – Whether amenable to judicial review – Employment Act 1955, s. 69
FFM Marketing Sdn Bhd v. Azrim Saleemi Abdul Karim & Ors
(Tun Abd Majid Hamzah JC) [2019] 2 ILR 259

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT

Existence of – Whether there had existed a contract of employment between the parties – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the claimant had been an employee of the company – What the purpose of the letters of offer had been – Whether he had been fully aware of it – Whether he had been dismissed by the company – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Chandrakumar Perumal v. Semarang Bumi PJ Sdn Bhd
(Augustine Anthony) [2019] 2 ILR 423

DISMISSAL

Attendance – Truancy – Whether the claimant had been frequently absent from work without leave – Claimant admitting to it – His defence – Whether could be accepted – Whether the misconduct had been proven against him
Raja Nazim Raja Nazuddin v. Padu Corporation
(Sarojini Kandasamy) [2019] 2 ILR 388

Breach of company rules and policies – Claimant bringing a concealed parang into the Transport Department ('TD') – Whether it had been a serious offence – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Claimant's defence – Whether acceptable and supported by any evidence – Whether the company had acted reasonably in dismissing him – Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Viswanathan B Narayanan v. Malaysian Airline System Berhad
(Noor Ruwena Dato' Mohd Nurdin) [2019] 2 ILR 319

Breach of company rules and policies – Confidentiality of company information – Whether he had disclosed confidential information to third parties – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether he had been in breach of the terms of his employment contract – Perusal thereof – Effect of
Raja Nazim Raja Nazuddin v. Padu Corporation
(Sarojini Kandasamy) [2019] 2 ILR 388

Breach of company rules and policies – Dishonesty – Whether the claimant had e-mailed the forged Letter of Authorisation from his computer – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the charge had been proven against him – Factors to consider – What the company should have done – Whether dismissal too harsh under the circumstances – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Kalainathan K Raman @ Vellasamy v. Small Medium Enterprise Development Bank Malaysia Berhad
(Yong Soon Ching) [2019] 2 ILR 371

Breach of company rules and policies – Negligence – Whether the claimant had failed to process the invoices on a timely basis – Whether he had been negligent in the performance of his duties – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – The company's actions towards him – Claimant's defence – Whether could be accepted – Whether the company had been reasonable in dismissing him – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Kalainathan K Raman @ Vellasamy v. Small Medium Enterprise Development Bank Malaysia Berhad
(Yong Soon Ching) [2019] 2 ILR 371

Constructive dismissal – Demotion – Claimant found guilty of 13 charges of misconduct and demoted from his position – Claimant walking out of his employment claiming constructive dismissal – Whether he had acted promptly – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether he had been constructively dismissed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Ravindran C M Renganathan v. Rangkaian Hotel Seri Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Augustine Anthony) [2019] 2 ILR 294

Constructive dismissal – Demotion – Claimant found guilty of serious charges of misconduct but only demoted, transferred, imposed with a salary reduction, had his bonus forfeited and suffered a reduction to his allowances and annual leave entitlement – What the hotel's actions towards him had shown – Whether the hotel had really believed the allegations against him – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Claimant's years of service with the hotel and his track record with it – Effect of – Whether the hotel's actions against him had clearly been unjust and inexcusable
Ravindran C M Renganathan v. Rangkaian Hotel Seri Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Augustine Anthony) [2019] 2 ILR 294

Constructive dismissal – Salary – Whether the claimant had not been paid his salary for a few months in 2017 – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the claimant had been an employee of the company – Whether he had successfully fulfilled the pre-requisites of proving constructive dismissal – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Chandrakumar Perumal v. Semarang Bumi PJ Sdn Bhd
(Augustine Anthony) [2019] 2 ILR 423

Insolence – Whether the claimant had behaved insolently towards COW1, her superior – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether the company had successfully established this misconduct against the claimant – Whether it had been serious enough to warrant her dismissal – Whether the company had taken into account relevant mitigating factors – Whether its decision to dismiss her had been reasonable – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Mah Pei Yong v. Ri-Yaz Hotels & Resorts Inc
(Andersen Ong Wai Leong) [2019] 2 ILR 360

Insolence – Whether the claimant had had difficulty working as part of a team in the company – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether he had come across as being pompous, derogatory and critical of the management of the company – Whether the misconduct had successfully been proven against him – Whether it had justified his dismissal
Raja Nazim Raja Nazuddin v. Padu Corporation
(Sarojini Kandasamy) [2019] 2 ILR 388

Insolence – Whether the claimant had undermined COW1's decisions and instigated others to speak up against her – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether the misconduct had successfully been proven against him – Whether it had justified his dismissal
Raja Nazim Raja Nazuddin v. Padu Corporation
(Sarojini Kandasamy) [2019] 2 ILR 388

Insubordination – Whether the claimant, by the language he had used in the e-mail to the Secretary General and by his behaviour, had been disrespectful of his superior and the higher management of the company – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Claimant's defence – Whether could be accepted – Whether he had displayed malicious intent by his actions – Whether misconduct proven by the company – Whether it had justified his dismissal
Raja Nazim Raja Nazuddin v. Padu Corporation
(Sarojini Kandasamy) [2019] 2 ILR 388

Insubordination – Whether the claimant had been insubordinate to COW1 and COW2 – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether the misconduct had been proven by the company against her – Claimant's defence – Whether could be accepted – When insubordination occurred – Whether it had justified her dismissal – Whether her dismissal had been with just cause and excuse
Mah Pei Yong v. Ri-Yaz Hotels & Resorts Inc
(Andersen Ong Wai Leong) [2019] 2 ILR 360

Insubordination – Whether the claimant's use of language in his reply to the show cause letter had been insolent and insubordinate – What his reply had shown – Whether it had been acceptable of someone holding the position of CFO of a company – Factors to consider – Effect of
Raja Nazim Raja Nazuddin v. Padu Corporation
(Sarojini Kandasamy) [2019] 2 ILR 388

Misconduct – Claimant confronting management on the changes made to the roster, that had been to his detriment – What he should have done instead – What his actions had shown – Whether it had been against the company's rules and procedures – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether misconduct proven by the company – Whether it had justified his dismissal
Viswanathan B Narayanan v. Malaysian Airline System Berhad
(Noor Ruwena Dato' Mohd Nurdin) [2019] 2 ILR 319

Misconduct – Sexual harassment – Claimant accused of sexually harassing the hotel's employees – Whether proven by the hotel – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Claimant's defence – Whether could be accepted – Whether the hotel had acted reasonably in dismissing him – Hotel's actions against him – What it had shown – Whether the hotel's actions had set into motion a clear pattern of victimisation against him – Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Ravindran C M Renganathan v. Rangkaian Hotel Seri Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Augustine Anthony) [2019] 2 ILR 294

Misconduct – Whether the claimant had brought the parang into the office and threatened those around him – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether proven by the company – Claimant's defence – Whether could be accepted – Whether he had been victimised by the company – Factors to consider – Effect of – Company's responses to his action above – What it had shown – Whether the company had acted reasonably in dismissing him – Whether his misconduct had been serious – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse – Evidence Act 1950, s. 101
Viswanathan B Narayanan v. Malaysian Airline System Berhad
(Noor Ruwena Dato' Mohd Nurdin) [2019] 2 ILR 319

Notice of termination – Forced resignation – MSP – Whether the claimant had signed it voluntarily – Whether he had protested against it – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Claimant's position and seniority – What his actions had shown – Whether he had successfully proven that he had been forced to sign the MSP – Evaluation of the evidence – Effect of
Suresh K Velauthan v. Petronas ICT Sdn Bhd
(Rajeswari Karupiah) [2019] 2 ILR 345

Notice of termination – Forced resignation – Mutual Separation Package ('MSP') – What is its purpose and how it works – Whether the claimant had been forced to sign it – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Company's actions towards him – What it had shown – Claimant's actions – What it had been indicative of – Whether he had accepted the MSP voluntarily – Whether he had been dismissed by the company – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Suresh K Velauthan v. Petronas ICT Sdn Bhd
(Rajeswari Karupiah) [2019] 2 ILR 345

Performance – Unsatisfactory performance – Claimant failing to finalise the budget for FY2015 – Whether proven by the company – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – His defence – Whether could be accepted – His role and seniority in the company – What his responsibilities towards it had been – Whether he had discharged his duties properly – Whether the company's actions towards him had been reasonable – Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Raja Nazim Raja Nazuddin v. Padu Corporation
(Sarojini Kandasamy) [2019] 2 ILR 388

EVIDENCE

Burden of proof – Whether discharged by the claimant in this case – Evidence adduced – Effect of
Suresh K Velauthan v. Petronas ICT Sdn Bhd
(Rajeswari Karupiah) [2019] 2 ILR 345

Documentary evidence – Whether the claimant had been a workman within the definition of s. 2 of the Industrial Relations Act – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Perusal of the employment letters – What it had shown – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 2
Chandrakumar Perumal v. Semarang Bumi PJ Sdn Bhd
(Augustine Anthony) [2019] 2 ILR 423

Witness – Material contradictions and inconsistencies – Whether the claimant had materially contradicted himself on why he had brought the parang into the TD – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of
Viswanathan B Narayanan v. Malaysian Airline System Berhad
(Noor Ruwena Dato' Mohd Nurdin) [2019] 2 ILR 319

Witness – Testimony of the hotel's witnesses as against that of the claimant – Whose evidence had been more credible – Factors to consider – Effect of
Ravindran C M Renganathan v. Rangkaian Hotel Seri Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Augustine Anthony) [2019] 2 ILR 294

INDUSTRIAL COURT

Remedies – Punishment – Proportionality of – Whether the punishment of dismissal meted out by the company on the claimant had been too harsh – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the company had been a commercial bank in the true sense of the term – Factors to consider – Claimant's job functions in the company – Whether his misconduct had been gross misconduct
Kalainathan K Raman @ Vellasamy v. Small Medium Enterprise Development Bank Malaysia Berhad
(Yong Soon Ching) [2019] 2 ILR 371

Remedies – Punishment – Whether the claimant's punishment of dismissal had been proportionate under the circumstances – Factors to consider – Effect of
Raja Nazim Raja Nazuddin v. Padu Corporation
(Sarojini Kandasamy) [2019] 2 ILR 388

LABOUR LAW

Judicial review – Procedural impropriety – Employees lodged complaint with Director-General of Labour ('DGL') over employer's failure to pay overtime wages and reimburse deductions made – DGL issued compliance notice to employer to pay overtime wages and reimburse deductions made to commissions and allowances – Whether Employment Act 1955 provides for issuance of compliance notice – Whether DGL pre-judged issue by issuing compliance notice – Whether compliance notice had binding effect – Whether summons illegal and tainted
FFM Marketing Sdn Bhd v. Azrim Saleemi Abdul Karim & Ors
(Tun Abd Majid Hamzah JC) [2019] 2 ILR 259

Pensions – Pension adjustment – Applicant's last drawn salary adjusted to be equivalent of Crane Driver (Low Carriage) at salary grade D38 – Applicant claimed adjustment of pension should be equivalent to salary grade D5 for Crane Driver (High Portal) – Application for an order of certiorari to quash decision of first respondent rejecting applicant's appeal for adjustment of pension – Whether first respondent failed to take into account meaning of word 'portal' – Whether procedurally proper to adjust applicant's pension to that based on a lower position than position he held at time of his retirement – Rules of natural justice – Whether breached – Whether first respondent had duty to act fairly to correct its wrongful adjustment of applicant's pension – Whether applicant had legitimate expectation – Whether first respondent's decision to dismiss applicant's appeal irrational and unreasonable – Pensions Adjustment Act 1980, ss. 3, 13
Alagan Mayalagan v. Ketua Pengarah Perkhidmatan Awam & Anor
(Faizah Jamaludin JC) [2019] 2 ILR 241

TRADE DISPUTE

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on annual bonus – Whether the union's proposal that all confirmed employees as at 31 December of the bonus year be eligible for an annual bonus of two months of their basic salary, should be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on annual leave – Whether the union's proposal of 18 days annual leave for employees who have served the respondent for more than 5 years should be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on attendance allowance – Whether the union's proposal that employees who are not absent or sick for a month be paid an attendance allowance of RM150, should be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on cost of living allowance – Whether the union's proposal that all employees be paid RM100 a month, as cost of living, should be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on disablement – Whether the union's proposal that employees be provided alternative employment in the event they suffer disability or sickness should be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on festival gifts – Whether the union's proposal that employees be provided festival gifts valued at RM400, in conjunction with their respective religious festivals, once a year, should be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on grievance procedure – Whether the respondent's proposed inclusion of art. 4.5 had impinged on the workers' rights – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on haj leave – Whether the respondent's proposal that Muslim employees who have completed a minimum of 10 years of service, be granted a minimum of 10 days leave and a further increase of one day paid leave for every subsequent year of service, should be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on industrial accident leave – Whether the union's proposal that employees be granted industrial accident leave on full basic rate of pay, less any benefits that they may receive under the Employees' Social Security Act 1969 or any other legislation should be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on leave on trade union business – Whether the union's proposal that any committee member who is required to attend meetings at union HQ or its Regional Office or to attend negotiations or the Industrial Court, be granted leave with pay, should be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on maternity leave – Whether the respondent's proposal of 60 days should be adopted – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on medical attention – Whether the union's proposal that employees be entitled to free medical attention and treatment by the respondent's medical practitioner, should be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on overtime – Whether the union's proposal that employees called to work after normal working hours be paid 1 ½ times the ordinary rate per hour should be adopted – Whether transport allowance should be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on paternity leave – Whether the union's proposal that male employees be granted paternity leave up to 3 days should be adopted – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on prolonged illness – Whether the union's proposal that employees who suffer from tuberculosis, leukaemia, cancer or other sickness of the same nature be entitled to special sick leave up to 6 months leave, should be adopted – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on recognition of the union – Whether the respondent's proposal to exclude contract and seasonal workers from becoming union members had been reasonable – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on retirement benefits – Whether the respondent's proposal of RM500 for employees with less than 2 years of service, RM1,500 for employees between 2 to 5 years of service and RM3,000 for those with more than 5 years of service, should be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on retrenchment and retrenchment benefits – Whether the union's proposal that employees be given 2 months' notice prior to any retrenchment exercise as well as a month of their last drawn basic salary for each completed year of service, as retrenchment benefits, should be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on salary adjustments – Whether the union's proposal that all employees under the CA be eligible to a salary adjustment of 15% over their monthly basic salary as at 31 December 2013 and that employees hired after 1 January 2014 be paid according to the new salary scale plus an ex-gratia payment of RM600 for each employee, should be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on salary increments – Whether the respondent's proposal as per Appendix “A” of RB3 should be adopted – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on salary structure – Whether the union's proposal, as reflected in Appendix I, II and III, should be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on shift allowance – Whether a flat rate payment of RM5 a day should be paid to employees working between 10.30pm and 8.30am the next day – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on transfer – Whether the union's proposal for one increment adjustment to an employee, when a horizontal transfer takes place at the directive of the respondent, had been reasonable – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on working hours – Whether the existing working hours of 40 hours per week for administrative or marketing employees and 44 hours for factory workers or employees are to be maintained – Factors to consider – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Ban Heng Bee Rice Mill (1952) Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2019] 2 ILR 269

INDEKS PERKARA

KETERANGAN

Keterangan dokumentari – Sama ada Grand Universal adalah sebahagian daripada China HQ – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya
Yeoh Choon Wooi lwn. Grand Universal Trading Sdn Bhd
(Kalmizah Salleh) [2019] 2 ILR 433

Keterangan dokumentari – Sama ada YM telah dipindahkan daripada China HQ ke Grand Universal – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya
Yeoh Choon Wooi lwn. Grand Universal Trading Sdn Bhd
(Kalmizah Salleh) [2019] 2 ILR 433

PEMBUANGAN KERJA

Pekerja percubaan – Sama ada YM merupakan pekerja yang disahkan – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya
Yeoh Choon Wooi lwn. Grand Universal Trading Sdn Bhd
(Kalmizah Salleh) [2019] 2 ILR 433

Prestasi kerja – Prestasi kerja yang tidak memuaskan – Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat responden terhadap YM – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya – Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab – Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Yeoh Choon Wooi lwn. Grand Universal Trading Sdn Bhd
(Kalmizah Salleh) [2019] 2 ILR 433