SUBJECT INDEX
DISMISSAL
Attendance - Lateness - Claimant coming late to work - Claimant failing
to inform the respondent company of her whereabouts - Reasons given by the claimant
for the same - Effect of - Whether the charges had been proven against her - Evidence
adduced by the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse
- Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Sugunasegari P S Suppiah v. SAP Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting)
[2011] 2 ILR 629 
Breach of company policy - Claimant failing to follow company policy of
commencing work only after receiving a signed work order - Whether she had been
aware of such a policy - Effect of - Evidence adduced by the company - Whether the
charges had been proven by the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just
cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Sugunasegari P S Suppiah v. SAP Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting)
[2011] 2 ILR 629
Breach of company rules and policies - Misappropriation of funds - Claimant
misappropriating the bank's funds - Whether it had been in breach of the company's
policy - Whether proven by the company - Claimant admitting to appropriating funds
- Effect of - Whether the company had managed to establish the misconduct against
the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations
Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Citibank Berhad v. Manjeet Singh Gurdev Singh
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz)
[2011] 2 ILR 509
Constructive dismissal - Demotion - Claimant walking out of employment
and claiming constructive dismissal - Evidence adduced by the claimant - Whether
it had been sufficient to discharge his burden of proof - Effect of - Whether the
claimant had managed to prove his case against the company - Effect of - Whether
dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Ahmad Lazri Dato' Long Ahmad Zainal Abidin v. Citibank Berhad
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye)
[2011] 2 ILR 538
Constructive dismissal - Demotion - Salary remaining the same - Claimant
refusing - Whether the demotion order had been issued mala fide - Factors
to consider - Effect of - Whether the respondent company by its conduct had evinced
an intention to no longer be bound by the contract of employment - Whether dismissal
without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Ahmad Lazri Dato' Long Ahmad Zainal Abidin v. Citibank Berhad
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye)
[2011] 2 ILR 538
Constructive dismissal - Salary - Non-payment of claimants' salaries -
Whether it had satisfied the contract test in Wong Chee Hong - Effect of - Whether
it had tantamounted to a breach of a fundamental term of the contract by the respondent
company which had gone to its root - Evidence adduced - Whether constructive dismissal
proven
Rishi Kala Jegatheesan & Ors v. Sri Bayanaemas Road Feeder Service Sdn Bhd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye)
[2011] 2 ILR 650
Insubordination - Contents of the claimant's EP - Whether it had been
out of line - Perusal of - Effect of - Whether the company's actions of dismissing
the claimant due to the contents of the EP had been right - Factors to consider
- Whether the claimant had contributed to his dismissal - Effect of - Whether dismissal
without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Kamarulzaman Omar v. Ranhill Berhad
(Yamuna Menon)
[2011] 2 ILR 697
Misconduct - Claimant pulling out of doing a presentation at the last
minute - Whether the claimant had shown an unprofessional and irresponsible attitude
towards her work - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of - Whether the charges
had been proven by the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause
or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Sugunasegari P S Suppiah v. SAP Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting)
[2011] 2 ILR 629
Misconduct - Sexual harassment by claimant on his subordinate - Incidents
happening 2 years ago - Explanations given for the delay in reporting the harassment
- Whether it had been acceptable - Effect of - Whether sexual harassment had been
proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the company had been
reasonable in their actions against the claimant - Effect of - Whether the company
had been justified in dismissing the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without
just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Mohd Shukri Mohamad v. Eastman Chemical (M) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham)
[2011] 2 ILR 664 v
Misconduct - Sexual harassment by claimant on his subordinate
- Whether proven by the company - Position held by the claimant - Effect of - Evidence
adduced by the company - Whether a prima facie case had been made out against
the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations
Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Mohd Shukri Mohamad v. Eastman Chemical (M) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham)
[2011] 2 ILR 664
Notice of termination - Forced resignation - Whether the claimants had
been forced to resign - Contents of claimants' resignation letters - Whether it
had been explicitly stated that they had been tendering their resignations - Evidence
adduced - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial
Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Rishi Kala Jegatheesan & Ors v. Sri Bayanaemas Road Feeder Service Sdn Bhd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye)
[2011] 2 ILR 650
Notice of termination - Forced resignation - Whether the claimants had
tendered their resignations involuntarily - Evidence adduced - Factors to consider
- Effect of
Rishi Kala Jegatheesan & Ors v. Sri Bayanaemas Road Feeder Service Sdn Bhd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye)
[2011] 2 ILR 650
Notice of termination - Whether the Court could look into another reason
for the termination other than that stated in the respondent company's termination
letter - Proposition of law arrived at in Goon Kwee Phoy's case - Effect of - Whether
dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Sugunasegari P S Suppiah v. SAP Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting)
[2011] 2 ILR 629
Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Whether proven by the company
- Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse
- Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Kamarulzaman Omar v. Ranhill Berhad
(Yamuna Menon)
[2011] 2 ILR 697
Poor performance - Whether the claimant's performance had been lacking
- Evidence adduced by the respondent company - Whether the respondent company had
discharged its burden of proving misconduct - Whether the charges had been proven
by the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial
Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Sugunasegari P S Suppiah v. SAP Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting)
[2011] 2 ILR 629
DOMESTIC INQUIRY
Findings - Non-availability of - Whether it had been fatal to the company's
case - Effect of
Mohd Shukri Mohamad v. Eastman Chemical (M) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham)
[2011] 2 ILR 664
Procedural impropriety - Charges changed to suit the dates of
the incidents based on the testimony of the witnesses - Whether the claimant had
suffered prejudice - Whether the claimant had been given an opportunity to defend
the charges against him - Effect of
Mohd Shukri Mohamad v. Eastman Chemical (M) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham)
[2011] 2 ILR 664
EVIDENCE
Admission - Purported confession made by the claimant - Whether the provisions
of s. 26(1) of the Evidence Act 1950 had been complied with - Whether the Evidence
Act 1950 had applied to proceedings before the Industrial Court - In what circumstances
did the Evidence Act 1950 apply to proceedings before the Industrial Court - Effect
of - Whether the provisions of the Evidence Act 1950 on confessions and admissions
had been applicable in this case - Factors to consider - Effect of - Industrial
Relations Act 1967, s. 28 and Evidence Act 1950, ss. 2, 3, 17 & 26(1)
Citibank Berhad v. Manjeet Singh Gurdev Singh
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz)
[2011] 2 ILR 509
Standard of proof - Criminal misconduct - Whether met by the bank - Evidence
adduced - Effect of
Citibank Berhad v. Manjeet Singh Gurdev Singh
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz)
[2011] 2 ILR 509
Witness - Testimony - Two versions of events - Whose version more believable
- Evidence adduced - Corroboration - What constituted corroboration - Factors to
consider - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial
Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Mohd Shukri Mohamad v. Eastman Chemical (M) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham)
[2011] 2 ILR 664
Witness - Testimony - Whether the company witnesses had been coached -
Whether there had been any evidence to support such an allegation - Evidence adduced
- Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations
Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Mohd Shukri Mohamad v. Eastman Chemical (M) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham)
[2011] 2 ILR 664
INDUSTRIAL COURT
Jurisdiction - When the Industrial Court would be seised with
jurisdiction - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 26(2)
Persatuan Pegawai-Pegawai HSBC Malaysia Berhad Semenanjung Malaysia v. HSBC Bank
Malaysia Berhad
(Susila Sithamparam)
[2011] 2 ILR 590
INTERPRETATION
Award - Section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Interpretation
of provision in the award - Factors to consider - Effect of - Industrial Relations
Act 1967, ss. 20, 30(5) & 33
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Hotel, Bar Dan Restoran Semenanjung Malaysia
v. Perangsang Hotel & Properties Sdn Bhd (Quality Hotel Shah Alam)
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh)
[2011] 2 ILR 586
Collective agreement - Interpretation of articles - Applicant
closing down the hotel and retrenching staff - Applicant re-opening under a new
name and entering into fresh contracts of employment with the staff - Whether the
applicant could unilaterally impose new contracts of employment on the staff of
the new hotel - Factors to consider - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 12, 14
and 18
National Union Of Hotel, Bar And Restaurant Workers Peninsular Malaysia v. Shangri-La
Hotels (Malaysia) Berhad
(Susila Sithamparam)
[2011] 2 ILR 602
Collective Agreement - Interpretation of articles - Applicant
closing down hotel and retrenching staff - Pending re-opening of applicants new
hotel, parties entering into a supplementary agreement - Whether the supplementary
agreement had been a temporary measure pending completion and re-opening of the
new hotel - Whether the collective agreement had been in force from the date of
the re-opening of the new hotel - Factors to consider - Industrial Relations Act
1967, ss. 12, 14 and 18
National Union Of Hotel, Bar And Restaurant Workers Peninsular Malaysia v. Shangri-La
Hotels (Malaysia) Berhad
(Susila Sithamparam)
[2011] 2 ILR 602
LABOUR LAW
Employment - Constructive dismissal - Burden of proof - Elements to be
proven - Employee to act with promptness - Unilateral decision by employer to vary
terms and condition of employee's contract of employment - Whether employer in breach
of contract of employment - Failure by employee to immediately repudiate contract
- Whether employee deemed to accept variation
Elya Designs Sdn Bhd v. Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia & Anor
(Mohd Zawawi Salleh J)
[2011] 2 ILR 485
Employment - Constructive dismissal - Variation of employee's
salary (30%) from monthly salary to hourly rate - Whether amounted to fundamental
breach/repudiation of contract of employment - Discretion of company to reorganise
business, whether in issue - Whether employer had just cause for conversion of salary
Elya Designs Sdn Bhd v. Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia & Anor
(Mohd Zawawi Salleh J )
[2011] 2 ILR 485
Employment - Retirement benefits - Whether plaintiffs entitled
to retirement benefits - Whether plaintiffs' claim time barred
Leong Kee Chung & Ors v. Sabah Port Authority & Other Cases
(David Wong Dak Wah J)
[2011] 2 ILR 501
Industrial Court - Duty of court - Duty to act according to
equity and good conscience - Whether employee came to court with clean hands - Claim
for constructive dismissal - Erratic work attendance and poor performance of employee
- Whether industrial court prevented from giving remedy
Elya Designs Sdn Bhd v. Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia & Anor
(Mohd Zawawi Salleh J)
[2011] 2 ILR 485
Provident Fund - Contributions - Whether defendant defaulted
on EPF payments - Whether plaintiffs estopped from claiming EPF entitlement - Whether
claim for EPF benefits time barred
Leong Kee Chung & Ors v. Sabah Port Authority & Other Cases
(David Wong Dak Wah J)
[2011] 2 ILR 501
LIMITATION
Striking out action on ground of time bar - Claim against government
- Limitation Ordinance (Cap 72) (Sabah), item 97 of Schedule - Whether plaintiffs'
action time barred
Leong Kee Chung & Ors v. Sabah Port Authority & Other Cases
(David Wong Dak Wah J)
[2011] 2 ILR 501
TRADE DISPUTE
Collective Agreement - Grievance procedure of the respondent
company - Whether it had been followed by the respondent - Whether the decision
made by the respondent had been mala fide - Effect of - Whether the court
could substitute the decision of the respondent - Factors to consider - When would
be appropriate for the court to substitute the respondent's decision - Evidence
adduced - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 26(2)
Persatuan Pegawai-Pegawai HSBC Malaysia Berhad Semenanjung Malaysia v. HSBC Bank
Malaysia Berhad
(Susila Sithamparam)
[2011] 2 ILR 590
Collective Agreement - Interpretation of articles - Medical
attention - Arguments put forward by both parties - What had been reasonable under
the circumstances - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 26(2)
Paper And Paper Products Manufacturing Employees' Union v. Tri-Wall (Malaysia)
Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam)
[2011] 2 ILR 558
Collective Agreement - Interpretation of articles - Rest days - What the
current practice of the company had been - Whether it had been similar to that provided
under the law - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 26(2) & Employment
Act 1955, s. 60(3)(b)
Paper And Paper Products Manufacturing Employees' Union v. Tri-Wall (Malaysia)
Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam)
[2011] 2 ILR 558
Collective Agreement - Interpretation of articles - Salary scale,
salary adjustment and annual increment - A consideration of - Effect of - Industrial
Relations Act 1967
Paper And Paper Products Manufacturing Employees' Union v. Tri-Wall (Malaysia)
Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam)
[2011] 2 ILR 558
Collective Agreement - Interpretation of articles - Scope of
the CA and the salary scale proposed - Factors to consider - Effect of - Which proposal
had been more reasonable - Evidence adduced - Financial position of the company
- Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 26(2)
Paper And Paper Products Manufacturing Employees' Union v. Tri-Wall (Malaysia)
Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam)
[2011] 2 ILR 558
Collective Agreement - Interpretation of articles - Transport
subsidy - A consideration of - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Paper And Paper Products Manufacturing Employees' Union v. Tri-Wall (Malaysia)
Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam)
[2011] 2 ILR 558
Collective Agreement - Total Performance Management System -
Reasons for its introduction - Bank grading the aggrieved employee - Aggrieved employee
not happy with the grading and lodging a grievance - Whether the bank's grievance
procedure had been complied with - Effect of - Bank maintaining its grading - Whether
it had taken all matters into consideration when grading the aggrieved employee
- Whether the grading done by the bank had been within the employers' prerogative
- Who had been in the best position to evaluate the employee - Effect of - Whether
the aggrieved employee had adduced any evidence to show that he had deserved a higher
grading - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 26(2)
Persatuan Pegawai-Pegawai HSBC Bank Malaysia Berhad Semenanjung Malaysia v. HSBC
Bank Malaysia Berhad
(Mary Shakila G Azariah)
[2011] 2 ILR 716
INDEKS PERKARA
MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN
Remedi - Pampasan - Pampasan galang penempatan semula - Sama
ada harus diawardkan - YM hanya bekerja dengan syarikat responden selama 10 bulan
- Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967
Ramlan Bachik lwn. Raijah Co Sdn Bhd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye)
[2011] 2 ILR 612
PEMBUANGAN KERJA
Perkhidmatan yang tidak memuaskan - YM hanya ditegur 10 bulan
selepas berkhidmat dengan responden - Sebulan kemudian YM ditamatkan perkhidmatannya
- Sama ada penamatan perkhidmatan YM dilakukan secara pintas - Sama ada YM diberi
kesempatan untuk membela dirinya - Kesannya - Sama ada salahlaku YM dibuktikan -
Bukti yang dikemukakan oleh responden - Sama ada mencukupi untuk membuktikan perkhidmatan
YM yang tidak memuaskan - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tanpa alasan atau
sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Ramlan Bachik lwn. Raijah Co Sdn Bhd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye)
[2011] 2 ILR 612
Salahlaku - YM dituduh bekerja hanya 3 atau 4 jam sehari sahaja
- Sama ada salahlaku YM dibuktikan - Bukti yang dikemukakan oleh responden - Kesannya
- Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan
Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Ramlan Bachik lwn. Raijah Co Sdn Bhd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye)
[2011] 2 ILR 612