| << Back | BULLETIN 08/2014 |
|
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 7 of 2014) SUBJECT INDEX ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Judicial review - Certiorari - Application for - Findings by Industrial Court that dismissal was harsh, disproportionate and without just cause or excuse - Whether Industrial Court took into account irrelevant matters in arriving at decision - Whether High Court erred in affirming Industrial Court's decision - Whether High Court's determination on matter of fact constituted jurisdictional error warranting appellate intervention Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash decision of Director General of Trade Unions allowing registration of in-house trade union - Whether proper recourse - Whether appellant should have appealed to Minister - Whether special circumstances justified non-compliance with s. 71A of Trade Unions Act 1959 - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 53 CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT Frustration of contract - Claimant's medical condition making performance of her contract of employment impossible - Effect of - Claimant unable to produce a fit certificate - Whether she had been ready to go back to work - Claimant unable to indicate when she would be fit to resume duties - Conduct of the bank towards her - Whether reasonable - Effect of - Whether the claimant's conduct had amounted to a frustration of her contract of employment - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) Frustration of contract - Whether the claimant had been unable to perform her contract of employment - Job scope of the claimant
- Whether her medical condition had prevented her from performing her job - Factors to consider - What the claimant should have done - Bank alleging frustration of contract and dismissing her from employment - Whether the bank's actions had been reasonable - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) Terms and conditions - Notice of termination - UK University ending the secondment contract and recalling the claimant back to the UK - Claimant giving his constructive dismissal notice to the Malaysian University - Whether the Malaysian University had been his employer - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of DISMISSAL Absenteeism - Claimant accused of being absent from work without leave - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the company had acted reasonably in dismissing him - Whether the company had had regard to equity and good conscience when deciding to dismiss him Breach of company rules and policies - Unauthorised receipt of gratification - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced
- Effect of - Claimant denying the charges at all times - Company failing to cross-examine him on it - Whether it had been fatal to the company's case Constructive dismissal - Continuous harassment by the Principal
- Whether proven by the claimant - Evidence adduced - Whether it had been sufficient to claim constructive dismissal Constructive dismissal - Demotion - Whether the claimant had been the Head of Faculty (Learning Support) - Factors to consider
- Effect of - Whether the school by its actions had demoted her - Evidence adduced - Whether there had been a fundamental breach going to the root of her 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 salary for April 2003 - No reasons given by the company - Whether proven by the claimant - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Whether it had amounted to a fundamental breach going to the root of the 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 - Status - Claimant put on suspension for an inordinately long period of time - No reasons given by the company - Company's conduct towards him - Whether it had amounted to a fundamental breach of the claimant's contract of employment - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been constructively dismissed Constructive dismissal - Threats issued to the claimant - Whether the claimant had been given an ultimatum to resign or be dismissed - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether it had amounted to a breach of a fundamental term of the claimant's contract of employment - 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 - Transfer - Claimant's secondment ended and claimant recalled back to the UK - Malaysian University recalling facilities - Whether the Malaysian University had evinced an intention not to be bound by the contract of employment - Whether a contract of employment had existed between the claimant and the Malaysian University - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been constructively dismissed Constructive dismissal - Warning letter - Claimant issued a warning letter for her absence from school without permission - Whether the school's actions had been a fundamental breach going to the root of her contract of employment - Whether the school had acted within its managerial prerogative - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been constructively dismissed Misconduct - Claimant accused of pilfering stocks - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - 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 - Claimant forging signatures on the cash payment listing - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Claimant's explanations - Whether acceptable - Whether the company had reasonable grounds to believe in his guilt - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Misconduct - Claimant manipulating the SAP System and using the cash for his own purposes - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Claimant's explanations - Whether acceptable - Whether the claimant's conduct had destroyed the employer-employee relationship - Whether the company had been justified in dismissing him - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse Retrenchment - Redundancy - Whether the claimants had been redundant - Whether the managerial power of the company had been exercised bona fide - Factors to consider - Company's post organisation structure unrebutted by the claimants - Effect of Retrenchment - Reorganisation - Union not provided with documents prior to the exercise - Whether the company had been obliged to so provide - Whether the company's failure to do so had negated the retrenchment exercise Retrenchment - Reorganisation - Whether it had been carried out in compliance with local laws and regulations - Factors to consider
- What the company should have done Retrenchment - Reorganisation - Whether the company had been suffering successive losses - Evidence adduced - Perusal of the company's audited accounts - Effect of - Cost reduction steps taken by the company - Whether it had been sufficient - Whether the company had acted bona fide - Effect of - Whether the retrenchment exercise had been carried out bona fide DOMESTIC INQUIRY Procedural impropriety - Short notice given for convening the DI
- Whether a breach of the principles of natural justice - Whether it had invalidated the whole proceedings - Factors to consider - What the company should have done EVIDENCE Documentary evidence - Findings of the inquiry panel- Whether in order - Factors to consider - Whether the company had come to court with a prima facie case INDUSTRIAL COURT Jurisdiction - Threshold jurisdiction of the Industrial Court - How its derived - Whether the Industrial Court had any inherent power to enlarge the scope of the reference - Effect of Remedies - Compensation - Whether exemplary and punitive damages could be awarded - Factors to consider - Provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Effect of - Whether the court had the discretion to grant - Factors to consider in the exercise of the discretion - Whether suitable to be granted in the instant case - Determination of quantum LABOUR LAW Industrial Court - Dispute over wrongful dismissal - Employee given warnings at previous domestic enquiry for similar misconduct
- Admission to charge of coming late to work - Misconduct successfully proved - Findings by Industrial Court that dismissal was harsh, disproportionate and without just cause or excuse - Whether Industrial Court correct in findings - Whether High Court erred in affirming Industrial Court's decision Trade Union - Registration - Director General of Trade Unions
(DGTU) allowing registration of in-house trade union - Whether trade union representing workmen already existed - Whether DGTU could refuse registration under s. 12(2) of Trade Unions Act 1959 - Whether registration resulted in multiplicity of union - Whether DGTU considered all relevant matters before registering trade union - Whether decision tainted with Wednesbury unreasonableness TRADE UNION Union lodging a complaint against the bank pursuant to s. 5 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Whether an employer employee relationship had existed between the parties - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 5 & 8 Whether there had been a contravention of ss. 4 & 5 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Whether those sections had covered acts between a corporate body and a person not in its employment - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the union had the right to invoke ss. 4, 5 and 8 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 against the bank - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 4, 5
& 8 INDEKS PERKARA KETERANGAN Saksi - Keterangan saksi kolej penuh dengan keraguan, ketidakpastian dan juga tidak konsisten - Kesannya - Sama ada pihak kolej berjaya untuk membuktikan salahlaku tersebut terhadap YM - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Tindakan kolej terhadap YM - Sama ada YM telah dibuang kerja secara konstruktif - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira KONTRAK PERKHIDMATAN Terma dan syarat - Sama ada YM telah melanggar terma dan syarat kontrak perkhidmatannya - Sama ada YM telah bekerja dengan syarikat lain semasa beliau digantung kerja tanpa gaji - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya Terma dan syarat - Sama ada YM telah melanggar terma dan syarat kontrak perkhidmatannya - Tujuan klausa 16(h) kontrak perkhidmatannya - Sama ada bertujuan melingkungi keadaan YM semasa diberhentikan kerja - Penelitian klausa tersebut - Kesannya
- Sama ada tindakan syarikat terhadap YM adalah adil MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN Prosedur - Tindakan - YM menarik balik tindakan beliau yang dimulakan di Jabatan Tenaga Buruh di bawah Akta Kerja 1955 - Sama ada tindakan tersebut menghalangnya daripada membawa tindakan ini di mahkamah - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) dan Akta Kerja 1955, s. 69 Remedi - Ganti rugi - Jumlah ganti rugi yang harus diawardkan kepada YM - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira PEMBUANGAN KERJA Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat - YM bekerja dengan syarikat lain semasa beliau digantung kerja tanpa gaji - Sama ada YM telah melakukan salah laku tersebut - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Tindakan syarikat terhadap YM - Sama ada adil - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif - Pihak kolej gagal untuk membayar tunggakan gaji YM - Tindakan pihak kolej apabila isu ini ditimbulkan oleh YM - Kesannya - Sama ada pihak kolej melalui tindakannya telah melakukan suatu kemungkiran fundamental terhadap kontrak perkhidmatan YM - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada YM telah dbuang kerja secara konstruktif Salahlaku - Sama ada YM telah melanggar peraturan kolej - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Pihak kolej gagal untuk mengambil tindakan terhadap YM selama lima bulan - Sama ada pihak kolej telah memaafkan salahlaku YM tersebut - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya Salahlaku - Sama ada YM telah membuat deklarasi palsu di dalam borang permohonan kerjanya - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Pembelaan YM - Sama ada dapat diterima - Sama ada salahlaku tersebut berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) PENAMATAN PERKHIDMATAN Prestasi kerja - Prestasi kerja yang tidak memuaskan - Bila diketahui oleh syarikat - Sama ada tindakan syarikat menamatkan perkhidmatannya adalah pra-matang - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya Prestasi kerja - Prestasi kerja yang tidak memuaskan - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Tindakan syarikat - Sama ada bertentangan dengan amalan biasa sesuatu organisasi - Apa yang syarikat seharusnya lakukan - Sama ada tindakan syarikat berpatutan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) |
|
| Copyright Mylawbox Sdn Bhd | Subscribe | Unsubscribe |
