SUBJECT INDEX
CONTRACT
Employment contract - Breach - Whether appellant misrepresented to respondent - Whether respondent had lawfully repudiated employment contract - Whether respondent entitled to a refund of payments made to appellant during his employment
Yew Cheng Lim v. Regal Marketing & Trading Sdn Bhd
(Hadhariah Syed Ismail JC) [2011] 3 ILR 485 
Rescission - Restitutio in integrum - Whether applicable - Whether respondent had lawfully repudiated employment contract - Whether respondent entitled to a refund of payments made to appellant during his employment - Whether payments would have been made if respondent knew of appellant's misrepresentation - Whether there was merit in appellant's contention
Yew Cheng Lim v. Regal Marketing & Trading Sdn Bhd
(Hadhariah Syed Ismail JC) [2011] 3 ILR 485
DISMISSAL
Absenteeism - Whether proven by the company - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been on suspension at the material time - Evaluation of the evidence - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Abang Ahmad Abang Abdul Samad v. SDH Makmur Motors Sdn Bhd
(Gabriel Gumis) [2011] 3 ILR 657
Bad language - Claimant using bad language against his superior - Whether the claimant had been provoked - Evidence adduced - Effect of - What the claimant should have done instead - Whether the claimant's conduct had bordered on insubordination
Guna Ratnam S Subramaniam v. Shin-Etsu Polymer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2011] 3 ILR 578
Insubordination - Claimant asked to attend the DI - Claimant failing to attend - Whether the claimant's refusal to attend had constituted insubordinate conduct - Effect of - Whether the charge had been proven by the company - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Abang Ahmad Abang Abdul Samad v. SDH Makmur Motors Sdn Bhd
(Gabriel Gumis) [2011] 3 ILR 657
Insubordination - Claimant using bad language on his superior - Whether the claimant had been aware that he had been out of line - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the company had managed to establish the misconduct against the claimant - Evidence adduced by the company - Whether sufficient to satisfy its burden of proof - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Guna Ratnam S Subramaniam v. Shin-Etsu Polymer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2011] 3 ILR 578
Misconduct - Claimant suspended from duty pending investigations - Whether the suspension letter had been a punishment - Whether the company had complied with their TACOS - Perusal of the TACOS - Effect of - Whether the company's actions of issuing the suspension letter had been reasonable - What the company should have ideally done - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3), Employment Act 1955, s. 14(2) & Sarawak Labour Ordinance
Abang Ahmad Abang Abdul Samad v. SDH Makmur Motors Sdn Bhd
(Gabriel Gumis) [2011] 3 ILR 657
Misconduct - Claimant using bad language against his superior - Whether the claimant had been out of line - Factors to consider - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of - Whether the misconduct had been proven against the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Guna Ratnam S Subramaniam v. Shin-Etsu Polymer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2011] 3 ILR 578
Misconduct - Whether the claimant had been involved in instigating, preparing, issuing and signing the mass-resignation letter - Whether the mass resignation letter had existed - Evidence adduced - Effect of - What the claimant should have done in such circumstances - Position held by the claimant in the company - Whether the claimant's actions or omissions had constituted misconduct - Effect of - Whether the charge had been proven by the company - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Abang Ahmad Abang Abdul Samad v. SDH Makmur Motors Sdn Bhd
(Gabriel Gumis) [2011] 3 ILR 657
Procedural impropriety - Claimant asked to establish his innocence first before company calling witnesses - Whether that had been fair to the claimant - Effect of - What the process should have been - Whether the DI conducted had been irregular and invalid
Guna Ratnam S Subramaniam v. Shin-Etsu Polymer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2011] 3 ILR 578
DOMESTIC INQUIRY
Procedural impropriety - Company carrying out a Disciplinary Committee Meeting ('DCM') - Whether the DCM had been in compliance with the company's TACOS - Effect of - Whether a DCM and a DI were the same thing - Factors to consider
Abang Ahmad Abang Abdul Samad v. SDH Makmur Motors Sdn Bhd
(Gabriel Gumis) [2011] 3 ILR 657
Procedural impropriety - Constitution of the panel of inquiry - Whether it had been flawed - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the flaw could be cured by the Industrial Court
Abang Ahmad Abang Abdul Samad v. SDH Makmur Motors Sdn Bhd
(Gabriel Gumis) [2011] 3 ILR 657
Procedural impropriety - Whether the claimant had been given sufficient notice to attend - Sequence of events - Claimant failing to attend the DI - Claimant failing to ask for a postponement of the DI - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been aware of the allegations brought against him
Abang Ahmad Abang Abdul Samad v. SDH Makmur Motors Sdn Bhd
(Gabriel Gumis) [2011] 3 ILR 657
EVIDENCE
Documentary evidence - Admissibility - Evidence Act 1950, s. 73A - Whether letter from university admissible - Whether courts had wide discretionary power to admit letter - Whether maker should be called as witness - Whether testimony of maker commensurate to time and expenses incurred - Whether appellant had produced documents to rebut respondent's allegations
Yew Cheng Lim v. Regal Marketing & Trading Sdn Bhd
(Hadhariah Syed Ismail JC) [2011] 3 ILR 485
INDUSTRIAL COURT
Jurisdiction - Workman - Whether the claimant had been a workman within the ambit of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Tests to be applied - Effect of - Functions of the claimant in the company - Effect of - The degree of control exercised by the company over the claimant's functions - Whether it had been sufficient to show a contract of service - Perusal and evaluation of the evidence tendered - What it showed - Whether the arrangement had been characteristic of an employer-workman relationship - Effect of - Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter - Effect of - Whether the dismissal had been without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2 and 20(3)
Raja Desinggi Raman v. Jian Hoong Quan Enterprise Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2011] 3 ILR 493
Procedure - Parties - Joinder - Proposed joined party was the successor company to the hotel - Whether the CA executed between the hotel and the union had been binding on the proposed joined company - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether joinder necessary to make adjudication enforceable and effective - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 17(1), 29(a) and 32(1)(b)
Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Hotel, Bar & Restoran Semenanjung Malaysia v. HFMS Sdn Bhd (Hotel Fortuna, Kuala Lumpur)
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2011] 3 ILR 652
Procedure - Parties - Joinder - Proposed joined party was the successor company to the hotel - Whether the union had to obtain recognition from the successor company - Factors to consider - Circumstances in which recognition would need to be obtained - Effect of - Whether joinder necessary to make adjudication enforceable and effective - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 9(1), 13(1) and 29(a)
Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Hotel, Bar & Restoran Semenanjung Malaysia v. HFMS Sdn Bhd (Hotel Fortuna, Kuala Lumpur)
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2011] 3 ILR 652
LABOUR LAW
Employment - Contract of employment - Whether appellant misrepresented to respondent - Whether respondent had lawfully repudiated employment contract - Whether respondent entitled to a refund of payments made to appellant during his employment - Whether there was merit in appellant's contention
Yew Cheng Lim v. Regal Marketing & Trading Sdn Bhd
(Hadhariah Syed Ismail JC) [2011] 3 ILR 485
NON-COMPLIANCE
Award - Complainant filing a complaint of non-compliance of the Award - Whether s. 56(2)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 had applied - In what circumstances had it applied - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 56(2)(c)
Su Sook Hwee v. The Summit Hotel (Wholly Owned By Meda Development Sdn Bhd)
(Susila Sithamparam) [2011] 3 ILR 649
TRADE DISPUTE
Collective Agreement - Dispute on articles in the collective agreement - Interpretation of - Whether the Union's members had been entitled to the same - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Practices in a similar industry - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 26(2)
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Alat-Alat Pengangkutan Dan Sekutu v. Denso (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam) [2011] 3 ILR 521
INDEKS PERKARA
MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN
Bidangkuasa - Sama ada mahkamah mempunyai bidangkuasa untuk membicarakan pemberhentian kerja YM pada 17 Mei 2008 - Rangkaian peristiwa dalam kes ini - Kesannya - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira
Tang Chee Kong lwn. MEL Force Enterprise Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2011] 3 ILR 565
Bidangkuasa - Sama ada mahkamah mempunyai bidangkuasa untuk membicarakan pemberhentian kerja YM - Sama ada terdapat kekeliruan tentang tarikh pemberhentian kerja YM - Sama ada YM mengalami apa-apa prejudis disebabkan 2 tarikh tersebut - Kesannya - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira
Tang Chee Kong lwn. MEL Force Enterprise Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2011] 3 ILR 565
Remedi - Pemulihan semula kerja - Sama ada sesuai diawardkan - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya
Tang Chee Kong lwn. MEL Force Enterprise Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2011] 3 ILR 565
PEMBUANGAN KERJA
Ketidakhadiran - YM didakwa tidak hadir bertugas tanpa kebenaran syarikat - Sama ada peruntukan di bawah s. 15(2) Akta Pekerja 1955 terpakai secara otomatik - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada YM telah memohon untuk cuti pada masa yang material - Sama ada responden telah memaklumkan YM bahawa permohonan cutinya ditolak dalam jangkamasa yang munasabah - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan tanpa sebab yang adil dan munasabah - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) dan 30(5) & Akta Pekerja 1955, s. 15(2)
Prabakar Rajinteran lwn. Premium Vegetable Oils Sdn Bhd
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2011] 3 ILR 506
Ketidakhadiran - YM didakwa tidak hadir bertugas tanpa kebenaran syarikat - Sama ada YM telah memohon untuk cuti pada masa yang material - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan responden menolak permohonan cuti YM pada saat-saat terakhir adalah munasabah - Sebab mengapa YM memohon untuk cuti - Kesannya - Sama ada responden berjaya membuktikan ketidakhadiran YM tanpa penjelasan - Sama ada responden telah mengalami kerugian disebabkan ketidakhadiran YM - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dibuat tanpa sebab yang adil dan munasabah - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) dan 30(5) & Akta Pekerja 1955, s. 15(2)
Prabakar Rajinteran lwn. Premium Vegetable Oils Sdn Bhd
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2011] 3 ILR 506
Penyelesaian damai di Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan - Memorandum Persetujuan ditandatangani oleh kedua-dua pihak - YM dipulihkan pekerjaannya oleh syarikat - Sama ada syarikat telah benar-benar memulihkan pekerjaan YM - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Pengenalpastian tarikh pemberhentian kerja YM yang sebenar - Sama ada syarikat berjaya untuk mengemukakan alasan yang adil dan bersebab untuk pemberhentian kerja YM - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan atas alasan yang adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Tang Chee Kong lwn. MEL Force Enterprise Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2011] 3 ILR 565
UNDANG-UNDANG BURUH
Pekerjaan - Cuti sakit bergaji - Sijil cuti sakit dikeluarkan oleh klinik di luar panel klinik syarikat dan tiada surat penjelasan bertulis diberikan pekerja mengikut peraturan syarikat - Sama ada pekerja berhak untuk cuti sakit bergaji - Sama ada keperluan syarikat untuk surat penjelasan bertentangan dengan s. 60F Akta Kerja 1955 - Sama ada klinik kerajaan dikecualikan daripada aplikasi s. 60F(1)(b) - Sama ada potongan gaji cuti sakit wajar dan adil - Sama ada potongan gaji cuti sakit boleh dibuat dalam bulan selepas bulan cuti sakit diambil
Silverstone Bhd lwn. Ramal Muthusamy
(Zakaria Sam H) [2011] 3 ILR 477