If you can't view the message, please click here.

IN THIS ISSUE BULLETIN 11/2019
www.cljlaw.com
www.mylawbox.com
www.labourlawbox.com
www.clj-ebooks.com
(Available with separate subscription plan)

LATEST HIGHLIGHTS
CASE HIGHLIGHTS

MAHADI MOHD NOR v. CAE KUALA LUMPUR SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
YONG SOON CHING
AWARD NO. 1910 OF 2019 [CASE NO: 26(14)/4-2940/18]
2 JULY 2019

DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Theft – Whether the claimant had removed and sold a canopy belonging to the company to third parties without authorisation – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Claimant’s defence – Whether acceptable – Whether the misconduct had been proven against the claimant – What the company should have done – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)

DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Theft – Whether the claimant had removed and sold a canopy belonging to the company to third parties without authorisation – Whether proven by the company – Whether the company’s actions of dismissing him had been too harsh under the circumstances – Factors to consider – What it should have done instead

DOMESTIC INQUIRY: Absence of – Company failing to hold a DI before dismissing the claimant – Whether one should have been held – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether the company’s failure to hold one had been fatal to its case

EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence – Show cause letter issued by the company accusing the claimant of theft – Charges of theft subsequently abandoned after consideration of the evidence – Whether the company ought to have amended the charges against him – What the company’s actions had shown – Claimant’s conduct in comparison – Effect of – Whether the company could issue a show cause letter containing a serious offence and then do nothing about it

SREDHARAN RAMAKRISHNA NAIR v. BUMI ARMADA BERHAD/BUMI ARMADA ENGINEERING SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
BERNARD JOHN KANNY
AWARD NO. 2308 OF 2019 [CASE NO: 29(4)(22)(4)/4-270/17]
20 AUGUST 2019

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Type of – Claimant entering into four contracts with three legal entities, with a clause that there would be continuous service within the Group – Whether it had been considered one continuous contract – Whether the corporate veil of the legal entities could be lifted – Factors to consider – Effect of

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Type of – Genuine fixed-term contract – Whether the claimant had entered into genuine fixed-term contracts – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of

DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – LIFO principles – Whether followed by the company – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether the claimant’s retrenchment had been rendered prima facie invalid – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse

DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – Whether the claimant’s position had become redundant – Job functions performed by the claimant – Whether his job functions had continued to exist after his dismissal – Evidence adduced – Effect of

DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – Whether the claimant’s retrenchment had been made in compliance with accepted industrial relations standards – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether the company had exercised its managerial power bona fide – Whether it had rendered the claimant’s dismissal as being without just cause and excuse

DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Reorganisation – Whether the reorganisation carried out by the company had been justified – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of the evidence – Effect of – Actions taken by the company – What it had shown


KESATUAN PEKERJA-PEKERJA KESELAMATAN SAFEGUARDS G4S SDN BHD v. SAFEGUARDS G4S SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
EDDIE YEO SOON CHYE
EMPLOYEES’ PANEL: RAJA MORGANAN NARUNAN
EMPLOYERS’ PANEL: HEZLINA HASHIM
AWARD NO. 2054 OF 2019 [CASE NO: 1/3-3087/2018]
16 JULY 2019

TRADE DISPUTE: Warning letter – Company issuing a warning letter to the President and Vice President of the union, in relation to the latters’ actions of allegedly threatening and giving an ultimatum to it – Whether the company’s actions had constituted the conduct of obstructing both the President and the Vice-President of the union from carrying out their union duties – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8(1) & (3)

LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 10 of 2019)
Award Parties Citation Links
  HLG Capital Bhd v. Andrew Chuah Khim Peik
[Judicial Review No: WA-25-175-10-2016]
[2019] 4 ILR 1 cljlaw
labourlaw
1910/2019   Mahadi Mohd Nor v.CAE Kuala Lumpur Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 26(14)/4-2940/18]
[2019] 4 ILR 11 cljlaw
labourlaw
1945/2019   Foo Lan Fang v. Huntsman P & A Asia Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 26(14)/4-2315/18]
[2019] 4 ILR 25 cljlaw
labourlaw
1976/2019   Ahmad Puad Abu Bakar v. Perbadanan Nasional Berhad (PNS)
[Case No: 28(15)/4-1641/18]
[2019] 4 ILR 44 cljlaw
labourlaw
2270/2019   Persatuan Pegawai-pegawai Bank Semenanjung Malaysia v. Ambank (M) Berhad
[Case No: 25(22)/2-742/15]
[2019] 4 ILR 58 cljlaw
labourlaw
2308/2019   Sredharan Ramakrishna Nair v. Bumi Armada Berhad/Bumi Armada Engineering Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 29(4)(22)(4)/4-270/17]
[2019] 4 ILR 113 cljlaw
labourlaw
2364/2019   Kesatuan Sekerja Pembuatan Barangan Galian Bukan Logam v. Malaya Glass Products Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 16/2-780/18]
[2019] 4 ILR 152 cljlaw
labourlaw
2509/2019   Daniel Waelchli v. JEKS Engineering Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 4/4-2575/18]
[2019] 4 ILR 194 cljlaw
labourlaw
To Subject Index
ARTICLE HIGHLIGHT

MTUC ANNOUNCES SOCSO COVERAGE FOR LEGIT FOREIGN WORKERS FROM JAN 1
Legal foreign workers will be fully covered for any employment-related injuries from January 2020
Starting next year, the 2.2 million legal foreign workers in Malaysia will be fully covered under the Social Security Organisation (Socso) Act 1969 for any employment-related injuries. The Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) announced today that coverage will take effect from January 1, 2020.

Read More

FINANCIAL ADVISOR WAS UNFAIRLY DISMISSED AFTER BEING ‘BLACKMAILED’ TO SIGN RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
Financial adviser wins claim for unfair dismissal
A financial advisor has won a claim for unfair dismissal after his employer made false allegations to pressurise him into accepting an extended restrictive covenant agreement and attempted to stop him joining a potential competitor, an employment tribunal (ET) has ruled.

Read More

Copyright Mylawbox Sdn Bhd Subscribe/Unsubscribe