CASE HIGHTLIGHTS

MUHAMMAD AFIQ AHLAMI AZMAN lwn. SWM ENVIRONMENT SDN BHD
MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN, KUALA LUMPUR
ZULHELMY HASAN
AWARD NO. 311 TAHUN 2022 [NO. KES: 5/4-1742/20]
22 FEBRUARI 2022

KETERANGAN: Keterangan dokumentari – Rakaman CCTV syarikat – Sama ada ia memadai untuk membuktikan salah laku YM – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Kesannya

KETERANGAN: Inferens bertentangan – COW5 tidak memberikan keterangan di SD syarikat – Kesannya – Sama ada beliau merupakan seorang saksi yang material – Sama ada inferens bertentangan harus dibuat terhadap syarikat – Akta Keterangan 1950, s. 114(g)

PEMBUANGAN KERJA: Salah laku – Sama ada YM telah menghendap, mengintai dan merakam video/gambar terhadap COW2 ketika beliau berada di dalam tandas – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya – Pembelaan YM – Sama ada dapat diterima – Sama ada pertuduhan in berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat terhadapnya – Kesannya – Sama ada kes syarikat terhadap beliau hanya berdasarkan andaian, kebarangkalian dan kemungkinan – Apa yang syarikat sepatutnya lakukan – Sama ada pertuduhan ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat terhadapnya – Sama ada ia mewajarkan pembuangan kerjanya – Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)

SIASATAN DALAMAN: Kesilapan prosedur – Sama ada SD tersebut telah dijalankan mengikut prinsip keadilan asasi – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Kesannya


WONG CHOY PHENG & ORS v. TAYLOR’S UNIVERSITY SDN BHD
(Consolidated with Cases No: 11/4-682/20, 12/4-916/20, and 14/4- 1434/20 vide Interim Award No. 19 of 2021 dated 4 January 2021)
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
REIHANA ABD RAZAK
AWARD NO. 342 OF 2022 [CASE NO: 6(15)(11)/4-681/20]
1 MARCH 2022

DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – Claimants retrenched – Whether it had been carried out bona fide – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the claimants had been victimised – Whether the claimants’ claims had been supported by the evidence – Effect of – Whether the company had been under an obligation to consult or warn them of their impending retrenchments – Effect of – Whether the claimants had been dismissed without just cause and excuse

DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – Claimants retrenched – Whether their positions had become redundant post-restructuring – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the LIFO principle and the Code of Conduct for Industrial Harmony had had legal force and been complied with – Effect of – Some of the claimants had been subjected to an independent selection matrix and had the lowest score – Effect of – Whether their selection for retrenchment had been carried out bona fide – Whether their positions had become redundant to the company’s requirements – Whether the company had had an obligation to offer them alternative employment either within it or with third parties – Effect of – Whether they had been suitable or qualified to fill the positions of the job vacancies advertised by the company – What their actions had shown – Effect of – Whether dismissals without just cause and excuse

DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – Claimants retrenched – Whether they had been given sufficient notice of their retrenchments – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of

DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Restructuring – Whether the company had undertaken cost-cutting measures – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether its expenditure had been justified – Whether it had carried out its restructuring process bona fide – What its actions had shown

DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Restructuring – Whether the company’s restructuring exercise had been carried out bona fide – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether the company had been suffering financially – Whether it had been within the claimants’ knowledge – Company’s spending and its justification for the same – Whether acceptable – Whether there had been a genuine need on the part of the company to restructure its workforce – Whether the claimants’ positions had become redundant justifying their terminations - Whether their terminations from employment had been carried out with just cause and excuse