|
ABDULLAH ABDUL RAHMAN @ ABDUL HALIM v. CONTINENTAL TYRE AS MALAYSIA SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, PENANG
SULAIMAN ISMAIL
AWARD NO. 1032 OF 2015 [CASE NO: 9/4-904/13]
24 AUGUST 2015
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Frustration of contract - Claimant's medical condition making performance of his contract of employment impossible - Effect of - Claimant certified unfit to perform his job by the doctor - Conduct of the respondent company towards him - Whether reasonable - Effect of - Whether there had been a frustration of the claimant's contract of employment - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Frustration of contract - Claimant unable to perform his job due to his medical condition - Medical Board not convened by the respondent company - Whether it had been fatal to the respondent company's case - Whether the respondent company had complied with whatever it had needed to do before medically boarding out the claimant - Factors to consider - Whether the respondent company's actions had been reasonable - Whether the respondent company had acted in the best interests of the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
CHEOK SWEE AIK v. TALI MAJU SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, SABAH
DUNCAN SIKODOL
AWARD NO. 1216 OF 2015 [CASE NO: 17/4-99/13]
20 OCTOBER 2015
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Terms and conditions - Notice of termination - Whether the claimant had been terminated pursuant to contract - Factors to consider - Effect of - Relationship between the claimant and the company - Whether the Industrial Court as a court of good conscience and equity should ignore the sanctity of contracts and modify the contractual rights and obligations of the parties - Whether there had been a dismissal
DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal - Change in hours of work - Claimant issued second letter of appointment with daily split shift - Whether there had been mala fide intent on the part of the company in issuing this second letter of appointment - Factors to consider - Whether it had been a business decision and within management's prerogative to issue it - Whether it had constituted an unfair labour practice - Whether the claimant had been constructively dismissed - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal - Change in hours of work - Claimant required to work on daily split shift pursuant to second letter of appointment - Claimant contending that he had not been aware of the change when he had signed the second letter of appointment - Whether could be accepted - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Position held by the claimant in the company - What he should have done - Claimant only protesting after two weeks - Effect of - Whether he had read and understood the terms of the letter - Whether he had been dismissed by the company - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
DISMISSAL: Insubordination - Claimant notifying the respondent company that he would strictly comply with the working hours as stipulated in his first employment letter and proceeding to do so - Whether his actions had been a clear defiance of the respondent company's instructions - Whether it had constituted insubordinate behaviour - Whether it had justified his dismissal
SITI ESRAWANI RAHMAT lwn. ELEKTRIK TAWANIE
MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN, JOHOR
ROSLAN MAT NOR
AWARD NO. 1240 TAHUN 2015 [NO. KES: 16/4-155/15]
29 OKTOBER 2015
KONTRAK PERKHIDMATAN: Terma dan syarat - Notis penamatan - YM menandatangani dua perjanjian pekerjaan dengan syarikat responden - Sama ada kedudukan YM telah ditukar daripada seorang pekerja tetap kepada seorang pekerja kontrak - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya
PEMBUANGAN KERJA: Prestasi kerja - Prestasi kerja yang tidak memuaskan - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat responden - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada prestasi kerja YM telah dinilai oleh syarikat responden - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Apa yang syarikat responden seharusnya lakukan - Sama ada tindakan syarikat responden adalah berpatutan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
LOH POH IM v. MINETECH RESOURCES BERHAD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
ONG GEOK LAN
AWARD NO. 1399 OF 2015 [CASE NO: 15/4-566/13]
15 DECEMBER 2015
DISMISSAL: Abandonment - Claimant walking out of her job - Whether she had abandoned it - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Whether she had been dismissed by the company - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal - Change in job functions - Claimant reinstated to position of COO pursuant to IR conciliation meeting - Whether the company had complied with all the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Company changing her portfolios - Whether it had been allowed to do so - Whether it had been in breach of the Memorandum - Perusal of the contents of the Memorandum - Effect of
DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal - Change in job functions - Company changing her portfolios in line with its reorganisation and restructuring - Whether it had been within its management prerogative to do so - Factors to consider - Whether there had been any mala fide intent on the part of the company in doing so - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Treatment of the company towards the claimant - Effect of
DISMISSAL: Notice of termination - Forced resignation - Whether the claimant had been forced to resign - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Company's actions towards her - Whether it had still wanted her to work for it
|
