|
NADIA ABDUL JAMIL v. SAMADHI RETREATS SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
TAN GHEE PHAIK
AWARD NO. 1587 OF 2017 [CASE NO: 13(14)/4-569/13]
1 NOVEMBER 2017
DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal - Change in job scope - Claimant instructed to do work for COW2's other businesses - Whether it had been part of her job scope - Perusal of the contract of employment - Effect of - Claimant doing work for other businesses previously - Whether it had amounted to acquiescence - What she should have done - Whether the respondent company's actions had been a fundamental breach that had gone to the root of the contract of employment - Whether the claimant had been constructively dismissed
DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal - Change in job scope - Whether the claimant by her actions had elected to affirm the contract of employment - Factors to consider - Claimant subsequently walking out of her employment - Whether her actions had amounted to her abandoning her job - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the respondent company by its actions had repudiated the contract of employment - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
DISMISSAL: Insubordination - Whether the claimant had refused to follow the lawful instructions of COW2 - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Whether she had in fact been the one in breach of her employment contract
MOHD SHAFIQ HELMI SOHARI v. NEXT LOGISTICS SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
ANNA NG FUI CHOO
AWARD NO. 1774 OF 2017 [CASE NO: 3/4-937/15]
8 DECEMBER 2017
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Notice of termination - Company issuing the claimant a backdated termination letter - Whether it had taken the law into its own hands by doing so - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the company's actions of failing to pay him half pay, during his period of suspension, despite agreeing to pay him earlier, had tantamounted to an unfair labour practice
DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Whether the claimant had allowed the company's competitor to enter the warehouse without permission - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Whether the company had proven the charge on a balance of probability - What its actions had shown - Claimant's defence - Whether could be accepted - Whether the claimant's dismissal had been carried out with just cause and excuse
DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Whether the claimant had failed to follow the company's procedures by allowing the company's competitor to enter the warehouse without permission - Evidence adduced - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether there had been any written procedures in place - Whether the company had succeeded in proving these charges against him - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse
DOMESTIC INQUIRY: Procedural impropriety - Whether the DI conducted had been valid - Factors to consider - Effect of
EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence - Notes of the DI - Whether it had been accurate - Evidence adduced - Effect of - What it had shown - Whether the DI had been conducted according to the rules of natural justice
|
