|
MOHAMAD AZHAR ABDUL HALIM v. NAZA MOTOR TRADING SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
SAROJINI KANDASAMY
AWARD NO. 101 OF 2017 [CASE NO: 4(2)(4)/4-241/15]
10 JANUARY 2017
DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies - Whether the claimant had threatened COW1 vide WhatsApp messages - Evidence adduced - Effect of - COW1's conduct towards the claimant thereafter - Whether it had shown that she had feared for her life and that of her family - Whether the allegation had been proven against the claimant - Whether it had justified his dismissal
DISMISSAL: Misconduct - Claimant allegedly threatening COW1 vide WhatsApp messages - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Claimant unable to be identified in the WhatsApp messages - Effect of - COW1 failing to keep the original WhatsApp messages - Whether the WhatsApp messages could be manipulated - Whether it had been credible and authentic and safe to rely on to prove the charge - Effect of - What COW1 should have done - Whether this allegation had successfully been proven against the claimant - Whether the company had been reasonable in dismissing him - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence - Show cause and suspension letter against the claimant - Whether the charge contained therein had been defective for want of material particulars - Factors to consider - Effect of - Company's reasons for the same - Whether acceptable - Whether the charge had been void ab initio
EVIDENCE: Witness - Conflicting evidence - Whether COW1 had been a credible witness - Factors to consider - Whether her evidence had been probable and could be believed - Effect of
EVIDENCE: Witness - Whether COW2's evidence had consisted of mainly hearsay evidence - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - Whether it had been safe to rely on her evidence - Factors to consider - Evidence Act 1950, s. 60
NATIONAL UNION OF BANK EMPLOYEES, STATES OF MALAYA v. MALAYAN COMMERCIAL BANK'S ASSOCIATION & ANOR
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
ANNA NG FUI CHOO, EMPLOYEES' PANEL: SAMSUDIN USOP,
EMPLOYERS' PANEL: HAIRUZZAMAN SAGI
AWARD NO. 147 OF 2017 [CASE NO: 3(22)/6-853/16]
18 JANUARY 2017
INDUSTRIAL COURT: Jurisdiction - When it should be exercised by the Industrial Court in an application for interpretation under s. 33(1) of the Act - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether there had been disputed questions of facts - Evidence adduced - Whether the Industrial Court ought to answer the questions posed by the Union - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 33(1)
INTERPRETATION: Collective Agreement - Article on the transfer of employees - Whether it required the consent of the employees concerned - Factors to consider - Perusal of arts. 15 and 16 of the CA - Effect of - Whether the union's application ought to be allowed - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 33(1)
|
