NORIZAH OTHMAN lwn. HL REKA SDN BHD
MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN, JOHOR
ROSLAN MAT NOR
AWARD NO. 108 TAHUN 2015 [NO. KES: 16(20)(16)(20)/4-264/14]
27 JANUARI 2015
MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN: Bidangkuasa - Syarikat responden mendakwa bahawa pembayaran kepada YM merupakan bayaran nafkah dan bukan gaji - Sama ada mahkamah perusahaan mempunyai bidangkuasa untuk memutuskan isu ini - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya
MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN: Remedi - Pampasan - Apakah pampasan yang wajar diawardkan di dalam kes ini - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya
PEMBUANGAN KERJA: Notis penamatan - Alasan yang dinyatakan di dalamnya untuk menamatkan perkhidmatan YM - Sama ada kemampuan kewangan dan penceraian COW1 dengan YM merupakan alasan yang adil dan bersebab untuk menamatkan perkhidmatan YM - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Penilaian keterangan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil and bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
PEMBUANGAN KERJA: Notis penamatan - YM diserahkan dua notis penamatan - Penentuan tarikh YM dibuang kerja - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada mahkamah boleh mengubah tarikh yang dinyatakan di dalam rujukan YB Menteri Sumber Manusia
SEE MEUN HWA v. HOTEL MALAYA SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
EDDIE YEO SOON CHYE
AWARD NO. 147 OF 2015 [CASE NO: 13(25)/4-315/2012]
9 FEBRUARY 2015
DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Claimant allegedly negligent in handling the company's employee's dismissal case - No findings made by the Industrial Court that the dismissal had been unfair - Whether the company had jumped the gun - Factors to consider - Effect of - What the company should have done
DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Whether the claimant had been negligent in handling the company's dismissal case in relation to one of its employees - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Company's actions - Whether it had amounted to condonation on its part - Company aware of the dismissal letter issued by the claimant - Company only bringing the charge 3 years after the event - Effect of - 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 - Demotion - Claimant demoted pursuant to the findings of the DI - Whether it had amounted to a breach of a fundamental term of his contract of employment - Evidence adduced - Whether it had been sufficient to claim constructive dismissal - Whether the claimant had delayed in taking action - Factors to consider - Effect of
DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal - Salary - Claimant's salary reduced pursuant to the findings of the DI - Whether the company by its actions had breached the contract of employment - Factors to consider - Whether the claimant had been constructively dismissed
DOMESTIC INQUIRY: Procedural impropriety - DI held before sole panel member - Whether the DI had been defective - Factors to consider
EVIDENCE: Burden of proof - Whether sufficiently discharged by the claimant to prove constructive dismissal - Whether the contract test satisfied - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced
|