If you can't view the message, please click here. | |||
<< Back | BULLETIN 3/2012 | ||
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 3 of 2012) | |||
SUBJECT INDEX CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT Terms and conditions - Breach - Plaintiff absent from work more than two consecutive days - Whether claimant breached contract of service - Whether claimant dismissed with just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) DISMISSAL Absenteeism - Claimant absent from work without authorisation for more than two consecutive days - Whether claimant absent from work - Claimant claiming attended meetings with company's clients away from office - Whether claimant working or attending to personal affairs - Evidence adduced - Whether proven - Employment Act 1955, ss. 13(2) & 15(2) Contract of employment - Oral contract - Claimant's appointment based on oral contract - Whether contract of employment proven - Whether contract of employment formalised - Whether claimant dismissed with just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) and 30(5) Constructive dismissal - Misconduct - Whether proven - Claimant suspended for two months considered herself constructively dismissed - Whether claimant dismissed with just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Misconduct - Breach of contract of employment - Complaint of company's salary system to company's client - Whether claimant breached contract of employment - Whether proven - Whether claimant dismissed with just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) Misconduct - Misrepresentation - Claimant's doctorate qualification - Whether claimant misrepresented his qualifications to secure employment with company - Whether proven - Background check on claimant done by company after appointment - Whether adequate - Whether claimant dismissed with just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) Misconduct - Usage of company's prime movers and trailers for delivery of cargo containers - Whether on instruction of superior - Whether action authorised by company - Whether claimants aware of company's regulations - Whether termination justified Notice of termination - Dispute as to date of dismissal - Actual date of dismissal - Whether construed from date of letter or date of acknowledgement of receipt - Industrial Relations Act 1967 Notice of termination - Inadequate notice - Claimant terminated immediately and denied access by company - Company's conduct - Whether constructive dismissal or direct dismissal - Whether company to be partly blamed - Industrial Relations Act 1967 Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant's position outsourced by company - Whether company's action tainted with
mala fide - Whether allegation of fraudulent dealings by company substantiated with evidence - Whether claimant dismissed to prevent investigation of allegation of fraud by company - Whether claimant warned of company's action against him Retrenchment - Restructuring - Redundancy - Whether claimant's position redundant - Whether proven by company - Delegation of claimant's functions and duties to subordinate - Whether company's action tainted with
mala fide - Evidence adduced - Factors to consider - Company's conduct - Whether claimant dismissed with just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) Summary dismissal - No reasons given - Company absent at trial - Whether claimant's evidence challenged - Ex parte hearing - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 29(d) DOMESTIC INQUIRY Procedural impropriety - Conduct of DI - Whether claimant given opportunity to defend herself - Whether in compliance with rules of natural justice - Industrial Relations Act 1967 Procedural impropriety - Whether domestic inquiry properly conducted - Whether complied with rules of natural justice - Whether claimants prejudiced EMPLOYMENT Termination of service - Oral termination - Whether claimant verbally dismissed - Evidence adduced - Whether termination with just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) EVIDENCE Adverse inference - Non-production of material witness - Respondent company failing to call witness to testify - Whether material witness - Whether amounted to withholding or suppressing of evidence - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) Adverse inference - Non-production of material witness - Respondent company failing to call witness to testify - Whether material witness - Whether amounted to withholding or suppressing of evidence - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) Documentary evidence - Findings of domestic inquiry - Validity of notes from DI - Factors to consider - Whether there was reliable documentary or oral evidence - Industrial Relations Act 1967 INDUSTRIAL COURT Jurisdiction - Fraud - Whether proper forum to determine allegation of fraudulent dealings by company - Whether sufficient evidence adduced to assist court in finding on fraud Jurisdiction - Uncertainty as to date of dismissal - Whether there was dismissal as per date stated in Minister's reference - Jurisdiction to hear case - Whether court had jurisdiction to hear claimant's case - Whether case should be struck off - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 29(a) & 29(g) Procedure - Parties - Joinder - Whether there was nexus - Factors to consider - Lifting veil of incorporation - Whether existence of nexus between company and parties to be joined proven - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) INDEKS PERKARA KETERANGAN Keterangan sokongan - Gangguan seksual di tempat kerja - Sama ada dakwaan mangsa perlu disokong - Sama ada kebolehpercayaan mangsa dipatahkan - Sama ada dibuktikan dengan keterangan langsung MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN Prosedur - Tindakan - Kes didengar secara ex parte - Pihak responden pertama dan kedua tidak hadir semasa perbicaraan - Sama ada keterangan PM dicabar - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 29(d) & (g) PEMBUANGAN KERJA Ketidakpatuhan terhadap polisi syarikat - PM tidur waktu masa kerja - PM mendakwa sakit dan telah mengambil ubat - Sama ada dakwaan PM disiasat - Sama ada posisi tidur relevan dalam menjatuhkan hukuman - Sama ada pembuangan kerja PM dengan sebab atau alasan adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Salahlaku - Gangguan seksual - Sama ada dibuktikan - Sama ada terdapat sentuhan fizikal - Sama ada terangkum dalam bentuk gangguan seksual ditakrifkan dalam Kod Amalan Untuk Mencegah dan Membasmi Gangguan Seksual di Tempat Kerja, Kementerian Sumber Manusia - Sama ada pembuangan kerja dengan alasan dan sebab adil Salahlaku - Hadir lewat ke pejabat - Sama ada salahlaku serius - Kegagalan syarikat mengambil tindakan serta merta - Sama ada pemaafan oleh syarikat Salahlaku - Kecuaian - Kehilangan wang tunai semasa penugasan - Siasatan dalaman mendapati PM tidak bersalah - Sama ada pembuangan kerja PM adalah tanpa sebab atau alasan adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Salahlaku - Kesalahan mengugut kakitangan syarikat - Sama ada salahlaku dibuktikan - sama ada salahlaku serius - Sama ada bertentangan dengan "Codes of Conduct and Discipline" di dalam Executive Handbook syarikat - Sama ada pembuangan kerja atas alasan adil SIASATAN DALAMAN Ketidakwajaran prosedur - Penglibatan Pegawai Sumber Manusia syarikat sebagai ahli panel siasatan dalaman - Sama ada bercanggah dengan prinsip keadilan asasi dan perbicaraan yang adil - Sama ada dapatan boleh dikekalkan |
|||
<< Back | |||
Copyright Mylawbox Sdn Bhd | Subscribe | Unsubscribe | ||