TEE SOON KIAT v. AIA BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
NOOR RUWENA DATO’ MOHD NURDIN
AWARD NO. 450 OF 2020 [CASE NO: 12/4-2930/18]
20 FEBRUARY 2020

DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Sexual harassment – Whether the claimant had sexually harassed COW2/Ms. S – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether the charges had been proven by the company – Claimant denying the charges and proffering his version of events – Whether could be accepted – Whether supported by the evidence – Whether his conduct had justified his dismissal – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse

DISMISSAL: Misconduct – Claimant sexually harassing and molesting COW2/ Ms. S – Whether proven by the company against him – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether it had amounted to serious misconduct – Whether it had justified his dismissal – Company’s actions towards him – Whether the company had had any sinister intentions against him or had wanted to get rid of him – Effect of

DISMISSAL: Misconduct – Whether the claimant had failed to escalate the matter to his superiors until a week after the incident – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the charge had been proven against him – Claimant’s position in the company – What he should have done – What his actions had shown

EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence – Admissibility – Claimant attempting to adduce “fresh evidence” after the conclusion of the hearing – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Effect of

EVIDENCE: Witness – Credibility – The claimant’s evidence against the company’s and the complainant’s – “He said-she said” – Which version had been more probable – Factors to consider – Effect of

HII KING v. SARAWAK ENERGY BHD & ANOR
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
GULAM MUHIADDEEN ABDUL AZIZ
AWARD NO. 634 OF 2020 [CASE NO: 6(8)/4-333/13]
11 MARCH 2020

DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Violence at the workplace – Whether the claimant had behaved in an unruly and violent manner towards his fellow employee, COW2 – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the charge had been proven by the company – Whether the existence of serious bodily harm had been a relevant consideration – Whether the fact that no physical contact had taken place between the parties had been a material consideration – Whether the claimant’s actions had constituted serious misconduct – Claimant’s defence – Whether acceptable and proven by the evidence – Whether his past misconduct could be considered when determining the punishment to impose on him – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse

DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Violence at the workplace – Whether the claimant had behaved in an unruly and violent manner towards his fellow employee, COW2 – Effect of – Whether his past misconduct could be taken into consideration when determining his punishment – What his past actions had shown – Claimant’s service with the company – How he should have behaved instead

EVIDENCE: Adverse inference – Company failing to call two witnesses – Whether there had been suppression of evidence – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether an adverse inference ought to be drawn against it – Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g)

EVIDENCE: Burden of proof – Whether discharged by the company, on a balance of probabilities – Evidence adduced – Effect of

FAIR WORK COMMISSION RULES UBER EATS DRIVERS ARE NOT EMPLOYEES
Uber Eats delivery drivers not entitled to employee rights
Australia's Fair Work Commission (FWC) has ruled that Uber Eats delivery drivers are independent contractors and thus not entitled to employee rights. The full bench ruling, made on Tuesday, held that an employer-employee relationship did not exist between Uber Eats and one of its delivery drivers due to three "critical" factors.

Read More

PREGNANT LAW FIRM WORKER AWARDED £23K AFTER EMAIL SACKING
Law firm that sacked pregnant administrator by e-mail a week after hiring her to pay £23k
A Manchester law firm which sacked a pregnant employee by email a week after hiring her, and after she suffered nausea and vomiting caused by pregnancy, has been ordered to pay over £23,000 by the employment tribunal. Gowing Law Solicitors conceded that Ms K Wright, a full-time administrator, had been unfairly dismissed and discriminated against contrary to the Equality Act 2010, and that the principal reason for her dismissal was connected with her pregnancy. The firm accepted liability for unfair dismissal in the week before the hearing was due to begin.

Read More