|
KESATUAN EKSEKUTIF RHB BANK BERHAD v. RHB BANK BERHAD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
GULAM MUHIADDEEN ABDUL AZIZ, EMPLOYERS' PANEL: VASUDAVAN SUPPIAH, EMPLOYEES' PANEL: HASANI MD SAAD
AWARD NO. 462 OF 2018 [CASE NO: 6(18)(12)(4)(22)(4)/3-427/12]
28 FEBRUARY 2018
TRADE DISPUTE: Bank implementing a new re-grading and salary structure - Whether it had been a form of union busting by the bank - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Motives for implementing the new re-grading and salary structure - Whether justified - Whether the bank had been in contravention of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 4(1), 5(1)(c) and (e)
TRADE DISPUTE: Bank implementing a new re-grading and salary structure - Whether it had practised discrimination by using its new re-grading and salary structure - Evidence adduced - Effect of
SALWA OTHMAN v. INSTITUT PROFESIONAL BAITULMAL
INDUSTRIAL COURT, SABAH
DUNCAN SIKODOL
AWARD NO. 494 OF 2018 [CASE NO: 17(14)/4-479/14]
5 MARCH 2018
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Validity - Claimant appointed by the then CEO of the company without the approval of the Board of Directors - Powers of the CEO - Whether the claimant had connived or influenced him to appoint her - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Claimant's work experience - Whether she had been privy to the internal procedures of the company - Whether her contract of employment had been valid
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Validity - Claimant appointed without the approval of the Board of Directors - Whether their approval had been necessary - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether a valid contract of employment had existed between the parties
DISMISSAL: Victimisation - Claimant dismissed due to her appointment being in non-compliance with the internal procedures of the company - Whether she had been aware of them - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether her dismissal had been tainted with mala fides - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
EVIDENCE: Adverse inference - Company failing to call Dr. A to give evidence - Whether it had been a withholding of material evidence - Whether an adverse inference ought to be drawn against the company for its failure to call him - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g)
|
