<< Back BULLETIN 7/2013

LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 6 of 2013)

SUBJECT INDEX

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT

Type of - Whether the claimant's contract had been a fixed term contract - Factors to consider - Perusal of the claimant's contract of employment - Evidence adduced - Effect of
Ivan Sebastian Antonisamy v. Clement & Co (Property Consultants)
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2013] 2 ILR 558 cljlaw labourlaw

DISMISSAL

Constructive dismissal - Status - Company unilaterally imposing a fixed term contract on the claimant - Whether a fundamental breach going to the root of the contract of employment - No prior written agreement between the parties - Implications - Whether the requirements of constructive dismissal had been proven by the claimant - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Thesigan Nadarajan v. Kumpulan A.C.T.S. Bhd
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2013] 2 ILR 530 cljlaw labourlaw

Misconduct - Claimant receiving monies from a third party - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Claimant and third party both denying - Whether the company had to prove that the third party had made the payments to the claimant - What had to be established by the company - Whether the company had successfully discharged its burden of proof - Effect of - Whether the company had reasonable grounds for believing that the claimant had committed the misconduct - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Nagarajah Bathumalai v. Perbadanan Urus Air Selangor Berhad
(Rajendran Nayagam) [2013] 2 ILR 507 cljlaw labourlaw

Misconduct - Claimants using company telephone system to make personal calls to each other - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Expectations of the company towards the claimants as employees - Whether the company had been reasonable in dismissing the claimants - What the claimants should have done - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Noor Eliza Abd Halil & Anor v. BD Agriculture (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2013] 2 ILR 602 cljlaw labourlaw

Misconduct - Claimant using company vehicle wrongfully - Claimant admitting to it - Effect of - Whether the company had justifiable grounds for dismissing him - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Nagarajah Bathumalai v. Perbadanan Urus Air Selangor Berhad
(Rajendran Nayagam) [2013] 2 ILR 507 cljlaw labourlaw

Misconduct - Sexual harassment - Claimant accused of verbal sexual harassment - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Claimant's defence - Whether sufficient to rebut the company's case - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Hariyadurai P T Panandan v. Malaysian Airline System Berhad
(Mariah Ahmad) [2013] 2 ILR 473 cljlaw labourlaw

Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Whether the claimant had been a poor performer due to his health - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Effect of - No complaints lodged by the company against the claimant - What the company should have done - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3)
& 30(5)
Ivan Sebastian Antonisamy v. Clement & Co (Property Consultants)
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2013] 2 ILR 558 cljlaw labourlaw

Probationer - Whether the claimant had been a probationer - Factors to consider - Claimant with company for 17 months - Claimant never confirmed - Company's actions towards the claimant - Effect of
Ivan Sebastian Antonisamy v. Clement & Co (Property Consultants)
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2013] 2 ILR 558 cljlaw labourlaw

Retrenchment - Claimant terminated due to financial downturn faced by company - Whether successfully proven by the company - Whether the company's managerial prerogative had been exercised bona fide - Factors to consider - Whether the company had followed fair labour practices
Ivan Sebastian Antonisamy v. Clement & Co (Property Consultants)
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2013] 2 ILR 558 cljlaw labourlaw

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Claimant not protesting - Reasons for the same - Effect of - Whether his failure to protest had meant that he had accepted it - Factors to consider - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Hue Siew Meng v. BP Castrol Lubricants (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned) [2013] 2 ILR 572 cljlaw labourlaw

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched due to company's reorganisation - Reasons for the company's reorganisation - Whether the company had been facing financial problems - Intention of the company - Whether bona fide - Evaluation of the evidence - Effect of - Whether the company had carried out the reorganisation exercise transparently - What it should have done - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Hue Siew Meng v. BP Castrol Lubricants (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned) [2013] 2 ILR 572 cljlaw labourlaw

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Whether the claimant's post had become redundant - Evaluation of the job descriptions of the past and present posts - Effect of - New post was claimant's old post with cosmetic changes - Whether equitable of the company to have treated his job as redundant - Effect of - Whether the claimant should have been offered the new post - Claimant's past experience in overseas roles - Whether it should have been taken into account - Whether the company's actions had been reflective of fair labour practice - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Hue Siew Meng v. BP Castrol Lubricants (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned) [2013] 2 ILR 572 cljlaw labourlaw

Retrenchment - Reorganisation - Exercise of management's prerogative - Whether the company had exercised it bona fide - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of
Hue Siew Meng v. BP Castrol Lubricants (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned) [2013] 2 ILR 572 cljlaw labourlaw

DOMESTIC INQUIRY

Procedural impropriety - Whether the DI had been carried out in accordance with the rules of natural justice - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether it had been valid
Noor Eliza Abd Halil & Anor v. BD Agriculture (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2013] 2 ILR 602 cljlaw labourlaw

EVIDENCE

Adverse inference - Company failing to call one of the complainants to testify in court - Reasons for the same - Whether should be drawn against the company - Factors to consider - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g)
Hariyadurai P T Panandan v. Malaysian Airline System Berhad
(Mariah Ahmad) [2013] 2 ILR 473 cljlaw labourlaw

Burden of proof - Company contending that the claimant was a poor performer - Whether burden discharged by the company - What the company should have done
Ivan Sebastian Antonisamy v. Clement & Co (Property Consultants)
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2013] 2 ILR 558 cljlaw labourlaw

Burden of proof - Who had borne - Whether reasonable grounds for believing in the guilt of the workman had sufficed - Evaluation of case laws - Effect of
Nagarajah Bathumalai v. Perbadanan Urus Air Selangor Berhad
(Rajendran Nayagam) [2013] 2 ILR 507 cljlaw labourlaw

Documentary evidence - Findings of the DI - Whether the decision of the DI had been perverse - Whether the claimant had been given a fair hearing - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the company's actions had been reasonable
Hariyadurai P T Panandan v. Malaysian Airline System Berhad
(Mariah Ahmad) [2013] 2 ILR 473 cljlaw labourlaw

Documentary evidence - Findings of the DI - Whether it had been an accurate reflection of what had transpired at the DI - Factors to consider - Effect of
Noor Eliza Abd Halil & Anor v. BD Agriculture (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2013] 2 ILR 602 cljlaw labourlaw

Documentary evidence - Whether the claimant had been a workman - Whether the claimant had been an employee or a volunteer - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Evaluation of the legislation - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2 & 20(1)
Thesigan Nadarajan v. Kumpulan A.C.T.S. Bhd
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2013] 2 ILR 530 cljlaw labourlaw

Documentary evidence - Whether the company had adduced all relevant documents to prove its case - Whether the company's failure to do so had been fatal to its case - Effect of
Thesigan Nadarajan v. Kumpulan A.C.T.S. Bhd
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2013] 2 ILR 530 cljlaw labourlaw

INDUSTRIAL COURT

Jurisdiction - Threshold jurisdiction of the court - When conferred - How the Industrial Court is conferred with jurisdiction - Whether Industrial Court possessed threshold jurisdiction to strike out claims - In what circumstances could claims be struck off - Whether it could decline jurisdiction - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20
Selvarajoo Kuppusamy v. Falcon Equipment Services Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2013] 2 ILR 620 cljlaw labourlaw

Jurisdiction - Threshold jurisdiction of court - Objection to - Whether suitable to make by way of preliminary objection - Intention of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - When could the court strike out matters - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(1A)
Selvarajoo Kuppusamy v. Falcon Equipment Services Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2013] 2 ILR 620 cljlaw labourlaw

Procedure - Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Statement of Case - Oral application from the bar - Whether should be allowed - Factors to consider - Whether the claimant's application had been bona fide - Whether prejudice would be caused to the company - Balance of interests - Factors to consider - Whether suitable to grant in the circumstances - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 30(5)
Selvarajoo Kuppusamy v. Falcon Equipment Services Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2013] 2 ILR 620 cljlaw labourlaw

Remedies - Compensation - Backwages - How to be calculated
Hue Siew Meng v. BP Castrol Lubricants (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned) [2013] 2 ILR 572 cljlaw labourlaw

Remedies - Compensation - Backwages - What had been a fair amount to award - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether there had been contributory conduct on the part of the claimant - Whether it had been appropriate to scale down the backwages awarded - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 30(5)
Zainudin Kadir v. A & W (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila G Azariah) [2013] 2 ILR 500 cljlaw labourlaw

Remedies - Compensation - What would be a fair amount to award - Factors to consider
Ivan Sebastian Antonisamy v. Clement & Co (Property Consultants)
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2013] 2 ILR 558 cljlaw labourlaw

Remedies - Compensation in lieu of reinstatement - Calculation of - Whether claimant's severance package should be deducted accordingly - Effect of
Hue Siew Meng v. BP Castrol Lubricants (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned) [2013] 2 ILR 572 cljlaw labourlaw

Remedies - Reinstatement - Probationer claimant - Whether suitable to award
Ivan Sebastian Antonisamy v. Clement & Co (Property Consultants)
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2013] 2 ILR 558 cljlaw labourlaw

Remedies - Reinstatement - Whether suitable to grant in circumstances - Claimant due to retire had he remained in company's employ - Effect of
Hue Siew Meng v. BP Castrol Lubricants (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned) [2013] 2 ILR 572 cljlaw labourlaw

INTERPRETATION

Collective Agreement - Article on intention to terminate - Interpretation of article vide previous award - Effect of - Whether the article could be subject to re-interpretation - Whether the principles of res judicata had applied
Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Koperasi Nelayan Negeri Terengganu Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam) [2013] 2 ILR 594 cljlaw labourlaw

Collective Agreement - Perusal of the CA - Whether the parties intention's had been clear and unambiguous
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Hotel, Bar Dan Restoran, Semenanjung Malaysia v. HFMS Sdn Bhd (Hotel Fortuna) & Anor
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2013] 2 ILR 640 cljlaw labourlaw

NON-COMPLIANCE

Collective Agreement - Article on deduction of union subscription from employee wages - Whether the respondent had been under a duty to remit to the union - Perusal of the article - Whether the CA had been in force at the material time - Effect of - Whether there had been non-compliance by the respondent
Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Koperasi Nelayan Negeri Terengganu Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam) [2013] 2 ILR 594 cljlaw labourlaw

Collective Agreement - Article on service charge - Whether it had been compulsory for the employees' designations to be stated in the monthly service charge statements - Perusal of the article - Whether it had been clear and unambiguous
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Hotel, Bar Dan Restoran, Semenanjung Malaysia v. HFMS Sdn Bhd (Hotel Fortuna) & Anor
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2013] 2 ILR 640 cljlaw labourlaw

Collective Agreement - Article on service charge - Whether retired employees had been entitled to it - Perusal of the article - Whether the intention of the article had been clear and unambiguous - Effect of - Who had constituted retired employees - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 56(1)
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Hotel, Bar Dan Restoran, Semenanjung Malaysia v. HFMS Sdn Bhd (Hotel Fortuna) & Anor
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2013] 2 ILR 640 cljlaw labourlaw

Collective Agreement - Article on retirement benefits - Who had been entitled to it - Whether retired employees who had been re-employed were considered retired employees - Factors to consider
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Hotel, Bar Dan Restoran, Semenanjung Malaysia v. HFMS Sdn Bhd (Hotel Fortuna) & Anor
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2013] 2 ILR 640 cljlaw labourlaw

Collective Agreement - Respondent giving notice to terminate Collective Agreement - What that had meant - Whether the CA had still been in force at the material time - Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Koperasi Nelayan Negeri Terengganu Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam) [2013] 2 ILR 594 cljlaw labourlaw

Collective Agreement - Whether the CA had been binding on the parties - Matter adjudicated by another division of the Industrial Court - Effect of - Whether the principle of res judicata had applied - Factors to consider - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 17
Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan v. Koperasi Nelayan Negeri Terengganu Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam) [2013] 2 ILR 594 cljlaw labourlaw

VARIATION ORDER

Collective Agreement - Exercise of the Court's powers - Parties asking the Court to invoke its powers under s. 56(2)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 to set aside the wording in Appendix B of the CA - In what circumstances could the court invoke its powers - Whether special circumstances had been shown - Whether suitable for the Court to invoke powers in this case - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 56(2)(c)
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Hotel, Bar Dan Restoran, Semenanjung Malaysia v. HFMS Sdn Bhd (Hotel Fortuna) & Anor
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2013] 2 ILR 640 cljlaw labourlaw

INDEKS PERKARA

KETERANGAN

Keterangan dokumentari - Nota keterangan Siasatan Dalaman - Sama ada ianya betul - Faktor yang harus diambil kira – Kesannya
Rosleem Nordin v. Pusat Zakat Selangor
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2013] 2 ILR 667 cljlaw labourlaw

KONTRAK PERKHIDMATAN

Jenis - Kontrak terma tempoh tetap - Sama ada YM merupakan seorang pekerja kontrak terma tempoh tetap atau seorang pekerja tetap - Faktor yang harus diambil kira – Kesannya
Chong Yu Ching lwn. CRBC (M) Holdings Sdn Bhd
(Hamdan Indah) [2013] 2 ILR 654 cljlaw labourlaw

Terma dan syarat - Perpindahan - Sama ada kontrak perkhidmatan YM mengandungi klausa perpindahan - Kesannya - Sama ada syarikat mempunyai hak untuk memindahkan YM mengikut keperluannya - Sama ada perpindahan YM perlu untuk penstrukturan semula syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Sama ada syarikat mempunyai niat mala fide dalam tindakannya memindahkan YM - Kesannya - Sama ada perpindahan tersebut melibatkan perubahan kepada gred dan tangga gaji YM - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Rosleem Nordin v. Pusat Zakat Selangor
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2013] 2 ILR 667 cljlaw labourlaw

PEMBUANGAN KERJA

Notis penamatan - Sama ada YM telah dipaksa menandatangani notis penamatannya - Bukti yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Pengalaman dan kelulusan YM - Apa yang sepatutnya dilakukan oleh beliau - Sama ada beliau memahami akibat tindakannya menandatangani surat penamatan kerjanya - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Chong Yu Ching lwn. CRBC (M) Holdings Sdn Bhd
(Hamdan Indah) [2013] 2 ILR 654 cljlaw labourlaw

Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif - Perpindahan - Sama ada YM telah kerap kali dipindah oleh syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh YM - Prosidur syarikat berkenaan perpindahan - Sama ada perpindahan YM dibuat secara bertulis - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Rosleem Nordin v. Pusat Zakat Selangor
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2013] 2 ILR 667 cljlaw labourlaw

Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif - Perpindahan - YM ingkar untuk hadir di tempat yang ditugaskan - Kesannya - Sama ada syarikat berhak menjatuhkan hukuman ke atasnya - Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan ke atasnya setimpal dengan tindakannya - Terma dan syarat kontrak perkhidmatan YM - Sama ada syarikat melalui tindakannya menunjukkan niat untuk tidak lagi terikat dengan terma dan syarat perkhidmatan YM - Tindakan syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Rosleem Nordin v. Pusat Zakat Selangor
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2013] 2 ILR 667 cljlaw labourlaw

Salahlaku - Sama ada syarikat pasti tentang sebab YM diberhentikan kerja - Penelitian keterangan - Kesannya - Sama ada syarikat berjaya membuktikan kesnya terhadap YM - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Selvarani Thanapal lwn. Swiss Garden Hotel (PJD Hotels Sdn Bhd)
(Hamdan Indah) [2013] 2 ILR 513 cljlaw labourlaw

Salahlaku - Sama ada syarikat telah mengambilkira alasan-alasan yang tidak patut dan tidak relevan untuk memberhentikan perkhidmatan YM - Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya
Selvarani Thanapal lwn. Swiss Garden Hotel (PJD Hotels Sdn Bhd)
(Hamdan Indah) [2013] 2 ILR 513 cljlaw labourlaw

Salahlaku - Syarikat mengeluarkan dua surat tunjuk sebab terhadap YM - Sama ada kandungan surat tunjuk sebab tersebut adalah jelas - Sama ada surat tunjuk sebab tersebut menerangkan sebabnya YM diberhentikan kerja - Sama ada surat pemecatan YM mengandungi sebab mengapa beliau diberhentikan kerja - Penelitian surat-surat tersebut - Kesannya - Laporan polis dibuat oleh pihak syarikat dan YM - Tiada tindakan lanjut oleh pihak polis - Sebab mengapa - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967,
ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Selvarani Thanapal lwn. Swiss Garden Hotel (PJD Hotels Sdn Bhd)
(Hamdan Indah) [2013] 2 ILR 513 cljlaw labourlaw

SIASATAN DALAMAN

Kesilapan prosidur - Sama ada SD telah dijalankan mengikut lunas keadilan asasi - Faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada keputusan yang dicapai oleh panel adalah betul - Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya
Rosleem Nordin v. Pusat Zakat Selangor
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2013] 2 ILR 667 cljlaw labourlaw

Copyright Mylawbox Sdn Bhd Subscribe | Unsubscribe