ABDUL HAMID MYDIN v. MALAYSIA AIRPORTS HOLDINGS BERHAD (MALAYSIA AIRPORTS SDN BHD)
INDUSTRIAL COURT, PENANG
DUNCAN SIKODOL
AWARD NO. 914 OF 2015 [CASE NO: 17(9)(18)/4-1311/11]
28 JULY 2015
DISMISSAL: Performance - Medical Boarding Out - Claimant medically boarded out due to his medical condition - Whether proven by the company - Whether the company had relied on a valid medical report to dismiss him - Evidence adduced - Effect of - What the company should have done - Whether the claimant's dismissal had been without just cause and excuse
DISMISSAL: Performance - Medical Boarding Out - Claimant medically boarded out due to his medical condition - Whether the claimant had consented to it - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Claimant's evidence and the company's evidence directly in opposition to one another - Whose evidence had been more probable - Factors to consider
EVIDENCE: Adverse inference - Company failing to call Dr. Anna Letchumi - Whether she had been a material witness - Whether the company had made any genuine effort to secure her attendance at trial - Whether an adverse inference ought to be drawn against the company
EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence - Findings of the Medical Board - Whether it had been flawed - Factors to consider - Duties of the Medical Board - Whether its findings had been void ab initio
EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence - Two contradictory medical reports existing - Company objecting to the one less favourable to it - Whether its objections should be allowed - Factors to consider - Effect of - Company failing to clarify why there had been two contradictory reports - What it should have done
EDWIN THOMAS v. F&N BEVERAGES MARKETING SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
ANNA NG FUI CHOO
AWARD NO. 1046 OF 2015 [CASE NO: 3(22)(3)/4-778/13]
25 AUGUST 2015
DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Claimant charged with not following the company's SOP on stock take - Whether he had knowledge of the SOP - SOP only shown to him after the event - What that meant - Whether it had justified the company dismissing him - Whether the charge had been proven by the company - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Claimant charged with not following the company's SOP on stock take - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Claimant's explanations - Whether could be accepted - DI panel finding the claimant not guilty - Company dismissing him nevertheless - Whether his dismissal had been justified - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
DOMESTIC INQUIRY: Procedural impropriety - Whether the DI had been properly conducted and valid - Factors to consider - Effect of
EVIDENCE: Adverse inference - Company failing to call Mr. Lu and Mr. Saravanan to give evidence - Whether they had been important and material witnesses - Factors to consider - Whether an adverse inference ought to be drawn against the company - Effect of
EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence - Findings of the DI panel - Whether perverse - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the findings had been valid
|