|
MAHADI MOHD NOR v. CAE KUALA LUMPUR SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
YONG SOON CHING
AWARD NO. 1910 OF 2019 [CASE NO: 26(14)/4-2940/18]
2 JULY 2019
DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Theft – Whether the claimant had removed and sold a canopy belonging to the company to third parties without authorisation – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Claimant’s defence – Whether acceptable – Whether the misconduct had been proven against the claimant – What the company should have done – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Theft – Whether the claimant had removed and sold a canopy belonging to the company to third parties without authorisation – Whether proven by the company – Whether the company’s actions of dismissing him had been too harsh under the circumstances – Factors to consider – What it should have done instead
DOMESTIC INQUIRY: Absence of – Company failing to hold a DI before dismissing the claimant – Whether one should have been held – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether the company’s failure to hold one had been fatal to its case
EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence – Show cause letter issued by the company accusing the claimant of theft – Charges of theft subsequently abandoned after consideration of the evidence – Whether the company ought to have amended the charges against him – What the company’s actions had shown – Claimant’s conduct in comparison – Effect of – Whether the company could issue a show cause letter containing a serious offence and then do nothing about it
SREDHARAN RAMAKRISHNA NAIR v. BUMI ARMADA BERHAD/BUMI ARMADA ENGINEERING SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
BERNARD JOHN KANNY
AWARD NO. 2308 OF 2019 [CASE NO: 29(4)(22)(4)/4-270/17]
20 AUGUST 2019
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Type of – Claimant entering into four contracts with three legal entities, with a clause that there would be continuous service within the Group – Whether it had been considered one continuous contract – Whether the corporate veil of the legal entities could be lifted – Factors to consider – Effect of
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Type of – Genuine fixed-term contract – Whether the claimant had entered into genuine fixed-term contracts – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – LIFO principles – Whether followed by the company – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether the claimant’s retrenchment had been rendered prima facie invalid – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – Whether the claimant’s position had become redundant – Job functions performed by the claimant – Whether his job functions had continued to exist after his dismissal – Evidence adduced – Effect of
DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – Whether the claimant’s retrenchment had been made in compliance with accepted industrial relations standards – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether the company had exercised its managerial power bona fide – Whether it had rendered the claimant’s dismissal as being without just cause and excuse
DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Reorganisation – Whether the reorganisation carried out by the company had been justified – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of the evidence – Effect of – Actions taken by the company – What it had shown
KESATUAN PEKERJA-PEKERJA KESELAMATAN SAFEGUARDS G4S SDN BHD v. SAFEGUARDS G4S SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
EDDIE YEO SOON CHYE
EMPLOYEES’ PANEL: RAJA MORGANAN NARUNAN
EMPLOYERS’ PANEL: HEZLINA HASHIM
AWARD NO. 2054 OF 2019 [CASE NO: 1/3-3087/2018]
16 JULY 2019
TRADE DISPUTE: Warning letter – Company issuing a warning letter to the President and Vice President of the union, in relation to the latters’ actions of allegedly threatening and giving an ultimatum to it – Whether the company’s
actions had constituted the conduct of obstructing both the President and the Vice-President of the union from carrying out their union duties – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8(1) & (3)
|
