| << Back | BULLETIN 12/2013 |
|
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 11 of 2013) SUBJECT INDEX ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Judicial review - Application for - Interim award by Industrial Court - Claim by employee against company under liquidation - Whether leave of High Court required - Whether Industrial Court within effects of s. 226(2) and (3) of Companies Act 1965 - Whether liquidators privy to dismissal of employee - Whether liquidators could be added as parties Judicial review - Application to quash award of Industrial Court - Dismissal on grounds of insubordination - Failure to comply with order for transfer - Whether order for transfer done in bad faith - Whether transfer detrimental to terms of employment COMPANY LAW Winding up - Claim by employee against company under liquidation - Whether leave of High Court required - Whether Industrial Court within effects of s. 226(2) or (3) Companies Act 1965 CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT Terms and conditions - Retirement age - Whether the provisions of the Minimum Retirement Age Act 2012 had applied to the affected workman - When the affected workman had retired - Effect of - Minimum Retirement Age Act 2012, s. 7 DISMISSAL Abandonment - Whether the claimant had abandoned his job - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of Absenteeism - Claimant absent from work without leave - Whether the claimant had proven that his absences had been justified - Claimant not testifying - Whether the testimony of his witnesses could be accepted - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Employment Act 1955, s. 60F(2) Absenteeism - Whether the claimant had been absent without leave - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - Whether proven by the company - Whether the company had been justified in dismissing him - Actions of the company - Reasonableness of the company - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Constructive dismissal - Change in job functions - Whether the claimant had been insubordinate to his Manager - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the claimant had evinced an intention to leave his job for a better paying job - Claimant walking out of his employment without giving the requisite notice - Whether his actions had amounted to him abandoning his job - Factors to consider - Effect of - Claimant's attitude whilst he was in his job - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Constructive dismissal - Change in job functions - Whether the claimant had been isolated by the company - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Company's actions towards him - Whether the company had evinced an intention not to be bound by his contract of employment - Whether the claimant had been constructively dismissed by the company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Constructive dismissal - Change in job functions - Whether the claimant had been left out of the training programmes - Evidence adduced - Requirements of the relevant legislation - Effect of - Whether it had been necessary for him to attend each and every training programme - Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994, ss. 2 & 8 & Regulation 6(2) Constructive dismissal - Status - Claimant suspended for an indefinite period of time - Whether the respondent had the authority to do that - Perusal of the contract of employment - Effect of - Whether the respondent by their conduct had evinced an intention to no longer be bound by the contract of employment - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Constructive dismissal - Status - Claimant suspended indefinitely pending outcome of criminal investigation - Claimant seeking clarification and not getting a response - Whether he had delayed in terminating the contract - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether constructive dismissal proven by the claimant - Evidence adduced - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Constructive dismissal - Transfer - Claimant objecting and refusing to report to new premises - Company refusing to change decision - Claimant subsequently walking out of his employment - Whether his actions had amounted to him abandoning his job - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the company by its actions had repudiated the contract of employment - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Constructive dismissal - Transfer - Claimant transferred to new premises - Effect of - Whether his job functions in the new premises had effectively been a demotion - Factors to consider - Effect of - Intention of the company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Misconduct - Claimant accused of disclosing confidential documents to customers - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether it had justified the company dismissing her - Factors to consider - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Misconduct - Claimant replacing stock without approval - Whether it had been against the company's policy on cash sales - Whether the claimant had been aware of such a policy - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the claimant had blatantly contravened the company's policy on cash sales - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the company had been reasonable in dismissing the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Notice of termination - Forced resignation - Whether the claimant had been forced to sign the Mutual Separation Agreement - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Claimant accepting payment under the Mutual Separation Agreement - What she should have done Police investigation - Whether the claimant had been named as a suspect in the respondent's internal report - What the respondent had been under an obligation to do - Job functions of the claimant - Whether he had been negligent in carrying them out - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) EVIDENCE Adverse inference - Company failing to call Anusorn to testify - Whether it had been under a duty to call - Whether the mention of Anusorn by the claimant had been an afterthought - Factors to consider - Whether an adverse inference should be drawn against the company for its failure to call - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) Adverse inference - Company failing to call certain witnesses - Whether they had been material witnesses - Factors to consider - Whether an adverse inference ought to be drawn against the company - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) Burden of proof - Whether the company had to prove dismissal with just cause and excuse - Factors to consider Documentary evidence - Findings of the Domestic Inquiry - Whether it had been valid - Whether the notes had been accurate - Factors to consider - No challenge taken by both counsels - Effect of - Whether a prima facie case had been established against the claimant Documentary evidence - Whether the claimant had been a workman - Whether the claimant had been an employee - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Evaluation of the legislation - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2 & 20(1) INDUSTRIAL COURT Jurisdiction - Claimant abandoning reinstatement - Effect of - Whether the court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20 Jurisdiction - Whether the court had been seised with jurisdiction to determine the alleged victimisation of the affected workman - Powers of the Industrial Court - Evaluation of the legislation - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 56(2) and 56(2A) Jurisdiction - Whether the court had been seised with jurisdiction to determine the legitimate expectation of the affected workman to have his service extended - Factors to consider - Whether the affected workman had a legitimate expectation to have his service extended after retirement - Article in the collective agreement allowing for it - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 56 Procedure - Pleadings - Claimant failing to plead defamation - Whether the Industrial Court had the jurisdiction to hear a claim for defamation Remedies - Reinstatement - Claimant not seeking reinstatement - Effect on her claim LABOUR LAW Employment - Dismissal - Misconduct - Sexual harassment - Magnitude of misconduct - Whether first respondent took advantage of subordinate - Industrial Court awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement - Whether Industrial Court exercised jurisdiction fairly - Whether compensation in lieu of reinstatement imposed punishment upon company Industrial Court - Award - Application to quash award of Industrial Court - Failure to comply with order for transfer - Dismissal on grounds of insubordination - Whether order for transfer within applicant's managerial prerogative - Whether Industrial Court committed error of law warranting High Court's interference Industrial Court - Decision - Sexual harassment in workplace - Whether court exercised jurisdiction fairly - Whether relevant matters considered - Award of - Whether compensation in lieu of reinstatement warranted - Whether award imposed punishment upon company NON-COMPLIANCE Collective Agreement - Article on extension of service after retirement - Whether the affected workman had fulfilled all the requirements of the article - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether there had been non-compliance by the respondent - Effect of Collective Agreement - Article on extension of service after retirement - Whether it had been management's prerogative to decide whose service to extend - Perusal of the article - Effect of - What the respondent's had done - Whether there had been non-compliance of the law by the respondent - Factors to consider Collective Agreement - Retirement benefits - Calculation of - Whether it included service charge points - Factors to consider - Effect of - Perusal of the 4th CA - Whether there had been non-compliance by the hotel - Effect of Collective Agreement - Whether the aggrieved retiree had been covered by the Employment Act 1955 - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether her service charge points had been part of her wages - Factors to consider - Evaluation of the legislation - Whether there had been non-compliance of the law by the respondent - Employment Act 1955, ss. 2 & Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 17(2) & 56(1) WORDS AND PHRASES 'Action or proceeding' - Meaning of - Companies Act 1965, s. 226(2), (3) INDEKS PERKARA KETERANGAN Keterangan dokumentari - Percanggahan fakta dalam pliding Kolej - Sama ada memudaratkan kes Kolej - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Kesannya Keterangan dokumentari - Tiada surat tunjuk sebab dikeluarkan terhadap Perayu - Kesannya - Sama ada Perayu keliru tentang sebab perkhidmatannya ditamatkan - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Sama ada ketiadaan surat tunjuk sebab tersebut bermakna penamatan perkhidmatannya telah dilakukan secara tidak adil dan bersebab Pengakuan - Perayu di dalam surat-surat rayuannya mengaku mengambil dadah - Kesannya - Sama ada Perayu telah dipaksa untuk menulis surat-surat rayuan tersebut - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada penamatan perkhidmatannya telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab Pertuduhan - Sama ada pertuduhan yang dikenakan ke atas YM adalah tepat bagi salah laku yang didakwa dilakukannya Saksi - Perayu sukar memberi jawapan tepat kepada soalan yang ditanya - Kesannya - Sama ada keterangannya harus diambil kira - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN Remedi - Pampasan - Pengiraan pampasan - Penentuan tarikh YM mula bekerja - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira Remedi - Penempatan semula - Sama ada sesuai diawardkan - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Umur YM sekarang PEMBUANGAN KERJA Ketidakhadiran - YM mempunyai sejarah ketidakhadiran dengan responden melangkaui tempoh 10 tahun - Sama ada salah laku beliau yang lepas boleh digunakan sebagai alasan untuk memberhentikan perkhidmatannya - Sama ada salahlakunya yang lepas telah diselesaikan - Faktor- faktor yang harus diambil kira - Tindakan syarikat – Kesannya Ketidakpatuhan terhadap polisi responden - Cuti sakit - YM didakwa gagal untuk mematuhi tatacara permohonan cuti responden - Sama ada dibuktikan oleh responden - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Sama ada ianya merupakan suatu tindakan salah laku tipuan ke atas responden - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira Ketidakpatuhan terhadap polisi responden - Cuti sakit - YM didakwa gagal untuk mengemukakan kepada responden - Sama ada dibuktikan oleh responden - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - YM mengemukakan cuti sakit daripada klinik yang bukan di atas panel responden - Sebabnya - Sama ada tindakannya merupakan suatu penipuan - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada buku rekod rawatan berada di dalam milikan YM pada masa yang material - Keterangan yang dikemukakan Notis penamatan - Notis penamatan Kolej tidak mengandungi sebab bagi penamatan perkhidmatan Perayu - Sama ada Perayu mengetahui sebab perkhidmatannya ditamatkan - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Kolej menamatkan perkhidmatan Perayu sebelum pengesahan muktamad air kencing beliau mengandungi dadah - Sama ada tindakan Kolej tersebut adalah zalim - Faktor-faktor yang harus dipertimbangkan – Kesannya Notis penamatan - Perletakan jawatan secara paksa - Sama ada Perayu telah dipaksa untuk meletak jawatan - Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya Pembuangan secara konstruktif - Sama ada YM menghadapi gangguan seksual daripada majikannya - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - YM meninggalkan pekerjaannya - Pihak syarikat menawarkan semula jawatan YM kepadanya - YM menolak - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan YM menunjukkan niatnya untuk meninggalkan pekerjaannya - Sama ada tindakan syarikat secara kumulatif menunjukkan niat untuk tidak lagi terikat dengan kontrak perkhidmatan YM - Sama ada YM telah dibuang kerja secara konstruktif - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif - YM mendakwa syarikat melakukan gangguan seksual keatasnya - Sama ada dibuktikan olehnya - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada YM berjaya menunjukkan kemungkiran fundamental oleh syarikat kepada kontrak penggajiannya - Sama ada syarikat melalui tingkahlakunya menunjukkan niat untuk tidak lagi terikat dengan kontrak perkhidmatannya - Sama ada YM dibuang kerja secara konstruktif - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) Siasatan polis - Perayu di bawah siasatan polis bagi jenayah mengambil dan menyimpan dadah - Kesannya - Kolej menamatkan perkhidmatannya - Sama ada tindakan Kolej adalah munasabah - Jawatan yang dipegang oleh Perayu di Kolej - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada salahlaku tersebut berjaya dibuktikan - Sama ada pembuangan kerja Perayu dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) |
|
| Copyright Mylawbox Sdn Bhd | Subscribe | Unsubscribe |
