|
GOH CHEE CHERN v. PAY-POINT (M) SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
SAROJINI KANDASAMY
AWARD NO. 1107 OF 2015 [CASE NO: 4/4-527/12]
14 SEPTEMBER 2015
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Terms and conditions – Notice of termination – Whether it had been a retrospective removal of the claimant from office – Whether it ought to be held to be wholly invalid – Factors to consider – Intention of the parties – Effect of
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Type of – Fixed-term contract – Whether the claimant had been put on a fixed term contract – Whether the fixed-term contract had come to an end – Factors to consider – Whether the claimant had been dismissed – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Validity – Claimant retired from the company pursuant to its retirement policy – No challenge to it by the claimant at that point in time – Claimant’s actions thereafter – Whether he could now raise a challenge to it – Whether it had been frivolous and an abuse of process – Factors to consider – Effect of – What the claimant should have done
DISMISSAL: Misconduct – Claimant accused of failing to bring in revenue for the company – Whether it had constituted misconduct – Alleged misconduct never mentioned in the company’s letter to him or pleaded by the company – Whether it had been an afterthought – Effect of – Whether the misconduct had been proven against him
DISMISSAL: Misconduct – Claimant accused of having dealings with SFI and acting in conflict of interest with the company – Whether proven by the company – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the misconduct had been proven against him
DISMISSAL: Misconduct – Claimant accused of misconduct – Whether it had covered his period of employment with the company – Evidence adduced – Allegations surfacing much later – Company’s behaviour towards him – What the company should have done – Effect of – Whether the misconduct had been proven against him
MOHD HANIFF MOHD SIDEK v. SAUJANA HOTEL SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
SAROJINI KANDASAMY
AWARD NO. 1175 OF 2015 [CASE NO: 4/4-1035/12]
8 OCTOBER 2015
DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Violence at the workplace – Claimant allegedly punching his colleague in the lower back – Whether proven by the company – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
DOMESTIC INQUIRY: Charge – Charge amended – Claimant not informed – Whether he should have been informed – Whether it had prejudiced his defence – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether the charge levelled against the claimant had been ambiguous, vague and inconsistent
DOMESTIC INQUIRY: Procedural impropriety – The Prosecuting Officer had been involved in the determination of the claimant’s punishment – Verbatim notes of DI not produced – Whether that had been in breach of the rules of natural justice – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether the DI had been defective, improper and perverse
EVIDENCE: Adverse inference – Non-production of a material witness – Complainant not called as a witness for the company – Whether he had been an important and material witness – No reasons given by the company – No attempts taken by the company to secure his attendance at hearing – Whether an adverse inference ought to be drawn against the company for failing to produce him – Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g)
EVIDENCE: Witness – Conflicting evidence – COW1’s evidence riddled with inconsistencies – Whether should be viewed with caution – Claimant and his witnesses’ evidence in conflict with each other – Who had been more believable – Factors to consider – Effect of
EVIDENCE: Witnesses – Failure to call – Company failing to secure attendance of DI panel members for hearing of matter – Whether their attendance would have benefited the company’s case – Factors to consider – Effect of
|
