JASPAL KAUR AJIT SINGH v. LEONFAST SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
TAN GHEE PHAIK
AWARD NO. 2346 OF 2018 [CASE NO: 13/4-946/18]
26 SEPTEMBER 2018

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Terms and conditions – Notice of termination – Claimant terminated for making false declarations to the company – Whether her termination had been carried out with just cause and excuse – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Claimant subsequently offered reinstatement but refusing to take it – Reasons for the same – Whether her rejection of the reinstatement offer had been wrong in law

INDUSTRIAL COURT: Procedure – Action – Whether this had been a fit case to refer to the IC – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether the claimant had been fraudulent with the company in her actions – Evaluation of the evidence – Whether this had constituted a frivolous and vexatious action and an abuse of process of the IC – Purpose of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 – What employers and the DGIR should do in future

TAN HONG LAI v. UMW TOYOTA MOTOR SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
ROSENANI ABD RAHMAN
AWARD NO. 2596 OF 2018 [CASE NO: 2/4-209/15]
17 OCTOBER 2018

DISMISSAL: Absenteeism – Claimant taking emergency leave – Whether an actual emergency had existed – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Claimant’s explanations – Whether acceptable – Whether the claimant had been absent without leave on the material days – Whether the charge had been proven by the company against him – Whether his dismissal had been with just cause and excuse

DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Medical check-up – Whether he had had a medical check-up at a specialist clinic as opposed to a company approved one without the company’s approval – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether charge proven by the company – Claimant’s explanations – Whether acceptable – Whether his misconduct had justified his dismissal – Claimant’s length of service with the company and track record with it – What the company should have done – Whether the company’s actions towards him should have been more sympathetic – Whether dismissal too harsh under the circumstances – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)

DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Medical leave – Whether the claimant had taken medical leave following a certain pattern – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Claimant’s explanations – Whether acceptable – Whether the charge had been proven by the company against him – Whether his dismissal had been with just cause and excuse

NHS MANAGER AWARDED £1 MILLION PAY-OUT FOR UNFAIR DISMISSAL
UK
Dismissed manager awarded £1 million in compensation
An IT manager at an NHS trust has been awarded £1m in compensation by an employment tribunal after he was unfairly dismissed. Richard Hastings, who worked for King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, was dismissed in October 2015 for gross misconduct following an incident in the car park. Hastings had an altercation with a van driver and contractor after he tried to make a note of the vehicle’s registration number when the driver racially abused and assaulted him. Hastings had called the hospital’s security office for help but no record of the phone call was logged. Security confirmed they had received the call and that nobody came to his aid.

Read More

JUDICIAL REVIEW DELIVEROOS RULING ON GIG ECONOMY
UK
HC ruling on trade union's legal challenge will have major implications for workers in gig economy
A judicial review, brought by the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB), argues Deliveroo is denying their riders the right to collectively bargain for pay and holidays through their trade union, and state this breaches their human rights. Article 11 of the Human Rights Convention protects the right to join a trade union, as ‘everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions, for the protection of his interests.’ The high court ruling is predicted to have major implications for thousands of workers in the gig economy, and is the latest development relating to workers in the gig economy. Earlier this month the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that Addison Lee drivers are employees, not self-employed contractors.

Read More