|
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 1 of 2021)
SUBJECT INDEX
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
Terms and conditions – Resignation – Claimant stating "I resign" – Reasons
for the same – Whether it had constituted a verbal resignation – Factors to
consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Company's actions towards him – What it had shown – Whether he had been under duress and undue
influence when he had stated he resigned verbally – Whether the company,
by its actions had forced him to resign – Effect of – Whether the company
had been in breach of its obligations towards him – Whether he had been
dismissed by the company – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Paat Yuk Cheong v. Sealink Sdn Bhd
(Ani Ak Solep) [2021] 1 ILR 231  
Terms and conditions – Resignation – Claimant tendering her resignation – Claimant failing to state that she had been constructively dismissed therein – Her actions thereafter – What it had shown – Factors to consider – Effect
of – Whether she had condoned the company's delay of her salary payments – Her remarks in the Exit Interview Form – What it had shown – Whether
she had discharged her burden of proving constructive dismissal
Masitah Mohamad v. University College Bestari
(Noor Ruwena Mohd Nurdin) [2021] 1 ILR 157
DISMISSAL
Breach of company rules and policies – Criminal case – Claimant on the
police "wanted" list prior to employment by the company – Whether he had
failed to declare it on purpose – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether he had been in breach of the company's Business Code
of Conduct – Effect of
Dedi Ajis v. MHG Desaru Hotel Sdn Bhd
(Sumathi Murugiah) [2021] 1 ILR 28
Breach of company rules and policies – Fraud and dishonesty – Whether the
claimant had submitted false claims – Factors to consider – Evidence
adduced – Effect of – Claimant's defence and explanations – Whether
acceptable – Bank's actions towards him – What it had shown – What the
bank should have done instead – Whether the bank had been justified in
dismissing him – Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse
Imam Subhan Kasman v. RHB Investment Bank Berhad
(Augustine Anthony) [2021] 1 ILR 269
Breach of company rules and policies – Sexual harassment – Claimant
exposing himself to COW1 while on official duty – Whether he had sexually
harassed COW1 – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether the charge had been proven by the company against
him – Claimant responding to the show cause letter with admissions,
attempted justifications and mitigating factors – What it had shown – His actions versus COW1's actions thereafter – Effect of – Claimant's defence – Whether acceptable – Whether his conduct had justified his dismissal – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Joubert Erick v. Sakura Ferroalloys Sdn Bhd
(Ani Ak Solep) [2021] 1 ILR 49
Constructive dismissal – Salary – Claimant's salaries unpaid, part-paid or
delayed – Whether proven by her – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Company's explanations – Whether reasonable – Company eventually paying her all outstanding salaries – Effect of – Whose version had been more probable – Whether it had amounted to a
fundamental breach which had gone to the root of her contract of
employment – What she should have done – Whether it had justified her
walking out of her employment and claiming constructive dismissal
Masitah Mohamad v. University College Bestari
(Noor Ruwena Mohd Nurdin) [2021] 1 ILR 157
Constructive dismissal – Salary – Unpaid, part-paid and delayed payment of
salaries – Claimant walking out claiming constructive dismissal – Whether
she had delayed in walking out of her employment – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Claimant's conduct – What it had shown – Her explanations for the delay – Whether it had any merit – Whether the
claimant, by her conduct, had elected to affirm the employment contract – Whether her claim for constructive dismissal ought to be allowed
Masitah Mohamad v. University College Bestari
(Noor Ruwena Mohd Nurdin) [2021] 1 ILR 157
Constructive dismissal – Whether the conditions for constructive dismissal
had been fulfilled by the claimant – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether his claim ought to be allowed
Paat Yuk Cheong v. Sealink Sdn Bhd
(Ani Ak Solep) [2021] 1 ILR 231
Misconduct – Claimant exposing himself to COW1 while on official duty – Whether he had sexually harassed her – Whether proven by the company
against him – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether
it had amounted to serious misconduct – Whether it had justified his
dismissal
Joubert Erick v. Sakura Ferroalloys Sdn Bhd
(Ani Ak Solep) [2021] 1 ILR 49
Misconduct – Whether the claimant had submitted false claims – Whether
successfully established by the bank against him – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether it had justified his
dismissal
Imam Subhan Kasman v. RHB Investment Bank Berhad
(Augustine Anthony) [2021] 1 ILR 269
Probationer – Probationer claimant failing to declare that he had been on the
police "wanted" list prior to employment – Whether it had been the
company's prerogative to assess him, both on his performance and on his
trustworthiness – Company's actions towards him – What it had shown – Whether the company had acted in good faith in terminating him from
employment – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether dismissal with just
cause and excuse
Dedi Ajis v. MHG Desaru Hotel Sdn Bhd
(Sumathi Murugiah) [2021] 1 ILR 28
EVIDENCE
Admissions – Whether the claimant's admissions in the investigation
interview sessions had been given voluntarily – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Investigation interview not recorded verbatim – Effect of – What it had reflected – Whether such admissions had had any
evidential value – Whether the investigation carried out by the bank had
been carried out fairly
Imam Subhan Kasman v. RHB Investment Bank Berhad
(Augustine Anthony) [2021] 1 ILR 269
Adverse inference – Company failing to call Chris Rowe and Azid – Whether
an adverse inference ought to be drawn against it – Factors to consider – Effect of
Joubert Erick v. Sakura Ferroalloys Sdn Bhd
(Ani Ak Solep) [2021] 1 ILR 49
Standard of proof – Fraud – Whether on a balance of probabilities
Imam Subhan Kasman v. RHB Investment Bank Berhad
(Augustine Anthony) [2021] 1 ILR 269
Witness – COW2 failing to complete his examination – Whether COW2 had
absconded – Factors to consider – Effect of
Joubert Erick v. Sakura Ferroalloys Sdn Bhd
(Ani Ak Solep) [2021] 1 ILR 49
INDUSTRIAL COURT
Remedies – Punishment – Whether the punishment of dismissal had been too
harsh under the circumstances – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether he had been subjected to the procedures and processes
as per the Company Employee Handbook – Effect of – Whether the
company's actions had been a fundamental breach that had gone to the root
of his contract of employment – Whether dismissal had been justified – What
the company should have done instead
Paat Yuk Cheong v. Sealink Sdn Bhd
(Ani Ak Solep) [2021] 1 ILR 231
LABOUR LAW
Employment – Retrenchment – Claimant worked with company for 13 years
before being retrenched on ground of redundancy – Whether company followed
Last-In First-Out principle – Whether retained employees had special skills
and expertise not found in claimant – Whether termination actuated by
irrelevant considerations – Whether retrenchment exercise bona fide – Whether termination on ground of retrenchment arising out of redundancy
was for just cause or excuse
Ng Chang Seng v. Technip Geoproduction (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor
(Hanipah Farikullah, Lee Swee Seng &
Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali JJCA) [2021] 1 ILR 1
TRADE DISPUTE
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Across-the-board
adjustments – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the current economic and health
situation partly due to the Covid-19 pandemic augurs well for an across-the-board
salary adjustment
Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Utara Semenanjung Malaysia v.
Panasonic Automotive Systems Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2021] 1 ILR 189
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Appointment and
probationary period and notice of termination – Whether it ought to be
allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether it
had been reasonable
Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Utara Semenanjung Malaysia v.
Panasonic Automotive Systems Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2021] 1 ILR 189
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Bonus – Whether
it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether it is management's prerogative
Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Utara Semenanjung Malaysia v.
Panasonic Automotive Systems Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2021] 1 ILR 189
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Check-off – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Utara Semenanjung Malaysia v.
Panasonic Automotive Systems Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2021] 1 ILR 189
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Compassionate,
congratulatory and paternity leave – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether it had been
reasonable
Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Utara Semenanjung Malaysia v.
Panasonic Automotive Systems Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2021] 1 ILR 189
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Determination of
Kunthavi's years of service with the respondent – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Computation of her last drawn salary for the
purpose of computing the early retirement gratuity
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Di Dalam Kesatuan Sekerja v. Kongres Kesatuan
Sekerja Malaysia
(Augustine Anthony) [2021] 1 ILR 37
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Maternity leave – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Utara Semenanjung Malaysia v.
Panasonic Automotive Systems Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2021] 1 ILR 189
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Medical benefits – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Utara Semenanjung Malaysia v.
Panasonic Automotive Systems Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2021] 1 ILR 189
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Overtime and
annual leave – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether it had been a basic requirement
Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Utara Semenanjung Malaysia v.
Panasonic Automotive Systems Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2021] 1 ILR 189
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Paid leave for
union activities – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 6
Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Utara Semenanjung Malaysia v.
Panasonic Automotive Systems Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2021] 1 ILR 189
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Parties to the
agreement and effective date and duration – Determination of – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 30(7)
Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Utara Semenanjung Malaysia v.
Panasonic Automotive Systems Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2021] 1 ILR 189
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Public holidays
overtime – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence
adduced – Effect of – Employment Act 1955
Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Utara Semenanjung Malaysia v.
Panasonic Automotive Systems Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2021] 1 ILR 189
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Recognition of the
union – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence
adduced – Effect of
Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Utara Semenanjung Malaysia v.
Panasonic Automotive Systems Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2021] 1 ILR 189
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Re-negotiation of
the agreement – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Utara Semenanjung Malaysia v.
Panasonic Automotive Systems Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2021] 1 ILR 189
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Retirement
benefits – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether it is best left to the discretion of the employer
Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Utara Semenanjung Malaysia v.
Panasonic Automotive Systems Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2021] 1 ILR 189
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Retrenchment and
retrenchment benefits – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Termination and Lay-Off Benefits
Regulations 1980
Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Utara Semenanjung Malaysia v.
Panasonic Automotive Systems Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2021] 1 ILR 189
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Salary scale and
annual increment – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the prerogative to determine the job
scope had been with the employer or the union
Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Utara Semenanjung Malaysia v.
Panasonic Automotive Systems Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2021] 1 ILR 189
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Transport
allowances – Whether it ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether it is management's prerogative
Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Utara Semenanjung Malaysia v.
Panasonic Automotive Systems Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2021] 1 ILR 189
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Whether Kunthavi
had been entitled to the gratuity payments pursuant to art. 20 (c) of the 5th
CA – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Di Dalam Kesatuan Sekerja v. Kongres Kesatuan
Sekerja Malaysia
(Augustine Anthony) [2021] 1 ILR 37
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Whether the 5th
CA, which had expired 23 years ago, had still been valid and binding
between the parties – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Di Dalam Kesatuan Sekerja v. Kongres Kesatuan
Sekerja Malaysia
(Augustine Anthony) [2021] 1 ILR 37
INDEKS PERKARA
PEMBUANGAN KERJA
Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat – Kecuaian – Sama
ada YM telah gagal mematuhi Scheme of Service Chapter 3 (Loans) syarikat – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya – Pembelaan YM – Sama ada dapat diterima – Jawatan yang
disandang oleh beliau di dalam syarikat – Apa yang diharapkan daripadanya – Apa yang beliau sepatutnya lakukan – Sama ada YM telah melakukan satu
salah laku yang serius – Sama ada salah laku tersebut berjaya dibuktikan oleh
syarikat terhadapnya – Kesan ke atas syarikat – Sama ada salah laku tersebut
mewajarkan penamatan perkhidmatannya – Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM
telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab
Ismail Basar lwn. Takaful Ikhlas Berhad
(Rasidah Chik) [2021] 1 ILR 100
Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat – Kecuaian – Sama
ada YM telah gagal untuk memastikan kelulusan Lembaga Pengarah
diperolehi terlebih dahulu berhubung dengan tuntutan Critical Illness untuk
kakitangan syarikat – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan
yang dikemukakan – Kesannya – Pembelaan YM – Sama ada dapat diterima – Jawatan yang disandang oleh beliau di dalam syarikat – Apa yang
diharapkan daripadanya – Sama ada YM telah melakukan satu salah laku
yang serius – Sama ada salah laku tersebut berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat
terhadapnya – Sama ada salah laku tersebut mewajarkan penamatan
perkhidmatannya – Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara
adil dan bersebab
Ismail Basar lwn. Takaful Ikhlas Berhad
(Rasidah Chik) [2021] 1 ILR 100
Ketidakpatuhan terhadap peraturan dan polisi syarikat – Kecuaian – Sama
ada YM telah gagal untuk memastikan perlaksanaan PC Financing
Agreement – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang
dikemukakan – Kesannya – Sama ada salah laku tersebut berjaya dibuktikan
oleh syarikat terhadapnya – Sama ada salah laku tersebut mewajarkan
penamatan perkhidmatannya
Ismail Basar lwn. Takaful Ikhlas Berhad
(Rasidah Chik) [2021] 1 ILR 100
Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif – Gaji – COW1 mencadangkan
pengurangan gaji kepada YM – Sebabnya – Sama ada ianya merupakan satu
perlanggaran fundamental kepada kontrak perkhidmatan YM – Faktor-faktor
yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya – Tindakan YM dan firma – Apa ianya menunjukkan – Kesannya – Hubungan
YM dan COW1 – Apa yang YM sepatutnya lakukan – Sama ada Tindakan
YM mendakwa penamatan perkhidmatan secara konstruktif adalah
pra-matang – Sama ada YM telah dibuang kerja secara konstruktif – Sama
ada beliau telah memilih untuk meninggalkan firma atas kerelaannya sendiri
Selvanayagam Kailasam lwn. Ng Chee Kong & Co
(Rasidah Chik) [2021] 1 ILR 133
Pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif – Gaji – Cadangan oleh firma untuk
mengurangkan gaji YM – Tindakan atau reaksi YM terhadapnya – Apa ia
menunjukkan – Sama ada beliau telah memberi notis kepada firma mengenai
dakwaan pemecatan secara konstruktif – Kesannya – YM hanya mengambil
tindakan lapan belas (18) hari selepas perlanggaran kepada terma
fundamental kontrak perkhidmatan beliau dikatakan berlaku – Kesannya – Sebab untuk kelewatan tersebut – Sama ada dapat diterima – Faktor-faktor
yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya – Kelakuan beliau sebelum meninggalkan firma – Apa ia menunjukkan – Pengalaman dan pengetahuan YM dalam bidang perundangan – Sama ada
beliau telah meninggalkan firma secara sukarela
Selvanayagam Kailasam lwn. Ng Chee Kong & Co
(Rasidah Chik) [2021] 1 ILR 133
|