If you can't view the message, please click here.

IN THIS ISSUE BULLETIN 03/2021
www.cljlaw.com
www.mylawbox.com
www.labourlawbox.com
(Available with separate subscription plan)




LATEST HIGHLIGHTS
CASE HIGHLIGHTS

HARRY WONG WEI CHEN v. PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD (PETRONAS)
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
PARAMALINGAM J DORAISAMY
AWARD NO. 3 OF 2021 [CASE NO: 22/4-818/19]
4 JANUARY 2021

DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Sexual harassment – Whether the claimant had committed workplace or sexual harassment by, amongst other things, using the words “Pishy Pia” on COW1 – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the charges had been proven by the company against him – Whether it had amounted to serious misconduct – Whether it had justified his dismissal

DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Sexual harassment – Whether the claimant had sexually harassed COW1 on numerous occasions by his words and actions towards her – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the charges had been proven by the company against him – His defence – Whether acceptable – Whether his actions had amounted to serious misconduct – Whether it had justified his dismissal – Position held by the claimant in the company – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse

DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Sexual harassment – Whether the claimant had used crude, vulgar and abusive language towards COW1 on several occasions – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether it had constituted workplace harassment or bullying – Whether the charges had been proven by the company against him – Claimant’s defence – Whether could be accepted – Whether supported by the evidence – Whose version of events had been more probable – COW1’s conduct and actions after the incidents had taken place – Whether the claimant’s conduct had justified his dismissal – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse

DOMESTIC INQUIRY: Procedural impropriety – Whether the DI had been conducted fairly – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Claimant agreeing to the composition of the DI panel at the outset and only objecting to it during the hearing before Court – Whether it had gone to his credibility

EVIDENCE: Corroboration – Some of the charges against the claimant, as alleged by COW1, uncorroborated by anyone – Whether the absence of corroboration had defeated complainant’s allegation of sexual harassment – COW1’s contemporaneous conduct in relation to the incidents – What it had shown

EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence – Notes of the DI – Company failing to provide the DI notes – Whether an adverse inference ought to be drawn against it for such omission – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the company’s failure aforesaid had been fatal to its case – How Industrial Court hearings are conducted

EVIDENCE: Witness – Credibility – The claimant’s and COW1’s version of events completely different – Whose version had been more believable – Factors to consider – Effect of – Conduct of COW1 after the incidents – What it had shown – Who had been a more credible witness – Claimant’s demeanour in court – Claimant’s evidence in Court riddled with inconsistencies – Effect of


JOLENE LEE MIAO CHI v. IFLIX SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
AUGUSTINE ANTHONY
AWARD NO. 73 OF 2021 [CASE NO: 4/4-1731/19]
21 JANUARY 2021

DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Medical leave – Claimant accused of lying about her sickness and her inability to properly perform her duties that had been assigned to her by the company in order to attend the seminar – Whether successfully proven by the company against her – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Claimant’s explanations – Whether could be accepted – What being on medical leave had meant – Company’s actions against her – What it had shown – Whether it had justified her dismissal – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse

DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Negligence – Claimant accused of failing to complete her work by the given deadline, in serious neglect of her duties, by lying about being ill and needing a day of sick leave to attend the MyIPO seminar – Whether successfully proven by the company against her – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether it had amounted to blatant dishonesty, breach of the trust that had been reposed in her and gross misconduct – Claimant submitting a valid medical certificate – What it had shown – Whether the company’s allegations against her had been serious and unwarranted – Whether it had justified her dismissal – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse

DISMISSAL: Gross misconduct – Claimant accused of failing, refusing and/or neglecting to deliver a valid medical certificate in respect of her sickness on the day in question – Allegation not stated in the show cause letter and only brought up after the conclusion of the inquiry – Whether it had had any basis to it – Factors to consider – Effect of – Company’s treatment towards her – What it had shown – Whether her dismissal had been without just cause and excuse

DOMESTIC INQUIRY: Procedural impropriety – Whether the proceedings had been conducted in compliance with the rules of natural justice – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether fatal to the company’s case – Whether the company had succeeded in establishing a prima facie case against the claimant

LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 2 of 2021)
Award Parties Citation Links
  Dato' Dr Mohamad Rameez Yahaya v. Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam Kumpulan Pengurusan (No. 1) & Anor
[Civil Appeal No: W-01(A)-275-05-2019]
[2021] 1 ILR 301 cljlaw
labourlaw
  Muhamad Sukeri Mahudin v. Hicom Automotive Manufacturers (Malaysia) Bhd & Anor And Other Appeals
[Civil Appeals No: W-01(A)-618-10-2019, W-01(A)-619-10-2019, W-01(A)-622-11-2019, W-01(A)-623-11-2019 & W-01(A)-624-11-2019]
[2021] 1 ILR 323 cljlaw
labourlaw
3/2021 Harry Wong Wei Chen v. Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas)
[Case No: 22/4-818/19]
[2021] 1 ILR 340 cljlaw
labourlaw
4/2021 Yong Pui Yee v. PricewaterhouseCoopers
[Case No: 22(30)(26)(15)(21)/4-700/16]
[2021] 1 ILR 387 cljlaw
labourlaw
36/2021 Macmillan Lawrence Solibun v. Malaysia Airlines Berhad
[Case No: 14/4-1992/19]
[2021] 1 ILR 409 cljlaw
labourlaw
37/2021 Zamri Nil v. Safeguards G4S Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 14(6)(21)/4-732/19]
[2021] 1 ILR 420 cljlaw
labourlaw
73/2021 Jolene Lee Miao Chi v. Iflix Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 4/4-1731/19]
[2021] 1 ILR 436 cljlaw
labourlaw
92/2021 Mohd Khairul Nizam Othman v. Safeguards G4S Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 19/4-1106/19]
[2021] 1 ILR 461 cljlaw
labourlaw
100/2021 Davinder Kaur v. Mauritius High Commission
[Case No: 19/4-1599/19]
[2021] 1 ILR 472 cljlaw
labourlaw
To Subject Index
ARTICLE HIGHLIGHT

BEST OF BOTH WORLDS
Hybrid work model more beneficial for companies in long term
A new dawn for workers post-Covid-19 is inevitable, but those who expect to be given the choice to work from home permanently may be disappointed. A more likely scenario, industry players and stakeholders say, is a hybrid culture - work from home combined with regular appearances at the office. Most businesses and even workers point out that while the work-from-home (WFH) concept has certain advantages - for businesses it means lower costs, and for workers, more time with loved ones - efficiency may suffer through lack of supervision or interaction among co-workers.

Read More

UBER RULING: WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
Modest rights won by UK Uber workers could be gateway to further benefits
The Uber ruling in the Supreme Court on 19 February 2021 established once and for all that in the UK the self-employed app-based driver model is no longer viable. But that doesn’t mean it will disappear overnight. The case of the 25 drivers named on the Uber v Aslam case will now return to the employment tribunal and the claimants will be compensated for the benefits they have missed out on since 2016 including holiday pay and the national minimum wage.

Read More

Copyright Mylawbox Sdn Bhd Unsubscribe