LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 4 of 2021)
SUBJECT INDEX
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
Appeal process – Whether the claimant had been deprived of the right to be
heard at the Grievance Procedure Inquiries and the appeal to the Board of
Directors – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether
there had been a breach of the rules of natural justice
Sahathevan Narissaman v. International School Of Kuala Lumpur
(Teoh Chin Chong) [2021] 2 ILR 62 
Type of – Whether the claimant had been employed on genuine fixed-term
contract(s) – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect
of – Whether he had had a legitimate expectation to continue in employment – School’s conduct – Terms and conditions of his contract(s) of employment – Claimant’s conduct and its implications – What it had shown – Whether
the claimant had been dismissed – Whether dismissal without just cause and
excuse – Employment Act 1955, s. 11(1)
Sahathevan Narissaman v. International School Of Kuala Lumpur
(Teoh Chin Chong) [2021] 2 ILR 62 
DISMISSAL
Abandonment – Claimant tendering his resignation after receiving the
suspension notice from the company – Effect of – What his actions had
shown – Whether he had acted prematurely – What he should have done – Whether he had voluntarily walked out and abandoned his employment in
an attempt to escape the disciplinary process
Abdul Qadir Osman Mohd Aros v. Institut Darul Ridzuan Berhad
(Reihana Abd Razak) [2021] 2 ILR 162 
Breach of company rules and policies – Confidential information – Whether
the claimant had leaked confidential information to external parties in breach
of the company’s NDA – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect
of – Whether the misconduct had been successfully proven against him – Whether his actions had constituted serious misconduct – Company’s actions
towards him – What it had shown – Whether his actions had warranted his
dismissal – Factors to consider – Whether his dismissal had been without just
cause and excuse
Roald Jan Splinter v. HQ Pack Sdn Bhd
(Kalmizah Salleh) [2021] 2 ILR 1 
Constructive dismissal – Denial of entry into company premises – Whether
the claimant had been denied entry into the company’s premises to perform
his job – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether it had
justified him walking out and claiming constructive dismissal
Abdul Qadir Osman Mohd Aros v. Institut Darul Ridzuan Berhad
(Reihana Abd Razak) [2021] 2 ILR 162 
Constructive dismissal – Salary – Non-payment of – Claimant delaying
taking action – Whether he had waived the breach – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Reasons for the company’s non-payment
unchallenged by the claimant – Effect of – Whether it had justified him
walking out of his employment and claiming constructive dismissal
Abdul Qadir Osman Mohd Aros v. Institut Darul Ridzuan Berhad
(Reihana Abd Razak) [2021] 2 ILR 162 
Constructive dismissal – Suspension – Claimant seeking reasons for the
suspension and objecting to it by way of letters – Company not responding
to the claimant’s letters – Effect of – Whether the claimant had been
suspended at the material time – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether his actions had been premature – What he should have
done – Whether the company’s failure to respond to his letters had
constituted a fundamental breach of the contract of employment – Whether
the company had been aware of the letters – Effect of – Whether the
claimant’s claim for constructive dismissal ought to be allowed
Abdul Qadir Osman Mohd Aros v. Institut Darul Ridzuan Berhad
(Reihana Abd Razak) [2021] 2 ILR 162 
Constructive dismissal – Suspension – Whether the company had committed
a fundamental breach of his contract of employment by suspending him – Factors to consider – Effect of – Claimant’s conduct – What it had shown – Whether it had justified him walking out of his employment and claiming
constructive dismissal
Abdul Qadir Osman Mohd Aros v. Institut Darul Ridzuan Berhad
(Reihana Abd Razak) [2021] 2 ILR 162 
Insubordination – Whether the claimant had raised her voice at her Line
Manager, whilst making disparaging, derogatory, degrading as well as
threatening remarks using profanity, against him – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether her conduct had constituted
insubordinate behaviour – Claimant’s defence – Whether could be accepted – Whether the charge had successfully been proven by the bank – Effect of – Whether it had constituted serious misconduct – Whether it had justified
her dismissal – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Kavitha Chakravarthy v. Malayan Banking Berhad
(Augustine Anthony) [2021] 2 ILR 112 
Misconduct – Claimant arrested and investigated by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission on charges of bribery – Whether he had been guilty
of the misconduct – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the misconduct had been successfully proven by the company
against him – Company’s actions prior to dismissing him – What it had
shown – Effect of – Whether the company’s decision to dismiss him had been
correct – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
Zulkeflee Abdullah v. Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2021] 2 ILR 129 
Misconduct – Whether the claimant’s arrest and investigation by the MACC
had tarnished the image and reputation of the company – Whether the
company had lost its trust and confidence in his integrity and credibility – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Company not conducting an
investigation and instead relying on hearsay evidence – Effect of – What it
should have done instead – Whether it had successfully proven the
misconduct against the claimant – Claimant subsequently released without
charge – Whether the claimant’s dismissal had been carried out with just
cause and excuse
Zulkeflee Abdullah v. Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2021] 2 ILR 129 
Misconduct – Whether the claimant had influenced other parties to resign
from their current job – Whether he had been in breach of the “Nonsolicitation
of Employees” clause in his contract of employment – Factors
to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether
proven by the company against him – Whether his conduct had justified his
dismissal
Roald Jan Splinter v. HQ Pack Sdn Bhd
(Kalmizah Salleh) [2021] 2 ILR 1 
Notice of termination – Claimant suspended vide WhatsApp
communication – Whether it had been an acceptable or sufficient mode of
communication between the parties – Factors to consider – Evidence
adduced – Effect of
Abdul Qadir Osman Mohd Aros v. Institut Darul Ridzuan Berhad
(Reihana Abd Razak) [2021] 2 ILR 162 
Notice of termination – Company relying on grounds not stated in the
termination letter as reasons for the claimant’s dismissal – Whether it ought
to be allowed – Factors to consider
Zulkeflee Abdullah v. Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2021] 2 ILR 129 
Notice of termination – No reasons stated therein for his dismissal – Six
reasons stated in the company’s Statement in Reply – Whether successfully
proven by the company – Effect of
Roald Jan Splinter v. HQ Pack Sdn Bhd
(Kalmizah Salleh) [2021] 2 ILR 1 
DOMESTIC INQUIRY
Absence of – Whether fatal to the bank’s case – Whether there had been a
breach of the rules of natural justice
Kavitha Chakravarthy v. Malayan Banking Berhad
(Augustine Anthony) [2021] 2 ILR 112 
EVIDENCE
Audio recording – Tape recording of conversation without claimant’s
knowledge – Whether illegal – Whether could be accepted into evidence – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
Kavitha Chakravarthy v. Malayan Banking Berhad
(Augustine Anthony) [2021] 2 ILR 112 
Witness – Whether the claimant had been a credible witness – Factors to
consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether she had shown remorse
in Court – Effect of
Kavitha Chakravarthy v. Malayan Banking Berhad
(Augustine Anthony) [2021] 2 ILR 112 
TRADE DISPUTE
Collective agreement – Article on transport – Whether the company had
unilaterally altered the existing transportation arrangement to its workers – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the union had
successfully made out its case – Effect of – Whether the union’s claim ought
to be allowed
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Syarikat-syarikat Pembuat Keluaran Getah
v. Harvik Rubber Industries Sdn Bhd
(Paramalingam J Doraisamy) [2021] 2 ILR 147 
Collective agreement – Existing benefits – Whether the company had
unilaterally varied the existing terms of the Attendance Incentive payment
scheme under art. 36(2) of the Collective Agreement, without consulting
with the union – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether the company had merely revised it – Whether the
company, by its actions, had been in contravention of art. 2(4) of the
Collective Agreement – Effect of – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 17
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Syarikat-syarikat Pembuat Keluaran Getah
v. Harvik Rubber Industries Sdn Bhd
(Paramalingam J Doraisamy) [2021] 2 ILR 147 
Collective agreement – Profit-sharing – Whether the company had paid its
non-unionised employees a higher profit-sharing payment – Factors to
consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the union’s contention
had been supported by the evidence – Effect of – Whether the union’s claim
ought to be allowed
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Syarikat-syarikat Pembuat Keluaran Getah
v. Harvik Rubber Industries Sdn Bhd
(Paramalingam J Doraisamy) [2021] 2 ILR 147 
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Appendix 7 – Whether the company’s proposal for an increase of 20% in the minimum
salary and an increase of 20% in the maximum salary as per the table should
be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Alat-alat Pengangkutan Dan
Sekutu v. PEPS-JV (Melaka) Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2021] 2 ILR 85 
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on annual
increment – Whether the proposal for an increase ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the company
had had the financial ability to pay
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Alat-alat Pengangkutan Dan
Sekutu v. PEPS-JV (Melaka) Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2021] 2 ILR 85 
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on
recognition of the union, probation, promotion, grades and salary range,
hours of work, overtime meal allowance, subsistence allowances, gazetted
public holidays, annual leave, prolonged illness, retirement, existing
benefits, check-off, attendance allowance and pilgrimage leave – Whether the
status quo of the 1st CA ought to be maintained – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Alat-alat Pengangkutan Dan
Sekutu v. PEPS-JV (Melaka) Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2021] 2 ILR 85 
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on salary
adjustment – Whether the proposal for an increase ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the company
had had the financial ability to pay
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Alat-alat Pengangkutan Dan
Sekutu v. PEPS-JV (Melaka) Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2021] 2 ILR 85 
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on scope
of agreement – Whether the medically boarded out ought to be included
within the scope of the 2nd CA – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Alat-alat Pengangkutan Dan
Sekutu v. PEPS-JV (Melaka) Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2021] 2 ILR 85 
Collective Agreement – Terms and conditions of service – Article on shift
allowance – Whether the proposal for an increase ought to be allowed – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the company
had had the financial ability to pay
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Alat-alat Pengangkutan Dan
Sekutu v. PEPS-JV (Melaka) Sdn Bhd
(Anna Ng Fui Choo) [2021] 2 ILR 85 
INDEKS PERKARA
KETERANGAN
Keterangan dokumentari – Nota Prosiding SD – Sama ada harus diterima
oleh Mahkamah – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang
dikemukakan – Kesannya
Hafizudin Ali lwn. Langkawi Holiday Villa Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2021] 2 ILR 27 
PEMBUANGAN KERJA
Salah laku – Sama ada YM telah bertindak secara kasar terhadap Pn. Joseph,
seorang tetamu syarikat responden – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya – Pembelaan YM – Sama ada
dapat diterima – Sama ada salah laku tersebut berjaya dibuktikan oleh
syarikat responden terhadapnya – Sama ada kesalahan lampau boleh diambil
kira di dalam mengenakan hukuman ke atas YM – Sama ada salah laku
tersebut merupakan satu salah laku yang serius – Industri syarikat responden – Kesannya – Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil
dan bersebab – Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Hafizudin Ali lwn. Langkawi Holiday Villa Sdn Bhd
(Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam) [2021] 2 ILR 27 
|