LAWRENCE AROKIASAMY lwn. INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA-WALES SDN BHD
MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN, PERAK
MOHD ZULBAHRIN ZAINUDDIN
AWARD NO. 1186 TAHUN 2021 [NO. KES: 10/4-1923/19]
2 OGOS 2021

KETERANGAN: Keterangan dokumentari – YM dijemput untuk satu pertemuan tetapi tidak diberikan sebab mengapa pertemuan itu diadakan – Pertemuan itu lebih merupakan siasatan dan minit tidak dicatat – Pertemuan itu disusuli dengan surat amaran yang dikeluarkan terhadap beliau – Sama ada tindakan pihak syarikat telah menjadikan beliau seorang mangsa – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya

KONTRAK PERKHIDMATAN: Terma dan syarat – Surat tunjuk sebab – Sama ada surat tunjuk sebab yang diserahkan kepada YM adalah teratur – YM dihadapkan dengan salah laku yang sama di mana beliau telah menerima amaran untuknya sebelum itu – Sama ada beliau mengalami double jeapordy melalui tindakan pihak syarikat – Pihak syarikat mengambil keputusan untuk menamatkan perkhidmatannya sebelum siasatan habis dijalankan dan sebelum tempoh notis surat tunjuk sebab tersebut habis – Kesannya

MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN: Remedi – Bayaran pampasan galang ganti pengembalian ke jawatan semula – Penentuan bayaran pampasan – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Kesannya

PEMBUANGAN KERJA: Ketidakturutan – YM gagal mengemukakan Laporan Kehadiran Pelajar yang teratur apabila diminta – Sama ada pengemukaan Laporan tersebut merupakan sebahagian daripada deskripsi kerjanya – Sama ada tindakan beliau merupakan satu ketidakturutan kepada arahan pihak syarikat – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya – Penjelasan YM – Sama ada munasabah dan dapat diterima – Laporan tersebut apabila dikemukakan bagi kali kedua tidak teratur – Kesannya – Sama ada pertuduhan ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh pihak syarikat terhadapnya – Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab

PEMBUANGAN KERJA: Pemangsaan (Victimisation) – Sama ada YM telah dijadikan mangsa – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya – Sama ada pertuduhan ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh YM terhadap pihak syarikat – Kesannya

PEMBUANGAN KERJA: Salah laku – Sama ada pergeseran telah berlaku antara YM dengan COW4 di mesyuarat fakulti pada 6 Mac 2019 – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Sama ada ianya merupakan satu salah laku – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya – Tindakan syarikat – Apa ia menunjukkan – Syarikat kemudiannya mengeluarkan surat tunjuk sebab atas pertuduhan yang sama – Kesannya – Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab – Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)

PEMBUANGAN KERJA: Salah laku – Sama ada YM bertanggungjawab untuk ulasan negatif berkaitan dengan pihak syarikat yang dimuat naik di dalam Google Review – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Penilaian keterangan – Kesannya – Sama ada pertuduhan ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh pihak syarikat terhadapnya – Sama ada ia mewajarkan pembuangan kerjanya – Surat tunjuk sebab diserahkan ke atas beliau sebelum siasatan habis dijalankan – Kesannya

PEMBUANGAN KERJA: Salah laku – Sama ada YM telah tidak menghormati dan mempertikaikan perlantikan COW2 – Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira – Keterangan yang dikemukakan – Kesannya – Sama ada pertuduhan ini berjaya dibuktikan oleh pihak syarikat terhadapnya – Kesannya – Sama ada ia mewajarkan pembuangan kerjanya

SIASATAN DALAMAN: Siasatan yang dijalankan oleh syarikat – COW2 yang mempunyai kepentingan, menjalankan siasatan dan membuat keputusan terhadap YM – Kesannya – COW1 pula mengumpul maklumat, menyiasat dan membuat keputusan – Sama ada proses ini adil terhadap YM – Sama ada ianya menyalahi peraturan – Apa yang pihak syarikat sepatutnya lakukan

RASALECHUMI KANAGARATNAM v. LOURDES MEDICAL SERVICES SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
AUGUSTINE ANTHONY
AWARD NO. 1298 OF 2021 [CASE NO: 4/4-1941/20]
6 SEPTEMBER 2021

DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Cessation of business – Whether the company had ceased its business – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Claimant retrenched two weeks after MCO imposed – What it had shown – Whether the company had been financially healthy – Effect of – Company’s actions towards its other staff – Effect of – Company allegedly offering to reinstate her twice – Whether the company, by its pleadings, had taken an inconsistent stand in alleging redundancy – Whether the claimant’s retrenchment had been carried out bona fide – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse

DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Redundancy – Claimant terminated based on redundancy – Whether a genuine redundancy had existed in the company – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether it had justified the claimant’s retrenchment – Company’s actions towards her – What it had shown – Claimant serving the company loyally for 37 years with no performance or disciplinary issues – Effect of – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse

DISMISSAL: Retrenchment – Reorganisation – Claimant retrenched based on redundancy – Company transferring the other staff instead – Timing of the transfer – What it had shown – Whether a genuine redundancy had existed in the company – Whether the company had been facing financial constraints due to the Covid-19 pandemic – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the reorganisation exercise had been carried out bona fide – Effect of – Whether it had displayed unfair labour practices – Effect of – Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse

INDUSTRIAL COURT: Remedies – Compensation – Compensation in lieu of reinstatement – Whether the claimant had been entitled to it – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of

INDUSTRIAL COURT: Remedies – Reinstatement – Whether the claimant had been capable of reinstatement – Claimant 60 during the hearing – Effect of – Whether she had to retire at 60 – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Perusal of her contract of employment and legislation – Effect of – Company’s actions towards her – What it had indicated – Minimum Retirement Age Act 2012

'THOUSANDS' OF PROPERTY EXPERTS LINING UP TO SUE ONLINE ESTATE AGENTS PURPLEBRICKS AND YOPA FOR 'TENS OF MILLIONS' OVER EMPLOYMENT ROW
Former self-employed workers hired by online estate agents may be entitled to thousands of pounds
Thousands of formerly self-employed workers are preparing a bid to sue online estate agents including Purplebricks and Yopa, amid claims that they should have been treated like employees and are therefore owed holiday pay and pension contributions. Should the bid to sue the estate agents prove successful, the firms could face legal bills in the 'tens of millions of pounds', the lawyers behind the claims suggest. Contractors For Justice, which is acting on behalf of local property experts, local agents and territory owners who have worked for the online agents, is currently applying to the courts for authority to engage a group litigation order against the firms.

Read More

LOOK INTO DELAYED WAGES FOR SECURITY GUARDS, EDUCATION MINISTRY TOLD
Wira Corps security guards in Perlis and even HQ staff not paid for two months
The Government Contract Workers’ Network (JPKK) has urged the education ministry to intervene over delayed wages for security guards. In a Facebook post, JPKK said 38 security guards working at several schools, teachers’ quarters and student dormitories under the education ministry in Perlis had been living without pay by their employers, Wira Corps Security (M) Sdn Bhd, for the past two months. “The security guards who work under Wira Corps Security are stationed at 10 premises under the education ministry around Chuping and Arau in Perlis. “These security guards have been facing the problem of late wages from their employers since July 2021. They only received salaries for July 2021 on Sept 24, while the salaries for August and September have not been received to date,” it said.

Read More