If you can't view the message, please click here.
|
|||||||||||||||
CASE HIGHLIGHTS |
|||||||||||||||
FAREEN SHAZLI ALI v. KEBABANGAN PETROLEUM OPERATING COMPANY SDN BHD Abstract – To determine whether a claimant is a workman or an employee of a company under s. 2 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, the court would look at, inter alia, the terms of the employment contract of the claimant, the facts surrounding the case, the acts/conducts of the claimant, company and/or third parties and the party who pays the claimant’s remunerations, monthly contributions and insurance coverage. LABOUR LAW: Employment – Dismissal – Allegations of – Company entered into contract with third party for provision of general and specialist manpower services for company – Third party to provide individuals as contractors to perform certain functions for company – Claimant provided by third party to company and was emplaced in company – Claimant’s performance below expectations and company ceased claimant’s emplacement – Whether there was dismissal by company CONTRACT: Employment contract – Contract for services – Company entered into contract with third party for provision of general and specialist manpower services for company – Third party to provide individuals as contractors to perform certain functions for company – Claimant provided by third party to company and was emplaced in company – Claimant’s performance below expectations and company ceased claimant’s emplacement – Whether contract for services entered between claimant and company or claimant and third party – Whether claimant workman/ employee of company – Whether claimant independent contractor under contract for services with third party – Whether claimant ought to pursue action against company or third party – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 2 CHAU KOK SIANG v. CASTWELL INDUSTRIES (M) SDN BHD Abstract – When a claim is premised on constructive dismissal, the burden of proof is shouldered by the claimant. The claimant must prove, with certainty and sans any ambiguity, as to the actual date he deemed himself constructively dismissed and that he had walked out of his employment immediately thereafter. LABOUR LAW: Dismissal – Constructive dismissal – Date of alleged constructive dismissal – Employee claimed to be constructively dismissed by employer – Court faced with five different dates of alleged dismissal – Preliminary issue raised as to whether there was ambiguity and/or uncertainty as to claimant’s actual date of dismissal from employment with company – Whether preliminary issue ought to be allowed |
|||||||||||||||
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 9 of 2023) |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
APPEAL/REVIEW UPDATES |
|||||||||||||||
1. QSR Brands (M) Holdings Sdn Bhd v Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia & Anor [2023] 3 ILR 459 (HC) quashing Industrial Court Award of Danny Nesan Santhyagoo v QSR Brands (M) Holdings (M) Sdn Bhd [2021] 2 LNS 0091. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|