 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CASE HIGHLIGHTS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
SASIKUMAR PARAMASIVAM v. UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) BHD Abstract – The bank, as a public financial institution and the custodian of public funds, demands from its employees integrity, absolute honesty and impeccability. A high quality of discipline, care and conduct of the highest order of an employee in the banking industry is expected in order to serve the public confidence. Any mishandling of cash by a bank’s employee is a serious misconduct and has direct implications on the core of the employer-employee’s relationship which is trust and fiduciary responsibility. As such, any breach of integrity would be a gross misconduct warranting summary dismissal. LABOUR LAW: Dismissal – Misconduct – Employee served with bank as Service Associate/Teller – Employee misappropriated bank’s cash money – Cash shortage discovered after cash balance surprise check at end of day by superior – Employee dismissed from employment with immediate effect – Whether charge of misconduct against employee proven on balance of probabilities – Whether punishment of dismissal proportionate – Whether dismissal done with just cause or excuse BANKING: Banks and banking business – Nature of banking business – Employee served with bank as Service Associate/Teller – Employee dismissed from employment due to misconduct of misappropriation of bank’s cash money – Cash shortage discovered after cash balance surprise check at end of day by superior – Qualities expected of bank’s employees in discharge of duties – Whether dismissal warranted – Whether charge against employee grave misconduct involving core of bank’s business KESATUAN SEKERJA INDUSTRI ELEKTRONIK WILAYAH BARAT SEMENANJUNG MALAYSIA v. CHEMI-CON (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD Abstract – An annual financial statement, which aims to provide a comprehensive overview of a company’s financial performance for the year, does not serve as the source of establishing the terms and conditions of employment; especially when there is, in place, an Employee’s Handbook that outlines such terms and conditions. TRADE DISPUTE: Complaint – Retirement benefits of employee – Applicable retirement benefit formula – Whether 12% of total base salary, pursuant to Employee’s Handbook – Whether one month last drawn salary for each completed year of service, as reported in company’s financial statement LABOUR LAW: Employment – Terms and conditions – Employee’s retirement benefits – Trade dispute – Complaint by Trade Union of employee’s retirement benefits – Applicable retirement benefit formula – Whether 12% of total base salary, pursuant to Employee’s Handbook – Whether one month last drawn salary for each completed year of service, as reported company’s financial statement – Whether financial statement could serve as source of establishing terms and conditions of employment |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 1 of 2024) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JUDICIAL QUOTES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"In the same breath, litigants should not abuse the forum presented by the Industrial Court to air their grievances on employment issues in order to make personal financial gains by hauling up their employers to court. From the evidence before this court, the modus operandi and the frequency in which the claimant had dragged her employers to the Industrial Court for unfair dismissal cases certainly shows a worrying trend where the Industrial Court might be seen to be more of a gold mine rather than a place to seek justice. Under such circumstances, the court would be justified in ordering costs against the claimant as a deterrent not only to the claimant but also to other litigants from filing multiple claims against their former employers in order to seek financial gain. Thus, by the power vested under reg. 5 of the Industrial Relations Regulations 1967, this court orders costs of RM3,000 against the claimant." - Per Paramalingam J Doraisamy in Ching Suet Yeen v Lepcon Tools (M) Sdn Bhd [2024] 1 ILR 136 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
