 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CASE HIGHLIGHTS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
KESATUAN KAKITANGAN IPOH CARGO TERMINAL SDN BHD v. IPOH CARGO TERMINAL SDN BHD Abstract – Section 56(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (‘Act’) gives the power to the Industrial Court to make such order as it considers desirable to vary or set aside any term of the award or collective agreement upon ‘special circumstances’. As the Act does not define the term ‘special circumstances’, reference on case laws showed that financial incapacity of a company, per se, is not deemed as special circumstances under s. 56(2) of the Act to vary or set aside provisions of the Industrial Court. INDUSTRIAL COURT: Award – Non-compliance – Non-compliance of collective agreement awarded through award – Salary increment – Whether collective agreement had been terminated and superseded by new collective agreement – Whether there was non-compliance of collective agreement – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 56(1) & (2) TRADE DISPUTE: Collective agreement – Non-compliance – Non-compliance of collective agreement awarded through award – Salary increment – Whether collective agreement had been terminated and superseded by new collective agreement – Whether there was non-compliance of collective agreement – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 56(1) & (2) CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata – Industrial Court – Non-compliance of collective agreement awarded through award – Salary increment – Pending matter at Industrial Court on trade dispute concerning new collective agreement – Whether res judicata applied WORDS & PHRASES: ‘special circumstances’ – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 56(2) – Power of Industrial Court to make such order as it considers desirable to vary or set aside any term of award or collective agreement upon ‘special circumstances’ – Whether financial difficulties or financial struggle considered as ‘special circumstances’ POONJELIAN CHANDRAN v. SUNSHINE BREAD SDN BHD Abstract – The perennial issue of whether it is reasonable for an employer to dismiss an employee would depend on the seriousness of the allegation of misconduct. The relationship between the employer and the employee is a fiduciary one. If the employee does anything incompatible with the due or faithful discharge of his duties to his master, the latter has a right to dismiss. LABOUR LAW: Employment – Dismissal – Misconduct – Dishonesty to employer – Falsifying information, misrepresentation, deceiving and cheating – Employer involved in food industry – Employer received complaints on wrong expiry date on kwik-loks – Employer instructed employee to investigate on complaint – Employee instructed subordinate to replace wrongly-printed kwik-loks dates with newly-printed ones to give false impression that there was no mistake – Matter came to light and employee dismissed from employment – Whether misconduct complained of by employer had been established – Whether proven misconduct constituted just cause or excuse for dismissal – Industrial Relations Act, s. 20(3) & 30(5) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 3 of 2024) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JUDICIAL QUOTES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apabila seorang Imam dilantik untuk berkhidmat di tempat beribadat atau masjid, mereka dianggap sebagai bersedia memberikan perkhidmatan mereka kepada tempat beribadat tersebut dan agama mereka, tanpa mengira waktu dan masa. Tugas utama seorang Imam adalah untuk mengetuai solat berjemaah di masjid. Di dalam Islam, Imam adalah seorang yang mengetuai solat, ketua masyarakat Islam dan memberi bimbingan dari segi agama Islam, menghadiri majlis-majlis ilmu, berpegang kepada ajaran agama dan menyebarkan nilai-nilai baik dan menjadi contoh kepada masyarakat Islam. Setiap Imam mengikuti kursus atau latihan sebelum menjadi Imam dan mereka memahami tugasannya dan bersedia untuk berkhidmat kepada masjid dan masyarakat Islam apabila mereka menerima tugasannya. Terma-terma perkhidmatan, gaji, faedah dan penginapan memang diuruskan oleh pihak Masjid atau majikan yang menandatangani kontrak perkhidmatan dengan seseorang Imam tersebut. Tugasan ini meliputi soal agama di mana terma-terma perkhidmatannya tertakluk kepada kontrak perkhidmatan. Ini bukan bermakna seorang Imam itu diwajibkan bertugas 365 hari dalam setahun tanpa cuti. Fakta yang tidak dapat dinafikan ialah, kesemua ketua agama atau orang yang mengetuai sesuatu sembahyang atau solat, tertakluk kepada terma-terma tempat ibadatnya dan kepada kontrak perkhidmatan. Dalam kes ini, terdapat kontrak perkhidmatan dan mengikut terma kontrak ini, PYM hanyalah dipertanggungjawabkan untuk bersolat lima waktu yang mana PYM telah bersetuju. - Per Vanithamany Sivalingam in Abdulhakim Fakhruddeen Muhamad Ridzuan lwn. Masjid Puncak Alam [2024] 1 ILR 632 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
