 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CASE HIGHLIGHTS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
HANIS NAZ AZNIZA HAMZAH v. MALAYSIA AIRPORTS SDN BHD Abstract – When there are extenuating factors that may contribute to an employee’s misconduct, an employer ought to consider other punishment options, aside from dismissal, that befit the gravity of misconduct committed by the employee. This could range from suspension without pay to a salary reduction or demotion with a salary reduction. Depending on the circumstances surrounding a case, the punishment of dismissal may be unduly harsh and severe. LABOUR LAW: Employment – Dismissal – Misconduct – Contributory misconduct – Insubordination – Uttering foul language to and physically pushing higher-ranking officer – Employee dismissed from employment – Whether serious misconduct that warranted dismissal – Whether punishment of dismissal too harsh and severe – Whether dismissal with just cause or excuse – Whether reinstatement appropriate remedy – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) EVIDENCE: Judicial notice – Foul and derogatory words – ‘pukimak hang’ – Highly obscene words in Malay language – Evidence Act 1950, s. 56 SHARIFAH ROZAITUL AKMA SYED ZAHIR v. UITM HOLDINGS SDN BHD Abstract – An employee under probation, by the very nature of his/her probationary period, needs to prove himself/herself on his/her performance and suitability of employment with the company and by this, the company maintains the prerogative in its decision on the confirmation of the probationers as a permanent employee. The proper person to judge the suitability of an employee on probation is the employer, so long as this exercise is not carried out in a questionable manner. When the performance of a probationer is called into question, it will be proper for the employer to observe certain duties imposed upon the employer in order not to run contrary to the requirement of the bona fide exercise of the employer’s prerogative not to confirm the probationer. Such duties include, having in place proper documents to signify that there was a proper appraisal and notification of the areas of the probationer’s weaknesses. LABOUR LAW: Employment – Dismissal – Probationer – Probationer placed under probation for role of Assistant Manager in Group Human Capital Department – Probationer persistently raised matters of indiscipline of employees – Probationer transferred to Group Chief Operating Officer’s office with no reasons proffered – Probationer not given any job description and left with little or no work to be carried out – Probationer not confirmed in employment due allegations of poor performance and below average rating – Whether dismissal with just cause or excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30 (5), (6A) LABOUR LAW: Employment – Dismissal – Probationer – Poor performance – Probationer placed under probation for role of Assistant Manager in Group Human Capital Department – Probationer not confirmed in employment due allegations of poor performance and below average rating – Whether probationer had performed below expectation – Whether there was review or appraisal of probationer’s performance – Whether probationer informed of areas of weakness – Whether properly documented – Whether there was unfair labour practice and victimisation – Whether employer acted in bad faith – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30 (5), (6A) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 5 of 2024) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
APPEAL/REVIEW UPDATES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
