 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CASE HIGHLIGHTS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CONTINENTAL TYRE PJ MALAYSIA SDN BHD EMPLOYEES UNION v. CONTINENTAL TYRE PJ MALAYSIA SDN BHD Abstract – An employer cannot unilaterally change fundamental terms, in this case concerning the work schedule and working shift and days of the employees, which had been agreed with the Employees’ Union especially when such terms are enshrined in the collective agreement and memorandum of understanding entered into between the parties and guaranteed under the Employment Act 1995. TRADE DISPUTE: Collective agreement – Dispute on work schedule – Employer unilaterally changed working shift pattern, causing rest days to be reduced from 85 days to 52 days per year – Employees/members of Union deprived of 33 days of rest days per year – Whether in line with articles of collective agreement – Whether breached memorandum of understanding entered into between parties – Whether change fair, reasonable and equitable – Employment Act 1995, ss. 7, 7A & 59 LABOUR LAW: Trade union – Trade dispute – Dispute on work schedule – Employer unilaterally changed working shift pattern, causing rest days to be reduced from 85 days to 52 days per year – Employees/members of Union deprived of 33 days of rest days per year – Whether in line with articles of collective agreement – Whether breached memorandum of understanding entered into between parties – Whether change fair, reasonable and equitable – Employment Act 1995, ss. 7, 7A & 59 DALTON WEN FONG ANAK SIMON AWANG v. KNM EXOTIC EQUIPMENT SDN BHD Abstract – A complainant is entitled to rely on the principle enunciated in the Turquand rule to assume that all actions and decisions, made by a company’s representative before the Industrial Court, had been properly performed. The complainant is not obligated to inquire into whether the internal management and procedure prescribed by the company had been complied with. INDUSTRIAL COURT: Award – Non-compliance – Parties entered into amicable settlement by recording consent award – Non-compliance of award by company – Whether there were special circumstances for Industrial Court to vary or set aside award – Whether consent award properly obtained – Whether financial incapability of company proven and constituted special circumstance – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 56(2)(a) COMPANY LAW: Indoor management rule – Principle – Parties entered into amicable settlement by recording consent award – Non-compliance of award by company – Allegation by company that consent award not obtained properly since representative acted ultra vires when agreeing to award – Whether internal matter of company’s management – Whether complainant entitled to rely on principle under Turquand rule CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders – Restraining order – Parties entered into amicable settlement by recording consent award – Non-compliance of award by company – Complaint by complainant on non-compliance of consent award – Allegation by company that restraining order granted by High Court restrained noncompliance application by complainant – Whether restraining order relevant and applicable – Companies Act 2016, s. 368 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 6 of 2024) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
APPEAL/REVIEW UPDATES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
