 |
||
|
||
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 8 of 2024) |
||
|
SUBJECT INDEX CONTRACT Employment contract – Abandonment – Employee suffered from COVID-
19 and post-COVID-19 symptoms – Employee took unpaid and medical
leaves for long period – Leave applications approved by company without
objections – Employee suddenly terminated from employment – Whether
there was abandonment of contract of employment – Employment Act 1955,
s. 15(2) Employment contract – Terms – Ambiguous terms – Contra proferentum
rule – Policy on claims – Employee dismissed from employment due to
allegations of abuse of claims – Whether policy on claims clear – Whether
policy in effect when alleged misconduct took place – Whether contra
proferentum rule applied EVIDENCE Admission – Misconduct – Employee of airport negligently released
passenger without documents – Employee admitted to misconduct on several
occasions – Whether misconduct established – Whether admissions relevant
and admissible – Evidence Act 1950, s. 21 Adverse inference – Non-production of material witness – Employee
dismissed from employment due to allegations of abuse of claims –
Allegation that abuse discovered through audit – Failure of employer to call
audit team to testify – Whether adverse inference ought to be invoked Documentary evidence – Financial documents – Employee retrenched from
employment less than one month after Movement Control Order was
announced – Employer cited challenges faced during COVID-19 pandemic
and financial adversity as reasons for employee's retrenchment – Whether
actual reason – Whether documentary evidence adduced by employer
supported employer's allegation of financial adversity Expert evidence – Handwriting expert – Employee dismissed from
employment due to allegations of abuse of claims – Travel claims – Whether
employee submitted fraudulent claim – Evidence Act 1950, s. 45(1) LABOUR LAW Dismissal – Retrenchment – Redundancy – Employee terminated due to
company's change of ownership – Employer claims termination carried out
in line with company's policy – Whether there is sufficient evidence –
Whether dismissal done with just cause or excuse – Whether retrenched –
Whether circumstances existed which justified termination exercise
undertaken – Whether retrenchment exercise bona fide and fair labour
practice – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(6A) Domestic inquiry – Validity – Employee faced charges concerning claims –
Domestic inquiry did not call any witnesses to put forward case – Domestic
inquiry relied on documents to prove employee's misconducts – Employee
dismissed from employment at end of domestic inquiry – Whether there was
breach of rules of natural justice – Whether employee guilty of misconducts
– Whether employee given sufficient opportunity to review and confirm
accuracy of notes – Whether consideration ought to be be given to domestic
inquiry notes – Whether domestic inquiry conducted in proper manner Employment – Dismissal – Claim for reinstatement – Claimant serial
claimant at Industrial Court – Claimant allegedly dismissed from
employment without just cause or excuse – Whether claimant's submissions,
documents and authorities supported claim of dismissal – Whether there was
dismissal – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20 Employment – Dismissal – Compensation – Misconduct – Contributory
misconduct – Employee of airport negligently released passenger without
documents – Employee admitted to misconduct on several occasions –
Whether there was contributory misconduct – Amount of compensation
ought to be awarded – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(6A) Employment – Dismissal – Employee suffered from COVID-19 and post-
COVID-19 symptoms – Employee took unpaid and medical leaves for long
period – Leave applications approved by company without objections –
Employee suddenly terminated from employment – Whether employee
given sufficient notice or warning on cause of termination – Whether
employee given reasonable opportunity to improve or explain situation –
Whether employee accorded right to be heard – Whether claimant dismissed
without just cause or excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) Employment – Dismissal – Misconduct – Abuse of claims – Meal and travel
claims – Employee dismissed from employment due to allegations of abuse
of claims – Whether misconduct proven – Whether dismissal with just cause
or excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Employment – Dismissal – Misconduct – Condonation – Employee of
airport negligently released passenger without documents – Employee placed
under Performance Improvement Plan and signed undertaking and
counselling form – Employee continued working without being suspended –
Employee showed signs of improvement and did not commit or repeat same
misconduct but later dismissed from employment – Whether employer's
failure to act against employee amounted to condonation – Whether
employer had forgiven employee – Whether employer delayed in acting
against employee – Whether undertaking and counselling were punishment
– Whether employer waived right to dismiss employee – Whether dismissal
with just cause or excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(6A) Employment – Dismissal – Poor performance – Employee taking excessive
medical leave – Employee failed to submit medical leave – Employee
dismissed from employment due to poor performance – Whether poor
performance established – Whether employee warned about poor
performance – Whether employee given sufficient opportunity to improve –
Whether employee failed to sufficiently improve performance – Whether
dismissal with just cause and excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
– Employment Act 1955, s. 60F(2) Employment – Dismissal – Retrenchment – Redundancy – Employee
retrenched from employment less than one month after Movement Control
Order was announced – Employer cited challenges faced during COVID-19
pandemic and financial adversity as reasons for employee's retrenchment –
Whether actual reason – Whether employee in dire financial situation and
could not sustain business – Whether employer's allegations supported by
evidence – Whether employer had taken positive steps to avert or minimise
workforce reduction – Whether employer too cost-cutting measures –
Whether there was genuine necessity for retrenchment – Whether
employee's work or job ceased – Whether retrenchment tainted with mala fide – Whether employee dismissed with just cause or excuse – Industrial
Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) Industrial Court – Case – Application for withdrawal – Claimant serial
claimant at Industrial Court – Claimant allegedly dismissed from
employment without just cause or excuse – Claimant applied for withdrawal
of case – Whether claimant's application for withdrawal ought to be
entertained – Whether application unconditional – Whether application
made at late stage – Whether case ripe for final full award – Whether
application for withdrawal ought to be allowed – Industrial Relations Act
1967, ss. 20, 29 & 30 INDUSTRIAL COURT Procedures – Award – Delivery of award – Claimant serial claimant at
Industrial Court – Claimant allegedly dismissed from employment –
Claimant sought reinstatement to former position – Claimant produced
allocator certificates allegedly produced by past Industrial Court Chairmen
to persuade court to order favourable compensation – Whether Industrial
Court would hand allocatur certificates when handing down award at
conclusion of matter – Whether documents falsified and non-existent –
Industrial Relations Act 1967 – Industrial Court Rules 1967 Remedies – Powers – Claimant allegedly dismissed from employment –
Claimant sought reinstatement to former position – Application for
withdrawal case – Whether application for withdrawal ought to be
entertained – Whether Industrial Court restricted to specific relief or
demands made by parties – Whether Industrial Court can include in award
any matter or things that it thinks necessary or expedient for purpose of
settling reference – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20, 29 & 30 INDEKS PERKARA PERKATAAN & ISTILAH Tafsiran – 'gangguan seksual' – Akta Antigangguan Seksual 2022, s. 2 UNDANG-UNDANG BURUH Pekerjaan – Gangguan Seksual – Pekerja membuat aduan susulan gangguangangguan
seksual terhadap dirinya – Pemangsa adalah orang yang mengawal
selia syarikat – Siasatan dijalankan oleh pegawai-pegawai yang menjawab
pada pemangsa – Laporan siasatan tidak memuatkan kenyataan oleh
pemangsa dan pekerja – Majikan enggan menyerahkan sesalinan laporan
siasatan pada pekerja – Sama ada siasatan telus dan bebas – Sama ada aduan
gangguan seksual dilayan dengan sebaik-baiknya – Sama ada siasatan lengkap Pekerjaan – Penamatan – Penamatan konstruktif – Gangguan seksual –
Pekerja membuat aduan susulan gangguan-gangguan seksual terhadap dirinya
– Pemangsa adalah orang yang mengawal selia syarikat – Siasatan mendapati
tuduhan-tuduhan oleh pekerja tidak benar – Pekerja ditukarkan ke cawangan
lain syarikat – Sama ada tindakan majikan mengakibatkan pekerja tidak dapat
menjalankan pekerjaannya dengan keadaan munasabah sebagai seorang
pekerja – Sama ada pekerja ditamatkan pekerjaan secara konstruktif – Akta
Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(1A) Pekerjaan – Penamatan – Prestasi lemah – Pekerja diletakkan bawah program
Performance Improvement Plan ('program') – Majikan memberi
pengiktirafan dan penghargaan serta akur dengan sumbangan pekerja melalui
pemberian bonus – Pekerja ditamatkan perkhidmatan oleh majikan kerana
dikatakan gagal memperbaiki tahap pencapaian kerja – Sama ada tindakan
majikan mengiktiraf dan menghargai sumbangan pekerja selaras dan sepadan
dengan tindakan menamatkan perkhidmatan pekerja – Sama ada program
membantu memperbaiki mutu perkhidmatan pekerja – Sama ada tugasantugasan
tambahan bawah program membebankan dan menjejaskan tumpuan
pekerja dalam melaksanakan tugas hakikinya – Sama ada penamatan kerja
pekerja dilakukan atas sebab dan alasan yang adil – Akta Perhubungan
Perusahaan, s. 20(3) |
||
|
