If you can't view the message, please click here.
|
|||||||||||||||
CASE HIGHLIGHTS |
|||||||||||||||
NG YING YIING v. SYMPHONY LIFE BERHAD Abstract – (i) An employer cannot dismiss an employee without just cause or excuse. In this case, the employer dismissed the claimant, a Group Chief Financial Officer, without sufficient justification. The court found that the employer’s allegations were unfounded and that the dismissal was motivated by ulterior motives, including the motive by another director to obstruct an investigation into his own misconduct; (ii) Punitive damages are not typically awarded in industrial relations matters. A claimant could potentially pursue a civil action against the individual responsible in orchestrating the wrongful dismissal. LABOUR LAW: Employment – Unfair dismissal – Misconduct – Claimant Group Chief Financial Officer – Claimant dismissed from employment following charges of misconduct pertaining to transaction of certain shares – Whether dismissal masterminded by another director – Whether claimant’s dismissal attempt to frustrate investigations of wrongdoing in company – Whether dismissal with just cause or excuse – Whether reinstatement proper remedy – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) INDUSTRIAL COURT: Remedies – Damages – Punitive damages – Employee dismissed from employment – Employee sought punitive compensation in lieu of reinstatement – Limits of what Industrial Court may award – Situations in which Industrial Court may award punitive damages in unfair dismissal cases – Industrial Relations Act 1967, Second Schedule DAMAGES: Punitive damages – Industrial relations matter – Claimant dismissed from employment – Claimant claimed against former employer at Industrial Court – Claimant sought punitive compensation in lieu of reinstatement – Whether Industrial Court may award punitive damages – Industrial Relations Act 1967, Second Schedule COMPANY LAW: Director – Shadow director – Claimant found guilty of misconduct of providing company’s payroll information with details of employees to shadow director – Shadow director involved in finance matters of company which included payroll matters – Position and legal standing of shadow director – Whether director – Whether charge against claimant had any footing – Whether there was misconduct – Companies Act 2016, s. 2 RAZIMAN KAMIS lwn. SYARIKAT AIR MELAKA BERHAD Abstrak – (i) Setiap pekerja bertanggungjawab menjaga imej dan nama baik majikannya dalam menjalankan tugas harian agar nama serta imej majikan tidak terjejas; (ii) Majikan mempunyai hak untuk mewujudkan keadaan kerja yang lancar dan cekap. Seorang pekerja diharapkan hadir dan berada di tempat kerjanya tepat pada masanya. Kelewatan dan/atau ketakhadiran tanpa sebab adalah satu salah laku yang boleh membawa pada pelanggaran terma kontrak pekerjaan dan seterusnya penamatan kontrak tersebut. UNDANG-UNDANG BURUH: Pekerjaan – Penamatan – Salah laku – Pekerja dipertuduh dengan salah laku berkaitan salah guna kedudukan atau harta/benda majikan untuk kepentingan peribadi, melakukan pekerjaan luar, tidak mematuhi prosedur/peraturan majikan, tidak hadir bertugas tanpa cuti dan kebenaran, mencemarkan imej majikan, ingkar perintah majikan dan datang lewat – Pekerja didapati bersalah atas salah laku-salah laku dan ditamatkan perkhidmatan – Sama ada pertuduhan-pertuduhan berjaya dibuktikan – Sama ada hukuman pembuangan kerja dibuat atas sebab dan alasan yang adil – Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) |
|||||||||||||||
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 11 of 2024) |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
APPEAL/REVIEW UPDATES |
|||||||||||||||
Institut Integriti Malaysia v. Roziah Harun & Anor [2024] 4 ILR 232 (COA) overruling High Court decision in Roziah Harun v. Institut Integriti Malaysia & Anor [2023] CLJU 2914; [2023] 1 LNS 2914. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|