 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CASE HIGHLIGHTS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
YEOH CHIN HOCK v. IKAT TEGAS JAYA SDN BHD Abstract – (i) The absence of a formal written employment contract does not preclude the existence of an employment relationship. A contract of employment may, in fact, be inferred from the conduct of the parties, which demonstrates an intention to create such a contract, even in the absence of an explicit agreement. These conducts may include, payment of salary and control and supervision; (ii) Generally, the termination of a fixed-term contract before its expiry date is only permissible for valid reasons, such as gross misconduct or mutual agreement. An unjustified termination of fixed-term contracts may result in remedies for the remaining term of the contract, subject to statutory limitations. LABOUR LAW: Employment – Termination – Termination of fixed-term contract – Claimant hired for specific project that was to be completed within specific timeframe – Parties did not enter into written employment contract – Claimant orally informed by company that his services were no longer required – Allegation by company that claimant was never appointed, hired or contracted by company – Whether claimant workman/employee of company – Whether there was dismissal – Whether dismissal with just cause or excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(1A) CONTRACT: Employment contract – Absence of written employment contract – Termination of fixed-term contract – Claimant hired for specific project that was to be completed within specific timeframe – Parties did not enter into written employment contract – Claimant orally informed by company that his services were no longer required – Allegation by company that claimant was never appointed, hired or contracted by company – Whether claimant workman/employee of company – Whether there was employer-employee relationship between parties – Whether conduct of parties demonstrated existence of employment contract AZMAN ISA v. TECHNIP GEOPRODUCTION (M) SDN BHD Abstract – The acts of hiring, mobilising, demobilising, approving leave applications, and having the power to dictate the terms of an employment contract are some of the many examples that demonstrate the control of an employer over an employee’s employment to sufficiently establish an employer-employee and master-servant relationship. When such control and relationship are proven, an employer is estopped from denying its role as an employer and its involvement in all aspects of the employee’s employment. LABOUR LAW: Employment – Termination – Claimant entered into fixed-term employment contract with first company – Claimant mobilised to work in Vietnam and signed another contract with company in Vietnam – Company in Vietnam said to be agent of first company – Allegations by company in Vietnam that claimant lacked in performance, reporting and communication skills – Claimant’s employment contract terminated – Termination letter came from first company – Whether claimant employed by first company or company in Vietnam – Whether company in Vietnam mere agent of first company – Which company had employeremployee relationship with claimant – Which company demonstrated control over employee – Whether there was valid and binding employment contract between first company and claimant – Whether employment contract terminated prematurely – Whether termination with just cause or excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2, 20 22(2), 22(3), 29(g) & 30(5) CONTRACT: Employment contract – Termination – Claimant entered into fixedterm employment contract with first company – Claimant mobilised to work in Vietnam and signed another contract with company in Vietnam – Company in Vietnam said to be agent of first company – Allegations by company in Vietnam that claimant lacked in performance, reporting and communication skills – Claimant’s employment contract terminated by first company – Whether claimant employed by first company or company in Vietnam – Whether company in Vietnam mere agent of first company – Whether contract entered into with company in Vietnam mere subcontract – Whether contract demonstrated employeremployee and master-servant relationship between claimant and first company – Whether there was valid and binding employment contract between first company and claimant – Whether employment contract terminated prematurely – Whether termination lawful and substantiated |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 1 of 2025) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
APPEAL/REVIEW UPDATES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Norbed Husain v. Malaysia Airport Holdings Bhd & Anor and Another Case [2025] 1 ILR 73 (HC) quashing the Industrial Court award in Norbed Husain v. Malaysia Airport Holdings Bhd [2022] ILRU 2496; [2022] 2 LNS 2496 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
