 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CASE HIGHLIGHTS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MOHD FAUZI MOHD SHARIFF v. BANK ISLAM MALAYSIA BERHAD Abstract – While sleeping at workplace may constitute a misconduct, dismissal may be considered a disproportionate punishment to the said misconduct if: (i) the misconduct is not serious enough to fundamentally breach the employment contract, as opposed to more grave misconducts concerning theft, fraud and violence; (ii) the employee is a first-time offender with no prior warnings for similar behaviour; and (iii) there are significant mitigating factors, such as good work performance and achievement of targets and medical conditions that may have contributed to the sleeping incidents, as in this case, sleep apnea. In such situations, less severe disciplinary actions, ie, demotion or warnings, would be the more appropriate punishment. LABOUR LAW: Employment – Dismissal – Misconduct – Sleeping at workplace – Senior employee in managerial position found guilty of sleeping at workplace during working hours on 11 occasions – Employee found guilty of misconduct and dismissed from employment – Employee suffered from medical condition called sleep apnea – Whether sleeping at workplace serious misconduct – Whether employee committed said misconduct – Whether there were extenuating circumstances in favour of employee – Whether punishment of dismissal appropriate punishment – Whether less severe disciplinary actions could have been taken by employer – Whether dismissal by employer done with just cause or excuse – Whether employee contributed to misconduct – Whether reinstatement appropriate remedy – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(6A) The claimant served as a Branch Manager FATEN ALINA PATEH AKHIR v. SITI HEALTHCARE SDN BHD Abstract – (i) Terms like annual leave entitlement and the timely payment of salary and statutory contributions are fundamental terms of an employment contract. Unilateral changes to these terms by the employer, without the employee’s consent, may amount to a fundamental breach that goes to the root of the contract. If such situation occurs, an employee is then entitled to treat the employment contract as repudiated and may claim for constructive dismissal; (ii) Certain complaints regarding violations of the Employment Act 1955 may not be the proper subject of a constructive dismissal claim in the Industrial Court as they should instead be addressed to the Director General of Labour. LABOUR LAW: Employment – Dismissal – Constructive dismissal – Employer unilaterally revised terms of employees’ contract – Reduction of employee’s annual leave and requirement for employee to work on public holidays – Failure of employer to remit and pay statutory contributions to Employees Provident Fund (EPF), Social Security Organisation (SOCSO) and Employment Insurance Scheme (EIS) – Failure of employer to remit monthly tax deductions to Inland Revenue of Malaysia despite deducting them from employee’s monthly salary – Whether there was constructive dismissal INDUSTRIAL COURT: Forum – Constructive dismissal – Allegations of violations of Employment Act 1955 – Whether Industrial Court proper forum to adjudicate violations complained of – Whether employee ought to file complaint to Director General of Labour CONTRACT: Employment contract – Fundamental terms – Breach – Constructive dismissal – Employer unilaterally revised terms of employees’ contract – Reduction of employee’s annual leave and requirement for employee to work on public holidays – Failure of employer to remit and pay statutory contributions to Employees Provident Fund (EPF), Social Security Organisation (SOCSO) and Employment Insurance Scheme (EIS) – Failure of employer to remit monthly tax deductions to Inland Revenue of Malaysia despite deducting them from employee's monthly salary – Whether there was constructive dismissal |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 2 of 2025) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
APPEAL/REVIEW UPDATES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1. Woon Kim Choy v. Acexide Technology Sdn Bhd & Anor And Another Appeal [2025] 1 ILR 221 (COA) overruling the High Court case of Woon Kim Choy v. Acexide Technology Sdn Bhd & Anor [2024] CLJU 1133 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
