ILR Bulletin, Vol 08 2007
24 May 2007

Print this page

CLJ Law MALAYSIA http://www.cljlaw.com

Introduction:
To get the most out of this law bulletin join CLJ Law Online now - http://www.cljlaw.com/registration.asp
Feel free to forward this to your colleagues. Get this bulletin as email by going to http://www.cljlaw.com/ilrsubscribefrm.asp

INDUSTRIAL LAW REPORTS ISSUE 4 of 2007

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Exercise of judicial functions - Judicial review - Reference by Minister to Industrial Court under s. 20(3) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Duty of High Court as reviewing court - Scope of s. 20(3) - Minister’s exercise of discretion - Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corp Exxon Chemical (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Menteri Sumber Manusia, Malaysia & Ors
[Steve Shim (CJ Sabah & Sarawak), Siti Norma Yaakob FCJ, Abdul Hamid Mohamad FCJ (Federal Court, Putrajaya)] [2007] 2 ILR 13

Terms and conditions - Notice of termination - Retirement of claimant - Pursuant to Scheme of Service distributed to all employees - Claimant claiming no knowledge - Whether believable - Claimant claiming benefits under Scheme of Service - Whether benefits were contractual or at the discretion of the company to give - Claimant’s intention - Whether company’s act of retiring the claimant in compliance with the Scheme of Service - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Integrated Warehouse Sdn Bhd v. Cheng Nee @ Cheng Molly
(Yeoh Wee Siam) [2007] 2 ILR 61

Injunction - Interlocutory injunction - Non-renewal by respondents of appellant’s agreement to practise medicine at respondents’ hospital - Appellant filed for reinstatement and also sought interlocutory injunction that would enable him to remain in his job until determination of his representations - Whether High Court capable of granting such injunction
Dr David Vanniasingham Ramanathan v. Subang Jaya Medical Centre Sdn Bhd
[Abdul Aziz Mohamad JCA, Mohd Ghazali Yusoff JCA, Zaleha Zahari JCA (Court Of Appeal, Putrajaya)] [2007] 2 ILR 1

Jurisdiction - High Court - Non-renewal by respondents of appellant’s agreement to practise medicine at respondents’ hospital - Appellant filed for reinstatement and also sought interlocutory injunction that would enable him to remain in his job until determination of his representations - Whether High Court capable of granting such injunction
Dr David Vanniasingham Ramanathan v. Subang Jaya Medical Centre Sdn Bhd
[Abdul Aziz Mohamad JCA, Mohd Ghazali Yusoff JCA, Zaleha Zahari JCA (Court Of Appeal, Putrajaya)] [2007] 2 ILR 1

Breach of company rules and policies - Fraud/Dishonesty - Claimant clocking in and out for superior without respondent’s knowledge - Admission letter signed by claimant - Whether procured under duress - Conduct of claimant - Effect Of - Claimant lodging police report - Whether lodgement of police report automatically proved letter given under duress - Whether there was collusion between claimant and other guilty parties - On a balance of probabilities - Whether confession could be excluded - Admissibility of admission letter - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3), 30(5) & Evidence Act 1950 ss. 21, 24, 25 and 26
Sony Electronics (M) Sdn Bhd v. Zarina Abdul Latif
(Chew Soo Ho) [2007] 2 ILR 228

Breach of company rules and policies - Misappropriation of company funds - Claimant failing to give account and satisfactory explanation - Company suffering losses - Relying on CCTV recordings to prove charges against claimant - Discrepancy in timings in CCTV and ITR - Effect of - Whether company’s explanation of discrepancy acceptable - Whether the company rightly relied on the CCTV recording - Whether claimant had succeeded in establishing suspicion in relation to CCTV recordings - Whether company’s actions in dismissing claimant bona fide - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Mohamad Adeli Sanusi v. Projek Lebuhraya Utara-Selatan Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2007] 2 ILR 140

Constructive dismissal - Change of status - Claimant as Head of Department failing to manage subordinates and pushing blame - Whether such blame shifting acceptable - Effect of - Whether claimant should have been more responsible - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
The Bayview Beach Resort v. Phang Than Su
(Syed Ahmad Radzi Syed Omar) [2007] 2 ILR 88

Constructive dismissal - Status - Change of status - Due to poor performance of claimant - Claimant given warnings for over a year to no avail - Effect of - From executive position to non-executive position - Domestic Inquiry convened - Decision taken to give final warning and demote claimant - Claimant accepting demotion letter on a without prejudice basis - Effect of - No protest made by claimant until 2 1/2 months after event - Claimant claiming constructive dismissal - Whether constructive dismissal proven - Whether the claimant had waived the alleged breach by the company - Whether fundamental breach of terms of employment by company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
The Bayview Beach Resort v. Phang Than Su
(Syed Ahmad Radzi Syed Omar) [2007] 2 ILR 88

Constructive dismissal - Status - Change of status - Removal of claimant as Director - Whether claimant had lien to appointment - Effect of - Claimant not paid salary and allowance - No protest made by claimant until 4 months after event - Claimant claiming constructive dismissal - Whether constructive dismissal proven - Whether the claimant waived the alleged breach by the company - Whether fundamental breach of terms of employment by company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Suraiya Sha’ari v. FI Group Sendirian Berhad
(Rajendran Nayagam) [2007] 2 ILR 111

Constructive dismissal - Status - Claimant’s role of Director and CEO reduced to merely being CEO - Effect of - Transfer of Accounts and Finance Departments without claimant’s knowledge - Effect of - Whether rendered claimant unable to perform job functions - Whether claimant sidelined and marginalized by company’s actions - Whether proper - Whether company acted reasonably - Whether Constructive Dismissal Proven - Whether Fundamental Breach of Terms of Employment - Whether claimant waived breach - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Jutajaya Holding Bhd v. Lim Poh Sim
(Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah) [2007] 2 ILR 69

Constructive dismissal - Status - Claimant employed under two contracts - 1st Contract for a fixed term and duly expired before commencement of 2nd Contract - Whether there was continuity of service - Intention of company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Jutajaya Holding Bhd v. Lim Poh Sim
(Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah) [2007] 2 ILR 69

Misconduct - Claimant failing to carry out instructions of supervisor initially - Company failing to prove wilful disobedience - Company refusing to pay claimant for services rendered - Whether conduct of company was reasonable - Whether claimant’s refusal in view of company’s stand constituted a misconduct - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Fuhli Sdn Bhd v. Shorindaran Kutanair
(Choong Siew Khim) [2007] 2 ILR 52

Misconduct - Claimant showing obscene sign to supervisor - Claimant proceeding to carry out instructions nevertheless - Whether there was condonation of claimant’s conduct by company - Effect of - Whether company had acted bona fide - Claimant and other employees lodging report with Labour Department against company - Effect of - Whether prior misconducts relied upon by company to terminate services of claimant could be relied on - Insufficient proof adduced by company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Fuhli Sdn Bhd v. Shorindaran Kutanair
(Choong Siew Khim) [2007] 2 ILR 52

Misconduct - Claimant verbally abusive to management - Whether proven by company - Whether justified company’s actions in dismissing the claimant on the spot - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Korea Water Purifier Total Management (M) Sdn Bhd v. Ibrahim Rosman
(Franklin Goonting) [2007] 2 ILR 133

Notice of Termination - Inadequate notice - Scheme of Service providing for notice period to be given to employees - Company failing to comply - Company paying compensation in lieu of notice - Whether company’s actions reasonable - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Integrated Warehouse Sdn Bhd v. Cheng Nee @ Cheng Molly
(Yeoh Wee Siam) [2007] 2 ILR 61

Notice of termination - Pursuant to letter of employment - Company going into another reason for dismissal other than those as stated in termination letter - Whether they can - Applicable law - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Korea Water Purifier Total Management (M) Sdn Bhd v. Ibrahim Rosman
(Franklin Goonting) [2007] 2 ILR 133

Notice of Termination - Resignation - Claimant resigning voluntarily - Whether constructive dismissal or whether claimant had walked out of her employment - Sequence of events - Conduct of company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Suraiya Sha’ari v. FI Group Sendirian Berhad
(Rajendran Nayagam) [2007] 2 ILR 111

Performance - Unsatisfactory performance during probation - Claimant being informed of shortcomings vide appraisal form - Probation period extended - Claimant failing to improve performance during extended probation period - Whether claimant had been given notice of shortcomings - Whether claimant had taken sufficient steps to overcome shortcomings - Whether there was victimization and bias on the part of the company in dismissing the claimant - Whether the company’s actions had been bona fide - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Natseven TV Sdn Bhd v. Hambali Abdul Latif
(Chew Soo Ho) [2007] 2 ILR 26

Probationer - Claimant’s confirmation put on hold - Company alleging unsatisfactory performance on the part of the claimant - Claimant walking out of her employment - Whether claimant should have exercised more restraint - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Suraiya Sha’ari v. FI Group Sendirian Berhad
(Rajendran Nayagam) [2007] 2 ILR 111

Probationer - Claimant not confirmed at end of probation - Company alleging unsatisfactory performance - Whether proven - Whether company had given claimant sufficient opportunity to improve her performance - Whether the claimant had been given guidance on how to overcome her shortcomings - Claimant given average rating in appraisal form - Effect of - Whether company had acted bona fide - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Chan Weng Sze v. Osk Securities Berhad
(Rajendran Nayagam) [2007] 2 ILR 121

Probationer - Warnings given to the claimant - Whether needed to be in writing - Claimant in managerial position - Whether failure to issue a warning letter prior to dismissal was fatal to proceedings before the Court - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Natseven TV Sdn Bhd v. Hambali Abdul Latif
(Chew Soo Ho) [2007] 2 ILR 26

Probationer - Whether a reference under the Industrial Relations Act 1967 converted the status of a probationer to one of a permanent employee - Under what circumstances can a probationer enjoy the same privileges as a confirmed employee - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Natseven TV Sdn Bhd v. Hambali Abdul Latif
(Chew Soo Ho) [2007] 2 ILR 26

Retrenchment - Company not insolvent - Company not embarking on new projects due to economic recession - Effect of - Claimants residual jobs performed by more senior employees in company - Whether company obliged to keep claimants employed - Whether any mala fides on part of company in carrying out retrenchment exercise - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Zainal Abidin Din & Anor v. Angsana Sdn Bhd & Anor Case
(Susila Sithamparam) [2007] 2 ILR 185

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Whether there was actual surplus of labour - Effect of claimant’s dismissal on company - Company’s business deteriorating - Whether there existed a real redundancy situation in the company - Conduct of company - Whether bona fide - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Chan Seng Wah v. Securicor (M) Sdn Bhd/Safeguards Securicor Sdn Bhd
(Yamuna Menon) [2007] 2 ILR 157

Procedural Impropriety - Claimant giving evidence before respondent witnesses - Whether claimant prejudiced - Claimant accorded sufficient opportunity to defend - Whether rules of natural justice complied with - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Sony Electronics (M) Sdn Bhd v. Zarina Abdul Latif
(Chew Soo Ho) [2007] 2 ILR 228

Procedural Impropriety - Framing of charges against claimant - Ingredients of - Whether any impropriety in the framing of the charges against the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Sony Electronics (M) Sdn Bhd v. Zarina Abdul Latif
(Chew Soo Ho) [2007] 2 ILR 228

Representation - Whether claimant understood charges brought against her - Whether claimant given sufficient opportunity to defend her case - Claimant able to answer questions without problems - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Sony Electronics (M) Sdn Bhd v. Zarina Abdul Latif
(Chew Soo Ho) [2007] 2 ILR 228

Adverse inference - Under what circumstances can it be drawn - Non production of material witness by company - Company attempting to procure witness but unsuccessful - Whether adverse inference could be drawn against company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Evidence Act 1950 s. 114(g)
Natseven TV Sdn Bhd v. Hambali Abdul Latif
(Chew Soo Ho) [2007] 2 ILR 26

Burden of proof - Constructive dismissal - On claimant to prove - Company failing to defend matter or turn up in Court - Claimant’s evidence unchallenged, unrebutted and uncontroverted - Company writing letter to Court informing that they are aware of consequences of not attending Court for hearing - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Jutajaya Holding Bhd v. Lim Poh Sim
(Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah) [2007] 2 ILR 69

Burden of proof - On company to prove redundancy - Whether company had discharged burden of proof - Conduct of company - Whether company’s intentions were bona fide - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Chan Seng Wah v. Securicor (M) Sdn Bhd/Safeguards Securicor Sdn Bhd
(Yamuna Menon) [2007] 2 ILR 157

Documentary evidence - Findings of the DI - Claimant duly initialled all pages of findings - No objections raised as to contents - Whether a valid record of proceedings at DI - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Sony Electronics (M) Sdn Bhd v. Zarina Abdul Latif
(Chew Soo Ho) [2007] 2 ILR 228

Procedure - Action - Striking Out Application - To Disjoin the Official Receiver - Official Receiver managing affairs of company - Whether properly joined - Claimant’s remedies provided under Companies Act 1965 - Whether in claimant’s interest to join Official Receiver - Whether case would be expedited by such joining - Effect of - Whether Industrial Court had acted in access of jurisdiction - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 26(a) & (d), Companies Act 1965, ss. 269, 291 and 292
Saravanan Rengeyen v. CS Metal Industries (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors
(Siti Saleha Abu Bakar) [2007] 2 ILR 105

Procedure - Locus standi to represent company - Preliminary objection raised by union - Whether person concerned was an employee of the company - Whether contract of service or contract for service - Facts to take into consideration when determining - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967 s. 27(1)(b)
Electrical Industry Workers’ Union v. Mitti Cables MFG Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam) [2007] 2 ILR 152

Procedure - Part heard proceedings - Previous Chairman passed away - Claimant closed case - Company applying for matter to be heard de novo - Intention of amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Extending position of President to the Chairman - Purpose of legislature - Effect Of - Whether Chairman retains a discretion to hear matter de novo - Whether prejudice would be caused to the claimant - Whether company had shown merits - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2, 20, 21(2), 23(6) & 29(g)
Steven Lim Kok Hoe v. England Optical Group (M) Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Haji Hussain) [2007] 2 ILR 204

Procedure - Reference to High Court - Industrial Court decision quashed - Matter referred back to Industrial Court for determination on remedies and quantum of backwages - Whether reinstatement practical - Whether claimant’s computation of backwages should be limited to 24 months - Matters to take into consideration - When compensation in lieu of reinstatement should be capped - Whether delay caused by the company - Claimant’s post-dismissal income - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Abdul Rahim Jemali v. Merlin Management Corporation Sdn Bhd & Faber Group Berhad
(Zura Yahya) [2007] 2 ILR 176

Remedies - Backwages - Factors to consider - Number of months to award - Claimant’s post dismissal earnings to be taken into consideration - What constitutes a reasonable deduction - Whether appropriate under circumstances - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Jutajaya Holding Bhd v. Lim Poh Sim
(Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah) [2007] 2 ILR 69

Remedies - Compensation in lieu of reinstatement - Factors to consider - Length of service of claimant’s employment with company - How computed - Whether appropriate under circumstances - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Jutajaya Holding Bhd v. Lim Poh Sim
(Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah) [2007] 2 ILR 69

Remedies - Reinstatement - Factors to consider - Company almost dormant - Breakdown in relationship of parties - Whether appropriate under circumstances - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Jutajaya Holding Bhd v. Lim Poh Sim
(Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah) [2007] 2 ILR 69

Employment - Reinstatement - Non-renewal by respondents of appellant’s agreement to practise medicine at respondents’ hospital - Appellant filed for reinstatement and also sought interlocutory injunction that would enable him to remain in his job until determination of his representations - Whether High Court capable of granting such injunction
Dr David Vanniasingham Ramanathan v. Subang Jaya Medical Centre Sdn Bhd
[Abdul Aziz Mohamad JCA, Mohd Ghazali Yusoff JCA, Zaleha Zahari JCA (Court Of Appeal, Putrajaya)] [2007] 2 ILR 1

Industrial Court - Reference by Minister - Minister’s exercise of discretion - Whether discretion correctly exercised - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) - Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corp.
Exxon Chemical (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Menteri Sumber Manusia, Malaysia & Ors
[Steve Shim (CJ Sabah & Sarawak), Siti Norma Yaakob FCJ, Abdul Hamid Mohamad FCJ (Federal Court, Putrajaya)] [2007] 2 ILR 13

Collective Agreement - Articles on service increments - Signing of the MOU by parties to the CA - Effect of - Whether signing of the MOU constituted a variation of the CA - Intention of parties - Conduct of respondent - Whether respondent maintained discretion on payment of service increments - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 56(1)
Printing Industry Employees’ Union Peninsular Malaysia v. TWP Sdn Bhd
(Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid) [2007] 2 ILR 127

WORDS AND PHRASES

"Redundancy" - Not defined in Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Definition derived from s. 81(2) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 of England & ss. 12(3) (a), (b), (c) and (d) Employment Act 1955
Zainal Abidin Din & Anor v. Angsana Sdn Bhd & Anor Case
(Susila Sithamparam) [2007] 2 ILR 185

Bidangkuasa Mahkamah - Kuasa Mahkamah untuk mengubah award yang diperturunkan oleh pengerusi lain - Definisi "Mahkamah" - Sama ada "Mahkamah" bermaksud pengerusi - Dalam keadaan mana variasi award boleh dibuat - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 33(2)
M Vijayan M Raghavan v. Universal Fitness & Leisure Sdn Bhd
(Kamaruzaman Ab Jalil) [2007] 2 ILR 171

Prosidur - Pihak - Penggabungan - Nexus - Samada Wujud - Hubungan antara Responden Pertama dan Responden Kedua - Hubungan kekeluargaan antara kedua-dua responden - Kesannya - Samada penggabungan perlu unuk menjadikan adjudikasi berkesan dan boleh dikuatkuasakan - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3), 29(a) dan 29(g)
Chew Pek Ling Lwn. Data Cartridges & Computer Supplies (M) Sdn Bhd & Satu Lagi
(Hajah Badariah Hassan) [2007] 2 ILR 45

Award - Tarikh pembuangan kerja YM - Disokong oleh dokumen-dokumen dan keterangan saksi - Dalam keadaaan mana variasi boleh dibuat - Kes dirujuk ke Mahkamah Tinggi untuk semakan penghakiman - Kesannya - Sama ada variasi harus di buat - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 33(2)
M Vijayan M Raghavan v. Universal Fitness & Leisure Sdn Bhd
(Kamaruzaman Ab Jalil) [2007] 2 ILR 171

CASE OF THE WEEK

GOODWAY RUBBER INDUSTRIES SDN BHD v. MUGUNTHAN DAMODARAN

DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Claimant signing cash voucher for larger amount than the amount he handed in to the company - Amount given to the claimant as a gift - Non-disclosure by claimant until a much later stage - Company suffering losses - Effect of - Whether claimant’s explanation acceptable - Whether company had established a prima facie case against the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)

ILR Bulletin
To Subscribe/Unsubscribe go to http://www.cljlaw.com/ilrsubscribefrm.asp

Copyright ©1997 - 2007 CLJ Legal Network Sdn Bhd (192353 V)
Email: enquiries@cljlaw.com Phone: 603-4270-5400 Fax No : 603-4270 5401 & 603-4270 5402